natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
71 We assessed whether: (a) the Commission was able to reach timely conclusions on the compliance of national legislation with EU requirements; (b) the Commission’s assessment provided meaningful insights into the implementation and application of NBFs. 
71 Sodišče je ocenilo, ali: (a) je lahko Komisija pravočasno prišla do zaključkov o skladnosti nacionalne zakonodaje z zahtevami EU; (b) je Komisija z oceno prispevala smiselne vpoglede v izvajanje in uporabo nacionalnih proračunskih okvirov.
Delays in concluding on the compliance of national legislation with EU requirements due to factors not all under the Commission’s control 72 The deadline for transposing Directive 2011/85 was 31 December 2013. 
Zaradi dejavnikov, ki niso vsi pod nadzorom Komisije, je prihajalo do zamud pri doseganju zaključkov o skladnosti nacionalne zakonodaje z zahtevami EU 72 Rok za prenos Direktive 2011/85 je bil 31. december 2013.
Member States had to notify their national implementing measures to the Commission. 
Države članice so morale nacionalne izvedbene ukrepe priglasiti Komisiji.
Member States issued 323 national implementing measures, but only 67 of them (20 %) were notified in time (see Figure 4). 
Države članice so izdale 323 nacionalnih izvedbenih ukrepov, vendar so jih pravočasno priglasile le 67 (20 %) (glej sliko 4).
In fact, Member States had to simultaneously incorporate into national law not only the requirements of Directive 2011/85, but also those stemming from Regulation 473/2013 and the Fiscal Compact. 
Države članice so morale v nacionalno pravo hkrati vključiti zahteve Direktive 2011/85 ter Uredbe št. 473/2013 in fiskalnega dogovora.
30 51 European Commission (2012), ‘Report on public finances in EMU 2011’, p. 
30 51 Evropska komisija (2012), Report on Public Finances in EMU 2011, str.
Figure 4 – Notification of national implementing measures per year Source: ECA. 73 Since not all Member States had transposed Directive 2011/85 by the deadline, shortly thereafter, the Commission opened 17 infringement procedures for ’failure-to-notify’ national implementing measures. 
Slika 4 – Priglasitve nacionalnih izvedbenih ukrepov na leto Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče 73 Nekatere države članice Direktive 2011/85 niso prenesle do izteka roka, zato je Komisija kmalu zatem uvedla 17 postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev zaradi nepriglasitve nacionalnih izvedbenih ukrepov.
As Table 2 shows, the majority of these cases (14) were closed within 1 year, which is the Commission’s benchmark52. 
V tabeli 2 je navedeno, da je bila večina teh primerov (14) zaključenih v enem letu, kar je referenčno merilo Komisije52.
31 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 50 39 652 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 154 67 0 2013 2014 52 ECA (2018), Landscape review: ‘Putting EU law into practice: The European Commission’s oversight responsibilities under Article 17.1 of the Treaty on European Union’, Box 4. 
31 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 50 39 652 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 154 67 0 2013 2014 52 Evropsko računsko sodišče (2018), Panoramski pregled – Pravo EU v praksi: nadzorne pristojnosti Evropske komisije v skladu s členom 17(1) Pogodbe o Evropski uniji, okvir 4.
Table 2 – State of play of the infringement procedures on non-communication (June 2019) 32 Opening of infringement procedure for “failure to notify” 27 January 2014 BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, EE, EL, HR, IT, CY, LT, LU, MT, AT, SI, FI, UK Closed in July 2014 BE, DK, DE, EE, HR, IT, CY, LT, AT, FI, UK WITHIN BENCHMARK Closed in November 2014 EL, LU, MT Closed in July 2015 BG TWO MONTHS BEYOND BENCHMARK Referral to the Court of Justice of the EU in July 2017 SI LONG DELAYS Ongoing CZ Source: ECA. 
