natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Poročila Računskega sodišča bodo jasna, nedvoumna, razumljiva, natančna in dobro organizirana.
The Court’s reports shall be clear, unambiguous, understandable, concise, and well organised.
Na ravni članstva v skupini/senatu bo moj cilj zagotavljati jasno opredelitev revizijskih nalog, in sicer na način, ki omogoča zadovoljive odgovore na revizijska vprašanja; da bodo rezultati revizije razloženi dosledno in obenem realno, ter da bodo jasno sporočene ugotovitve revizije.
At the Group/Chamber level, my objective will be to ensure that audit tasks are clearly defined in a way which should ensure that audit questions are satisfactorily answered; that audit results are interpreted rigorously but realistically; and that audit findings are clearly communicated.
To je še posebej pomembno pri upoštevanju dejstva, da bodo senati v prihodnosti odgovorni za izdajo posebnih poročil.
This will be especially important given that Chambers will in future be responsible for issuing special reports.
Kot članica kolegija si bom prizadevala za izboljšanje profila Računskega sodišča kot sodobne in vzorne institucije, ki je odprta za sodelovanje z drugimi institucijami, predvsem z Evropskim parlamentom in njegovim Odborom za proračunski nadzor.
As a member of the College, I shall put all my efforts into raising the profile of the Court, to make it a modern and model institution, which is open and cooperates with other institutions, first and foremost the European Parliament and its Committee on Budgetary Control.
Sem velika zagovornica kulture sodelovanja.
I am a strong advocate of a cooperative culture.
Zato je na primer pri predstavitvi letnega delovnega programa Računskega sodišča pred Parlamentom treba upoštevati zahteve in prizadevanja Parlamenta.
Thus, for example, when the Court presents its annual work programme to the Parliament, due consideration should be given to Parliament’s requests and concerns.
Z revizijo poslovanja revizorji vladnemu poslovanju dodajo vrednost s priporočili za izboljšave na področju gospodarstva, učinkovitosti in uspešnosti programov ali poslovanja.
Through performance auditing, auditors add value to government performance by recommending improvements in the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of programs or performance.
Z revizijo poslovanja se analizira, ali so bila „javna sredstva ustrezno uporabljena“, pri čemer se v glavnem pregledajo ukrepi, sprejeti s strani revidiranih organov v zvezi s spoštovanjem načel gospodarstva, učinkovitosti in uspešnosti.
Performance audit analyses whether ‘public money was spent well’, mainly examining the measures undertaken by audited entities regarding respect of the principles of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
V splošnem išče revizija poslovanja odgovore na naslednji dve temeljni vprašanji:
In general, performance auditing seeks to answer two basic questions, namely:
– Ali so bile zadeve pravilno izvedene?
– Have things been done the right way?
– Ali so bile izvedene prave zadeve?
– Have the right things been done?
Revizija poslovanja igra tudi bistveno vlogo pri opredelitvi transverzalnih pomanjkljivosti vlade oziroma poslovodstva.
Performance audit also plays an important role in identifying transversal weaknesses in government or management.
Eno izmed glavnih načel revizije poslovanja je dodajanje vrednosti, kar pomeni izboljšanje poslovanja.
One of the main principles of performance audit itself is to add value – that is, improve performance.
Revizija poslovanja nudi revidiranim organom informacije in rešitve , ki vodijo k znižanju stroškov, boljšemu upravljanju ter boljšim rezultatom.
Performance audit provides audited entities with information and solutions that lead to cost reduction, better management and improved results.
Na ta način revizija poslovanja dodaja vrednost z izvajanjem svoje zelo pomembne naloge glede odgovornosti.
So, performance auditing adds value through carrying out its very important accountability mission.
Kako lahko revizija poslovanja omogoči boljše delovanje procesa upravljanja?
How can performance audit enable the governance process to work better?
Z revizijskimi ugotovitvami in priporočili.
Through its audit findings and audit recommendations.
