natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
We note that it is not always possible to prevent a case from becoming time-barred; national prosecutors may also reach a different conclusion as to whether an offence has been committed. 
Sodišče se zaveda, da vedno ni mogoče preprečiti, da primer ne bi zastaral; tudi nacionalni tožilci lahko sprejmejo drugačen zaključek glede tega, ali je bilo storjeno kaznivo dejanje.
This is why close cooperation between OLAF and national authorities is of paramount importance46. 98 During our interviews in four Member States, national prosecutors indicated that, in most cases, they have no contact with OLAF before receiving the Final Report. 
Glede na to je tesno sodelovanje med uradom OLAF in nacionalnimi organi zelo pomembno.46 98 Državni tožilci v štirih državah članicah so v razgovorih s Sodiščem navedli, da v večini primerov z uradom OLAF nimajo stikov, dokler ne prejmejo končnega poročila.
They also indicated that they would prefer to be informed of any suspected criminal offence much earlier than at the end of the OLAF investigation, and that if they were, they would assist 45 Analysis of Member States’ follow-up of OLAF’s judicial recommendations issued between January 2008 and December 2015; p. 1. 
Navedli so tudi, da bi bili o sumu kaznivega dejanja raje obveščeni precej bolj zgodaj, ne šele na koncu preiskave, ki jo opravi Urad. V tem primeru bi mu pomagali in po potrebi sprožili lastno kazensko preiskavo, da zadeve ne bi zastarale.
46 Article 12 of Regulation (EU) No 883/2013 states that OLAF ‘.... may transmit to the competent authorities of the Member States concerned information obtained in the course of external investigations in due time to enable them to take appropriate action in accordance with their national law’. 
46 V členu 12 Uredbe (EU) št. 883/2013 je določeno, da lahko OLAF „pristojnim organom zadevnih držav članic posreduje informacije, ki jih je pridobil med zunanjo preiskavo, in sicer do časa, da lahko te sprejmejo ustrezne ukrepe v skladu s svojim nacionalnim pravom“.
4% 5% 14 % 22 % 56 % Insufficient evidence No criminal offence Time barring Low priority Other 
38 4% 5% 14 % 22 % 56 % Nezadostni dokazi Ni kaznivo dejanje Zastaranje Nizka prioriteta Drugo
100 Figure 10 shows that 56 % of dismissed cases have been dismissed due to lack of evidence. 
100 Iz slike 10 je razvidno, da je v 56 % zavrnjenih primerov do zavrnitve prišlo zaradi pomanjkanja dokazov.
This means that in every second dismissed case, evidence collected by OLAF, along with evidence collected later by national authorities during criminal investigation, has not led prosecutors to initiate indictment. 
To pomeni, da dokazi, ki jih je zbral OLAF, skupaj z dokazi, ki so jih pozneje v kazenski preiskavi zbrali nacionalni organi, tožilcev niso privedli do tega, da bi ti vložili obtožnico.
101 Our interviews with representatives from national authorities, independent academics and EU institutions (including OLAF) indicate that the main reason for dismissal is not lack of evidence, but rather that cases are too old. 
101 Razgovori, ki jih je Sodišče opravilo s predstavniki nacionalnih organov, neodvisnimi akademiki in institucijami EU (vključno z uradom OLAF), so pokazali, da glavni razlog za zavrnitev ni pomanjkanje dokazov, ampak dejstvo, da so primeri prestari.
It is not necessarily that the time limit for a given case has already expired or is about to expire, but rather that it is already years since the alleged offence was committed. 
Ne gre nujno za to, da je časovna omejitev za posamezen primer že potekla ali bo do tega kmalu prišlo, ampak za to, da so od domnevnega kaznivega dejanja minila že leta.
102 This is not to say that OLAF’s investigations take too long. 
102 To ne pomeni, da preiskave urada OLAF trajajo predolgo.
In most cases, OLAF conducts administrative investigations after the act in question has been detected and reported. 
V večini primerov urad OLAF opravi upravne preiskave po tem, ko je bilo zadevno dejanje odkrito ali prijavljeno.
It is therefore dependent on the timeliness of the information it receives in particular from IBOAs and Member States. 
