natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
ceni osrednjo vlogo, ki jo imajo pri lajšanju trgovanja za gospodarske subjekte poenostavljeni carinski postopki za uvoz, vendar obžaluje, da so taki postopki privedli k neupravičeno visokim izgubam za proračun Unije in kršijo trgovinsko politiko Unije;
Appreciates the key role of simplified customs import procedures for economic operators with regard to trade facilitation, but regrets that such procedures have led to unjustified levels of losses to the Union budget and breaches in Union trade policy;
pozdravlja izboljšani ureditveni okvir za poenostavljene postopke za uvoz, ki je bil uveden v začetku leta 2009 in pričakuje, da bo Komisija brez dodatnega odlašanja in najkasneje do konca leta 2011 končala svoje smernice za naknadne revizije;
Welcomes the improved regulatory framework for simplified procedures for imports, introduced from the beginning of 2009 and expects the Commission to complete its guidelines for ex-post audits without any further delay and at the latest by the end of 2011;
poziva države članice k hitremu izvajanju tega okvira, Komisijo pa, naj temeljito spremlja napredek pri izvajanju;
Invites the Member States to implement this framework rapidly and calls on the Commission to monitor progress thoroughly;
meni, da je pomanjkanje učinkovitih kontrol za poenostavljene postopke za uvoz v državah članicah, ki jih je razkrilo to poročilo, nesprejemljivo, in poziva Komisijo, naj dodatno preuči učinkovitost kontrol za poenostavljeni postopek v državah članicah, zlasti napredek pri njihovem izvajanju naknadnih revizij (na primer pogostost, metodologija, uporaba analize tveganja in organizacija), ter da do konca leta 2011 Parlamentu predstavi ugotovite te preiskave za vsaj polovico držav članic, do konca leta 2012 pa še za preostale države članice;
Finds the lack of effective controls, which the report revealed, for simplified procedures in respect of imports in the Member States to be unacceptable, and calls on the Commission to further investigate the effectiveness of controls for simplified procedures in the Member States, and in particular to investigate progress in the conduct by the Member States of ex-post audits (for example, the frequency, methodology, use of risk analysis and organisation thereof), and to present the results of such an investigation to Parliament by the end of 2011 in respect of at least half of the Member States and by the end of 2012 in respect of the remainder of the Member States;
meni, da morajo države članice narediti več za zagotavljanje učinkovitega zbiranja carinskih dajatev, zlasti glede na to, da zadržijo 25 % teh dajatev kot nadomestilo za stroške zbiranja;
Is of the opinion that the Member States should put more effort into ensuring the effective collection of customs duties, particularly given that they retain 25 % of those duties by way of compensation for the costs of collecting them;
poziva Evropsko računsko sodišče, naj razmisli o nadaljnjem spremljanju po tem posebnem poročilu in uvedbi smernic za naknadne revizije, Komisijo pa, naj Parlamentu zagotovi ocene izgub tradicionalnih lastnih sredstev zaradi sedanjih neučinkovitih kontrol za poenostavljene postopke v državah članicah;
Requests the Court of Auditors to consider a follow-up to this special report after the introduction of the guidelines for ex-post audits and calls on the Commission to provide Parliament with estimates of losses in Traditional Own Resources as a result of the current ineffective controls for simplified procedures in the Member States;
poziva Komisijo, naj analizira nizozemski koncept za revizije pred pooblastitvijo, ki ga Nizozemska na splošno sicer ne uporablja, vendar je zanj Evropsko računsko sodišče ugotovilo, da se popolnoma ujema z njegovim modelom kontrole in priporoča njegovo uporabo v drugih državah članicah, ter da Parlament obvešča o napredku, doseženem do septembra 2011;
Calls on the Commission to analyse the Dutch idea for pre-authorisation audits, which, although not generally followed in the Netherlands, were found by the Court of Auditors to fully correspond to the Court's control model, and to recommend the use of that model in other Member States and to inform Parliament on progress made by September 2011;
poziva Komisijo naj podrobneje prouči pretirano uporabo poenostavitev (oprostitev obveščanja), Parlamentu pa do konca postopka razrešnice za leto 2009 zagotovi podrobne številke o pogostosti pretiranih poenostavitev na državo članico; poziva Komisijo, naj podrobneje opredeli posebne okoliščine, v katerih so trgovci oproščeni obveščanja;
Urges the Commission to investigate in more detail the issue of abuse of ’super-simplifications’ (notification waivers) and to provide Parliament with detailed figures on the frequency of super-simplifications per Member State by the end of the discharge procedure for 2009; calls on the Commission to define in more detail the special circumstances under which traders may benefit from the notification waivers;
poziva Komisijo, naj do februarja 2011 prouči primer Belgije, Francije, Irski, Švedske in Združenega kraljestva, kjer trgovci niso mogli zagotoviti zahtevane carinske dokumentacije za naknadno revizijo, Parlament pa obvesti o ukrepih, ki so jih sprejele te države članice za popravo stanja pred koncem postopka razrešnice za leto 2009;