Tabela 2 – Stanje postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev zaradi nepriglasitve (junij 2019) 32 Uvedba postopka za ugotavljanje kršitev zaradi nepriglasitve 27. januarja 2014 BE, BG, CZ, DK, DE, EE, EL, HR, IT, CY, LT, LU, MT, AT, SI, FI, UK Zaključen julija 2014 BE, DK, DE, EE, HR, IT, CY, LT, AT, FI, UK ZNOTRAJ REFERENČNEGA MERILA Zaključen novembra 2014 EL, LU, MT Zaključen julija 2015 BG DVA MESECA ZA REFERENČNIM MERILOM Predložitev zadeve Sodišču Evropske unije julija 2017 SI VELIKE ZAMUDE V teku CZ Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče 74 Komisija ocen skladnosti, ki obsegajo preverjanje prenosa in preverjanje skladnosti, ni zaključila v svojem referenčnem obdobju53, zato so bili cilji smotrnosti iz letnih načrtov upravljanja za obdobje 2014–2017, ki jih je pripravil Generalni direktorat za ekonomske in finančne zadeve, doseženi le deloma.
75 As a result of its transposition and conformity checks, in August 2016, the Commission started EU ‘pilot procedures’ for 11 Member States, in April 2017 for another 7, and again in July 2019 for another 7 Member States. 
75 Na podlagi rezultatov preverjanj prenosa in skladnosti je Komisija avgusta 2016 začela pilotne postopke EU za 11 držav članic, aprila 2017 za sedem držav članic, julija 2019 pa še za sedem drugih držav članic.
This was a first step to try to resolve transposition problems and thus avoid formal infringement proceedings, if possible. 
To je bil prvi korak, s katerim je Komisija poskusila probleme pri prenosu rešiti brez formalnih postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev, če se jim je bilo mogoče izogniti.
For the three remaining Member States, as of September 2019, the Commission had not yet decided whether to start ‘pilot procedures’. 
Za tri preostale države članice se Komisija do septembra 2019 še ni odločila, ali bo začela pilotne postopke.
76 The sequencing of the EU ‘pilot procedures’ (see Table 3) was not dictated by an implementation plan but rather by operational reasons, i.e. by the availability of Member States to carry out the EU ‘pilot dialogues’ with the Commission in English for the first wave and by the Commission’s level of internal preparedness for the second and third waves. 
76 Zaporedje pilotnih postopkov EU (glej tabelo 3) ni bilo izbrano na podlagi izvedbenega načrta, ampak iz operativnih razlogov, in sicer glede na razpoložljivost držav članic za izvedbo pilotnih dialogov EU s Komisijo v angleščini v prvem krogu oziroma glede na stopnjo notranje pripravljenosti Komisije v drugem in tretjem krogu.
As a result, some euro-area Member States with high general 53 Transposition checks should be finalised within 6 months of the transposition deadline or from the national implementing measure notification date and conformity checks within 16 to 24 months of the date of the communication of the national transposition measures. 
Posledično nekatere države članice euroobmočja z velikim dolgom sektorja države, 53 Preverjanja prenosa je treba končati v 6 mesecih po roku za prenos ali po datumu priglasitve nacionalnih izvedbenih ukrepov, preverjanja skladnosti pa v 16 do 24 mesecih po datumu priglasitve nacionalnih ukrepov za prenos.
33 government debt, i.e. those for which achieving a sound fiscal position is more important, were not assessed as a matter of priority (see Figure 5). 
torej tiste, za katere je pomembneje, da dosežejo trden fiskalni položaj, pri ocenjevanju niso bile obravnavane prednostno (glej sliko 5).
77 In 2014 (by which time transposition by the Member States was supposed to have been completed), the seven euro-area Member States for which the Commission has started in 2019 a ‘pilot procedure’ (see Figure 5, third column) accounted for 77 % of euro-area GDP (66 % of the combined GDP of all EU Member States excluding the United Kingdom and 56 % of the combined GDP of all EU Member States including the United Kingdom) and for 77 % of euro-area public debt (72 % of combined public debt of all EU Member States excluding the United Kingdom and 60 % of the combined public debt of all EU Member States including the United Kingdom). 
