natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
We examined whether the Commission effectively facilitated such coordination through the UCPM during three recent international disasters: the floods in Bosnia and Herzegovina (2014); the Ebola virus outbreak in west Africa (2014-2016); and the Nepal earthquake (2015). 
Sodišče je preučilo, ali je Komisija z mehanizmom UCPM uspešno olajševala usklajevanje med tremi nedavnimi mednarodnimi nesrečami: poplavami v Bosni in Hercegovini (2014), izbruhom ebole v Zahodni Afriki (2014–2015) in potresom v Nepalu (2015).
We conclude that, since the beginning of 2014, the Commission has been broadly effective in its coordinating role. 
Prišlo je do zaključka, da je bila Komisija v svoji usklajevalni vlogi od začetka leta 2014 na splošno uspešna.
We make a number of recommendations to help further improve the functioning of the UCPM during the response phase. 
Navedlo je več priporočil za dodatno izboljšanje delovanja mehanizma UCPM med odzivi.
EN 2016 Special Report NO 36 An assessment of the arrangements for closure of the 2007-2013 cohesion and rural development programmes EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS 
36 Posebno poročilo SL 2016 Ocena ureditev za zaključevanje programov na področjih kohezije in razvoja podeželja iz obdobja 2007–2013 EVROPSKO RAČUNSKO SODIŠČE
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 Print ISBN 978-92-872-6759-7 PDF ISBN 978-92-872-6693-4 EPUB ISBN 978-92-872-6749-8 ISSN 1831-0834 ISSN 1977-5679 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/690822 doi:10.2865/727784 doi:10.2865/25837 QJ-AB-16-035-EN-C QJ-AB-16-035-EN-N QJ-AB-16-035-EN-E © European Union, 2017 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 
Luxembourg: Urad za publikacije Evropske unije, 2017 Print ISBN 978-92-872-6729-0 PDF ISBN 978-92-872-6733-7 EPUB ISBN 978-92-872-6695-8 ISSN 1831-094X ISSN 1977-5784 ISSN 1977-5784 doi:10.2865/091105 doi:10.2865/411553 doi:10.2865/125164 QJ-AB-16-035-SL-C QJ-AB-16-035-SL-N QJ-AB-16-035-SL-E © Evropska unija, 2017 Reprodukcija je dovoljena z navedbo vira.
EN 2016 Special Report NO 36 An assessment of the arrangements for closure of the 2007-2013 cohesion and rural development programmes (pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU) 
36 Posebno poročilo SL 2016 Ocena ureditev za zaključevanje programov na področjih kohezije in razvoja podeželja iz obdobja 2007–2013 (v skladu z drugim pododstavkom člena 287(4) PDEU)
This performance audit was produced by Audit Chamber II ― headed by ECA Member Iliana Ivanova — which specialises in investment for cohesion, growth and inclusion spending areas. 
To revizijo smotrnosti poslovanja je opravil senat II, ki ga vodi članica Evropskega računskega sodišča Iliana Ivanova in ki je specializiran za naložbe v kohezijo, rast in vključevanje.
The audit was carried out in cooperation with Audit Chamber I which specialises in sustainable use of natural resources. 
Revizija je bila opravljena v sodelovanju z revizijskim senatom I, ki je specializiran za trajnostno rabo naravnih virov.
The audit was led by the Reporting Member Ladislav Balko, supported by Branislav Urbanič, Head of Private Office; Niels-Erik Brokopp, Principal Manager; Mariya Zhekova, Head of Task; Charlotta Törneling, Deputy Head of Task; Milan Smid, Judit Oroszki and Maria Ploumaki, Auditors. 
Revizijo je vodil član poročevalec Ladislav Balko, pri njej pa so sodelovali vodja njegovega kabineta Branislav Urbanič, vodilni upravni uslužbenec Niels-Erik Brokopp, vodja naloge Mariya Zhekova, namestnica vodje naloge Charlotta Törneling ter revizorji Milan Smid, Judit Oroszki in Maria Ploumaki.