Calls on the Commission to examine by February 2011 the cases of Belgium, France, Ireland, Sweden and United Kingdom, where traders were unable to provide the requested customs documentation in the framework of ex-post audits, and to inform Parliament of actions taken by those Member States in order to remedy the situation before the end of the discharge procedure for 2009;
obžaluje, da Unija nima skladne politike sankcij, ki bi jih države članice izrekle trgovcem, ki kršijo določbe poenostavljenih postopkov, uvedenih zato, da jim omogočijo lažje izvajanje gospodarskih dejavnosti; poziva Komisijo, naj Parlament obvesti o ukrepih, sprejetih za izboljšavo teh razmer;
Regrets the lack of a coherent Union policy of sanctions to be imposed by Member States on traders who act in breach of the rules on the simplified procedures introduced for them to facilitate economic operations; calls on the Commission to inform Parliament as to the steps taken to remedy this situation;
poziva države članice, naj gospodarske subjekte seznanijo z njihovimi obveznostmi pri uporabi poenostavljenih postopkov, tudi z obveznim usposabljanjem;
Calls on the Member States to make economic operators aware of their responsibilities when using the simplified procedures, which may include compulsory training;
Del IV – Posebno poročilo Evropskega računskega sodišča št. 2/2010 z naslovom ’Uspešnost podpornih shem za načrtovalne študije in izgradnjo novih infrastruktur v okviru šestega okvirnega programa za raziskave’
Part IV - Special Report No 2/2010 of the Court of Auditors entitled ’The effectiveness of the Design Studies and Construction of New Infrastructures support schemes under the Sixth Framework Programme for Research’
ugotavlja, da konkurenca tradicionalnih konkurentov in držav v razvoju, s katero se sooča Unija na področju raziskav, razvoja in inovacij, narašča; v skladu s tem ugotavlja, da so raziskave in še posebej nova raziskovalna infrastruktura bistvene za doseganje ciljev Unije, določenih s strategijo Evropa 2020: pametna, trajnostna in vključujoča rast;
Notes the increasing competition that the Union faces from traditional competitors and emerging countries in the field of research, development and innovation; notes, accordingly, that research and specifically new research infrastructure, is essential for the Union to achieve the objectives set out in the ’EU 2020’ strategy: a smart, sustainable and inclusive growth;
poudarja, da mora Komisija previdno proučiti vse prvine, da zagotovi najboljši izkoristek sredstev; vendar ugotavlja, da niti v tem posebnem poročilu niti v odgovoru Komisije ni jasnih dokazov, ki bi navajali k ugotovitvi, da je Komisija sredstva res najbolje izkoristila;
Emphasises that the Commission should carefully consider all elements in order to get the best value for money; notes, however, that there is no explicit evidence provided by this special report or in the reply of the Commission which could lead to the conclusion that the Commission did indeed get the best value for money;
poudarja pomen ugotovitev analize, ki jo je opravila Komisija leta 2000, v skladu s katero primanjkuje kritične mase v tehnološkem razvoju, povezanim z infrastrukturami; ugotavlja, da na podlagi tega posebnega poročila in odgovora Komisije ni mogoče sklepati, da so značilnosti in število financiranih projektov (skupno 28) dosegli to kritično maso; zato poziva Komisijo, naj v tem primeru dodatno pojasni cilj doseganja kritične mase in način njegovega spodbujanja;
Emphasises the importance of the conclusion of the Commission analysis carried out in 2000 that there is a lack of critical mass in technological development related to infrastructures; notes that neither from this special report nor from the reply of the Commission can it be concluded that the characteristics and the number of projects financed (28 in total) have achieved this critical mass; calls, accordingly, on the Commission to further clarify in this particular case the objective of reaching a critical mass and the way it was promoted;
glede načrtovalnih študij ugotavlja, da ni očitno, da bi Evropsko računsko sodišče pri anketiranju upravičencev, predstavnikov raziskovalne skupnosti ter predstavnikov držav članic in pridruženih držav upoštevalo dejstvo, da so te strani po svoji naravi bolj naklonjene izvedenim študijam, poleg tega spodbuja Računsko sodišče, da za boljšo preučitev učinkovitosti obravnavanih projektov uporabi dopolnilne dokaze;
Notes that, as concerns design studies, it is not apparent that the Court of Auditors, when interviewing the beneficiaries, the representatives of research organisations, the representatives of the research community and the representatives of the Member States and Associated States, took into consideration the fact that these parties are by nature positively pre-disposed to the implemented studies; in addition, encourages the Court of Auditors to use complementary evidence in order to better examine the effectiveness of the projects in question ;
ugotavlja, da v skladu z odgovorom Komisije, financiranje EU v okviru sheme izgradnje novih infrastruktur ni bilo mišljeno kot podlaga za sprejetje odločitev o izgradnji nove infrastrukture, temveč je bilo namenjeno predvsem krepitvi evropske razsežnosti; vendar ugotavlja, da je opredelitev izrazov ’evropska razsežnost’ in ’evropska dodana vrednost’ Posebno poročilo št. 2/2010, odgovor Komisije na točki 25 in 26: ’Cilj sheme izgradnje novih infrastruktur je bil optimizacija evropskih infrastruktur z zagotavljanjem omejene podpore za razvoj omejenega števila projektov za nove infrastrukture v ustrezno utemeljenih primerih, kjer ima lahko takšna podpora kritičen usmerjevalni učinek v smislu evropske dodane vrednosti’.