77 Leta 2014 (ko naj bi države članice že končale prenos) je sedem držav članic euroobmočja, za katere je Komisija pilotni postopek začela leta 2019 (glej sliko 5, tretji stolpec), dosegalo 77 % BDP euroobmočja (66 % skupnega BDP vseh držav članic EU brez Združenega kraljestva in 56 % skupnega BDP vseh držav članic EU vključno z Združenim kraljestvom) in 77 % javnega dolga euroobmočja (72 % skupnega javnega dolga vseh držav članic EU brez Združenega kraljestva in 60 % skupnega javnega dolga vseh držav članic EU vključno z Združenim kraljestvom).
Figure 5 – Breakdown of the Member States by waves of EU pilots 180 % 170 % 160 % 150 % 140 % 130 % 120 % 110 % 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0% HR DK RO IE Gross debt, general government (as a percentage of GDP) Winter 2014 (February) forecasts for 2014 LT BG CY BE LV LU EL IT PT UK MT FI PL SE ES HU AT NL FR DE SK SI CZ 1s t wa ve EU Pi lots August2016 2nd wave EU Pilots April 2017 3rd wave EU Pilots July2019 Infringement procedure D e c i s i o n o n s t a r t i n g a ‘p i l o t procedure’ pending Gross debt above 90 % of GDP Gross debt between 60 % and 90 % of GDP Gross debt below 60 % of GDP Euro-area Member State Non euro-area Member State EE Source: ECA. 
Slika 5 – Razčlenitev držav članic po krogih pilotnih postopkov EU 33 180 % 170 % 160 % 150 % 140 % 130 % 120 % 110 % 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0% HR DK RO Prvi krog pilotnih postopkovEU avgust2016 IE LT BG Bruto dolg, sektor država (kot odstotni delež BDP) Napovedi iz februarja 2014 za leto 2014 Drugi krog pilotnih postopkovEU april2017 CY BE LV LU Tretji krog pilotnih postopkovEU julij2019 EL IT PT UK MT FI PL SE ES HU AT NL FR DE SK SI CZ Postopekza ugotavljanjekršitev Odločitevo začetku pilotnegapostopkašeni bruto dolg nad 90 % BDP bruto dolg med 60 % in 90 % BDP bruto dolg pod 60 % BDP država članica euroobmočja država nečlanica euroobmočja EE Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče 78 18 pilotnih primerov EU, začetih v prvem in drugem krogu, je bilo zaključenih z znatnimi zamudami, v povprečju pa so trajali več kot 65 tednov, kar daleč presega 20-tedensko referenčno merilo Komisije.
In 3 of the 18 cases, we noticed particularly large time gaps in communication (nearly a year, or more) where the Commission had been waiting for the Member States to implement the required measures. 
V treh od 18 primerov je Sodišče opazilo posebej velike časovne vrzeli v komuniciranju (skoraj leto ali več), ko je Komisija čakala, da države članice izvedejo zahtevane ukrepe.
These three procedures were eventually closed within two years of being started. 
Ti trije postopki so bili nazadnje zaključeni v dveh letih po začetku.
In one case, the 
V enem primeru je Komisija odgovore države članice (Belgije) zavrnila.
For another seven cases the Commission rejected the Member States’ replies. 
V drugih sedmih primerih je Komisija odgovore držav članic zavrnila.
By September 2019, four of those seven cases were closed. 
Do septembra 2019 so bili zaključeni štirje od teh sedmih primerov.
The Commission is continuing its informal exchanges with the other Member States (see Table 3) but has not yet started any infringement procedures54. 
Komisija nadaljuje neformalno komuniciranje z drugimi državami članicami (glej tabelo 3), vendar še ni uvedla nobenega postopka za ugotavljanje kršitev54.
Table 3 – Duration and status of EU pilots 34 Member State Opening date Closure date EU pilot duration (in weeks) Clossure status of EU pilot Date of "classement" Duration between rejection and "classement" (in weeks) Total Duration (in weeks) Bulgaria First wave: 01/08/2016 14/06/2017 45 Rejected answers 11/04/2019 95 140 Denmark 10/04/2017 36 Accepted answers 36 Estonia 01/09/2017 57 Rejected answers 08/11/2018 62 118 Finland 29/05/2018 95 Accepted answers 95 Ireland 02/03/2018 83 Accepted answers 83 Lithuania 14/06/2017 45 Rejected answers 25/07/2019 110 155 Malta 13/04/2018 89 Accepted answers 89 Poland 14/06/2017 45 Rejected answers 165*+? 
