natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The amount allocated by the Irish Government for the roll-out of broadband was 275 million euro for 2016 to 2021, including 75 million euro from the ERDF. 
Znesek, ki ga je irska vlada dodelila za uvedbo širokopasovnih povezav, je znašal 275 milijonov EUR za obdobje 2016–2021, vključno s 75 milijoni EUR iz ESRR.
Although the tendering process had not been completed at the time of the audit, this sum is highly unlikely to be sufficient to bridge the financing gap. 
Čeprav razpisni postopek v času revizije še ni bil končan, pa znesek 36 27 53 % v Italiji, 73 % na Irskem in več kot 90 % v Nemčiji.
In addition, between September 2017 and January 2018, two of the three remaining bidders decided to pull out of the process. 
Poleg tega sta se med septembrom 2017 in januarjem 2018 dva od treh preostalih ponudnikov odločila za odstop od projekta.
With only one bidder left in the tendering process, the impact on the cost and timing of the broadband deployment remains unclear as of March 2018. 
Ker je tako v razpisnem postopku sodeloval le še en ponudnik, učinek na stroške in časovni okvir uvedbe širokopasovnih povezav marca 2018 še vedno ni bil jasen.
In Germany, the authorities did not identify the total cost of covering all households with speeds of 30 Mbps and they therefore did not centrally address the investment gap.28 The German government set aside more than 4 billion euro through the federal broadband programme for the 2014 to 2017 period to finance municipalities’ broadband projects. 
V Nemčiji organi niso opredelili skupnih stroškov za pokritje vseh gospodinjstev s povezavami hitrosti 30 Mb/s, zato niso centralno obravnavati naložbene vrzeli.28 Nemška vlada je v okviru zveznega programa za širokopasovne povezave rezervirala več kot 4 milijarde EUR za obdobje 2014–2017 za financiranje širokopasovnih projektov občin.
programmes.30 In addition, the EU funds for broadband amount to 362 million euro: 225 million euro from the EAFRD and 137 million euro from the ERDF. 
16 zveznih dežel in zvezna investicijska banka29 imajo lastne programe financiranja.30 Poleg tega sredstva EU za širokopasovne povezave znašajo 362 milijonov EUR: 225 milijonov EUR iz EKSRP in 137 milijonov EUR iz ESRR.
Finally, the EIB has granted 2.2 billion euro through six loans since 2014. 
EIB je poleg tega od leta 2014 odobrila še 2,2 milijarde EUR v okviru šestih posojil.
However, in the absence of any analysis of the financing gap by the German authorities, it is not clear if this level of public support will be sufficient to achieve 100 % coverage at 30 Mbps. 
Toda ker nemški organi niso opravili analize vrzeli v financiranju, ni jasno, ali bo ta raven javne podpore zadostovala za dosego 100-odstotne pokritosti s povezavami hitrosti 30 Mb/s.
In Poland, the National Broadband Plan published in January 2014 estimated that 5.7 million households were still to be covered with fast broadband at a total cost of 4.3 billion euro. 
Na Poljskem je bilo v nacionalnem načrtu za širokopasovna omrežja, objavljenem januarja 2014, ocenjeno, da je še 5,7 milijona gospodinjstev, ki jih je treba pokriti s hitrimi širokopasovnimi povezavami, kar naj bi skupaj znašalo 4,3 milijarde EUR.
Private operators would cover 3.1 million households in commercially viable areas at a cost of 2 to 3 billion euro. 
Zasebni operaterji bi pokrili 3,1 milijona gospodinjstev v tržno donosnih območjih s stroški v višini 2 do 3 milijard EUR.
The ERDF funds made available for the Digital Poland OP are estimated in the national broadband plan at between 1.3 and 2.2 billion euro. 
Sredstva ESRR, ki so bila dodeljena za operativni program Digitalna Poljska, so v nacionalnem načrtu za širokopasovne povezave ocenjeni na 1,3 do 2,2 milijarde EUR.