From left to right: C. Törneling, B. Urbanič, J. Oroszki, M. Smid, L. Balko, N.-E. Brokopp, M. Zhekova. 
Od leve proti desni: C. Törneling, B. Urbanič, J. Oroszki, M. Smid, L. Balko, N.-E. Brokopp, M. Zhekova.
Contents 03 Paragraph Glossary I-XV Executive summary 1-14 Introduction 1-10 Closure of multiannual programmes in the cohesion and rural development policy areas 11-14 Responsibilities in the closure process: Member States and Commission 15-18 Audit scope and approach 19-115 Observations 19-68 The rules for closure have improved but further steps are needed to make it more efficient and timely 21-29 Considerable changes in the closure arrangements since the 2000-2006 period in cohesion and rural development 30-45 Legality and regularity is taken into account for the closure of 2007-2013 programmes in cohesion, but is treated separately from closure for rural development 46-52 The achievement of outputs and results is not sufficiently taken into account at closure 53-56 A consolidated closure report on the legality and regularity of spending as well as the outputs and results achieved is not provided to the European Parliament and the Council 57-68 Closure is initiated only several years after the end of the programme period due to overlapping of eligibility periods 
Kazalo 03 Odstavek Glosar Povzetek Uvod Zaključek večletnih programov na področjih kohezije in razvoja podeželja Odgovornosti v procesu zaključevanja: države članice in Komisija Obseg revizije in revizijski pristop Opažanja Pravila za zaključevanje so se izboljšala, vendar so potrebni dodatni ukrepi, da bi zaključevanje postalo učinkovitejše in pravočasnejše Ureditve za zaključevanje na področjih kohezije in razvoja podeželja so se v obdobju 2000–2006 močno spremenile Zakonitost in pravilnost sta bili na področju kohezije upoštevani pri zaključevanju programov iz obdobja 2007–2013, na področju razvoja podeželja pa sta bili obravnavani ločeno od zaključevanja Pri zaključevanju se ne upošteva dovolj doseganje izložkov in rezultatov Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu se ne zagotovi konsolidirano zaključno poročilo o zakonitosti in pravilnosti porabe ter o doseženih izložkih in rezultatih Zaradi prekrivanja obdobij upravičenosti se zaključevanje začne šele nekaj let po koncu programskega obdobja I–XV 1–14 1–10 11–14 15–18 19–115 19–68 21–29 30–45 46–52 53–56 57–68
European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF): The ESIFs are five separate funds that aim to reduce regional imbalances across the Union, with policy frameworks set for the 7-year MFF budgetary period. 
Evropski strukturni in investicijski skladi (skladi ESI): Sklade ESI sestavlja pet ločenih skladov, katerih cilj je zmanjšati regionalna neravnovesja v Uniji. Njihovi okviri politik so določeni za sedemletno proračunsko obdobje večletnega finančnega okvira.
The funds are the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) the European Social Fund (ESF) the Cohesion Fund (CF) the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). 
Ti skladi so Evropski sklad za regionalni razvoj (ESRR), Evropski socialni sklad (ESS), Kohezijski sklad, Evropski kmetijski sklad za razvoj podeželja (EKSRP) in Evropski sklad za pomorstvo in ribištvo (ESPR).
Financial clearance: Annual Commission decision covering the completeness, accuracy and veracity of the annual accounts submitted by the accredited paying agencies. 
Finančna potrditev: Letna odločitev Komisije, ki zajema popolnost, točnost in resničnost letnih obračunov, ki jih predložijo akreditirane plačilne agencije.
For the purpose of this decision, the Commission requires the accounts to be certified by independent certification bodies. 
Za namene te odločitve Komisija zahteva, da obračune potrdijo neodvisni certifikacijski organi.
Financial corrections: The purpose of financial corrections is to protect the EU budget from the burden of erroneous or irregular expenditure. 