Ugotovitve revizije so osnova za revizijska priporočila, prek katerih dobijo revizorji ali revizijske institucije možnost vpliva na javno upravljanje.
Audit findings are the basis for audit recommendations, through which auditors or audit institutions have the potential to impact public management.
Ugotovitev revizije je temeljni element revizije poslovanja in se lahko v upravljanje vključi na dva osnovna načina:
The audit finding is the fundamental component of the performance audit and can be incorporated in management in two principal ways:
· S podajo revizijskih priporočil revidiranim organom.
· Giving audit recommendations to audited entities.
· S sporočanjem rezultatov revizije (revizijskih ugotovitev, sklepov in priporočil) parlamentu, vladi, javnosti in vsem, ki jih to zadeva.
· Communicating audit results (audit findings, conclusions and recommendations) to Parliament, Government, the public and indeed everyone who may be concerned.
Revizija poslovanja ugodno vpliva na ustroj upravljanja in politični proces pri doseganju pomembne odgovornosti.
Performance audit facilitates the governance structure and the political process to produce meaningful accountability .
Uspešne revizije dodajo vrednost z izboljšanjem politik – s premikom od slabih k dobrim politikam ter omogočanjem boljšega delovanja ustroja upravljanja: boljšo usmeritev politike, boljši pregled, večjo učinkovitost, uspešnost ali nepristranskost.
Successful audits add value by improving the policies – moving it from bad policies to good policies and allowing the governance structure to function better: better policy direction; better oversight, increased efficiency, effectiveness or equity.
Revizija poslovanja je napredno orodje upravljanja, ki postaja vedno bolj prefinjeno, z namenom, da zadosti potrebam različnih skupnosti in različnih vladnih ravni, in sicer pri vrsti storitev - od javne varnosti in javnih del do gospodarskega razvoja.
Performance audit is an advanced management tool that is becoming more and more sophisticated in order to accommodate the needs of different communities and levels of government for services ranging from public safety and public works to economic development.
Kako bi lahko izboljšali sodelovanje med Računskim sodiščem, nacionalnimi revizijskimi organi in Evropskim parlamentom (Odbor za proračunski nadzor) v zvezi z revizijo proračuna EU?
How could cooperation improve between the Court of Auditors, the National Audit Institutions and the European Parliament (Committee on Budgetary Control) concerning the audit of the EU budget?
Litvanski državni urad za revizijo, ki sem ga zadnjih pet let vodila, ima pri tej zadevi posebno vlogo, saj izvaja certificiranje in revizije likvidacij za proračunsko obdobje 2004-2006 ter opravlja funkcije revizijskega organa za obdobje 2007-2013.
The Lithuanian National Audit Office, which I have headed for the last five years, holds a particular position on this issue as it is producing certification and winding-up audits for the 2004-2006 budgetary period and performing audit authority functions for the 2007-2013 period.
Na ta način je del našega urada neposredno vpleten v revizijo sredstev EU skladno s predpisi EU in je sodeloval s pomembnimi institucijami EU.
So, part of our Office has been directly involved in auditing EU funds in line with EU regulations and has cooperated with the relevant EU institutions.
Vendar pa razumem, zakaj je vprašanje sodelovanja na vrhu dnevnega reda Evropskega parlamenta in evropskega Računskega sodišča.
Nevertheless, I can see why the issue of cooperation is at the top of the agenda for the European Parliament and the European Court of Auditors.
V skladu s Pogodbo morajo Računsko sodišče in nacionalni revizijski organi držav članic sodelovati v duhu zaupanja in obenem ohranjati svojo neodvisnost.
According to the Treaty, the Court and national audit bodies of the Member States shall cooperate in a spirit of trust while maintaining their independence.
Računsko sodišče ima izključni mandat za podajo neodvisnega mnenja o računovodskih izkazih EU ter za poročanje o zadevah dobrega finančnega poslovanja ter zakonitosti in pravilnosti transakcij, na podlagi katerih temeljijo poslovne knjige, kot tudi o zanesljivosti poslovnih knjig.