However, at the time of the audit, two of the national financing tools specified in the National Broadband Plan31 were not in place and potential new sources of funding for broadband development had not been identified. 
Vendar pa v času revizije dva od nacionalnih instrumentov financiranja, navedenih v nacionalnem načrtu za širokopasovne povezave31, še nista bila vzpostavljena, potencialni novi viri za financiranje razvoja širokopasovnih povezav pa niso bili opredeljeni.
As at January 2018, three calls for proposals for the Digital Poland OP had been organized and a financial instrument implemented. 
januarja 2018 so bili objavljeni trije razpisi za zbiranje predlogov za operativni program Digitalna Poljska in izveden je bil finančni instrument.
We found that, with the majority of ERDF funds already committed, an estimated 1.3 million households – among those most difficult to connect – may remain unconnected if additional funding sources are not found. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da so bile za večino sredstev ESRR že prevzete obveznosti, zato bi lahko po ocenah 1,3 milijona gospodinjstev – od tistih, ki jim je najtežje zagotoviti širokopasovne povezave – ostalo brez povezav, če se ne bodo našli dodatni viri financiranja.
EIB financing 58. 
Financiranje EIB 58.
The EIB strategy takes into account the three broadband targets of the Digital Agenda for Europe in its Operational Plans for 2014-2016 and for 2017-2019. 
V operativnih načrtih strategije EIB za obdobji 2014–2016 in 2017–2019 so upoštevane tri ciljne vrednosti v zvezi s širokopasovnimi povezavami iz Evropske digitalne agende.
For financing broadband infrastructure, the EIB can use a range of loans and financial instruments, depending on the project sizes and risk levels. 
Za financiranje širokopasovne infrastrukture lahko EIB uporabi vrsto posojil in finančnih instrumentov, odvisno od velikost projektov in stopenj tveganja.
The European Fund for Strategic Investment (EFSI) aims to finance more risky projects of medium to large size (15-50 million euro and above 50 million euro respectively). 
Evropski sklad za strateške naložbe (EFSI) je namenjen financiranju bolj tveganih srednjih in velikih projektov (15– 50 milijonov EUR oziroma več kot 50 milijonov EUR).
36 30 31 end of December 2017, is primarily designed to provide financing up to 30 million euro for smaller projects. 
Sklad za širokopasovno povezovanje Evrope (CEBF), ki konec decembra 2017 ni deloval, je prvotno namenjen zagotavljanju finančnih sredstev za manjše projekte v vrednosti do 30 milijonov EUR.
From 2015 to 2017, the EIB has provided 2.0 billion euro of EFSI to finance projects related to broadband. 
Med letoma 2015 in 2017 je EIB za financiranje projektov, povezanih s širokopasovnimi povezavami, zagotovila 2,0 milijarde EUR iz EFSI.
We examined a project financed through the EFSI representing around a quarter of this sum –the EFSI loan was 500 million euro, for a total project cost of 1.8 billion euro. 
Sodišče je preučilo projekt, financiran v okviru EFSI, ki predstavlja približno četrtino tega zneska – posojilo EFSI je znašalo 500 milijonov EUR, skupni stroški projekta pa 1,8 milijarde EUR.
The project aimed at increasing broadband coverage through the use of fibre. 
Namen projekta je bil povečati pokritost s širokopasovnimi povezavami z uporabo optičnih kablov.
We found three major weaknesses in relation to this project. 
Sodišče je v zvezi s projektom ugotovilo tri velike pomanjkljivosti.
First, the project did not focus on under-served areas, but increased high-speed broadband coverage mainly in areas that are already commercially viable, such as cities. 
Prvič, projekt ni bil osredotočen na slabo pokrita območja, temveč je okrepil pokritost s širokopasovnimi povezavami visokih hitrosti predvsem na območjih, ki so že poslovno donosna, na primer mesta.
Secondly, we did not find evidence that the EFSI was the best financing tool. 
