natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Table 7 Administrative costs and workload of the Fund per year Year 2002 0,15 4 10 11 12 4 728 107 20 205 24 CourtŐs estimation of the costs and Regional Policy DG. 
Tabela 7 Upravni stroški in delovna obremenitev sklada po letih Leto Leto 2002 2003 0,15 0,16 4 10 728 107 Vir: Ocena stroškov, ki jo je sestavilo Sodišče, in GD za regionalno politiko.
In the context of this analysis flexibility is defined as the ease with which a system can be adjusted for use in applications or environments other than those for which it were specifically designed. 
Za namene te analize je fleksibilnost opredeljena kot lahkota, s katero je sistem mogoče prilagoditi uporabam in okolju, ki so drugačni od tistih, za katere je bil zasnovan.
The Fund was designed for the major disasters. 
Sklad je bil zasnovan za večje nesreče.
Therefore it can exhibit flexibility in responding to the applications associated with regional disasters. 
Zato lahko izkaže fleksibilnost pri odzivu na vloge, povezane z regionalnimi nesrečami.
The Fund should enable the Community to respond flexibly to emergency situations, but exceptional cases must be treated with the utmost rigour (2). 
Sklad bi moral Skupnosti omogočiti, da se fleksibilno odzove na izredne razmere, vendar je treba izjemne primere obravnavati zelo strogo (2).
The flexibility of the Fund must not compromise the principle of equitable treatment. 
Fleksibilnost sklada ne sme ogroziti načela pravičnega obravnavanja.
How are regional disasters treated by the Fund? 
Kako sklad obravnava regionalne nesreče?
The Court reviewed the treatment of regional and major disasters. 
Sodišče je preučilo obravnavanje regionalnih in večjih nesreč.
The analysis focused on ÔflexibilityŐ from the perspective of the equitable treatment of applications. 
Analiza je bila osredotočena na „fleksibilnost“ z vidika pravičnega obravnavanja vlog.
This means the fair assessment of the requests submitted by the applicants and the use of coherent and consistent criteria by the Commission for the approval or rejection of applications. 
To pomeni pravično ocenjevanje zahtev, ki jih predložijo prosilci, in Komisijino uporabo skladnih in doslednih meril pri odobravanju ali zavračanju vlog.
Of the 18 applications that were rejected (3), 15 (83 %) concerned regional disasters. 
Od 18 vlog, ki so bile zavrnjene (3), jih je 15 (83 %) zadevalo regionalne nesreče.
The reason for this very high level of rejection is that the definition of regional disaster is rather (2) Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002. 
Razlog za to zelo visoko raven zavrnitev je, da je opredelitev regionalnih nesreč dokaj neoprijemljiva, njihovo upravičenost do sredstev iz sklada pa je bolj zapleteno oceniti. (2) Člen 2(2) Uredbe (ES) št.
(3) Including two withdrawn applications. 
(3) Vključno z dvema umaknjenima vlogama.
C 153/10 EN Official Journal of the European Union 18.6.2008 vague and their eligibility for the Fund is more complex to assess. 
C 153/10 SL Uradni list Evropske unije Vsaka Komisijina zavrnitev se utemelji s sklopom razlogov.
The main reasons that the Commission gave for rejection were: (a) applications were submitted late and/or were incomplete; (b) damage reported in the application did not affect a major part of the population and was not classified as regional disaster; (c) incorrect information about the date of the disaster given by Member States. 
Glavni razlogi, ki jih je Komisija navedla za zavrnitev, so bili: (a) vloge so bile predložene prepozno in/ali so bile nepopolne; (b) škoda, navedena v vlogi, ni prizadela večjega dela prebivalstva in ni bila uvrščena med regionalne nesreče; (c) države članice so posredovale netočne informacije o datumu nesreče.
Whilst the Court does not claim that cases which have been rejected should have been accepted, it notes that there are two cases where there is a lack of clarity in the criteria applied or in the justification presented to the Member State (see Textbox 3). 