Finančni popravki: Finančni popravki so namenjeni zaščiti proračuna EU pred bremenitvijo z napačnimi ali nepravilnimi odhodki.
For expenditure under shared management, the task of recovering payments incorrectly made is primarily the responsibility of the Member State. 
Pri odhodkih, za katere se uporablja deljeno upravljanje, je za nalogo izterjave nepravilno izplačanih plačil v prvi vrsti odgovorna država članica.
Financial corrections can be made by withdrawing irregular expenditure from the Member State’s expenditure declarations or through recoveries from beneficiaries. 
Finančni popravki se lahko izvajajo z umikom nepravilnih odhodkov iz izjav države članice o odhodkih ali z njihovo izterjavo od upravičencev.
Financial corrections may also be imposed by the Commission. 
Finančne popravke lahko naloži tudi Komisija.
Net financial corrections: Financial corrections imposed by the Commission where the Member States are required to reimburse irregular funds to the EU budget, thus leading to a definitive reduction of funds to the Member State concerned. 
Glosar 06 Neto finančni popravki: Finančni popravki, ki jih naloži Komisija in v skladu s katerimi morajo države članice v proračun EU povrniti nepravilno izplačana sredstva, kar privede do dokončnega zmanjšanja sredstev, ki jih prejme zadevna država članica.
Operation: A project, group of projects or other action selected according to the criteria laid down for the operational programme or rural development programme and implemented by one or more beneficiaries with a view to achieving the goals and objectives of the programme. 
Operacija: Projekt, skupina projektov ali drug ukrep, izbran v skladu z merili za posamezen operativni program ali program razvoja podeželja, ki ga za doseganje ciljev programa izvaja eden ali več upravičencev.
Operational programme (OP): An OP sets out a Member State’s priorities and specific objectives and describes how funding (EU and national public and private co-financing) will be used during a given period (currently 7 years) to finance projects. 
Operativni program (OP): Operativni program določa prednostne naloge države članice in posebne cilje ter opisuje način porabe sredstev (EU ter nacionalnega javnega in zasebnega sofinanciranja) v danem obdobju (sedaj sedem let) za financiranje projektov.
The projects within an OP must contribute to a certain number of objectives. 
Projekti v okviru operativnega programa morajo prispevati k določenemu številu ciljev.
OP funding may come from the ERDF, CF and/or ESF. 
Operativni program se lahko financira iz ESRR, Kohezijskega sklada in/ali ESS.
The OP is prepared by the Member State and has to be approved by the Commission before any payments can be made from the EU budget. 
Pripravi ga država članica, preden so mogoča plačila iz proračuna EU, pa ga mora odobriti Komisija.
Glossary 07 Rural development policy: The second pillar of the common agricultural policy, co-financed by the EAFRD. 
Politika razvoja podeželja: Drugi steber skupne kmetijske politike, sofinanciran iz EKSRP.
The policy aim is to improve the countryside and the situation for people living there by enhancing competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector, improving the environment and quality of life in rural areas and encouraging diversification of the rural economy. 
Cilj politike je izboljšati podeželje in položaj tamkajšnjih prebivalcev z okrepitvijo konkurenčnosti kmetijskega in gozdarskega sektorja, izboljšati okolje in kakovost življenja na podeželskih območjih ter spodbujati diverzifikacijo podeželskega gospodarstva.
This policy comprises area-related and non-area-related measures. 
Ta politika zajema ukrepe, vezane na površino, in ukrepe, ki niso vezani na površino.
The latter are typically investment measures, such as the modernisation of agricultural holdings and the setting up of public infrastructures in rural areas. 
Ukrepi, ki niso vezani na površino, so običajno naložbeni ukrepi, kot sta posodobitev kmetijskih gospodarstev in vzpostavitev javnih infrastruktur na podeželskih območjih.
Rural development programme (RDP): A programming document prepared by a Member State and approved by the Commission for use in planning and monitoring the implementation of the EU’s rural development policy at regional or national level. 