Tabela 3 – Trajanje in stanje pilotnih postopkov EU 34 Država članica Začetni datum Datum zaključka Trajanje pilotnega postopka EU (v tednih) Stanje zaključevanja pilotnega postopka EU Datum razvrstitve Čas od zavrnitve do razvrstitve (v tednih) Skupno trajanje (v tednih) Bolgarija Prvi krog: 1. 8. 2016 14.6.2017 45 Zavrnjeni odgovori 11.4.2019 95 140 Danska 10.4.2017 36 Sprejeti odgovori 36 Estonija 1.9.2017 57 Zavrnjeni odgovori 8.11.2018 62 118 Finska 29.5.2018 95 Sprejeti odgovori 95 Irska 2.3.2018 83 Sprejeti odgovori 83 Litva 14.6.2017 45 Zavrnjeni odgovori 25.7.2019 110 155 Malta 13.4.2018 89 Sprejeti odgovori 89 Poljska 14.6.2017 45 Zavrnjeni odgovori 165*+?
Romania 15/06/2017 45 Rejected answers 165*+? 
Romunija 15.6.2017 45 Zavrnjeni odgovori 165*+?
Cyprus 20/07/2018 67 Accepted answers 67 Spain 26/03/2019 103 Accepted answers 103 Hungary 06/12/2018 87 Accepted answers 87 Luxembourg 20/07/2018 67 Accepted answers 67 Latvia 13/03/2019 101 Accepted answers 101 Germany Third Wave: 19/07/2019 Greece France Italy Netherlands Portugal Slovakia Croatia Decision on starting a ‘pilot procedure’ pending Slovenia Czechia * Duration calculated until 30 September 2019. 
4. 2017 20.7.2018 67 Sprejeti odgovori 67 Belgija 18.3.2019 102 Zavrnjeni odgovori 130*+? Ciper 20.7.2018 67 Sprejeti odgovori 67 Španija 26.3.2019 103 Sprejeti odgovori 103 Madžarska 6.12.2018 87 Sprejeti odgovori 87 Luksemburg 20.7.2018 67 Sprejeti odgovori 67 Latvija 13.3.2019 101 Sprejeti odgovori 101 Nemčija Tretji krog: 19.
Source: ECA. 79 The Commission had to start 17 ‘failure-to-notify’ infringement procedures (see paragraph 73) and Member States had to introduce an additional 102 national implementing measures as a result of the Commission’s compliance checks during the 2015-2019 period (see Figure 4). 
Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče 79 Komisija je morala uvesti 17 postopkov za ugotavljanje kršitev zaradi nepriglasitve (glej odstavek 73), države članice pa so morale po preverjanjih skladnosti, ki jih je Komisija opravila v obdobju 2015–2019 (glej sliko 4), uvesti 102 dodatna nacionalna izvedbena ukrepa.
This suggests, with the benefit of hindsight, that the Commission underestimated the challenges Member States faced in transposing Directive 2011/85 and did not take proactive measures to help them do so on time. 
Na podlagi tega je mogoče sklepati, da je Komisija podcenila izzive držav članic pri prenosu Direktive 2011/85 in ni proaktivno ukrepala, da bi jim pomagala pri pravočasnem prenosu.
In 54 When an EU pilot has been used in a given case but is no longer likely to produce the expected results in a timely manner, the Commission should proceed with a formal infringement. order to help Member States apply EU law correctly, the Commission often deploys an array of ‘compliance promoting tools’ at different stages in the policy cycle55. 
Komisija za pomoč državam članicam pri pravilni uporabi prava EU v različnih fazah cikla politike pogosto uporablja nabor orodij za 54 Če se v nekem primeru uporabi pilotni postopek EU, vendar ni več verjetno, da bo pravočasno prinesel pričakovane rezultate, bi morala Komisija uvesti formalni postopek za ugotavljanje kršitev.
However, it did so to a limited extent in the case of Directive 2011/85. 
spodbujanje skladnosti55, v primeru Direktive 2011/85 pa je to storila le v omejenem obsegu.
