natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
IPs were designed to generate the knowledge required to implement the thematic priorities, by achieving ambitious, clearly defined scientific and technological objectives of a European dimension. 
Integrirani projekti so bili zasnovani za ustvarjanje znanja, potrebnega za izvajanje tematskih prednostnih nalog prek doseganja ambicioznih, jasno opredeljenih znanstvenih in tehnoloških ciljev z evropsko razsežnostjo.
For both instruments, the emphasis was on integrating a ‘critical mass’ of expertise, activities and resources as a pre-condition for long-term research activities and partnerships as well as for achieving a real impact in scientific, industrial or economic terms. 
Pri obeh instrumentih je bil poudarek na povezovanju „kritične mase“ strokovnega znanja, dejavnosti in virov, kot predpogoj za dolgoročne raziskovalne dejavnosti in partnerstva ter doseganje resničnega učinka z znanstve-nega, industrijskega ali gospodarskega vidika.
The specific target for SMEs has to be considered in view of their crucial role in the European economy. 
Posebni končni cilj za MSP je treba upoštevati glede na njihovo ključno vlogo v evropskem gospodarstvu.
NOES’ INTEGRATION OFTEN REPLACED BY TRADITIONAL FORM OF COLLABORATION 29. 
NAMESTO POVEZOVANJA MREŽ ODLIČNOSTI POGOSTO TRADICIONALNA OBLIKA SODELOVANJA 29.
In view of assessing the extent to which NoEs had achieved their specific objective of promoting durable integration of the research activities of the network partners, the Court analysed whether: — The resources put into the network could be considered significant in relation to each participant’s overall budget. — NoEs had significant control on the deployment of the resources made available for the project. — The high-level researchers initially envisaged had actually been involved in the project. — NoEs had progressed towards long-term research activities and partnerships beyond the duration of Community funding. 19 Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives? 
Da bi Sodišče ocenilo, v kakšnem obsegu so mreže odličnosti dosegle svoj posebni cilj spodbujanja trajnega povezovanja raziskovalnih dejavnosti partnerjev v mreži, je analiziralo, ali: – bi se viri, vloženi v mrežo, glede na skupni proračun vsakega udeleženca lahko šteli za pomembne; – so imele mreže odličnosti pomembno kontrolo nad razporeditvijo virov, ki so bili dani na voljo za projekt; – so bili prvotno predvideni visoko usposobljeni raziskovalci dejansko vključeni v projekt; – so mreže odličnosti tudi po izteku financiranja Skupnosti napredovale proti dolgoročnim raziskovalnim dejavnostim in partner-stvom. 19 Posebno poročilo št. 8/2009 – „Mreže odličnosti“ in „integrirani projekti“ v raziskovalni politiki Skupnosti: ali so dosegli svoje cilje?
The Court considers that, notwithstanding their success in promoting research collaboration and projects of reasonable quality, NoEs audited have not achieved their specific objective. 
Sodišče meni, da revidirane mreže odličnosti kljub svojemu uspehu pri spodbujanju raziskovalnega sodelovanja in projektov primerne kakovosti niso dosegle svojega posebnega cilja.
In particular: (a) Most participants allocated a relatively small proportion of their research capacities to the network. (b) NoEs failed to reach control over resources made available and to ensure the adequate coordination of project activities. 
Zlasti: (a) Večina udeležencev je mreži dodelila relativno majhen delež svojih raziskovalnih zmogljivosti. (b) Mreže odličnosti niso dosegle kontrole nad viri, ki so bili na voljo, in niso zagotovile ustreznega usklajevanja projektnih dejavnosti.
Participant organisations did not accept that NoEs’ governance structures decide how networked resources should be used. (c) In most cases the involvement of key high-level scientists in NoEs was not realised. (d) Self-sustainable long-term research activities and partnerships were not achieved for any of the audited NoEs, thus making future collaboration subject to continued public support. 