Takšne odločitve se običajno nanašajo na odhodke, ki so nastali v več kot enem proračunskem letu. Program razvoja podeželja (PRP): Programski dokument, ki ga pripravi država članica in odobri Komisija.
The RDP sets out the Member State’s priorities and specific objectives and describes how funding (EU and national public co-financing) will be used during a given period (currently 7 years). 
V njem so določene prednostne naloge države članice in posebni cilji ter način porabe sredstev (EU in nacionalnega javnega sofinanciranja) v danem obdobju (sedaj sedem let).
RDPs are co-financed by the EAFRD. 
Programi razvoja podeželja se sofinancirajo iz EKSRP.
Executive summary 08 ICohesion and rural development policy expenditure makes up a large part (approximately 44 %) of the overall European Union (EU) budget. 
Povzetek 08 IOdhodki za kohezijsko politiko in politiko razvoja podeželja predstavljajo velik del (približno 44 %) skupnega proračuna Evropske unije (EU).
The two policies have complementary objectives and are delivered through instruments with similar management and control systems. 
Cilji teh politik se dopolnjujejo, politiki pa se izvajata z instrumenti s podobnimi upravljavskimi in kontrolnimi sistemi.
II EU spending is generally planned and implemented within a multiannual ‘financial framework’ (MFF) covering programming for a fixed period of several years. 
II Poraba EU se običajno načrtuje in izvaja z večletnim finančnim okvirom, ki zajema programsko načrtovanje za fiksno obdobje nekaj let.
This period coincides with the programme periods for the cohesion and rural development areas. 
To obdobje sovpada s programskimi obdobji za področji kohezije in razvoja podeželja.
The three recent programme periods cover 2000-2006, 2007-2013 and 2014-2020. 
Tri nedavna obdobja zajemajo leta 2000–2006, 2007–2013 in 2014–2020.
Our audits during the 2007-2013 period showed that both cohesion and rural development are prone to material levels of irregular spending. 
Naše revizije v obdobju 2007–2013 so pokazale, da je na področjih kohezije in razvoja podeželja velika možnost pomembnih stopenj nepravilne porabe.
III After the end of a programme period, cohesion and rural development programmes have to be closed and financially settled. 
III Po koncu programskega obdobja je treba kohezijske programe in programe razvoja podeželja zaključiti in opraviti finančno poravnavo.
This entails identifying the EU share in co-financing of any irregular expenditure and returning it to the EU budget. 
To vključuje ugotovitev deleža EU pri sofinanciranju vseh nepravilnih odhodkov in vrnitev tega deleža v proračun EU.
Both the Commission and the Member States have specific tasks and responsibilities in the closure process. 
Komisija in države članice imajo v procesu zaključevanja posebne naloge in odgovornosti.
These are prescribed in the regulations and further clarified in guidelines issued by the Commission. 
Te so določene v uredbah in dodatno razjasnjene v smernicah, ki jih izdaja Komisija.
IV In this audit we examined whether the rules and procedures for the closure provide a basis for the Commission and Member States to close cohesion and rural development programmes in an efficient and timely manner. 
IV Pri tej reviziji smo preučili, ali pravila in postopki za zaključevanje Komisiji in državam članicam zagotavljajo podlago za to, da lahko programe na področjih kohezije in razvoja podeželja zaključijo učinkovito in pravočasno.
We compared the closure arrangements of three programme periods for the two policy areas and assessed in particular how the Commission obtains assurance that the final declaration contains expenditure that is legal and regular and used in accordance with the programme objectives. 
Primerjali smo ureditve za zaključevanje za tri programska obdobja za obe področji. Predvsem smo ocenili, kako Komisija pridobi zagotovilo, da so odhodki v končni izjavi zakoniti in pravilni ter da so porabljeni v skladu s cilji programa.
