natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The operational management of the SMEG facility involves several parties (see Figure 1). 
Pri operativnem upravljanju garancijske sheme za mSP sodelujejo številne strani (glej sliko­1).
12 TABLE 2 Number of intermediaries Total Loan window Microcredit window 21 17 4 Number of agreements 25 21 4 Countries covered 13 11 4 Number of SMEs 58 767 50 476 8 314 Number of loans 64 327 55 796 8 531 Number of employees (estimated at inclusion date) 217 134 204 155 13 004 EU guarantee in million euro 3 534 3 306 228 Net called guarantees in million euro 1,7 0,8 0,9 Loan amount in million euro 3 793 3 695 98 Investment amount in million euro 6 849 6 692 157 Estimated SME financing guaranteed in million euro 11 610 11 264 346 RESULTS ACHIEVED BY THE SMEG FACILITY UNDER THE CIP — KEY FIGURES AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2009 Source: ‘Quarterly Report 31 December 2009 — SMEG 2007 facility’, the European Investment Fund. 
12 tabela 2 Število posrednikov Skupaj Okvir za posojila Okvir za mikrokredite 21 17 4 Število sporazumov 25 21 4 Zajete države 13 11 4 Število MSP 58 767 50 476 8 314 Število posojil 64 327 55 796 8 531 Število zaposlenih (ocenjeno na dan vključitve posojila v portfelj) 217 134 204 155 13 004 Garancija EU v milijonih EUR 3 534 3 306 228 Neto pozivi za izpolnitev jamstva v milijonih EUR 1,7 0,8 0,9 Znesek posojila v milijonih EUR 3 793 3 695 98 Znesek naložbe v milijonih EUR 6 849 6 692 157 Ocenjeno financiranje MSP z garancijo v milijonih EUR 11 610 11 264 346 rezUltatI, dOseženI s POMOčjO GarancIjske sheMe za MsP PrI PkI – GlaVnI POdatkI na dan 31. deceMbra 2009 Vir: Četrtletno poročilo, 31. december 2009 – garancijska shema za mSP 2007, Evropski investicijski sklad. Posebno poročilo št. 4/2011 — Revizija garancijske sheme za mSP
Two directorates-general at the European Commission, plus the European Investment Fund (EIF)8, are all involved in the design, management and monitoring of the SMEG facility. The Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry (DG ENTR) is the coordinator of the legal basis, prepares the annual work programmes and implementation reports of the various CIP pillars and is responsible for organising the programme evaluations. 
Pri zasnovi, upravljanju in spremljanju garancijske sheme za mSP sodelujejo dva generalna direktorata Evropske komisije in Evropski investicijski sklad (EIS)8. gD za podjetništvo in industrijo (gD ENTR) usklajuje pravno podlago, pripravlja letne programe dela in poročila o izvajanju za različne stebre PKI ter je odgovoren za organiziranje ocen programov. gD za gospodarske in finančne zadeve (gD EcFIN) je neposredno odgovoren za upravljanje garancijske sheme za mSP in je zadolžen za pogajanje o fiduciarnem in upravljavskem sporazumu z EIS9, odobritev finančnih posrednikov, spremljanje gotovinskih transakcij na skrbniških računih in zagotavljanje porabe sredstev v skladu s cilji programa PKI.
8 The EIF is the European Union body specialised in providing guarantee instruments and risk capital for SMEs. 
8 EIS je organ Evropske unije, specializiran za zagotavljanje garancijskih instrumentov in tveganega kapitala za mSP.
9 Fiduciary and Management Agreement dated 20.9.2007 between the European Community and the EIF for the SMEG facility under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007–13). 
9 Fiduciarni in upravljavski sporazum z dne 20. septembra 2007 med Evropsko skupnostjo in EIS za garancijsko shemo za mSP pri okvirnem programu za konkurenčnost in inovativnost (2007–2013).
13 FIGURE 1 EU represented by the Commission (DG ENTR and DG ECFIN) EIF selects financial intermediaries (FI) and provides co-guarantees (or) guarantees Partner bank guarantee calls if loan defaults FI pays guarantee calls SMEs SMEs OVERVIEW OF THE SMEG PROCESS FLOW entrusts provides guarantee Source: European Court of Auditors. 