Zato je odvisen od pravočasnosti informacij, ki jih prejme, zlasti od institucij, organov, uradov in agencij Unije ter držav članic.
Furthermore, OLAF’s administrative investigation then needs to be followed by a further criminal investigation in the Member State concerned. 
Prav tako mora upravni preiskavi urada OLAF nato slediti še kazenska preiskava v zadevni državi članici.
A person cannot be prosecuted without the case having been investigated in accordance with national law. 
Če primer ni bil preiskan v skladu z nacionalnim pravom, osebe ni mogoče kazensko preganjati.
The extent of the investigation varies from country to country, but some action is required in every Member State. 
Obseg preiskave se razlikuje od države do države, vendar so nekateri ukrepi zahtevani v vseh državah članicah.
103 Figure 11 indicates the timeframe for cases investigated by OLAF. 
103 Na sliki 11 je prikazan časovni okvir primerov, ki jih preiskuje OLAF.
Data provided by OLAF shows that, in 2017, it took OLAF an average of two months to select cases and around 22 months to investigate them47. Assuming that OLAF receives information on suspected fraud cases around one year after they have been committed and submits its Final Report to judicial authorities without delay, national authorities only receive information on an alleged offence on average three years after it has been committed. 
Glede na podatke urada OLAF sta bila leta 2017 v povprečju potrebna dva meseca za izbor primerov in približno 22 mesecev za njihovo preiskavo.47 Če OLAF prejme informacije o primerih suma goljufije približno eno leto po tem, ko so bili storjeni, in svoje končno poročilo sodnim organom predloži brez zamud, nacionalni organi informacije o domnevnem kaznivem dejanju v povprečju prejmejo šele tri leta po tem, ko je bilo to storjeno.
For complex cases, it may take even longer. 
V zapletenih primerih lahko traja še dlje.
47 See 2017 OLAF report, p. 
39 47 Glej poročilo urada OLAF za leto 2017, str.
Figure 11 – Timeframe for cases investigated by OLAF X X+1 X+2 X+3 X+? 
Slika 11 – Časovni okvir primerov, ki jih preiskuje OLAF X X+1 X+2 X+3 X+?
Source: ECA. 104 In our view, the current system, whereby OLAF’s administrative investigation of suspected fraud is followed by a criminal investigation at national level, takes up much time in a considerable number of cases and thus it decreases the chances to achieve its final goal – prosecution. 
Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče 104 Po mnenju Sodišča sedanji sistem, pri katerem upravni preiskavi suma goljufije urada OLAF sledi kazenska preiskava na nacionalni ravni, je v mnogih primerih dolgotrajen, zato se zmanjšajo možnosti za dosego njegovega končnega cilja – pregona.
Administrative recovery of funds is hindered by insufficient evidence 105 If OLAF finds any irregularity (whether suspected fraud or otherwise) and is able to estimate the amount to be recovered, it issues a financial recommendation. 
Upravno izterjavo sredstev ovirajo nezadostni dokazi 105 Če OLAF odkrije nepravilnost (naj gre za sum goljufije ali ne) in lahko oceni znesek, ki ga je treba izterjati, izda finančno priporočilo.
106 Figure 12 presents the amounts OLAF recommended for recovery between 2002 and 2016. 
106 Na sliki 12 so prikazani zneski, ki jih je OLAF priporočil za izterjavo med letoma 2002 in 2016.
Based on the available data, we estimate the total value of OLAF financial recommendations during this period at around €8.8 billion (for 2008 and 2009, we use the average for all other years). 
Sodišče na podlagi razpoložljivih podatkov ocenjuje, da skupna vrednost finančnih priporočil urada v tem obdobju znaša približno 8,8 milijarde EUR (za leti 2008 in 2009 je bilo uporabljeno povprečje vseh drugih let).
By the end of 2016, a total amount of €2.6 billion (30 %) had been recovered. 
Do konca leta 2016 je bilo skupno izterjane 2,6 milijarde EUR (30 %).
The figures indicate that although the total annual value of OLAF recommendations varies greatly, in most years (with the notable exception of 2011), the amount recovered has been in the region of €200 million (the average over the last 15 years is €173 million). 