Notes that according to the reply of the Commission, the ’EU funding under the CNI scheme was not meant to trigger any decision to build new infrastructure but rather to enhance the European dimension’; notes, however, that there is an insufficient definition of the terms ’European dimension’ and ’European added value’ Special Report No 2/2010, reply of the Commission on points 25-26: ’The objective of the CNI scheme was to optimise European infrastructures by providing limited support for the development of a restricted number of projects for new infrastructures in duly justified cases where such support could have a critical catalysing effect in terms of European added value’.
nezadostna, še zlasti opredelitev načina njunega merjenja in kako uporaba sredstev, porabljenih na teh projektih, ustreza tema dvema izrazoma; zato poziva Komisijo, naj te izraze dodatno pojasni na določen in izmerljiv način;
and specifically how these are measured and in which way the funds spent for these projects correspond to the terms ’European dimension’ and ’European added value’; calls, accordingly, on the Commission to clarify these terms further, in a specific and measurable manner;
soglaša z Računskim sodiščem in Komisijo, da je treba koristi uporabe dopolnilnih virov financiranja pojasniti potencialnim vlagateljem, spodbujati pa jih morajo Komisija in organi v državah članicah, četudi je bil v okviru sedmega okvirnega programa dosežen precejšen napredek;
Agrees with the Court of Auditors and the Commission that the benefits of using complementary funding sources should be made clear to potential applicants and further promoted by the Commission and the Member States’ authorities, even if significant progress has been made under FP7;
ugotavlja, da bodo dopolnili viri financiranja bistveni dejavnik pri ustanavljanju novih raziskovalnih infrastruktur v prihodnosti;
Notes that using complementary funding sources is a crucial factor in the establishment of new research infrastructures in the years to come;
ugotavlja, da mora Komisija konkretno ukrepati, da bi ustrezno upravljala dopolnilni vidik, npr. izvajati med drugim preglede v zvezi z dvojnim financiranjem ali neupravičenostjo do sofinanciranja;
Notes that there is a need for practical steps to be taken by the Commission to adequately administer the complementarity aspect, by carrying out inter alia checks for double financing or ineligible co-financing;
opozarja, da je Komisija leta 2008 objavila priročnik o financiranju EU za raziskovanje in inovacije, države članice pa pozvala, naj zaradi usklajene uporabe sredstev izboljšajo ureditve;
Recalls that the Commission published, in 2008, a Practical Guide to EU funding opportunities for Research and Innovation and invited the Member States to improve the arrangements for a coordinated use of funding;
Del V – Posebno poročilo Evropskega računskega sodišča št. 3/2010 z naslovom ’Ocene učinka v institucijah EU: ali pomagajo pri odločanju?’