Udeležene organizacije niso sprejele tega, da o tem, kako se bodo uporabili viri, namenjeni mreži, odločajo vodstvene strukture mrež odličnosti. (c) V večini primerov ni prišlo do sodelovanja ključnih visoko usposobljenih znanstvenikov v mrežah odličnosti. (d) Pri nobeni od revidiranih mrež odličnosti ni bila dosežena samostojnost dolgoročnih raziskovalnih dejavnosti in partnerstev, zato je bilo prihodnje sodelovanje še naprej odvisno od javne podpore.
The results of the project reviews carried out by the independent experts show that full restructuring of activities and integration between partners took place in less than two thirds of the NoEs assessed (59 out of 101). 
Rezultati pregledov projektov, ki so jih opravili neodvisni strokovnjaki, kažejo, da je bilo celotno preoblikovanje dejavnosti in povezovanje med partnerji izvedeno pri manj kot dveh tretjinah ocenjenih mrež odličnosti (59 od 101).
Already in 2004, a previous report20 acknowledged the difficulties of NoEs in achieving the required ’durable integra-tion‘. 
V prejšnjem poročilu so bile že leta 200420 priznane težave, ki jih imajo mreže odličnosti pri doseganju zahtevanega „trajnega povezovanja“.
More recently, a study carried out on behalf of the Commission21 confirmed that only a minority of NoEs have moved convincingly towards self-sustainable integration with prospects for longer-term survival beyond the ending of EU funding. 
Bolj nedavno je študija, izvedena v imenu Komisije21, potrdila, da se je samo manjši del mrež odličnosti prepričljivo pomaknil k samostojnemu povezovanju, z možnostmi za dolgoročnejše preživetje po koncu financiranja EU.
NoEs often put in place only traditional forms of research collaboration on individual actions, instead of coherent and long-term joint activities and partnerships. 
Z mrežami odličnosti so bile namesto doslednih in dolgoročnih skupnih dejavnosti in partnerstev pogosto vzpostavljene le tradicionalne oblike raziskovalnega sodelovanja v zvezi s posameznimi dejavnostmi.
Two main factors can explain the difficulty that NoEs have in achieving lasting integration. 
Težavo, ki so jo imele mreže odličnosti pri doseganju trajnega povezovanja, je možno pojasniti z dvema glavnima dejavnikoma.
Firstly, the goal of setting up a new kind of intra-European network, by integrating institutions previously in competition with each other, requires a new approach to research collaboration. 
Prvič, ožji cilj, da se s povezovanjem institucij, ki so si bile prej konkurenčne, vzpostavi nova vrsta medevropske mreže, zahteva nov pristop k raziskovalnemu sodelovanju.
The reluctance of many organisations to engage in a long-term commitment did not favour this aim. 
Nepripravljenost mnogih organizacij, da sprejmejo dolgoročno zavezanost, temu cilju ni bila v prid.
Public research centres, at the heart of the NoEs’ objective, found difficulties in integrating with each other due to their institutional structure and budgetary constraints. 
Javni raziskovalni centri, ki so bili jedro cilja mrež odličnosti, so imeli težave pri medsebojnem povezovanju zaradi svoje institucionalne strukture in proračunskih omejitev.
For industry, the treatment of intellectual property was a matter of particular concern. 
Industrija se je ukvarjala predvsem z obravnavo intelektualne lastnine.
20 See Evaluation of the effectiveness of the New Instruments of Framework Programme VI. 
20 Glej Evaluation of the effectiveness of the New Instruments of Framework Programme VI.
Report of the High-Level Expert Panel chaired by Professor R. Marimon, 21 June 2004 (http://cordis.europa.eu/fp6/ instruments_review/). 
Poročilo visokega strokovnega odbora, ki mu je predsedoval profesor R. Marimon, 21. junij 2004 (http://cordis.europa.eu/fp6/ instruments_review/).
21 See Expert Group on the future of Networks of Excellence, Final Report, September 2008, pp. 16 and 47. 
21 Glej končno poročilo skupine strokovnjakov o prihodnosti mrež odličnosti, september 2008, str. 16 in 47.
Secondly, there are areas where substantial integration can only be achieved progressively. 
Drugič, na nekaterih področjih je močno povezovanje možno doseči le postopoma.