We also analysed the timeliness of the closure process and whether the budgetary authority is informed about the outcome of programme closure. 
Analizirali smo tudi pravočasnost procesa zaključevanja in to, ali je proračunski organ obveščen o izidu zaključka programa.
VThe closure arrangements in cohesion and rural development have evolved over those three programme periods. 
VUreditve za zaključevanje na področjih kohezije in razvoja podeželja so se razvile v teh treh programskih obdobjih.
For the 2000-2006 period, the arrangements were the same for both areas. 
Ureditve za obdobje 2000–2006 so bile enake za obe področji.
In the 2007-2013 period, Member States were required to provide annual assurance to the Commission that expenditure on EU-funded operations was legal and regular, but this was implemented differently between the two areas. 
V okviru ureditev za obdobje 2007–2013 so morale države članice dati Komisiji letno zagotovilo, da so bili odhodki za operacije, ki jih je financirala EU, zakoniti in pravilni, vendar se je njihovo izvajanje med področjema razlikovalo.
To allow this, the Commission calculates a residual risk rate for each programme, taking into account the financial corrections for the period as a whole. 
Da bi ga omogočila, Komisija izračuna stopnjo preostalega tveganja za vsak program in pri tem upošteva finančne popravke za obdobje kot celoto.
In rural development, however, programme expenditure was cleared annually and the Commission continues its verifications of legality and regularity even after the formal closure of the programme. 
Na področju razvoja podeželja pa so se programski odhodki obračunavali letno, zato Komisija nadaljuje svoja preverjanja zakonitosti in pravilnosti tudi po formalnem zaključku programa.
Thus, closure is purely a financial transaction, with no acceptance of the expenditure as legal and regular and no calculation of a residual risk rate for each rural development programme. 
Tako je zaključek izključno finančna transakcija, brez sprejetja zakonitosti in pravilnosti odhodkov ter brez izračuna stopnje preostalega tveganja za vsak program razvoja podeželja.
VII For the 2014-2020 period, the assurance framework has been further improved and aligned between the two spending areas. 
VII Okvir dajanja zagotovil je bil za obdobje 2014–2020 dodatno izboljšan in usklajen med obema področjema porabe.
Annual acceptance of the accounts is now a feature of both policy areas. 
Letno sprejetje obračunov se zdaj uporablja za obe področji.
However, certain differences remain in terminology, timing, and deadlines. 
Vendar nekatere razlike v terminologiji, časovnem razporedu in rokih še ostajajo.
Executive summary 09 VIII For the 2007-2013 period, we found that there is a limited focus on the achievement of outputs and results. 
Povzetek 09 VIII Za obdobje 2007–2013 smo ugotovili, da ni veliko osredotočenosti na doseganje izložkov in rezultatov.
While Member States’ reporting of their programme results is mandatory and duly evaluated by the Commission, payment of the final balance at closure is not directly linked to the actual achievement of outputs and results in either of the two areas. 
Čeprav morajo države članice obvezno sporočati rezultate svojih programov in ta poročila ustrezno ovrednoti Komisija, pa izplačilo končnega plačila ob zaključku ni neposredno povezano z dejanskim doseganjem izložkov in rezultatov na nobenem od obeh področij.
IX As to the time of closure, it coincides neither with the end of the programme period nor with that of the period of eligibility. 
IX Čas zaključevanja ne sovpada ne s koncem programskega obdobja ne s koncem obdobja upravičenosti.
Formal closure is generally initiated after the end of the eligibility period, when the next programme period is already running at full speed; depending on the circumstances, it can take several more years to be completed. 
Formalno zaključevanje se običajno začne po koncu obdobja upravičenosti, ko je naslednje programsko obdobje že v polnem razmahu. Včasih se konča, odvisno od okoliščin, šele po več letih.
The significant overlap between tasks for the different periods and the administrative difficulties faced when following up activities, some of which took place more than a decade earlier, pose a risk to the effectiveness of programme closure. 