The Court has the sole mandate to deliver an independent opinion on the EU financial statements and to report on issues of sound financial management and legality and regularity of the transactions underlying the accounts, as well as on the reliability of the accounts.
Medtem pa delujejo vrhovne revizijske institucije v skladu z njihovimi mandati v okviru nacionalne zakonodaje, odgovarjajo nacionalnim parlamentom in so v celoti neodvisne od institucij EU.
Meanwhile, the SAIs are operating according to their mandates within national legal frameworks, are accountable to National Parliaments, and are fully independent of EU institutions.
To je temeljna predpostavka deklaracije iz Lime – dokumenta, ki ga je sestavila Mednarodna organizacija vrhovnih revizijskih institucij (INTOSAI) in se ga pogosto opisuje kot magno karto finančnega nadzora.
This is a basic statement of the Lima Declaration, a document drawn up by the INTOSAI, frequently described as the Magna Carta of financial control.
Iz tega sledi zaplet, da čeprav se približno 80 % sredstev EU porabi pod deljenim upravljanjem, pa med Računskim sodiščem in vrhovnimi revizijskimi institucijami ne obstaja deljena odgovornost za revizijo proračuna EU.
That leads to a complication that although about 80% of EU money is spent under shared management, there is no shared responsibility for the audit of the EU budget between the Court and SAIs .
Neskladje je še večje zaradi različnosti med vrhovnimi revizijskimi institucijami, med njihovimi revizijskimi pristopi in vlogami v sistemih nacionalnih odgovornosti.
The asymmetry is aggravated by the diversity of SAIs, their audit approaches and roles in national accountability systems.
V zadnjem desetletju sta Evropski parlament, zlasti njegov Odbor za proračunski nadzor, in Računsko sodišče aktivno iskala rešitve, ki bi bile sprejemljive tako za institucije EU kot tudi za nacionalne strani.
During the last decade, the European Parliament, especially its Committee on Budgetary Control, and the Court have been actively looking for solutions acceptable to both the EU institutions and national parties.
Kontaktni odbor je koristen forum, saj članom Računskega sodišča in vodjem vrhovnih revizijskih institucij omogoča redna srečanja in razprave o vprašanjih skupnega interesa, preučevanje problemov ter celo delovne skupine za doseganje določenih rešitev.
The Contact Committee is a useful forum, as it enables Court Members and heads of SAIs to meet on a regular basis and discuss issues of common interest, consider problems and even work out certain solutions in working groups.
Glavni cilj teh prizadevanj je usklajevanje dela med institucijami EU in vrhovnimi revizijskimi institucijami pri reviziji sredstev EU.
The main objective of these attempts is to align the work done by EU institutions and SAIs in auditing EU funds .
Prvi korak – usklajevanje revizijskih standardov – več ali manj napreduje.
The first step – harmonisation of auditing standards – is more or less moving forward.
Glede tega bi omenila prispevek delovne skupine za skupne revizijske standarde in primerljiva revizijska merila, ki temeljijo na mednarodno uveljavljenih revizijskih standardih, prilagojenih za območje EU.
In this context, I would mention the contribution of the working group on ‘Common Auditing Standards and Comparable Audit Criteria based on internationally recognised auditing standards tailored to the EU area’.
Vendar pa so nadaljnje pobude, kot sta na primer uvedba enotnega revizijskega pristopa (mnenje Računskega sodišča št. 2/2004) ali nacionalnih izjav (mnenje Računskega sodišča št. 6/2007) še vedno predmet vročih razprav, saj zahtevajo spremembe revizijskega pristopa, dodatna sredstva in ponekod korenite spremembe ustavne in pravne ureditve.
However, further initiatives such as introducing the single audit approach (Court Opinion No 2/2004) or national declarations (Court Opinion No 6/2007) are still the subject of heated discussions, as they require changes in audit approach, additional resources, and sometimes profound amendments to the constitutional and legal framework.