In practice, the maximal duration of five years proved not to be realistic. 
V praksi se je izkazalo, da najdaljše možno obdobje trajanja petih let ni stvarno.
However, in several cases (five of the eight NoEs visited) the project duration had been even reduced during the negotiation stage. 
Vendar je bilo v fazi pogajanj trajanje projekta v več primerih (pet od osmih obiskanih mrež odličnosti) celo skrajšano.
The fact that most NoEs financed under FP6 have not reached durable integration raises the question as to the conditions under which it is justified to continue their financing beyond the initial duration, under the ongoing Seventh Framework Programme (FP7). 
Glede na dejstvo, da večina mrež odličnosti, financiranih v okviru 6. OP, ni dosegla trajnega povezovanja, se zastavlja vprašanje glede pogojev, pod katerimi jih je v okviru tekočega 7. okvirnega programa (7.
21 BOX 3 LIGHT AND SHADE CONCERNING NoE PERFORMANCE One NoE assessed by the Court concerned a project in the field of information society technologies involving a consortium of a large number of both private (SMEs and large industries) and public participants (universities). 
21 OKVIR 3 SVETLE IN TEMNE PLATI PRI USPEŠNOSTI MREŽ ODLIČNOSTI Ena od mrež odličnosti, ki jih je ocenilo Sodišče, je zadevala projekt na področju tehnologij informacijske družbe, v katerem je sodeloval konzorcij številnih zasebnih (MSP in velika podjetja) in javnih udeležencev (univerze).
The consortium had been assembled in order to structure fragmented European research in the specific scientific field, reduce duplication, boost excellence and spread scientific knowledge. 
Konzorcij je bil ustanovljen za strukturiranje razdrobljenih evropskih raziskav na posebnem znanstvenem področju, zmanjšanje podvajanja, spodbujanje odličnosti in širjenje znanstvenega znanja.
The Court reviewed the project’s achievements based on project documentation and interviews with representatives of three participants audited. 
Sodišče je pregledalo dosežke projekta na podlagi projektne dokumentacije in razgovorov s predstavniki treh revidiranih udeležencev.
The opinion expressed by the independent experts who carried out the project reviews was taken into account. 
Upoštevalo je mnenje neodvisnih strokovnjakov, ki so opravili preglede projekta.
The Court concluded that the project contributed to sharing new knowledge and to transferring pre-existing knowledge. 
Sodišče je prišlo do zaključka, da je projekt prispeval k izmenjavi novega znanja in prenosu že obstoječega znanja.
Research collaboration was promoted and new knowledge generated and disseminated through websites, the participation and organisation of conferences, etc. This knowledge had potential commercial applications. 
Spodbujalo se je raziskovalno sodelovanje in ustvarjalo novo znanje, ki se ga je razširjalo prek spletnih strani, sodelovanja na konferencah, organizacije konferenc itd. To znanje bi lahko bilo potencialno uporabljeno v komercialne namene.
A ‘Virtual Centre of Excellence’(VCE) was created (a web portal built by project participants containing updated information on public and private research in the specific scientific field). 
Ustanovljen je bil „virtualni center odličnosti“ (spletni portal, ki so ga oblikovali udeleženci projekta, vseboval pa je najnovejše informacije o javnih in zasebnih raziskavah na specifičnem znanstvenem področju).
A school in the specific field of the project has been created by several participants. 
Več udeležencev je oblikovalo šolo za specifično področje projekta.
At the end of the project, the consortium requested additional funding for a second project phase, which was obtained. 
Ob koncu projekta je konzorcij zaprosil za dodatno financiranje druge faze projekta in ga tudi pridobil.
The participants visited declared that their involvement in the integrating activities undertaken depended on the availability of additional EU funds. 
Obiskani udeleženci so izjavili, da je bilo njihovo sodelovanje v povezovalnih dejavnostih odvisno od razpoložljivosti dodatnih finančnih sredstev EU.
Once the funding ceased, it would be impossible to maintain these activities. Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives? 