Podatki kažejo, da je kljub velikim razlikam v skupni letni vrednosti priporočil urada OLAF izterjani znesek v večini let (s pomembno izjemo leta 2011) znašal približno 200 milijonov EUR (povprečje zadnjih 15 let je 173 milijona EUR).
107 According to the statistics we received from seven spending DGs (REGIO, EMPL, AGRI, RTD, CNECT, HOME and DEVCO), between 2012 and 2016, OLAF recommended a total of €1.9 billion in recoveries, from 358 cases. 
107 Glede na statistične podatke, ki jih je Sodišče prejelo od sedmih generalnih direktoratov porabnikov (GD REGIO, GD EMPL, GD AGRI, GD RTD, GD CNECT, GD HOME in GD DEVCO), je OLAF med letoma 2012 in 2016 v 358 primerih priporočil skupno 1,9 milijarde EUR izterjav.
By the time of our audit, the DGs’ recoveries and financial corrections amounted to €243 million (13 % of the total recommended) from 153 cases (i.e. 43 % of cases). 
Do revizije Sodišča so izterjave in finančni popravki generalnih direktoratov znašali 243 milijonov EUR (13 % celotnega priporočenega zneska) v 153 primerih (43 % vseh primerov).
We acknowledge that the recovery process may still be ongoing for a significant number of the remaining OLAF financial recommendations. 
Sodišče se zaveda, da pri številnih preostalih finančnih priporočilih urada OLAF postopki izterjave morda še niso zaključeni.
months. This being the case, we would expect a much higher recovery rate for recommendations issued between 2012 and 2014 than the 15 % (of the total amount recommended by OLAF) that the DGs have recovered to date. 
Sodišče za priporočila, izdana med letoma 2012 in 2014, pričakovalo precej višjo stopnjo izterjav kot le 15 % (celotnega zneska, ki ga je priporočil urad OLAF), kolikor so jih doslej izterjali generalni direktorati.
Figure 12 – Amounts recommended for recovery and amounts recovered, 2002-2016 43 1 000 800 600 400 200 Estimated financial impact of closed cases (million euro)* 2012: OLAF changed its system for financial recommendations Financial recommendation amount (million euro) Recovered amount (million euro)** 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 * In its 2008 annual report, OLAF estimated the financial impact of the cases it has closed since it was established in 1999 at more than € 6.2 billion. 
Slika 12 – Zneski, priporočeni za izterjavo, in izterjani zneski v obdobju 2002– 2016 41 1 000 800 600 400 200 Ocenjeni finančni učinek zaključenih primerov (v milijonih EUR)* 2012: urad OLAF je spremenil svoj sistem za finančna Znesek finančnega priporočila (v milijonih EUR) Izterjani znesek (v milijonih EUR)** 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 * OLAF je v svojem letnem poročilu za leto 2008 ocenil, da finančni učinek zaključenih primerov od njegove ustanovitve znaša več kot 6,2 milijarde EUR.
The average over a 10 -year period works out at around € 620 million per year; as there is no data for 2008 and 2009, we used the average for the years 2002-2011; ** Since 2012, OLAF presents in its annual report the total amount recommended for recovery and the cumulative amount recovered during the year as a result of OLAF investigations completed in previous years. 
Povprečje v desetletnem obdobju je približno 620 milijonov EUR na leto. Ker za leti 2008 in 2009 ni podatkov, je Sodišče uporabilo povprečje za obdobje 2002–2011. ** Od leta 2012 OLAF v letnem poročilu navede skupni znesek, ki ga priporoča za izterjavo, in kumulativni znesek, izterjan v zadevnem letu kot posledica preiskav, ki jih je Urad zaključil v prejšnjih letih.
Source: ECA based on OLAF annual reports, 2002-2016. 108 The figures indicate that, in a significant proportion of the cases OLAF closes with a recommendation to recover unduly paid EU money, either no such recovery takes place or the amount recovered is significantly lower than that recommended. 
Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče na podlagi letnih poročil urada OLAF za leta 2002–2016 108 Podatki kažejo, da v velikem deležu primerov, ki jih OLAF zaključi s priporočilom za izterjavo neupravičeno izplačanih sredstev EU, do izterjave ne pride ali pa je izterjani znesek bistveno nižji od priporočenega.
The DGs either took (or outsourced) further action in order to decide whether recovery would be possible, or relied on evidence provided by their own audits. 
bodisi sprejeli nadaljnje ukrepe (ali jih naročili zunanjim izvajalcem), da bi ugotovili, ali bo izterjava mogoča, bodisi so se zanesli na dokaze iz lastnih revizij.
110 When OLAF issues a judicial recommendation and/or sends a report to Member State judicial authorities, the financial recovery procedure is in some cases suspended. 
110 Ko OLAF izda sodno priporočilo in/ali sodnim organom države članice pošlje poročilo, je postopek finančne izterjave v nekaterih primerih zamrznjen.
We found a number of cases where the recovery procedure had been suspended and the DGs had been asked by OLAF not to disclose any information to the national authorities or the beneficiary. 
Sodišče je odkrilo številne primere, v katerih je bil postopek izterjave zamrznjen, OLAF pa je generalnim direktoratom naročil, naj niti nacionalnim organom niti upravičencu ne razkrijejo nobenih informacij.
We acknowledge, however, that there can be a trade-off between criminal investigations and speedy financial recoveries. 
Sodišče se zaveda, da lahko gre za kompromis med kazenskimi preiskavami in hitrimi finančnimi izterjavami.
111 Nevertheless, using administrative procedures to recover unduly paid EU money is still more efficient and less costly than recovering these funds through criminal proceedings by means of asset freezing and confiscation. 
111 Kljub temu je izterjava neupravičeno izplačanih sredstev EU z upravnimi postopki še vedno učinkovitejša in cenejša kot izterjava z zamrznitvijo in zaplembo sredstev v kazenskih postopkih.
A recent Europol survey on criminal asset recovery within the European Union has revealed that the amount of money currently being recovered in the EU is only a small proportion of estimated criminal proceeds49. Shared management 112 In shared management, DGs do not recover money directly from beneficiaries but instead apply different financial procedures to protect the EU budget. 
Nedavna Europolova raziskava o izterjavi sredstev, pridobljenih s kaznivimi dejanji, v Evropski uniji je pokazala, da se v EU trenutno izterja le majhen delež ocenjenih prihodkov iz kaznivih dejanj.49 Deljeno upravljanje 112 Pri deljenem upravljanju generalni direktorati sredstev ne izterjajo neposredno od upravičencev, ampak uporabijo različne finančne postopke za zaščito proračuna EU.
In most cases, DGs REGIO and EMPL apply financial corrections whenever OLAF issues a financial recommendation. 
V večini primerov GD REGIO in GD EMPL sprejmeta finančne popravke vsakič, ko OLAF izda finančno priporočilo.
It is left up to the Member State concerned to decide what corrective action to take against beneficiaries once the DG has applied a financial correction. 
Zadevna država članica se sama odloči, kakšen popravljalni ukrep bo sprejela proti upravičencem, potem ko generalni direktorat izvede finančni popravek.
Under the principle of shared management, DGs REGIO and EMPL have no obligation to check the amounts recovered from beneficiaries. 
V skladu z načelom deljenega upravljanja GD REGIO in GD EMPL nista obvezana preveriti zneskov, izterjanih od upravičencev.
113 DG AGRI rules do not clearly stipulate the main steps for following up OLAF’s financial recommendations. 
113 Pravila GD AGRI ne določajo jasno glavnih korakov za nadaljnje spremljanje v zvezi s finančnimi priporočili urada OLAF.
For example, there are no deadlines for Member States to contest the recovery amount recommended in the OLAF report. 
Na primer, za države članice ni določen rok za izpodbijanje izterjave zneska, priporočenega v poročilu urada OLAF.
DG AGRI sees its role as that of overseeing the recovery exercise, which is entirely the responsibility of the Member State concerned. 
GD AGRI meni, da je za izterjavo v celoti odgovorna zadevna država članica, sam pa jo pri tem nadzoruje.