13 slIka 1 EU, ki jo predstavlja Komisija (GD ENTR in GD ECFIN) Partnerska banka pozivi za izpolnitev garancije, če obveznosti posojila niso plačane FP plača pozive za izpolnitev garancije EIS izbiro finančnih posrednikov (FP) in zagotovitev skupnih garancij (ali) garancij MsP MsP PreGled POteka PrOcesOV PrI sMeG poveri izda garancijo Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče.
Special Report No 4/2011 – The audit of the SME Guarantee facility pays guarantee calls guarantee calls if loan defaults grants loans repay loans repay loans grants loans 
Posebno poročilo št. 4/2011 — Revizija garancijske sheme za mSP plača pozive za izpolnitev garancije pozivi za izpolnitev garancije, če obveznosti posojila niso plačane odobri posojila odplačajo posojila odplačajo posojila odobri posojila
The EIF provides guarantees to financial intermediaries aiming to improve their lending capacity and, therefore, the availability and terms of loans towards SMEs. 
EIS finančnim posrednikom zagotavlja garancije, s katerimi želi izboljšati njihovo zmogljivost zagotavljanja posojil in tako tudi razpoložljivost in pogoje posojil za mSP.
The EIF signs guarantee agreements in its own name, on behalf of the Commission and at the risk and cost of the Union budget. 
EIS sklepa garancijske sporazume v svojem imenu in za Komisijo, s čimer povzroča tveganje in strošek za proračun Unije.
In order to allow the Commission to monitor the facility, the EIF reports to DG ECFIN on the progress achieved on a quarterly basis. 
Da bi Komisija lahko spremljala to shemo, EIS vsake tri mesece poroča gD EcFIN o doseženem napredku.
The financial intermediaries participating in the SMEG facility are public guarantee institutions, mutual guarantee organisations, microfinance institutions and commercial or publicly owned or controlled banks. 
Finančni posredniki, ki sodelujejo v garancijski shemi za mSP, so javne garancijske institucije, vzajemne garancijske organizacije, mikrofinančne institucije in komercialne banke ali banke v javni lasti ali pod javnim nadzorom.
They can be direct lenders that provide loans to SMEs or indirect guarantee organisations that either co-guarantee or counter-guarantee10 a SME loan portfolio of one or several direct lenders. 
Lahko so neposredni posojilodajalci, ki mSP dajejo posojila, ali posredne garancijske organizacije, ki izdajajo skupne garancije ali pro-tigarancije10 za portfelj posojil za mSP enega ali več neposrednih posojilodajalcev.
Each guarantee deal11 determines specific target volumes for the loans to be achieved by the financial intermediary. 
V vsaki garancijski pogodbi11 so določeni specifični ciljni zneski posojil, ki jih mora doseči finančni posrednik.
SMEs have to meet the Commission’s SME definition to be eligible for a guarantee under the SMEG facility. An SME is defined as an enterprise which employs fewer than 250 employees and which has an annual turnover not exceeding 50 million euro and/or an annual balance sheet total not exceeding 43 million euro. 
Če želijo mSP zaprositi za garancijo v okviru sheme za mSP, morajo ustrezati opredelitvi, ki jo je Komisija določila zanje. mSP je opredeljeno kot podjetje z manj kot 250 zaposlenimi in letnim prometom, ki ne presega 50 milijonov EUR, in/ali letno bilančno vsoto, ki ne presega 43 milijonov EUR.
10 A co-guarantee provides a second guarantee in addition to the main guarantee to the lender, whereas a counter-guarantee guarantees part of the first guarantor’s guarantee. 
10 Skupna garancija zagotavlja drugo garancijo poleg osnovne garancije posojilodajalcu, protigarancija pa je garancija za del garancije prvega garanta.
11 ‘Guaranteedeals’arethe individual guarantee agreements between the EIF and a financial intermediary and the activities performed on the basis of these agreements. 
11 garancijske pogodbe so posamezni garancijski sporazumi med EIS in finančnim posrednikom o dejavnostih, izvedenih na podlagi teh sporazumov.
12 Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ L 124, 20.5.2003, p. 