Drugič, Sodišče ni našlo dokazov, da je bil EFSI najboljši instrument za financiranje.
Indeed, this project could have been financed with an EIB loan because of its size and because of the areas where it deployed broadband. 
Projekt bi se zaradi svojega obsega in območij, na katerih so bile v njegovem okviru uvedene širokopasovne povezave, dejansko lahko financiral s posojilom EIB.
Thirdly, for certain areas, the project had already received close to 400 million euro of grants from the ERDF, reducing the risk for the EIB. 
Tretjič, za nekatera območja je projekt že prejel skoraj 400 milijonov EUR nepovratnih sredstev iz ESRR, s čimer se je zmanjšalo tveganje za EIB.
The planned size of the CEBF is around 500 million euro: 100 million euro provided by the Commission via the CEF32, 140 million euro from the EIB (own funds and EFSI), 150 million euro from other international financial institutions and national promotional banks33, and a target of at least100 million euro from private investors. 
Načrtovana velikost CEBF je približno 500 milijonov EUR: 100 milijonov EUR zagotovi Komisija v okviru instrumenta za povezovanje Evrope32, 140 milijonov EUR EIB (lastna sredstva in EFSI), 150 milijonov EUR druge mednarodne finančne institucije in nacionalne promocijske banke33, najmanj 100 milijonov EUR pa je ciljna vrednost za zasebne vlagatelje.
At the time of the audit, the CEBF was planned to be operational in early 2018. 
V času revizije je bilo načrtovano, da bo CEBF začel delovati v začetku leta 2018.
The CEBF is designed to finance smaller-scale, higher-risk broadband projects in under-served areas, through equity and quasi equity. 
CEBF je namenjen financiranju manjših, bolj tveganjih projektov na področju širokopasovnih povezav na slabo pokritih območjih v okviru lastniškega kapitala in navideznega lastniškega kapitala.
Smaller projects could be aggregated in order to reach a critical size and qualify for CEBF support. 
Manjši projekti bi se lahko združili, da bi dosegli kritično velikost in izpolnjevali pogoje za podporo CEBF.
The CEBF aims to invest in some 7 to 12 broadband projects each year from 2017 to 2021, across 20 countries. 
CEBF namerava investirati v približno 7–12 projektov na področju širokopasovnih povezav, in sicer vsako leto od leta 2017 do leta 2021 in v 20 državah.
It should support deployment of broadband to an additional 3 to 6 million households. 
Podpirati bi moral uvedbo širokopasovnih povezav za dodatnih 3 do 6 milijonov gospodinjstev.
from the EIB in focusing on smaller projects. 
CEBF je zasnovan tako, da dopolnjuje druge instrumente financiranja, ki jih ima na voljo EIB, pri čemer se osredotoča na manjše projekte.
However, the targeted size of the CEBF, around 500 million euro, means that it can make only a limited contribution to the investment needed in areas with low broadband coverage. 
Vendar pa njegova ciljna velikost – približno 500 milijonov EUR – pomeni, da lahko le deloma prispeva k potrebnim naložbam v območja z nizko pokritostjo s širokopasovnimi povezavami.
The legal and competitive environment poses problem in some Member States 63. 
V nekaterih državah članicah težave povzročata pravno in konkurenčno okolje 63.
We examined whether the Member States had put in place an appropriate legal and regulatory environment, designed to incentivise competition for broadband services, in line with relevant EU legislation. 
Sodišče je preučilo, ali so države članice vzpostavile ustrezno pravno in regulativno okolje, namenjeno spodbujanju konkurence na področju širokopasovnih storitev, v skladu z ustrezno zakonodajo EU.
We thus analysed each examined Member State against: • the Commission recommendation on regulated access to ‘next generation access’ networks34, • the directive on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services35, and • the Commission recommendation on consistent non-discrimination obligations and costing methodologies to promote competition and enhance the broadband investment environment36. 