49 Does crime still pay? 
V teh primerih je trem 49 Does crime still pay?
Criminal asset recovery within the EU; Survey of statistical information 2010-2014; Europol, 2016. 
Criminal asset recovery in the EU; Survey of statistical information 2010-2014; Europol, 2016.
From these cases, the three DGs managed to recover 15 % of the combined total amount recommended by OLAF (DG REGIO – 10 %; DG EMPL – 19 %; DG AGRI – 33 %). We note that in October 2016 OLAF issued new instructions on drafting and calculating financial recommendations. 
43 generalnim direktoratom uspelo izterjati 15 % skupnega zneska, ki ga je priporočil urad OLAF (GD REGIO – 10 %; GD EMPL – 19 %; GD AGRI – 33 %) Urad OLAF je oktobra 2016 izdal nova navodila za pripravo in izračun finančnih priporočil.
As the new instructions are relatively recent, their full impact has yet to been seen in the system. 
Ker je od izida novih navodil minilo razmeroma malo časa, se bo njihov učinek v sistemu v celoti pokazal šele kasneje.
Figure 13– Recoveries by DGs REGIO, EMPL and AGRI resulting from 2012-2016 OLAF recommendations 2 000 000 000 1 800 000 000 1 600 000 000 1 400 000 000 1 200 000 000 1 000 000 000 800 000 000 600 000 000 400 000 000 200 000 000 0 13 % 10 % 32 % 24 % REGIO OLAF financial recommendation amount (million euro) EMPL AGRI Recovered amount (million euro) Total Source: ECA based on Commission figures. 
Slika 13 – Sredstva, ki so jih GD REGIO, GD EMPL in GD AGRI izterjali na podlagi priporočil urada OLAF v letih 2012–2016 2 000 000 000 1 800 000 000 1 600 000 000 1 400 000 000 1 200 000 000 1 000 000 000 800 000 000 600 000 000 400 000 000 200 000 000 0 Znesek finančnega priporočila urada OLAF (v milijonih EUR) 10 % 32 % 24 % R EG IO EMPL AG RI Izterjani znesek (v milijonih EUR) S kup aj Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče na podlagi podatkov Komisije 115 GD REGIO in GD EMPL kot enega glavnih razlogov, zakaj priporočeni zneski niso bili izterjani, navajata dejstvo, da za priporočeni znesek v končnem poročilu urada OLAF ni izrecne utemeljitve.
For example, in one case, the DG asked an external company to perform a further legal analysis of OLAF’s finding. 
Na primer, v nekem primeru je generalni direktorat prosil zunanje podjetje, naj opravi dodatno pravno analizo ugotovitve urada OLAF.
In another related case, the DG, after consulting DG MARKT and the Commission’s Legal Service, decided not to recover the amount recommended by OLAF due to the high litigation risk. 
V drugem, povezanem primeru se je generalni direktorat po posvetovanju z GD MARKT in pravno službo Komisije odločil, da zneska, ki ga je priporočil OLAF, ne bo izterjal, ker bi s tem tvegal sodni postopek.
Direct management (DGs CNECT and RTD) 116 Figure 14 shows the total value of OLAF financial recommendation sent to DGs CNECT and RTD between the years 2012-2016, together with the amount recovered up until the time of our audit. The two DGs received 36 OLAF financial recommendations between 2012 and 2016. Nine cases (25 % of cases) have been fully recovered. 
Neposredno upravljanje (GD CNECT in GD RTD) 116 Na sliki 14 sta prikazana skupna vrednost finančnih priporočil, ki jih je OLAF poslal GD CNECT in GD RTD med letoma 2012 in 2016, ter znesek, ki je bil izterjan do revizije Sodišča. Ta generalna direktorata sta v obdobju 2012–2016 od urada prejela 36 finančnih priporočil, sredstva pa so bila v celoti izterjana v devetih primerih (25 %).
In one exceptional case, DG RTD recovered eight times the amount recommended by OLAF because the total amount recovered from the beneficiary also included extrapolated amounts based on the DGs’ own audits. 
V enem izjemnem primeru je GD RTD od upravičenca izterjal osemkrat višji znesek od tistega, ki ga je priporočil OLAF, ker je vseboval tudi ekstrapolirane zneske na podlagi lastnih revizij generalnega direktorata.