Medtem ko Sodišče ne trdi, da bi bilo zavrnjene primere treba sprejeti, pa opaža, da sta v dveh primerih uporaba meril ali utemeljitev, predložena državi članici, premalo jasni (glej okvir 3).
In one case the eligibility conditions as regards the level of population affected has not been applied as in equivalent cases. 
V enem primeru pogoji za upravičenost v zvezi z deležem prizadetega prebivalstva niso bili uporabljeni tako kot v enakovrednih primerih.
Graph 2 ApplicantsŐ opinion of CommissionŐs reason for rejection Textbox 3 Some eligibility criteria applied for regional disasters For one forest fire rejected in 2005 Ń the Commission alleged, as one argument, that it did not affect a major part of the population (see conditions in paragraph 2). 
18.6.2008 Okvir 3 Nekatera merila za upravičenost, ki veljajo za regionalne nesreče Za en gozdni požar, zavrnjen v letu 2005, je Komisija med argumenti navedla, da ni vplival na večji del prebivalstva (glej pogoje v odstavku 2).
However, it did not use the same argument to reject another similar case in 2003. 
Vendar pri zavrnitvi podobnega primera leta 2003 ni uporabila enakega argumenta.
On the contrary, the Commission itself explained in its annual EUSF report 2002-2003 why that condition was not applicable for this particular case even though the condition makes little sense for either of the rejected forest fire applications. 
Nasprotno, Komisija je v svojem letnem poročilu o SSEU za leto 2002–2003 sama pojasnila, zakaj ta pogoj za ta določeni primer ne velja, čeprav pogoj ni pretirano smiseln pri nobeni od obeh zavrnjenih vlog za gozdna požara.
One of the CommissionŐs reasons for rejecting a flooding case in 2004 was that the Community Mechanism for Civil Protection had not been activated, which implied that the flooding was of a limited nature. 
Eden od Komisijinih razlogov za zavrnitev primera poplave leta 2004 je bil, da ni bil sprožen mehanizem Skupnosti na področju civilne zaščite, kar naj bi pomenilo, da je bila poplava le omejenega obsega.
Activating this mechanism is, however, not a compulsory requirement under the Regulation. 
Vendar sprožitev tega mehanizma ni obvezna uredbena zahteva.
This case was compared to another rejected flooding case in 2005, where the Commission also referred to the mechanism for Civil Protection, but then in this case stated that this element was not relevant. 37. 
Primer se je primerjalo z drugim zavrnjenim primerom poplave leta 2005, v katerem je Komisija prav tako omenjala mehanizem na področju civilne zaščite, vendar je v tem primeru nato navedla, da ta element ni relevanten.
The Court examined whether the applicants for all categories of disaster whose applications were rejected agreed with the CommissionŐs reasons for rejection. 
Sodišče je preučilo, ali so se prosilci pri vseh kategorijah nesreč, katerih vloge so bile zavrnjene, strinjali s Komisijinimi razlogi za zavrnitev.
This could be considered as measure of the extent to which the eligibility rules are coherent and clearly understood. 
To bi se lahko razumelo kot merilo tega, v kakšnem obsegu so pravila o upravičenosti skladna in jasno razumljena.
The survey data indicates that 45 % of the applicants agreed with the CommissionŐs arguments for rejecting their application as shown in Graph 2. 
Podatki iz raziskovalne ankete kažejo, da se je 45 % prosilcev strinjalo s Komisijinimi argumenti za zavrnitev njihove vloge, kot je prikazano v grafičnem prikazu 2.
The rejected applicants did not agree with the CommissionŐs arguments for the following reasons: (a) the impossibility for the regions concerned to provide the data requested by the Commission to the level of accuracy requested and in a very short time period prescribed Ń in an emergency context in which priority is given to immediate needs; 
Zavrnjeni prosilci se niso strinjali z argumenti Komisije iz naslednjih razlogov: (a) zadevne regije niso mogle zagotoviti podatkov, ki jih je zahtevala Komisija, z zahtevano ravnijo natančnosti in v zelo kratkem predpisanem roku – v kontekstu nujnega primera, v katerem se prednost namenja takojšnjim potrebam;
18.6.2008 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/11 (b) (c) it is sometimes difficult to quantify exclusively in economic terms the impact of damage to populations; for instance in small rural communes there is damage not just to property but to a way of life and general living conditions. 