80 The Commission did provide guidance on NBFs to Member States: as well as the exchanges during the EU ‘pilot procedures’, there were also mostly informal exchanges (e.g. by emails, phone calls or bilateral meetings) with for example reviews of draft Member State legislation transposing Directive 2011/85. 
80 Komisija je državam članicam zagotovila smernice o nacionalnih proračunskih okvirih: poleg komuniciranja v okviru pilotnih postopkov EU je z njimi komunicirala tudi sicer, predvsem neformalno (npr. po elektronski pošti, po telefonu ali na dvostranskih srečanjih), na primer s pregledi osnutkov zakonodaje držav članic za prenos Direktive 2011/85.
This was confirmed by the stakeholders we met, as well as our survey of IFIs (see Figure 6). 
To so potrdili tako deležniki, s katerimi se je srečalo Sodišče, kot tudi odgovori na anketo med neodvisnimi fiskalnimi institucijami (glej sliko 6).
It is noteworthy that the Commission provided less support and guidance to ensure effective application of the NBFs than it did to ensure Member States’ compliance with EU requirements. 
Opozoriti je treba na to, da je Komisija za zagotovitev uspešne uporabe nacionalnih proračunskih okvirov ponujala manj podpore in smernic kot za zagotovitev skladnosti držav članic z zahtevami EU.
Figure 6 – Reply to the ECA survey on provision of guidance and support by the Commission Source: ECA survey. 35 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0% Does the Commission provide appropriate guidance to Member States to ensure their compliance with the EU requirements? 
Slika 6 – Odgovori na anketo Sodišča o tem, ali Komisija zagotavlja smernice in podporo 35 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0% Ali Komisija državam članicam daje ustrezne smernice za zagotavljanje njihove skladnosti z zahtevami EU?
Does the Commission provide appropriate support to Member States to ensure their compliance with the EU requirements? 
Ali Komisija državam članicam daje ustrezno podporo za zagotavljanje njihove skladnosti z zahtevami EU?
Does the Commission provide appropriate guidance to Member States to ensure an effective implementation of national budgetary frameworks? 
Ne Ali Komisija državam članicam daje ustrezne smernice za zagotavljanje uspešnega izvajanja nacionalnih proračunskih okvirov?
Does the Commission provide appropriate support to Member States to ensure an effective implementation of national budgetary frameworks? 
Da Ali Komisija državam članicam daje ustrezno podporo za zagotavljanje uspešnega izvajanja nacionalnih proračunskih okvirov?
63 % 60 % 80 % 77 % 37 % 40 % 20 % 23 % No Yes 55 Implementation plans, guidelines, explanatory documents, networks, expert groups, workshops, package meetings, scoreboards serve as ‘compliance promoting tools’. 
473/2013. 55 Kot orodja za spodbujanje skladnosti se uporabljajo izvedbeni načrti, smernice, obrazložitveni dokumenti, mreže, strokovne skupine, delavnice, paketni sestanki in preglednice kazalnikov.
Assessment of the application of Directive 2011/85 82 After assessing compliance of the national transposing measures, the Commission is required to monitor and assess the application of Directive 2011/85. 
Ocena uporabe Direktive 2011/85 82 Po oceni skladnosti nacionalnih ukrepov za prenos mora Komisija spremljati in oceniti tudi uporabo Direktive 2011/85.
83 The Commission has not yet started assessing the application of Directive 2011/85 in a structured and systematic manner. 
83 Komisija še ni začela strukturirano in sistematično ocenjevati uporabe Direktive 2011/85.
It plans to do so56 once it finishes assessing all Member States’ transposition of the requirements of Directive 2011/85 into national legislation (see Table 3). 
Tega se namerava lotiti56, ko bo ocenila prenos njenih zahtev v nacionalno zakonodajo vseh držav članic (glej tabelo 3).
84 As of October 2019, the Commission had not yet put in place a strategy setting out the methodology, criteria, milestones and deliverables from Member States, in order to ensure appropriate and timely monitoring of the application of Directive 2011/85. 
84 Komisija do oktobra 2019 še ni sprejela strategije za določitev metodologije, meril, mejnikov in izložkov držav članic, da se zagotovi ustrezno in pravočasno spremljanje uporabe Direktive 2011/85.