12 Priporočilo Komisije 2003/361/ES z dne 6. maja 2003 o definiciji mikropodjetij ter malih in srednje velikih podjetij (UL L 124, 20.5.2003, str.
14 Special Report No 4/2011 – The audit of the SME Guarantee facility 
14 Posebno poročilo št. 4/2011 — Revizija garancijske sheme za mSP
The objective of the Court’s audit was to assess the effectiveness of the SMEG facility by addressing the following audit questions: ο Has the Commission designed the SMEG facility and its management structure in a coherent and effective manner? ο Have the Commission and the EIF established and applied effective procedures to select appropriate financial intermediaries and to monitor the performance of the SMEG facility? ο Have the SME guarantee deals contributed to the achievement of the policy’s objectives? 
15 OBSEg REVIzIjE IN REVIzIjSKI PRISTOP 12. cilj revizije, ki jo je izvedlo Sodišče, je bil oceniti uspešnost garancijske sheme za mSP na podlagi naslednjih revizijskih vprašanj: ο Ali je Komisija dosledno in uspešno zasnovala garancijsko shemo za mSP in njeno upravljavsko strukturo? ο Ali sta Komisija in EIF določila in uporabljala uspešne postopke za izbiro finančnih posrednikov in spremljanje uspešnosti garancijske sheme za mSP? ο Ali so garancijske pogodbe za mSP prispevale k doseganju ciljev politike?
The audit examined the roles and responsibilities of all main parties involved in the SMEG facility — the Commission, the EIF and the financial intermediaries. The main focus was the SMEG facility under the CIP (2007–13); the SMEG under the MAP was used for the purpose of comparisons with the CIP. 
Pri reviziji so bile pregledane vloge in odgovornosti vseh sodelujočih strani pri garancijski shemi za mSP (Komisije, EIS in finančnih posrednikov). glavni poudarek je bil na garancijski shemi za mSP v okviru PKI (2007–2013); v okviru programa mAP se je shema uporabljala za primerjave s PKI.
The audit covered the following: ο an assessment of whether the SMEG objectives were SMART and whether the design and planning of the facility was likely to achieve effective results; ο an evaluation of the management of the SMEG facility’s operations, comprising an assessment of the financial intermediary selection procedures and the Commission and EIF reporting and monitoring procedures; ο visits to nine financial intermediaries13 (out of the 14 that were contracted at the audit planning stage in June 2009). 
Revizija je zajela naslednje: ο ocenjevanje, ali so bili cilji garancijske sheme za mSP opredeljeni v obliki SmART in ali je bilo verjetno, da bosta zasnova in načrtovanje sheme dosegla uspešne rezultate; ο vrednotenje upravljanja poslov garancijske sheme za mSP, ki je zajemalo oceno postopkov za izbiro finančnih posrednikov ter postopkov Komisije in EIS za poročanje in spremljanje; ο obiske pri devetih finančnih posrednikih13 (od 14, ki so imeli v fazi načrtovanja revizije junija 2009 sklenjene pogodbe).
They were selected according to the following criteria: (i) type of guarantee; (ii) actual guarantee volume achieved; (iii) type of financial intermediary; and (iv) direct guarantee or counter-guarantee. 
Izbrani so bili na podlagi naslednjih meril: (i) vrsta garancije, (ii) dejansko dosežena višina garancije, (iii) vrsta finančnega posrednika in (iv) neposredna garancija ali protigarancija. za vsakega finančnega posrednika so bili pregledani ustrezen predlog garancije, kako sta ga ocenila EIS in Komisija ter sporazum med EIS in finančnim posrednikom; 13 Obiskanisobilifinančni posredniki v Belgiji, Franciji, na madžarskem, v Sloveniji, Italiji, Španiji in Nemčiji.
16 ο selection of a sample of 181 loans from the nine financial intermediaries visited in order to assess that the use of the guaranteed SME loans was in line with the SMEG objectives14; and ο a questionnaire to all 51 financial intermediaries participating under MAP and/or CIP15 in order to obtain their views on the design and management of the SMEG facility16. 