Veliko prekrivanje med nalogami za različna obdobja in upravne težave pri spremljanju dejavnosti, ki včasih potekajo več kot desetletje prej, predstavljajo tveganje za uspešnost zaključka programa.
In addition, the possibility to spend the programme budget up to two (n+2) and for the 2014-2020 period even up to three (n+3) years after the end of the programme period creates a disincentive to start the programmes of the subsequent period. 
Poleg tega možnost, da se proračun programa porablja do dve leti (n + 2) in za obdobje 2014–2020 celo do tri leta (n + 3) po koncu programskega obdobja, odvrača od začenjanja programov iz naslednjega obdobja.
XAnother concern relates to the Commission’s reporting on the outcome of programme closure in both areas. 
XDrug pomislek se nanaša na poročanje Komisije o izidu zaključka programov na obeh področjih.
In particular, the Commission does not inform the budgetary authority about the final outcome of the closure process (the regularity of expenditure and the outputs and results achieved). 
Natančneje, Komisija ne obvesti proračunskega organa o končnem izidu procesa zaključevanja (o pravilnosti odhodkov ter o doseženih izložkih in rezultatih).
Given that the EU’s budget system is built around multiannual programming, we consider that the Commission should provide the European Parliament and the Council with a consolidated closure report containing key information on the most relevant performance and compliance aspects of programme implementation. 
Glede na to, da proračunski sistem EU sloni na večletnem programskem načrtovanju, menimo, da bi morala Komisija Evropskemu parlamentu in Svetu zagotoviti konsolidirano zaključno poročilo s ključnimi informacijami o najpomembnejših vidikih uspešnosti in skladnosti pri izvajanju programa.
XI In order to ensure that the closure arrangements for the cohesion and rural development policy areas improve accountability and transparency in the use of EU funds, we recommend that the Commission: − proposes to further align the regulatory provisions for closure between cohesion and rural development, aiming at a harmonised annual assurance process in both areas; − introduces a final acceptance by the Commission concerning the legality and regularity of expenditure and the outputs and results achieved once the programmes have been closed. 
XI Za zagotovitev, da ureditve za zaključevanje za področji kohezije in razvoja podeželja izboljšujejo odgovornost in preglednost pri uporabi sredstev EU, priporočamo, naj Komisija: – predlaga dodatno uskladitev uredbenih določb o zaključevanju med področjema kohezije in razvoja podeželja, da bi se proces letnega zagotovila na obeh področjih harmoniziral, – uvede končno sprejetje, ki bi se nanašalo na zakonitost in pravilnost odhodkov ter izložke in rezultate, dosežene ob zaključku programov, in bi ga izvajala sama.
This would include laying down procedures for calculating a residual risk rate at programme level and ensuring that the rate does not exceed the materiality threshold at closure, as well as assessing whether targets have been achieved and, if necessary, imposing financial corrections for underperformance; − specifies how it will inform the budgetary authority about the outcome of the closure process; and − eliminates the overlap of eligibility periods, aligning as far as possible the eligibility with the programme period, and requires programmes to be closed promptly after the end of the eligibility period (a maximum of 6 months for Member States to submit closure documents and a further 6 months for the Commission decision). 
To bi zajemalo določitev postopkov za izračun stopnje preostalega tveganja na ravni programa in zagotavljanje, da ta stopnja ob zaključku ne presega praga pomembnosti, ter ocenjevanje, ali so bili cilji doseženi, in po potrebi nalaganje finančnih popravkov za nezadostno uspešnost, – določi, kako bo proračunski organ obveščala o izidu procesa zaključevanja, ter – prepreči prekrivanje obdobij upravičenosti, da bi čim bolj uskladila obdobje upravičenosti s programskim obdobjem, in zahteva, da se programi zaključijo takoj po koncu obdobja upravičenosti (največ šest mesecev, da države članice predložijo dokumente o zaključku, in nadaljnjih šest mesecev za odločitev Komisije).