In this case, we consider the amount recommended by OLAF to have been fully recovered. 
V tem primeru Sodišče meni, da je bil znesek, ki ga je priporočil urad OLAF, v celoti izterjan.
The recovery rate increases slightly if we only consider those OLAF financial recommendations the two DGs received between 2012 and 2014. 
Stopnja izterjav se poveča le malo, če se upoštevajo samo tista finančna priporočila urada OLAF, ki sta jih generalna direktorata prejela med letoma 2012 in 2014.
From these cases, the two DGs overall managed to recover 34 % of the total amount recommended by OLAF Figure 14 – Recoveries by DGs CNECT and RTD resulting from 2012-2016 OLAF recommendations Source: ECA based on Commission figures. 
Iz teh primerov sta generalna direktorata v splošnem uspela izterjati 34 % skupnega zneska, ki ga je priporočil urad OLAF.
30 000 000 25 000 000 20 000 000 15 000 000 10 000 000 5 000 000 0 27 % 12 % 49 % CNECT RTD OLAF financial recommendation amount Total Recovered amount 47 117 We checked 20 OLAF financial recommendations (10 for DG CNECT and 10 for DG RTD) out of 37 cases covering 86 % of the combined total amount recommended by OLAF to these two DGs. 
Slika 14 – Sredstva, ki sta jih GD CNECT in GD RTD izterjala na podlagi priporočil urada OLAF v letih 2012–2016 Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče na podlagi podatkov Komisije 117 Sodišče je pregledalo 20 finančnih priporočil urada OLAF (10 za GD CNECT in 10 za GD RTD) od 37 primerov, kar je predstavljalo 86 % skupnega zneska, ki ga je urad OLAF priporočil tema dvema generalnima direktoratoma.
Based on this, we found that the main reasons for delays in recovering funds and for non-recovery after OLAF investigation are: o ongoing criminal investigations or proceedings; o insufficient evidence having been provided in OLAF reports; and o companies having already been liquidated by the time OLAF closes the case. 
Sodišče je na podlagi tega ugotovilo, da so glavni razlogi za zamude pri izterjavi in za neizterjavo po preiskavi urada naslednji: o kazenske preiskave ali postopki, ki še potekajo; o nezadostni dokazi v poročilih urada OLAF; in o do takrat, ko OLAF primer zaključi, so podjetja že likvidirana.
118 The time taken for a spending DG to report a case to OLAF and the speed of OLAF's investigation may be important factors in determining the success of a recovery procedure, as time is very important in cases where DGs recover funds directly from beneficiaries. 
45 118 Čas, ki ga GD porabi za prijavo primera uradu OLAF, in hitrosti preiskav urada, sta lahko pomembna dejavnika za določanje uspeha postopka izterjave, saj je čas zelo pomemben v primerih, ko generalni direktorat izterja sredstva neposredno od upravičencev.
For cases where the recovery is still ongoing, the average time taken since the start of OLAF’s investigation is five years. 
V primerih, v katerih izterjava še poteka, je od začetka preiskave urada OLAF v povprečju minilo pet let.
Where fraudsters liquidate or dissolve companies, often immediately following the announcement of an audit or OLAF investigation, the chances of a recovery are rather limited. 
Kadar goljufi podjetje likvidirajo ali razpustijo, kar se pogosto zgodi takoj po napovedi revizije ali preiskave Urada, so možnosti izterjave precej majhne.
119 DGs can react more quickly and avoid the cost of recovering funding from a beneficiary if they can prove through their own audits that contractual obligations have been breached. 
119 Generalni direktorati se lahko odzovejo hitreje in se izognejo stroškom izterjave sredstev od upravičenca, če lahko z lastnimi revizijami dokažejo kršitev pogodbenih obveznosti.
In these cases, the responsible DG bases its preparatory work for the recovery order on its own audit results rather than on the OLAF report. 
V teh primerih odgovorni generalni direktorat nalog za izterjavo pripravi na podlagi rezultatov lastne revizije, ne pa poročila urada OLAF.