Ko bi se financiranje prenehalo, teh dejavnosti ne bi bilo več mogoče izvajati. Posebno poročilo št. 8/2009 – „Mreže odličnosti“ in „integrirani projekti“ v raziskovalni politiki Skupnosti: ali so dosegli svoje cilje?
IPS: LARGE PROJECTS, AND RELATIVELY LOW PARTICIPANTS’ FINANCIAL INVOLVEMENT 36. 
INTEGRIRANI PROJEKTI: VELIKI PROJEKTI IN RELATIVNO NIZKA FINANČNA UDELEŽBA UDELEŽENCEV 36.
Integrated Projects were designed to generate the knowledge required to implement the thematic priorities, by achieving ambitious objectives of a European dimension. 
Integrirani projekti so bili zasnovani za ustvarjanje znanja, potrebnega za izvajanje tematskih prednostnih nalog prek doseganja ambicioznih ciljev z evropsko razsežnostjo.
The effectiveness of IPs was assessed by the Court for a sample of projects, according to the following criteria: — Vertical integration of the full ‘value-chain’ of stakeholders, from those involved in knowledge production through to technology development and transfer. — Horizontal integration of a range of multidisciplinary activities. — Activity integration: integrating various research activities from fundamental to applied research and with other types of activity, including take-up activities, protection and dissemination of knowledge, and training. — Sectoral integration of actors from private and public sector research organisations, and in particular between academia and industry, including SMEs. — Financial integration of public and private funding. 
Sodišče je na na vzorcu projektov ocenilo uspešnost integriranih projektov glede na naslednja merila: – Vertikalno povezovanje celotne „vrednostne verige“ zainteresiranih strani, od tistih, ki sodelujejo pri ustvarjanju znanja, do tistih s področja tehnološkega razvoja in njegovega prenosa. – Horizontalno povezovanje vrste multidisciplinarnih dejavnosti. – Povezovanje dejavnosti: povezovanje različnih raziskovalnih dejavnosti, od temeljnih do uporabnih raziskav, z drugimi vrstami dejavnosti, vključno z začetnimi dejavnostmi, zaščito in razširjanjem znanja, usposabljanjem. – Sektorsko povezovanje akterjev iz raziskovalnih organizacij zasebnega in javnega sektorja ter zlasti med akademskim svetom in industrijo, vključno z MSP. – Finančno povezovanje javnega in zasebnega financiranja.
22 BOX 4 LIGHT AND SHADE CONCERNING IPs PERFORMANCE An Integrated Project was created to develop an innovative environment-friendly packaging based on renewable materials, being of positive value to both producers and the consumers. 
22 OKVIR 4 SVETLE IN TEMNE PLATI USPEŠNOSTI INTEGRIRANIH PROJEKTOV Neki integrirani projekt je bil zasnovan z namenom razviti inovativno, okolju prijazno embalažo na osnovi obnovljivih materialov, kar ima pozitivno vrednost tako za proizvajalce kot za potrošnike.
The IP assembled the main producers of the raw material and of the final product in order to create synergies. 
Da bi se ustvarile sinergije, so pri integriranem projektu sodelovali glavni proizvajalci surovin in končnega izdelka.
The estimated cost of activities to be carried out within the project exceeded 25 million euro (56,5 % of which was financed by the Community). 
Ocenjeni stroški dejavnosti, ki naj bi se izvedle znotraj projekta, so presegli 25 milijonov EUR (od tega je Skupnost financirala 56,5 %).
The project succeeded in integrating stakeholders within several business areas (vertical integration), from the public and private sectors (sectoral integration), from different disciplines (horizontal integration), both fundamental and applied (activity integration). 
Projekt je bil uspešen pri povezovanju zainteresiranih strani z več poslovnih področij (vertikalno povezovanje), iz javnega in zasebnega sektorja (sektorsko povezovanje) ter različnih panog (horizontalno povezovanje), tako temeljnih kot uporabnih (povezovanje dejavnosti).
However, the project did not attract any other source of funding contributing to the achievement of the project goals. 
Vendar projekt ni pritegnil nobenega drugega vira financiranja, ki bi prispeval k doseganju ožjih ciljev projekta.