39 32 33 34 • direktivo o univerzalni storitvi in pravicah uporabnikov v zvezi z elektronskimi komunikacijskimi omrežji in storitvami35 ter • priporočilo Komisije o doslednih obveznostih nediskriminacije ter metodologijah za izračun stroškov za spodbujanje konkurence in izboljšanje okolja za naložbe v širokopasovne povezave36.
We found that Hungary, Italy and Poland had adequate regulatory and competitive environments for broadband. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da so Madžarska, Italija in Poljska uvedle ustrezno regulativno in konkurenčno okolje za širokopasovne povezave.
In the case of Ireland and Germany, we found weaknesses that result in competitive issues. 
V primeru Irske in Nemčije je ugotovilo slabosti, ki povzročajo težave na področju konkurence.
In Ireland, ComReg, the National Regulatory Authority (NRA), documented in 2015 and 2016 multiple complaints from operators which related to network access and to its pricing, for instances from 2010 onwards. 
Na Irskem je ComReg, nacionalni regulativni organ, leta 2015 in 2016 zabeležil več pritožb operaterjev, ki so se nanašale na dostop do omrežij in določanje cen, za primere od leta 2010 naprej.
The process of analysing the complaints was lengthy and in some cases resulted in legal action (the outcomes of which were unknown at the time of the audit), since the incumbent did not comply with the decision or remedy. 
Proces analiziranja pritožb je bil dolgotrajen in je v nekaterih primerih vodil do pravnih ukrepov (katerih rezultati v času revizije še niso bili znani), ker prvotni operater ni upošteval pravne odločitve ali popravljalnega ukrepa.
Ireland’s ability Commission recommendation 2010/572/EU. Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 
V Nemčiji je Sodišče ugotovilo tri slabosti, ki vplivajo na konkurenčno okolje: • kljub zakonski obveznosti, ki je obstajala že več kot štiri leta in na podlagi katere je bilo treba zagotoviti enostavno zameno operatorja, število pritožb, ki jih je prejel nacionalni regulativni organ, kaže, da je zamenjava operaterja za stranke še vedno problematična, saj je dolgotrajna in pogosto odvračajoča, 40 35 Direktiva 2002/22/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 7. marca 2002 o univerzalni storitvi in pravicah uporabnikov v zvezi z elektronskimi komunikacijskimi omrežji in storitvami (Direktiva o univerzalnih storitvah) (UL L 108, 24.4.2002, str.
38 34 35 36 Commission recommendation 2013/466/EU. 
36 Priporočilo Komisije 2013/466/EU.
In Germany, we found three weaknesses affecting the competitive environment: • Despite a legal obligation that existed for more than four years to make changing operator easy, as indicated by the number of complaints received by the NRA, changing broadband supplier remains problematic for customers, as it is lengthy and often disruptive. • An independent test, performed in 2015 and 2016, highlighted that only 12 % of users were receiving the maximum data transfer rate as stated in their contract.37 • Alternative operators have complained about the type of services they can offer using VULA and, the method of regulating the vectoring technology (paragraphs 47 to 48). 
• neodvisni preskus, opravljen v letih 2015 in 2016, je pokazal, da je samo 12 % uporabnikov dejansko imelo takšno najvišjo hitrost prenosa podatkov, kot je bilo navedeno v njihovi pogodbi,37 • alternativni operaterji so se pritoževali zaradi vrste storitev, ki jih lahko ponudijo z uporabo produkta VULA, in načina regulativne ureditve tehnologije vektorizacije (odstavki 47 do 48).
As a result some operators have decided to build their own fibre network. 
Zaradi tega so se nekateri operaterji odločili za izgradnjo lastnega optičnega omrežja.
State aid for broadband investments 67. 
Državna pomoč za naložbe v širokopasovne povezave 67.
Public investment in broadband by Member States, like other forms of investment, is subject to State aid rules, designed to limit any distortion of competition from public sector support38. The broadband State aid guidelines were adopted in 2009 and revised in January 2013. 