Sama sem mnenja, da je glavni motiv za boljše sodelovanje v boljšem razumevanju s strani nacionalnih parlamentov, vlad in vrhovnih revizijskih institucij, da sta učinkovitejša poraba in nadzor nad sredstvi EU odraz njihovih lastnih prizadevanj in interesov.
In my opinion, the main motive for better cooperation lies in a better understanding by national parliaments, governments, and SAIs that more effective use and control of EU funds reflects their own aspirations and interests.
Poleg tega pa seveda medsebojno razumevanje med institucijami EU glede nacionalnih interesov in prizadevanj.
And of course the reciprocal understanding of national interests and concerns by EU institutions .
Določeni koraki so bili v tej smeri že narejeni.
Certain steps have already been taken in this direction.
Letni delovni program Računskega sodišča se na primer posreduje vrhovnim revizijskim institucijam.
For instance, the Court’s annual work programme is forwarded to SAIs.
Revizije Računskega sodišča, predvsem revizijske naloge za države članice, se izvajajo v sodelovanju z lokalnimi revizijskimi institucijami, kar pripomore k njihovemu boljšemu medsebojnemu razumevanju in k izmenjavi znanja in dobrih praks.
The Court’s audits, especially audit missions to Member States, are carried out in cooperation with local audit institutions, which helps them to understand each other better and to share knowledge and good practice.
Vrhovne revizijske institucije so pravzaprav do neke mere udeležene pri reviziji tistih sredstev EU, ki so vključena v nacionalne proračune.
Actually, SAIs to some extent are involved in auditing EU funds that are included in national budgets.
Vprašanje je, kako bi lahko institucije EU, namreč Komisija in Računsko sodišče, te revizijske rezultate uporabile.
The question is how the EU institutions, namely the Commission and the Court, could use these audit results.
Računsko sodišče je ustanovilo možganski trust za analizo, v kolikšnem obsegu lahko del svojega zagotovila pridobi iz letnih povzetkov, nacionalnih izjav ter nacionalnih revizijskih poročil in certifikatov.
The Court has established a Think Tank for analysing the extent to which it can obtain part of its assurance from annual summaries, national declarations and national audit reports and certificates.
Čeprav je za tesnejše povezovanje potrebno znatno napredovanje v tej smeri, lahko Računsko sodišče tudi zdaj uporabi najpomembnejše ugotovitve revizij vrhovnih revizijskih institucij glede načrtovanja, posebnih poročil in določenih vidikov (npr. kakovosti finančnega poslovanja) izjave o zanesljivosti.
Although full dovetailing needs significant progress in this direction, the Court even now may use the most relevant findings of SAIs’ audits for programming, special reports and certain aspects (e.g. quality of financial management) of DAS.
Poleg tega so pomembne informacije o revizijah, izvedenih v državah članicah, zdaj na voljo na spletnih mestih večine vrhovnih revizijskih institucij.
Moreover, relevant information on audits carried out in Member States is now available on most SAIs’ web-sites.
V zvezi z odnosom med revizorji in parlamenti, tako na ravni EU kot na nacionalni ravni, je zelo pomembno medsebojno upoštevanje zahtev in ciljev.
Concerning the relationship between auditors and parliaments at both EU and national levels, it is very important to be attentive to each other’s needs and objectives.
Revizijske institucije podajajo vplivne instrumente za parlamentarne preiskave in tudi obratno; parlamentarni mandat je najučinkovitejša oblika izvrševanja za uveljavljanje revizijskih priporočil.
Audit institutions provide powerful instruments for parliamentary scrutiny and, vice versa, the parliamentary mandate is the most effective form of enforcement for implementing audit recommendations.