18.6.2008 SL Uradni list Evropske unije C 153/11 (b) (c) vpliv škode na prebivalstvo je včasih težavno količinsko opredeliti v izključno ekonomskem smislu; na primer, v majhnih podeželskih občinah se ne pojavi le škoda na lastnini, ampak tudi pri načinu življenja in splošnih življenjskih razmerah.
At the same time it was claimed that all these small incidents can, if added together, create a big problem; in some cases the authorities believe that, in the past, the Commission accepted the application and financed the action in similar cases. 
Hkrati se je trdilo, da lahko ti majhni dogodki, skupaj gledano, povzročijo veliko težavo; v nekaterih primerih pristojni organi menijo, da je v preteklosti Komisija v podobnih primerih sprejela vlogo in financirala ukrepanje.
The mobilisation of the Fund under the Ôexceptional cri-terionŐ (regional) is the rule and not the exception (58 % of disasters were regional disasters). 
Sklad se v okviru „merila izjemnosti“ (regionalno) aktivira praviloma, ne pa izjemoma (58 % nesreč je bilo regionalnih ne-sreč).
Moreover, the conditions for a successful application under the extraordinary regional disaster criterion which are required to be examined with the utmost rigour are extremely difficult to meet. 
Poleg tega je zelo težko izpolniti pogoje za uspešno vlogo v okviru merila za izredne regionalne nesreče, ki jih je treba obravnavati izredno strogo.
So 83 % of applications for regional disasters were rejected after a longer assessment period. 
Zato je bilo 83 % vlog za regionalne nesreče po daljšem obdobju ocenjevanja zavrnjenih.
The rejections were not due to the non-availability of funds since from its creation in October 2002 up to the end of 2006 the Fund has granted aid for not much more than its budget for one year. 
Do zavrnitev ni prišlo, ker ne bi bilo razpoložljivih sredstev, saj je sklad od svoje vzpostavitve oktobra 2002 do konca leta 2006 odobril pomoč, ki ni znašala veliko več od njegovega proračuna za eno leto.
Are applicants satisfied with the Fund? 
Ali so prosilci zadovoljni s skladom?
All applicants that have replied to the survey were satisfied with the Fund. 
Vsi prosilci, ki so odgovorili na raziskovalno anketo, so bili zadovoljni s skladom.
The Fund is perceived as a sign of solidarity, with a positive impact on public opinion, especially in the new Member States. 
Sklad dojemajo kot znamenje solidar-nosti, ki ima pozitiven vpliv na javno mnenje, zlasti v novih državah članicah.
Based on the survey replies (see Graph 3), the main reasons given for this satisfaction are: (a) the FundŐs contribution was a signal of the EU solidarity with the population of the regions affected, in view of the scale of the disasters; (b) the grant helped to alleviate the enormous expenses linked to the disasters (extending secondary emergency operations, speeding up the process and so on); (c) the aid represented a reduction of the burden on public budgets, albeit sometimes limited compared to the degree of the disaster; (d) the contribution had a positive impact on public opinion with regard to the accession to the EU for candidate countries. 
Sodeč po odgovorih na raziskovalno anketo (glej grafični prikaz 3) so glavni razlogi za zadovoljstvo prosilcev naslednji: (a) ob upoštevanju obsega nesreč je bil prispevek sklada znamenje solidarnosti EU s prebivalstvom prizadetih regij; (b) nepovratna sredstva so pripomogla k ublažitvi velikanskih stroškov, povezanih z nesrečami (razširitev sekundarnih nujnih ukrepov, pospešitev procesa in tako dalje); (c) pomoč je predstavljala zmanjšanje bremena za javne proračune, čeprav v primerjavi z resnostjo nesreče včasih le v omejenem obsegu; (d) prispevek je v državah kandidatkah pozitivno vplival na javno mnenje o pridružitvi EU.