16 ο izbiro vzorca s 181 posojili, ki jih je dalo devet obiskanih finančnih posrednikov, da se oceni, ali je bila uporaba posojil za mSP z garancijami skladna s cilji garancijske sheme za mSP14, in ο vprašalnik za vseh 51 finančnih posrednikov, ki so sodelovali pri mAP in/ali PKI15, da bi se pridobila njihova mnenja o zasnovi in upravljanju garancijske sheme za mSP16.
14 Documentation concerning the proposal and approval of the loan, the assessment of the borrower’s credit risk and the purpose of the loan was inspected on the financial intermediaries’ premises. 
14 V prostorih finančnih posrednikov je bila pregledana dokumentacija o predlogu in odobritvi posojila, oceni kreditnega tveganja posojilojemalca in namenu posojila.
15 Thequestionnaireinvited the intermediaries to answer 48 questions on topics such as: (i) the SMEG application process; (ii) the EIF’s management during the lifetime of the guarantee; (iii), the guaranteed product; and (iv) the impact of the financial crisis on the products. 
15 Vprašalnikjevseboval 48 vprašanj za posrednike o zadevah, kot so: (i) proces predložitve vlog za garancijsko shemo za mSP, (ii) upravljanje s strani EIS med trajanjem garancije, (iii) produkt, za katerega se izda garancija, in (iv) učinek finančne krize na produkte.
In addition, the intermediaries that participated under the MAP but not the CIP were asked to indicate the reasons. 
Poleg tega so bili posredniki, ki so pri mAP sodelovali, pri PKI pa ne, zaprošeni za navedbo razlogov za to.
16 CommentsfromboththeEIF and Commission were taken into account when drafting the questions. 
16 Pripripravivprašanjsobile upoštevane pripombe EIS in Komisije.
A response rate of 82 % was obtained (42 out of 51 financial intermediaries). Special Report No 4/2011 – The audit of the SME Guarantee facility 
Na vprašalnik se je odzvalo 82 % anketiranih (42 od 51 finančnih posrednikov). Posebno poročilo št. 4/2011 — Revizija garancijske sheme za mSP
17 AUDIT FINDINGS DESIGN OF THE SMEG FACILITY 15. Public intervention is more likely to be successful if it is properly designed. 
17 REVIzIjSKE UgOTOVITVE zasnOVa GarancIjske sheMe za MsP 15. javni ukrep ima več možnosti za uspeh, če je pravilno zasnovan.
In order to assess the design, this section analyses the intervention logic underlying the SMEG facility. It scrutinises the ex ante impact assessment for the CIP17 related to the SMEG facility and the extent to which the results of this assessment were taken into account during the design stage. 
Temeljito je pregledana predhodna ocena učinka za PKI17, povezana z garancijsko shemo za mSP, prav tako pa je preverjeno, v kolikšni meri so bili v fazi zasnove upoštevani rezultati te ocene. cilji garancijske sheme za mSP so nazadnje ocenjeni še glede na specifična, merljiva, dosegljiva, ustrezna in časovno opredeljena (SmART) merila.
The intervention logic provides the link between an interven-tion's inputs and the production of its outputs and, subsequently, to its impacts on society in terms of results and outcomes. 
Logika ukrepa zagotavlja povezavo med vložki ukrepa in njegovimi izložki ter posledično z njegovimi učinki na družbo glede na rezultate in izide.
It describes how an intervention is expected to attain its global objectives. 
Opisuje, kako naj bi neki ukrep dosegal svoje splošne cilje.
An explicit intervention logic shows how the programme is supposed to function. 
Eksplicitna logika ukrepa kaže, kako naj bi program deloval.
Neither the CIP Decision nor the Commission’s proposal or the impact assessment for CIP explicitly described the intervention logic of the SMEG facility in this manner. 
Logika ukrepa za garancijsko shemo za mSP ni bila eksplicitno opisana na ta način niti v sklepu o PKI niti v predlogu Komisije ali oceni učinka za PKI.
The different preparatory documents, however, do provide sufficient information to make an implicit assumption on how the SMEG facility is supposed to function. 
Vendar pa je v različnih pripravljalnih dokumentih dovolj informacij, da je mogoče implicitno domnevati, kako naj bi delovala garancijska shema za mSP.