This situation has prevented the achievement of financial integration, associated with this specific FP6 instrument. 
To stanje je preprečilo, da bi se doseglo finančno povezovanje, ki je povezano s tem posebnim instrumentom 6. OP.
The evidence shows that the audited IPs have achieved, in general, the objectives pursued in their research field and have mobilised a significant volume of resources (human, financial, technical). 
Dokazi kažejo, da so revidirani integrirani projekti na splošno dosegli cilje, ki so si jih zastavili na svojem raziskovalnem področju, in da so mobilizirali pomembno količino virov (človeških, finančnih, teh-ničnih).
This is due in particular to a longer duration and an increased number of participants when compared to pre-existing instruments22. 
To gre pripisati zlasti daljšemu trajanju in večjemu številu udeležencev kot pri že prej obstoječih instrumentih22.
However, the audited IPs have not succeeded in attracting additional public and private funding. 
Vendar revidiranim integriranim projektom ni uspelo pritegniti dodatnega javnega in zasebnega financiranja.
SME PARTICIPATION TARGET NOT FULLY ACHIEVED 39. 
CILJNA UDELEŽBA MSP NI V CELOTI DOSEŽENA 39.
SMEs play a key role in the European economy, given their weight in the business sector and their importance in employment. 
MSP zaradi svoje teže v poslovnem sektorju in pomembnosti pri zaposlovanju igrajo ključno vlogo v evropskem gospodarstvu.
As mentioned in paragraph 8, FP6 sought to take their particular needs into account and set for this purpose a target of at least 15 % of the total budget for the FP6 thematic priorities, as compared to 10 % in FP523. 
Kot je bilo navedeno v odstavku 8, se je pri 6. OP skušalo upoštevati njihove posebne potrebe, zato je bil pri njem določen končni cilj vsaj 15 % skupnega proračuna za tematske prednostne naloge pri 6.
Figure 6 shows that, although more SMEs were involved in RTD projects when compared to FP5, the EC contribution allocated to SMEs under FP6 has decreased both in relative and absolute terms. 
Čeprav je v primerjavi s 5. OP v projektih RTR sodelovalo več MSP, diagram 6 kaže, da se je prispevek ES, ki je bil dodeljen MSP v okviru 6.
The Commission’s best estimate indicates that no more than 10 % of the total budget for the FP6 thematic priorities was allocated to SMEs, representing some 1,2 billion euro. 
OP, zmanjšal tako v relativnem kot absolutnem smislu. Iz najboljše ocene Komisije je razvidno, da je bilo MSP dodeljenega največ 10 % skupnega proračuna 6.
This is a lower rate than achieved under FP5 Thematic Programmes (12 %, representing around 1,4 billion euro). 
Ta stopnja je nižja od tiste, ki je bila dosežena pri tematskih programih v okviru 5. OP (12 %, kar predstavlja približno 1,4 milijarde EUR).
FP6 has not succeeded in giving a significant stimulus to SMEs’ RTD investment in the thematic priorities. 
OP na področju tematskih prednostnih nalog ni uspelo znatno spodbuditi MSP za naložbe v RTR.
Concerning FP7, first results show that the participation of SMEs is further declining24. 
Prvi rezultati v zvezi s 7. OP kažejo, da sodelovanje MSP še naprej upada24.
There are objective difficulties in raising SMEs’ participation. 
Glede povečanja udeležbe MSP obstajajo objektivne težave.
They have a more local/regional dimension and face by nature higher entry barriers, mainly caused by the complex application procedures and the costs of submitting proposals. 
MSP imajo bolj lokalno/regionalno razsežnost in se običajno soočajo z večjimi vstopnimi ovirami, ki jih povzročajo predvsem zapleteni postopki prijave in stroški za predložitev predlogov.
Cooperation with large research organisations can be hindered by higher financial and technical risks. 
Sodelovanje z velikimi raziskovalnimi organizacijami lahko ovirajo večja finančna in tehnična tveganja.
Also, like for private participants in general, SMEs are not always prepared to subscribe to long-term contractual commitments for fear of losing flexibility to react to changing needs. 