38. with the time allocated to them to prepare an application, the assessment of the damage in terms of components of damage which are difficult to quantify as well as with the criteria used by the Commission to assess the application. 
38. žave s časom, ki ga imajo na voljo za pripravo vloge, z oceno škode pri sestavnih delih škode, ki jih je težko opredeliti, ter z merili, ki jih za oceno vloge uporablja Komisija.
This last critical element could imply that the applicants have concerns about the fairness of treatment in some cases. 
Zadnji navedeni kritični element bi lahko pomenil, da prosilci v nekaterih primerih dvomijo o pravičnosti obravnavanja.
Does the grant calculation principle compromise the fair treatment of grants allocated to regional disasters? 
Ali načelo izračunavanja nepovratnih sredstev ogroža pravično obravnavanje nepovratnih sredstev, odobrenih za regionalne nesreče?
According to the method used by the Commission (1), all regional disasters receive the same percentage of total direct damage, namely a flat rate of 2,5 % of the total direct damage, without taking into account the ÔprosperityŐ of the applicant state or region. 
Po metodi, ki jo uporablja Komisija (1), se za vse regionalne nesreče prejme enak delež skupne neposredne škode, namreč pavšal, ki znaša 2,5 % skupne neposredne škode, ne da bi se pri tem upoštevala „blaginja“ države ali regije prosilke.
In contrast, in major disasters the grant calculation is based on the Gross National Income of the applicant giving a more equitable treatment between countries in relation to their prosperity. 
Nasprotno se pri večjih nesrečah nepovratna sredstva izračunajo na podlagi bruto nacionalnega dohodka prosilca, zato je glede na njihovo blaginjo obravnavanje držav pravičnejše.
The views noted indicate that applicants have problems Graph 3 Global satisfaction from EUSF (1) The CommissionŐs annual European Union Solidarity Fund Report 2002-2003, p. 
Iz pridobljenih mnenj je razvidno, da imajo prosilci te-Grafični prikaz 3 Kakšno je splošno zadovoljstvo s SSEU (1) Komisijino letno poročilo o Solidarnostnem skladu Evropske unije 2002–2003, str.
C 153/12 EN Official Journal of the European Union 18.6.2008 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 42. 
C 153/12 SL Uradni list Evropske unije 18.6.2008 ZAKLJUČEK IN PRIPOROČILA 42.
The CourtŐs examination of the operation of the Fund in 2002-2006 shows that the Fund does not provide a rapid response. 
Pregled delovanja sklada v obdobju 2002–2006, ki ga je izvedlo Sodišče, kaže, da sklad ne zagotavlja hitrega odziva.
On average, the applicants had to wait for 12 months after the disaster to receive payment of the assistance. 
Po nesreči so morali prosilci povprečno čakati 12 mesecev, da so prejeli izplačilo pomoči.
The delays are not related to the category or the nature of the disaster, or to the origin of the application. 
Zamude niso povezane s kategorijo ali naravo nesreče, pa tudi ne z virom vloge.
The time necessary to mobilise funds depends mainly on the extent of the administrative rules applied, on the rapidity of the Commission, on the promptness of the national authoritiesŐ replies and on the quality of the information provided in each case by the applicants (see paragraphs 10 to 26). 
Čas, potreben za aktiviranje sredstev, je odvisen predvsem od obsega uporabljenih upravnih pravil, hitrosti Komisije, hitrosti odgovorov nacionalnih organov in od kakovosti informacij, ki jih za vsak posamičen primer zagotovijo prosilci (glej odstavke 10 do 26).
The existing number of staff managing the Fund at the level of the Commission has proved to be efficient. 
Obstoječe število uslužbencev, ki upravljajo sklad na ravni Komisije, se je izkazalo za učinkovito.
In addition, the total costs of managing the Fund were found to be very low in relation to the aid granted (see paragraphs 27 to 31). 