Litvanski državni urad za revizijo smatra sodelovanje s parlamentarnim revizijskim odborom za prednostno nalogo, ta cilj pa je bil priznan s povabilom skupne delegacije iz državnega urada za revizijo in iz revizijskega odbora ter podobne skupne delegacije iz državnega urada za revizijo Velike Britanije in odbora za javne račune na srečanje Odbora za proračunski nadzor novembra 2006.
The Lithuanian NAO considers cooperation with the parliamentary Audit Committee as its top priority, and this focus was recognised by inviting a joint delegation from the NAO and Audit Committee to the Committee on Budgetary Control meeting in November 2006 along with a similar joint delegation from the UK NAO and Public Accounts Committee.
Decembra 2007 je Odbor za proračunski nadzor pripravil zelo koristno srečanje z odbori za proračunski nadzor nacionalnih parlamentov.
In December 2007, Committee on Budgetary Control arranged a very useful meeting with budgetary control committees of national parliaments.
Smatram, da bi bilo na določeni stopnji koristno tudi srečanje s člani Kontaktnega odbora.
I consider that at some stage a similar meeting with Contact Committee members would also be useful.
Izvajanje Lizbonske pogodbe , zlasti člena 317 Pogodbe o delovanju EU, ki določa, da države članice sodelujejo s Komisijo pri zagotavljanju, da se sredstva porabijo v skladu z načeli dobrega finančnega poslovanja, je še dodatna spodbuda za tesnejše sodelovanje med nacionalnimi vladami in Evropsko komisijo pri izvrševanju proračuna EU.
Implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon , especially Article 317 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, stipulating that Member States shall cooperate with the Commission to ensure that the appropriations are used in accordance with the principles of sound financial management, provides additional impetus for closer cooperation between national governments and the European Commission in implementing the EU budget.
Izkušnje zadnjih petih let na položaju glavne revizorke so me v celoti prepričale, da vrhovna javna revizijska institucija svoje javne vloge ne more opravljati brez soglasja in razumevanja s strani parlamenta.
My experience in the position of Auditor General for the last five years has fully convinced me that a supreme public audit institution cannot fulfil its public role without consent and understanding from parliament.
To velja tako na nacionalni kot tudi na evropski ravni.
This is equally correct at both national and European levels.
Ne glede na neodvisnost revizijskega organa, ta brez podpore in sodelovanja parlamenta ne more učinkovito delovati in imeti vpliva na javnost.
Despite the independence of the auditing body, it cannot be effective and make the requisite public impact without parliamentary support and cooperation.
Zato bi v primeru negativnega mnenja Evropskega parlamenta svojo kandidaturo umaknila.
I would therefore withdraw my candidacy if the European Parliament’s opinion were unfavourable.
o predlaganju Igorsa Ludboržsa za člana Računskega sodišča
on the nomination of Igors Ludboržs as a Member of the Court of Auditors
Priloga I: ŽIVLJENJEPIS IgorsA LudboržsA
ANNEX 1: CURRICULUM VITAE OF Igors Ludboržs
PRILOGA 2: ODGOVORI IGORSA LUDBORŽSA NA VPRAŠALNIK
ANNEX 2: summary by Igors Ludboržs of experience as a court member and objectives for a future mandate
– ob upoštevanju člena 286(2) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (PDEU), v skladu s katerim se je Svet posvetoval s Parlamentom ( C7‑0017/2010 ),
– having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament ( C7‑0017/2010 ),
– ob upoštevanju dejstva, da se je Odboru za proračunski nadzor na seji dne 16. marca 2010 predstavil kandidat, ki ga Svet predlaga za člana Računskega sodišča,
– having regard to the fact that, at its meeting of 16 March 2010, the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors,
– ob upoštevanju člena 108 svojega Poslovnika,