For lenders it can be difficult to assess individual loan applications and the risks involved, especially if a borrower does not have an established track record (start-ups). 
Posojilodajalci imajo lahko težave pri ocenjevanju posameznih vlog za posojilo in z njimi povezanih tveganj, zlasti če za posojilojemalca ni podatkov o njegovem preteklem delovanju (novo podjetje).
In such a situation the borrowers can guarantee the loan to the lender through the provision of collateral, but those who do not have sufficient collateral may be denied access to credit even with viable business propositions. The SMEG facility seeks to remedy this situation by providing guarantees in cases where the SMEs are unable to do so. 
V takšnem primeru lahko posojilojemalci posojilodajalcu dajo jamstvo za posojilo, tistim brez zadostnega jamstva pa se lahko zavrne dostop do kreditov, tudi če imajo donosne poslovne predloge. garancijska shema za mSP želi to stanje izboljšati z zagotavljanjem garancij v primerih, ko mSP tega ne zmorejo.
17 Commission Staff Working Document, Annex to the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007– 13), SEC(2005) 433, 6.4.2005. 
17 Delovni dokument osebja Komisije, priloga k predlogu za Sklep Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o uvedbi Okvirnega programa za konkurenčnost in inovativnost (2007–2013), SEc(2005) 433, 6.4.2005.
18 Theinterimevaluator recommended providing ‘a clear statement of intervention logic for each measure in order to improve the overall coherence of the programme and to demonstrate the impact’, European Commission ‘Interim evaluation of the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme’, 2009. Special Report No 4/2011 – The audit of the SME Guarantee facility 
18 Vmesni ocenjevalec je priporočal, naj se jasno navede logika ukrepa za vsak ukrep, da se izboljša skupna skladnost programa in pokaže učinek, Evropska komisija, „Interim Evaluation of the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme“, 2009. Posebno poročilo št.
Nevertheless, in the absence of an explicit intervention logic, it is difficult to understand the rationale of some specific elements of the SMEG facility, such as targeting innovative SMEs by the loan window. 
Ker manjka eksplicitna logika ukrepa, je težko razumeti načelo nekaterih specifičnih elementov garancijske sheme za mSP, kot je usmerjanje na inovativna mSP prek okvira za posojila.
Innovative SMEs are targeted through debt financing although equity investments are generally considered more appropriate for this type of SME19. 
Inovativnim mSP je namenjeno financiranje dolga, čeprav se naložbe lastniškega kapitala na splošno razumejo kot primernejše za tovrstna mSP19.
THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT HELPED TO DESIGN THE FACILITY; HOWEVER, IT CONTAINED LITTLE FACTUAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE FACILITY 20. 
Ocena UčInka je PrIPOMOGla k zasnOVI sheMe, Vendar je VsebOVala MalO dejanskIh dOkazOV V POdPOrO sheMI 20.
The impact assessment is an important instrument used by the Commission when designing a policy20. The impact assessment should identify and analyse the problem at stake, the objectives to be pursued and the main policy options that are available to achieve those objectives. 
Ocena učinka je pomemben instrument, ki ga Komisija uporablja pri pripravi neke politike20. z njo naj bi se opredelili in preučili ustrezni problem, opredeljeni cilji in glavne možnosti politike, ki so na voljo za doseganje teh ciljev. z oceno naj bi se za različne možnosti politike ovrednotili njihovi verjetni ekonomski, socialni in okoljski vplivi. z njo naj bi se opredelile tudi ureditve spremljanja in vrednotenja, potrebne med izvajanjem politike.
As regards the SMEG facility, this type of analysis forms part of the CIP impact assessment. 
Kar zadeva garancijsko shemo za mSP, je tovrstna analiza del ocene učinka PKI.
The CIP impact assessment contained all the mandatory sections and as such it gives insight into the considerations that shaped the design of the CIP and its main elements such as the SMEG facility. 
Ocena učinka PKI je vsebovala vse obvezne dele in tako omogočila vpogled v zadeve, ki so oblikovale zasnovo PKI in njegovih glavnih elementov, kot je garancijska shema za mSP.