Poleg tega tako kot za zasebne udeležence na splošno tudi za MSP velja, da niso vedno pripravljeni na sklenitev dolgoročnih pogodbenih obveznosti, ker se bojijo izgubiti prožnost pri odzivanju na spreminjajoče se potrebe.
22 Specific targeted projects. 
22 Posebni ciljni projekti.
23 In addition to the funding foreseen under the thematic priorities, FP6 included a specific programme area intended to support horizontal research activities involving SMEs (EUR 475 million). 
23 Poleg financiranja, predvidenega v okviru tematskih prednostnih nalog, je 6. OP zajemal posebno programsko področje, namenjeno podpori horizontalnim raziskovalnim dejavnostim, ki vključujejo MSP (475 milijonov EUR).
24 Also FP7 has a similar target for SMEs (at least 15 % of the funding available under the ‘Cooperation’ part of the programme). 
OP ima podoben končni cilj v zvezi z MSP (vsaj 15 % financiranja, na voljo v delu programa za področje „sodelovanja“).
Commission data (October 2008) show that SME participation accounts for 8,2 % of project participations and 8,5 % of the EC contribution awarded. 23 Special Report No 8/2009 — ‘Networks of Excellence’ and ‘Integrated Projects’ in Community research policy: did they achieve their objectives? 
Podatki Komisije (oktober 2008) kažejo, da sodelovanje MSP predstavlja 8,2 % sodelovanj pri projektih in 8,5 % dodeljenega prispevka ES. 23 Posebno poročilo št. 8/2009 – „Mreže odličnosti“ in „integrirani projekti“ v raziskovalni politiki Skupnosti: ali so dosegli svoje cilje?
24 FIGURE 6 57 % 37 % 28 % 13 % 8% 2% 1% 58 % 37 % 31 % 12 % 10 % 1% 1% EVOLUTION OF FP PARTICIPATION (THEMATIC PRIORITIES) BREAKDOWN OF FP6 PARTICIPANTS BY PROJECT INVOLVEMENT (NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPATIONS) 53 % FP6 FP5 FP6 FP5 FP6 FP5 FP6 Private (non-SME) Private (SME) Undefined BREAKDOWN OF FP6 PARTICIPANTS BY EC CONTRIBUTION RECEIVED 49 % FP5 Public F P5 FP6 FP5 FP6 FP5 FP6 FP5 FP6 Public Private (non-SME) Private (SME) Undefined Source: European Court of Auditors, based on Commission data. 
24 DIAGRAM 6 57 % 37 % 28 % 13 % 8% 2% 1% 58 % 37 % 31 % 12 % 10 % 1% 1% RAZVOJ UDELEŽBE V OP (TEMATSKE PREDNOSTNE NALOGE) RAZČLENITEV UDELEŽENCEV V 6.
Moreover, some FP6 provisions did discourage the participation of private companies. 
Poleg tega so nekatere določbe za 6. OP od udeležbe odvračale zasebna podjetja.
This was the case for the rule establishing consortia’s collective technical and financial responsibility towards the Commission for the implementation of the project. 
Tako je bilo pri pravilu, ki za izvajanje projekta določa kolektivno tehnično in finančno odgovornost konzorcijev do Komisije.
This provision was applied to private organisations but not to the public ones, creating de facto an additional burden for this target group. 
Ta določba se je uporabljala za zasebne, vendar ne za javne organizacije, kar je dejansko povzročilo dodatno breme za to ciljno skupino.
Collective financial responsibility has been removed under FP7 and replaced by a guarantee fund financed by part of the advances paid to programme participants. 
OP je bila ukinjena kolektivna finančna odgovornost, nadomestil pa jo je jamstveni sklad, ki se je delno financiral s predujmi, izplačanimi udeležencem programa.
FP6 also included the automatic access to the participants’ pre-existing knowledge required for the implementation of the project, unless explicitly agreed otherwise. 
OP je zajemal tudi avtomatski dostop do že obstoječega znanja udeležencev, potrebnega za izvajanje projekta, razen če je bilo izrecno dogovorjeno drugače.