85 In some cases, despite implementing Directive 2011/85, Member States (for example Italy and Spain) do not show improvements in their fiscal performance in line with the requirements of the SGP. However, the Commission has not yet exercised its monitoring powers57 by carrying out an assessment focused on the operational performance of key elements of the NBFs. 
85 V nekaterih primerih se fiskalna uspešnost držav članic (npr. Italije in Španije) kljub izvajanju Direktive 2011/85 ne izboljšuje v skladu z zahtevami Pakta za stabilnost in rast, vendar Komisija še ni uporabila svojih pooblastil za spremljanje57 in izvedla ocene, osredotočene na operativno uspešnost ključnih elementov nacionalnih proračunskih okvirov.
Such an approach is used, for example, by the IMF in its Fiscal Transparency Evaluation. 
Tak pristop uporablja na primer MDS v oceni fiskalne preglednosti.
86 Alternatively, it may also use the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) methodology. 
86 Namesto tega lahko uporabi tudi metodologijo javnih odhodkov in finančne odgovornosti.
The Commission itself, through the Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development (DG DEVCO), developed the PEFA methodology together with the IMF and the World Bank. Therefore, it would have, in-house, the knowledge needed to carry out PEFA assessments. 
To metodologijo je razvil Generalni direktorat Komisije za mednarodno sodelovanje in razvoj skupaj z MDS in Svetovno banko, zato Komisija že ima potrebno znanje za izvedbo takih ocen.
56 Some aspects of the application assessment were already included in the transposition assessment. 
56 Nekateri vidiki ocene uporabe so bili vključeni že v oceno prenosa.
57 European Commission (2012), ‘Report on public finances in EMU 2011’, p. 
57 Evropska komisija (2012), Report on Public Finances in EMU 2011, str.
89 Despite the December 2018 deadline, as of October 2019, the Commission had not yet published its suitability review of Directive 2011/85. 
89 Čeprav je bil rok za izvedbo december 2018, Komisija do oktobra 2019 še vedno ni objavila pregleda ustreznosti Direktive 2011/85.
90 However, based on an economic study, the Commission concluded in January 2019 that “national ownership of EU fiscal rules has been strengthened in recent years thanks to stronger national fiscal frameworks being created, following legislative initiatives put forward at the EU level”58. 
90 Toda na podlagi ekonomske študije je Komisija januarja 2019 zaključila, da se je nacionalna odgovornost za izpolnjevanje fiskalnih pravil EU v zadnjih letih okrepila, ker se zaradi zakonodajnih pobud na ravni EU oblikujejo močnejši nacionalni fiskalni okviri58.
The study looked at econometric evidence showing a link between the MTBFs’ quality (measured by the MTBF index, see paragraph 04) and the cyclically-adjusted primary balance. 
Študija je obravnavala ekonometrične dokaze, ki so pokazali povezavo med kakovostjo srednjeročnih proračunskih okvirov (merjeno z indeksom kakovosti srednjeročnega proračunskega okvira, glej odstavek 04) in ciklično prilagojenim primarnim saldom.
This strong link is interpreted as showing a positive effect on fiscal discipline, as a result of national ownership. 
Za to močno povezavo šteje, da kaže pozitiven učinek nacionalne odgovornosti na fiskalno disciplino.
91 The MTBF index assesses the quality of the NBFs on the basis of 11 criteria (see Table 4). 
91 Z indeksom kakovosti srednjeročnega proračunskega okvira se kakovost nacionalnih proračunskih okvirov ocenjuje na podlagi enajstih meril (glej tabelo 4).
One of the requirements of Directive 2011/85 is not covered by any criterion, and six of the criteria used do not correspond to requirements of Directive 2011/85 but to other features, which the Commission considers desirable. 
Ene od zahtev Direktive 2011/85 ne pokriva nobeno merilo, šest uporabljenih meril pa se ne ujema z zahtevami te direktive, temveč z drugimi vidiki, ki so po mnenju Komisije zaželeni.
37 58 European Commission (2019), ‘Report on public finances in EMU 2018’, p. 
37 58 Evropska komisija (2019), Report on Public Finances in EMU 2018, str.