Part V - Special Report No 3/2010 of the Court of Auditors entitled ’Impact Assessments in the EU institutions: do they support decision-making?’
pozdravlja poročilo Računskega sodišča in se strinja z njegovimi opažanji in ugotovitvami;
Welcomes the report of the Court of Auditors, and endorses the Court of Auditor's observations and conclusions;
pozdravlja dober začetek, pa tudi potekajoča izboljšanja sistema Komisije za ocenjevanje učinka, zlasti nenehno posodabljanje smernic Komisije za ocenjevanje učinka in krepitev vloge odbora za oceno učinka;
Welcomes the good start and commends the on-going improvements of the Commission's Impact Assessment (IA) system, in particular, the constant updating of the Commission's IA guidelines and strengthening of the role of the Impact Assessment Board (IAB);
z zadovoljstvom ugotavlja, da so v skladu z ugotovitvami Računskega sodišča postopki ocenjevanja učinka postali sestavni del postopka razvoja politike in so prispevali k izboljšanju zakonodajnih postopkov Komisije;
Notes with satisfaction that, according to the Court of Auditors’ findings, the IA procedures have become an integral part of the policy development process and have contributed towards improving the Commission's legislative proposals;
spodbuja Komisijo, naj uvede ukrepe za izboljšanje preglednosti postopka načrtovanja ocen učinka; meni, da bi morala Komisija pojasniti razloge za potrebo po oceni učinka ter objaviti razloge za morebitne odločitve, da ne bo izvedla ocene učinka (zlasti v primerih, ko je odbor za oceno učinka opredelil potrebo po izvedbi ocene učinka);
Encourages the Commission to establish measures aimed at enhancing the transparency of the IA planning process; believes that the Commission should not only explain the reasons why an IA is needed, but also make public the reasons behind any decisions not to carry out an IA (in particular in cases when its IAB has identified the need to carry out an IA);
meni, da bi morale ocene učinkov obsegati vse zakonodajne pobude, tudi ukrepe za poenostavitev in komitološke ukrepe, kot je zapisano v drugem vmesnem poročilu delovne skupine za parlamentarno reformo z dne 21. maja 2008 o zakonodajnih dejavnostih in medinstitucionalnih odnosih; poziva vse vpletene strani, naj med naslednjimi medinstitucionalnimi pogovori ponovno opredelijo obseg ocen učinkov, zlasti ob upoštevanju nedavnih sprememb, uvedenih z Lizbonsko pogodbo;
Is of the opinion, as stated in the second interim report on legislative activities and inter-institutional relations by the Working Party on Parliamentary Reform of 21 May 2008, that the IAs should cover all legislative initiatives, including simplification and comitology measures; invites all the parties involved to redefine the scope of the IAs during the next inter-institutional talks, in particular taking into account the recent changes introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon;
poziva Komisijo, naj bolj vključi zainteresirane strani, ne samo v pripravo ocen učinkov, temveč naj se tudi posvetuje z zainteresiranimi stranmi o osnutkih poročil o oceni učinka, ter naj osnutke ocen učinkov objavi, po zgledu nekaterih držav članic OECD;
Urges the Commission to involve stakeholders, not only in the preparatory work of the IAs, but also to consult the interested parties on draft IA reports, and, following the approach taken by some OECD countries, to make draft IAs public;
poziva Komisijo, naj izboljša postopek načrtovanja ocen učinkov, da bi odboru za oceno učinka omogočila dovolj časa za obravnavo;
Encourages the Commission to improve the planning of the IA process in order to provide sufficient time for IAB scrutiny;
meni, da mora biti predložitev ocene učinka in razprava o njej sestavni del zakonodajnega dela Parlamenta, ter poziva svoje odbore, naj predstavnike Komisije pogosteje vabijo k sodelovanju;
Is of the opinion that presenting and discussing the IAs should be an integral part of Parliament's legislative work and encourages its committees to invite the Commission's representatives to participate in this more often;
vendar ugotavlja, da je neodvisnost ocen učinkov na način, ki se trenutno izvaja, vprašljiva, saj člane odbora Komisije za oceno učinkov, pristojne za te ocene, imenuje predsednik Komisije, obenem pa člani delujejo po njegovih navodilih;
Notes, however, that the independence of IAs as they are currently carried out is questionable due to the fact that the members of the Commission's Impact Assessment Board (IAB), which is responsible for the Commission's IAs, are appointed by, and subject to the instructions of, the Commission President;
poleg tega ugotavlja, da do enake težave prihaja glede naknadnih ocen Komisije, ki so za Parlament pri nadzoru tega, kako Komisija izvršuje proračun, le delno uporabna;
Further notes that the same problem occurs as regards the Commission's ex-post evaluations which are of only limited value as support to Parliament in its supervision of the Commission's implementation of the budget;
poudarja, da bi bilo treba ocene učinkov opravljati ne samo pred sprejetjem zakonodajnega besedila, marveč tudi po njem; opozarja, da je to pomembno za boljšo oceno o tem, ali so bili cilji določenega predpisa dejansko doseženi in v kolikšni meri je treba predpis prilagoditi oziroma zakaj ga je treba ohraniti;
Stresses that IAs should not take place only before the adoption of a legislative text (ex-ante) but should also be carried out after its adoption (ex-post); points out that this is necessary in order to evaluate more accurately whether the objectives of a law have actually been achieved and whether a legal act should be amended or retained;
je prepričan, da bi se z ocenami učinkov in vrednotenji, opravljenimi v imenu Parlamenta, povečala seznanjenost splošne javnosti s pomenom politik Unije in njeno poznavanje slednjih, obenem pa bi odigrale vlogo pri spodbujanju javnega sodelovanja in razpravljanja;
Is convinced that IAs and evaluations carried out on behalf of Parliament would enhance the general public's insight into and knowledge of the value of the policies of the Union, and play a role in creating public participation and debate;
poudarja, da pravica Komisije do pobude omejuje vlogo Parlamenta in trdno verjame, da bi neodvisne, svobodne in neomejene ocene učinkov in vrednotenja poslancem Evropskega parlamenta dale večjo besedo o prihodnjem razvoju evropskih politik;
Underlines that the Commission's right of initiative limits Parliament's role and believes strongly that independent, free and unrestricted IAs and evaluations would give Members of the European Parliament a bigger say on future developments of European policies;
Del VI – Posebno poročilo Evropskega računskega sodišča št. 4/2010 z naslovom ’Ali je od zasnove in upravljanja programa mobilnosti v okviru programa Leonardo da Vinci mogoče pričakovati dobre rezultate?’