Poleg tega je bilo ugotovljeno, da so skupni stroški upravljanja sklada v primerjavi z odobreno pomočjo zelo nizki (glej odstavke 27 do 31).
There are no cases where the Fund showed a lack of flexibility in its treatment of applications for aid. 
Sklad pri obravnavi vlog za pomoč nikoli ni pokazal pomanjkanja fleksibilnosti.
Without questioning the rejection of applications there are a few cases which illustrate a lack of clarity in the justification of the rejection of applications for regional disasters. 
Ne da bi se s tem izražal pomislek o zavrnitvi vlog, je iz nekaj primerov razvidno pomanjkanje jasnosti pri utemeljitvi zavrnitve vlog za regionalne nesreče.
The method used for the calculation of the grant amount for approved regional disasters does not take into account the prosperity of the state, so it may not respect the principle of fairness (see paragraphs 32 to 40). 
Pri metodi, uporabljeni za izračunavanje zneska nepovratnih sredstev za priznane regionalne nesreče, se ne upošteva blaginja države, zato se mogoče ne spoštuje načelo pravičnosti (glej odstavke 32 do 40).
Finally it should be noted that, despite the issues raised above, all applicants that have replied to the survey are satisfied with the Fund. 
Na koncu je treba omeniti še, da so kljub zgoraj navedenim zadevam vsi prosilci, ki so odgovorili na raziskovalno anketo, zadovoljni s skladom.
In this way the Fund has achieved its underlying objective which is to demonstrate solidarity with Member States in disaster situations (see paragraph 41). 
Na ta način je sklad dosegel svoj osnovni cilj, ki je izkazovanje solidarnosti z državami članicami v času nesreč (glej odstavek 41).
In order to speed up the payment of the assistance, the Commission should have procedures in place, before the end of 2008, to ensure that an applicant state receives detailed guidance on the requirements of the application as soon as possible, preferably within one week of a state or region advising the Commission that they will be seeking aid from the Fund. 
Za pospešitev izplačevanja pomoči bi morala Komisija pred koncem leta 2008 vzpostaviti postopke, s katerimi bi zagotovila, da država prosilka čim prej prejme podrobne smernice o zahtevah vloge, po možnosti v tednu dni od takrat, ko država ali regija obvesti Komisijo, da bo zaprosila za pomoč iz sklada.
In addition the Commission should establish direct contact with the body in the Member or Accession State responsible for preparing the application to warn them of the common weaknesses in applications received and stress the importance of sending back the application and any other document requested by the Commission, including the final agreement, rapidly. 
Poleg tega bi morala Komisija vzpostaviti neposreden stik z organom v državi članici ali pristopnici, ki je odgovoren za pripravo vloge, ter ga opozoriti na pogoste pomanjkljivosti v prejetih vlogah in poudariti pomembnost tega, da se hitro pošljejo vloga in vsi drugi dokumenti, ki jih zahteva Komisija, vključno s končnim sporazumom.
This report was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its meeting of 13 March 2008. 
To poročilo je sprejelo Računsko sodišče v Luxembourgu na svojem zasedanju dne 13. marca 2008.
For the Court of Auditors Vtor Manuel DA SILVA CALDEIRA President 
Za Računsko sodišče Vítor Manuel DA SILVA CALDEIRA Predsednik
(2) Including amounts waiting to be paid out in 2006 for applications from 2005. 
(2) Vključno z zneski za izplačilo v letu 2006 za vloge iz leta 2005.
18.6.2008 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 153/15 THE COMMISSIONŐS REPLIES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY III. 
18.6.2008 SL Uradni list Evropske unije ODGOVORI KOMISIJE POVZETEK III.
The rapidity with which funds are made available to beneficiaries is a direct reflection of the procedure provided in the EUSF Regulation, which have meant that, in practice, it is not a rapid response instrument but a refinancing instrument for expenditures already incurred by the national authorities. 