Thus, the CIP impact assessment represents an improvement compared to the MAP, for which no such analysis was made. 
Ocena učinka za PKI torej pomeni izboljšanje v primerjavi s programom mAP, za katerega ni bilo nobene takšne analize.
However, many parts of the CIP impact assessment are not sufficiently detailed and quantified. 
Vendar številni deli ocene učinka za PKI niso dovolj podrobni in količinsko opredeljeni.
For example, the analysis of the problem lacks any indication of its magnitude and the analysis of different policy options is based only on a simplistic qualitative comparison without any quantification of the likely impacts. 
Na primer, v analizi problema ni navedena njegova pomembnost, analiza različnih možnih politik pa temelji na poenostavljeni kvalitativni primerjavi brez vsakršne količinske opredelitve verjetnih učinkov.
For the retained option, except for the impact on the number of jobs, the Commission quantified expected outputs21 instead of the impact. 
Razen učinka na število delovnih mest je Komisija za izbrano možnost namesto učinka količinsko opredelila pričakovane izložke21.
19 See for instance North, Baldock, Ekanem, Whittam and Wyper: ‘Access to Bank Finance for Scottish SMEs’, 2008. 
19 glej npr. North, Baldock, Ekanem, Whittam in Wyper: „Access to Bank Finance for Scottish SMEs“, 2008.
20 COM(2002) 276 final, 5.6.2002. 
20 Sporočilo Komisije o oceni učinka, cOm(2002) 276 konč, 5.6.2002.
21 Theimpactassessment considers the outputs such as number of loans or number of SMEs as impacts. 
21 Ocena učinka obravnava izložke, kot sta število posojil ali število mSP, kot učinke.
However, the actual impact is lower than the outputs, because a part of the SMEs would have obtained the loans without the guarantee. 
Vendar je dejanski učinek manjši od izložkov, ker bi del mSP pridobil posojila tudi brez garancije.
18 Special Report No 4/2011 – The audit of the SME Guarantee facility 
18 Posebno poročilo št. 4/2011 — Revizija garancijske sheme za mSP
The objectives are considered: ο specific if they are precise and concrete enough not to be open to varying interpretations23; ο measurable if the output can be measured and therefore any improvements assessed; ο achievable if the expected results can realistically be produced with the available resources; ο relevant if they relate to the needs and to the strategic objectives; and ο timed if they relate to a deadline or time period23. 24. 
19 V PrIMerjaVI s PrOGraMOM MaP sO cIljI natančnejšI, Vendar še VednO nIsO dOVOlj jasnI In nIsO tOčnO kOlIčInskO OPredeljenI 23. za vse dejavnosti, ki jih zajema proračun, se določijo cilji SmART22. cilji so: ο specifični, če so dovolj natančni in konkretni, da si jih ni mogoče različno razlagati23; ο merljivi, če je izložek mogoče meriti in tako oceniti kakršne koli izboljšave; ο dosegljivi, če je pričakovane rezultate mogoče realistično doseči z razpoložljivimi viri; ο ustrezni, če se nanašajo na potrebe in strateške cilje; ο časovno opredeljeni, če se nanašajo na rok ali časovno obdobje23.
Due to the rather complex structure of the CIP (see Annex I), the hierarchical structure of the objectives is also complex. 
24. zaradi precej kompleksne strukture PKI (glej Prilogo­I), je kompleksna tudi hierarhična struktura ciljev.
Four global objectives are set at the level of the framework programme24. 
Na ravni okvirnega programa so postavljeni štirje splošni cilji24.
In the case of the EIP which includes the SMEG facility, the immediate objectives25 are defined at the level of the specific programme26. 
V primeru PPI, ki zajema garancijsko shemo za mSP, so takojšnji cilji25 opredeljeni na ravni specifičnega programa26.
Although no specific objectives are set at the level of the financial instruments, Article 19.2 of the CIP Decision describes each window of the SMEG facility in an objective-like fashion (see Box 1). 
Čeprav na ravni finančnih instrumentov niso postavljeni nobeni specifični cilji, so vsi okviri garancijske sheme za mSP v členu 19.2 sklepa o PKI opisani v smislu doseganja ciljev (glej okvir­1).