Part VI - Special Report No 4/2010 of the Court of Auditors entitled ’Is the design and management of the mobility scheme of the Leonardo da Vinci Programme likely to lead to effective results?’
pozdravlja poročilo Računskega sodišča in utemeljeno oceno oblike in upravljanja načrta mobilnosti v programu Leonardo da Vinci, ki je v tem poročilu;
Welcomes the report of the Court of Auditors and the sound assessment of the design and management of the mobility scheme of the Leonardo da Vinci programme contained therein;
z zadovoljstvom ugotavlja, da je Računsko sodišče na splošno sklenilo, da bi zasnova in upravljanje načrta mobilnosti v programu Leonardo da Vinci lahko pripeljala do uspešnih rezultatov;
Notes with satisfaction the Court of Auditors’ overall conclusion that the design and management of the mobility scheme of the Leonardo da Vinci programme could lead to effective results;
ne glede na to, da se v celoti zaveda zapletenosti razvijanja primernih kazalcev za mnoge cilje tega programa in da priznava nedavni napredek na tem področju, je zaskrbljen zaradi ugotovitve Računskega sodišča, da manjka celovit sistem za merjenje učinka programa, in zaradi nezmožnosti Komisije, da oceni izpolnjevanje ciljev tri leta po začetku programa, kar predstavlja približno polovico njegovega trajanja;
In spite of being fully aware of the complexity of the task of developing suitable indicators for the many objectives set for the programme, and recognising the recent progress in that respect, is concerned by the Court of Auditors’ finding of a lack of a comprehensive system for the measurement of the impact of the programme, and of the Commission's inability to assess how the objectives are being met three years into the programme, which period represents approximately half of its life span;
poziva Komisijo, naj Parlament obvešča o napredku pri vzpostavljanju novega uporabniku prijaznega in učinkovitega orodja za iskanje partnerjev, ki bi odpravilo težave vlagateljev prijav pri iskanju partnerjev gostiteljev v drugih državah;
Calls on the Commission to inform Parliament of the progress in establishing a new user-friendly and effective partner-search tool which would address applicants’ difficulties in finding host partners in other countries;
poziva Komisijo, naj z nadaljnjim razvojem priročnika o ocenjevanju za ocenjevalce zagotovi ustrezno ocenjevanje prijav ter v svoje obiske za nadzor kakovosti in učinka v sodelujočih državah vključi ocenjevalne preglede prijav, če bi analiza takšnih pregledov pokazala, da omogočajo dodano vrednost;
Calls on the Commission to ensure correct assessment of applications by further developing the assessment handbook for evaluators and by integrating, into its quality and impact monitoring visits to participating countries assessment checks of applications, should the analysis of the added value of such checks prove positive;
poziva Komisijo, naj vzpostavi celovito merjenje učinka programa in izboljša poročanje o rezultatih in učinkih programa, zlasti pa naj nemudoma dokonča programsko aplikacijo LLPLink za poročanje o meritvah učinkov in obvešča Parlament o napredku na tem področju;
Calls on the Commission to establish a comprehensive system for the measurement of the impact of the programme and to improve the system for reporting on the results and effects of the programme and, in particular, to finalise the LLPLink software application for reporting on impact measurement without further delay, and to keep Parliament informed of progress in that respect;