Tako kot za druge oblike naložb veljajo tudi za javne naložbe držav članic v širokopasovne povezave pravila o državni pomoči, katerih namen je omejiti izkrivljanje konkurence s podporo javnega sektorja.38 Smernice o državni pomoči za širokopasovne povezave so bile sprejete leta 2009 in revidirane januarja 2013.
They set out the scope of possible State intervention for broadband in relation to speeds of 30 Mbps, by defining different areas as black, grey or white, depending on the extent of competition to provide coverage39. The white areas are in principle eligible for State aid. 
V njih je določen obseg morebitnega državnega posredovanja na področju širokopasovnih povezav v zvezi s hitrostjo 30 Mb/s, in sicer z opredelitvijo črnih, sivih in belih lis, ki so odvisne od obsega konkurence za zagotovitev pokritosti.39 Bele lise so načeloma upravičene do državne pomoči.
In black areas broadband services are provided under competitive conditions and State aid is permitted only under certain conditions, including whether or not a ‘step change’ in service provision is delivered. 
Na črnih lisah se širokopasovne storitve zagotavljajo pod konkurenčnimi pogoji in državna pomoč je dovoljena samo pod določenimi pogoji, vključno s tem, ali bo pomoč pomenila „korenito spremembo” za zagotavljanje storitev.
The Commission’s position is that, while these guidelines refer to the Digital Agenda which mentions specifically to 30 Mbps, they are also relevant for the 100 Mbps and the Gigabit Society targets. 
Stališče Komisije je, da ker se te smernice nanašajo na digitalno agendo, v kateri je izrecno navedena hitrost 30 Mb/s, veljajo tudi za hitrost 100 Mb/s in ciljne vrednosti Namen uredbe o preglednosti iz junija 2017 je obravnavati to vprašanje, saj določa, da morajo fiksni in mobilni ponudniki zagotoviti več informacij, med drugim o dejanski hitrosti prenosa podatkov.
However, some Member States interpret the State aid guidelines differently: they take the view that public funding is prohibited when the intervention increases the speed beyond 30 Mbps in black and grey areas. 
Vendar pa si nekatere države članice smernice o državni pomoči razlagajo drugače: menijo namreč, da je javno financiranje prepovedano, če se s posredovanjem poveča hitrost nad 30 Mb/s na črnih in sivih lisah.
This difference of interpretation has led to Member States choosing not to use public investment to support operators in black and grey areas. 
Zaradi te razlike v razlagi so se države članice odločale, da za podporo operaterjev na črnih in sivih lisah ne bodo uporabljale javnih naložb.
Crowding out of public investment 69. 
Izrivanje javnih naložb 69.
There is currently no legal obligation for the operators to implement their deployment plans made during the mapping process. 
Pravna določba, na podlagi katere bi morali operaterji izvesti izvedbene načrte, pripravljene med procesom kartiranja, trenutno ne obstaja.
An operator can decide not to deploy broadband in an area it had previously planned to invest in. 
Operater se lahko odloči, da na območju, na katerem je prej nameraval vlagati, ne bo uvedel širokopasovnih povezav.
Conversely, an operator can also decide to deploy broadband in an area where it previously planned not to invest, potentially crowding out public investments (see Box 8). 
Nasprotno se lahko odloči tudi, da bo širokopasovne povezave uvedel na območju, na katerem prej ni nameraval vlagati, s čimer lahko izrinja javne naložbe (glej okvir 8).
Both cases lead to a delay in broadband coverage in market failure areas. 
Posledica obeh primerov je zamuda pri pokritosti s širokopasovnimi povezavami na območjih, za katera je značilno nedelovanje trga.
40 Box 8 - Crowding out of public infrastructure by private investments in under-served areas After the identification of the market failure areas was completed, some Member States tried to ensure private financing in commercially viable areas through agreements with the operators. 