– having regard to Rule 108 of its Rules of Procedure,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za proračunski nadzor ( A7-0040/2010 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control ( A7-0040/2010 ),
A. ker Igors Ludboržs izpolnjuje pogoje, ki jih določa člen 286(1) PDEU,
A. whereas Igors Ludboržs fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU,
Član Evropskega računskega sodišča
Member of European Court of Auditors
Rojen junija 1964 v Jūrmali, Latvija
Born on June 1964 at Jūrmala, Latvia
Poročen, ima dva otroka
Married, two children
IZOBRAZBA IN USPOSABLJANJE
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
od avgusta 2003 dalje
August 2003 – onwards
kandidat za 2. stopnjo izpita leta 2010 za pridobitev naziva CFA
2010 Level II CFA candidate
od oktobra 1994 do novembra 2003
October 1994 – November 2003
pooblaščeni računovodja (član Združenja pooblaščenih računovodij)
Fellow Chartered Certified Accountant (Association of Chartered Certified Accountants)
od septembra 2000 do maja 2001
September 2000 – May 2001
pooblaščeni notranji revizor (Institut notranjih revizorjev)
Certified Internal Auditor (Institute of Internal Auditors)
od aprila 1994 do maja 1994
April 1994 – May 1994
pooblaščeni revizor (Računovodski metodolološki svet, Ministrstvo za finance, Latvija)
Certified Auditor (Accounting Methodological Council, Ministry of Finance of Latvia)
od junija 1993 do avgusta 1993
June 1993 – August 1993
spričevalo (šola Warton, Univerza v Pennsylvaniji in Poslovna šola Stanford)
Certificate (Warton School, University of Pennsylvania and Stanford Business School)
od junija 1992 do julija 1992
June 1992 – July 1992
spričevalo (Poslovna šola Harvard)
Certificate (Harvard Business School)
od septembra 1986 do 1989
September 1986 – 1989
doktorat (oddelek za računovodstvo, Univerza v Vilni)
PhD (Accounting Department, University of Vilnius)
od septembra 1981 do 1985
September 1981 – 1985
diploma (računovodski oddelek, Univerza v Vilni)
Diploma (Accounting Department, University of Latvia)
od 2004 naprej
May 2004 – onwards
član Evropskega računskega sodišča v Luksemburgu
Member of European Court of Auditors (Luxembourg)
od maja 2003 do maja 2004
May 2003 – May 2004
profesor na Inštitutu za računovodstvo, Fakulteta za ekonomijo in menedžment, Univerza v Latviji
Professor – Institute of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Management (University of Latvia)
od oktobra 1992 do aprila 2003
October 1992 – April 2003
izredni profesor na Inštitutu za računovodstvo, Fakulteta za ekonomijo in menedžment, Univerza v Latviji
Associate Professor – Institute of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Management (University of Latvia)
od oktobra 1989 do septembra 1992
October 1989 – September 1992
docent na Inštitutu za računovodstvo, Fakulteta za ekonomijo in menedžment, Univerza v Latviji
Assistant Professor – Institute of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Management (University of Latvia)
od septembra 1985 do avgusta 1986
September 1985 – August 1986
predavatelj na Inštitutu za računovodstvo, Fakulteta za ekonomijo in menedžment, Univerza v Latviji
Lecturer – Institute of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Management (University of Latvia)
od marca 2003 do maja 2004
March 2003 – May 2004
generalni direktor (podjetje SIA, pisarna pooblaščenega revizorja Igorsa Ludboržsa)
Managing director (SIA, “Igors Ludboržs certified auditor’s office”)
od oktobra 1997 do septembra 2001
October 1997 – September 2001
namestnik vodje oddelka za notranjo revizijo (banka Parex)
Deputy Head of Internal Audit Department (Parex Bank)
od oktobra 1993 do septembra 1997
October 1993 – September 1997
dve leti revizijski nadzornik in nato vodja revizij (Coopers & Lybrand)
Audit Supervisor for two years and then Audit Manager (Coopers & Lybrand)
od oktobra 1990 do septembra 1993
October 1990 – September 1993
finančni direktor (IP Riga)
Financial director (IP Rīga)
od decembra 1989 do septembra 1990
December 1989 – September 1990