Hitrost, s katero so sredstva dana na voljo upravičencem, je neposredno odvisna od postopka, predvidenega v Uredbi o ustanovitvi Solidarnostnega sklada Evropske unije (SSEU). To v praksi pomeni, da ne gre za instrument za hitri odziv, temveč za instrument refinanciranja izdatkov, ki so jih nacionalni organi že imeli.
The Commission agrees that the conditions for a successful application for Ôregional disastersŐ (as opposed to Ômajor disastersŐ) are more difficult to meet. 
Komisija se strinja, da je težje izpolniti pogoje za uspešno vlogo v zvezi z „regionalnimi nesrečami“ (v nasprotju z „večjimi nesrečami“).
This is intended by the legislator, who requires the Commission in Article 2 of the Regulation to examine Ôwith the utmost rigourŐ any regional disaster application. 
Tako je predvidel zakonodajalec, ki v členu 2 Uredbe od Komisije zahteva, da „zelo strogo“ prouči vse vloge v zvezi z regionalnimi nesrečami.
V. The Solidarity Fund has helped to alleviate the financial burden on states affected by disasters and it has been beneficial to the image of the Union in the eyes of its citizens, offering help and additional resources at times of particular hardship. 
V. Solidarnostni sklad je pomagal ublažiti finančno breme držav, ki so jih prizadele nesreče, in je pozitivno vplival na podobo Unije v očeh njenih državljanov, saj je v še posebej težkih časih zagotavljal pomoč in dodatna sredstva.
The Commission agrees to the recommendations of the Court. 
Komisija se strinja s priporočili Računskega sodišča.
Shortly after the adoption of the Regulation a standard application form was developed as well as a detailed guidance note for applications (both available on the InfoRegio website). 
Kmalu po sprejetju Uredbe je bil pripravljen standardni obrazec za vlogo, pa tudi podrobna navodila za pripravo vlog (oboje je na voljo na spletni strani InfoRegio).
The Commission intends to seek direct contact with the body preparing the request, provided that the applicant state agrees, and to extend its application guidelines in order to warn applicant bodies of possible sources of delays. OBSERVATIONS 10-13. 
Komisija namerava vzpostaviti neposreden stik z organom, ki je odgovoren za pripravo vloge, če se država prosilka s tem strinja, in razširiti svoja navodila za pripravo vlog, da bi bili organi prosilci opozorjeni glede možnih razlogov za zamude.
As the eligibility rules in the Regulation were established in the context of these first disasters, the required assessment time was extremely short. 
Ker so bila pravila o upravičenosti v Uredbi določena glede na te prve nesreče, je bil čas, potreben za oceno, izredno kratek.
The very high total aid amount of EUR 728 million, never been exceeded since then, allowed for a separate amending budget in the budget procedure. 
Zelo visok skupni znesek pomoči 728 milijonov EUR, ki vse odtlej še ni bil presežen, je omogočil posebno spremembo proračuna v proračunskem postopku.
The fact that the implementation agreements were signed on the occasion of a European Council meeting (Copenhagen) also illustrates strong political will and the exceptional character of these first cases. 
Dejstvo, da so bili sporazumi o izvajanju podpisani na zasedanju Evropskega sveta (København), prav tako ponazarja močno politično voljo in izredno naravo teh prvih primerov.
The current EUSF Regulation does not provide for a rapid response instrument but only for a refinancing instrument for emergency expenditures already incurred by the national authorities. 
Sedanja Uredba SSEU ne zagotavlja instrumenta za hitri odziv, temveč le instrument refinanciranja izrednih izdatkov, ki so jih nacionalni organi že imeli.
The Commission considers that the criteria in the Regulation have been applied in the clearest possible way (see detailed comments in textbox 3). 
Komisija meni, da so bila merila iz Uredbe uporabljena, kolikor je mogoče jasno (glej podroben komentar na besedilo v okviru 3).
However, the definition of regional disaster in the Regulation is rather vague and conditions for successful applications are difficult to meet. 
Vendar pa je opredelitev regionalne nesreče v Uredbi dokaj ohlapna in pogoje za uspešno vlogo je težko izpolniti.