42 Okvir 8 – Izrinjanje javne infrastrukture z zasebnimi naložbami na slabo pokritih območjih Ko je bila opredelitev območij, za katera je značilno nedelovanje trga, zaključena, so nekatere države članice zasebno financiranje na tržno donosnih območjih skušale zagotoviti s sporazumi z operaterji.
However the mapping results are not binding in all Member States and the public consultation on the white and grey areas is very time-consuming. 
Vendar pa rezultati kartiranja niso zavezujoči v vseh državah članicah, javna posvetovanja o belih in sivih lisah pa so zelo dolgotrajna.
In a case in Germany, the incumbent operator decided to invest in areas previously categorized as “market failure areas” once public investment was planned or had started. 
V Nemčiji se je prvotni operater odločil za naložbe na območjih, ki so bila prej opredeljena kot „območja, za katera je značilno nedelovanje trga”, in sicer potem ko so bile javne naložbe že načrtovane ali so se že začele izvrševati.
The incumbent chose to connect the most profitable premises – an example of ‘cherry-picking’. 
Prvotni operater se je odločil zagotoviti povezave najdonosnejšim objektom – primer selektivnega izbiranja.
As a result, the public funded project was left with the most difficult and most costly premises to connect, increasing the cost of the public support. 
Posledično so za projekt javnega financiranja preostali objekti, ki jim je bilo najtežje in najdražje zagotoviti povezave, s čimer so se povečali stroški javne podpore.
Some Member States improved the process of coordinating broadband investments but we found a lack of coordination across programme periods in one examined Member State 70. 
Nekatere države članice so izboljšale proces usklajevanja naložb v širokopasovne povezave, toda v eni preučeni državi članici je Sodišče ugotovilo pomanjkanje usklajevanja med programskimi obdobji 70.
We checked whether the Member States managed and coordinated the broadband projects at the right level and ensured economies of scale, together with appropriate technical and administrative capacity. 
Sodišče je preverilo, ali so države članice projekte na področju širokopasovnih povezav vodile in usklajevale na ustrezni ravni ter ali so zagotovile ekonomijo obsega, skupaj z ustreznimi tehničnimi in upravnimi zmogljivostmi.
We also verified whether the Member States coordinated their measures across programme periods in order to contribute best to the Member States’ strategy. 
Pregledalo je tudi, ali so države članice usklajevale svoje ukrepe med programskimi obdobji, da bi tako kar najbolje prispevale k svojim strategijam.
Broadband investment process coordination 71. 
Usklajevanje procesa naložb v širokopasovne povezave 71.
In three of the examined Member States, Ireland, Italy and Hungary, we found that the appropriate level of coordination supported broadband deployment and ensured economies of scales. 
Sodišče je v treh od preučenih držav članic, na Irskem, v Italiji in na Madžarskem, ugotovilo, da je bila uvedba širokopasovnih povezav podprta z usklajevanjem, ki je bilo na ustrezni ravni in je zagotavljalo ekonomijo obsega.
For example, in Ireland, the implementation of the National Broadband Plan is supervised by the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment (DCCAE). The DCCAE ensures that the broadband strategy is implemented with public subsidies (ERDF and national budget), and it manages the related tendering process at national level. 
Na Irskem na primer izvajanje nacionalnega načrta za širokopasovne povezave nadzoruje ministrstvo za komunikacije, podnebne ukrepe in okolje (DCCAE), ki zagotavlja, da se strategija za širokopasovne povezave izvaja z javnimi subvencijami (iz ESRR in nacionalnega proračuna), ter upravlja s tem povezane razpisne postopke na nacionalni ravni.
In Italy, in the 2007-2013 programme period, the funding sources for broadband were not coordinated across the ERDF, EAFRD and national funds in the early years. 
V Italiji viri financiranja za širokopasovne povezave v prvih letih programskega obdobja 2007–2013 niso bili usklajeni med ESRR, EKSRP in nacionalnimi skladi.