natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
pozdravlja sporočilo o pametnih predpisih in poudarja, da morajo imeti ocene učinka ključno vlogo v celotnem političnem ciklusu, od snovanja do izvajanja, uveljavljanja, ocenjevanja in revizije zakonodaje; poudarja pomen resnično premišljenega in dobro obveščenega odločanja v fazi snovanja zakonodajnih predlogov, ker lahko to prispeva k boljši kakovosti rezultatov in h krajšemu zakonodajnemu postopku;
Welcomes the Smart Regulation Communication, and emphasises that impact assessments should play a key role throughout the whole policy cycle, from design to implementation, enforcement, evaluation and to the revision of legislation; stresses the importance of well-considered and fully informed decision-making at the design stage of legislative proposals, because this can lead to both improved quality of outcomes and a shorter legislative process;
poudarja, da so temeljite ocene učinka potrebne za kakovostno zakonodajo in njen pravilen prenos, izvajanje in izvrševanje;
Stresses the need for thorough impact assessments as a prerequisite for high-quality legislation and correct transposition, application and enforcement;
poudarja, da ocena učinka v nobenem primeru ne more nadomestiti politične razprave in demokratičnega postopka odločanja zakonodajalca, ampak služi le kot strokovna priprava za sprejetje politične odločitve;
Stresses that an impact assessment is in no way a substitute for political debate and the legislator's decision-making process but merely serves to help the technical preparation of a political decision;
poudarja, da se morajo ocene učinka izvajati v zgodnji fazi razvoja politike; poudarja, da morajo biti popolnoma neodvisne ter da se morajo vedno opirati na utemeljeno in objektivno analizo možnih učinkov;
Stresses that impact assessments need to be carried out in the early stages of policy development; emphasises that they should be completely independent and should always be based on an objective, reasoned analysis of potential effects;
poudarja, da so se v skladu z medinstitucionalnim sporazumom o boljši zakonodaji sozakonodajalci zavezali, da bodo oceno učinka izvedli pred sprejetjem vsake bistvene dopolnitve, če bodo mnenja, da je to primerno in potrebno za zakonodajni postopek;
Stresses that, in line with the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Lawmaking, co-legislators have undertaken to carry out impact assessments when they consider this to be appropriate and necessary for the legislative process, prior to the adoption of any substantive amendment;
meni, da je v postopek izdelave ocene učinka treba vključiti zunanje strokovnjake z vseh področij politik, pa tudi vse zainteresirane strani, da se zagotovi neodvisnost in objektivnost; v zvezi s tem opozarja na temeljno razliko med javnim posvetovanjem in neodvisno oceno učinka; opozarja, da bi morale biti za končni rezultat in nadzor metodologije in kakovosti ocene učinka še naprej odgovorne institucije Evropske unije, da bi tako zagotovili, da bi bile ocene učinka izdelane po enako visokih merilih;
Considers it necessary to involve external experts from all policy areas as well as all stakeholder groups affected in the impact assessment process in order to guarantee independence and objectivity; stresses in this connection the fundamental distinction between public consultation and independent impact assessment; notes that the final outcome and the control of the methodology and quality of the impact assessment should remain with the European Union institutions in order to ensure that they are carried out to the same high standard;
se zavzema za čim večjo preglednost pri pripravi ocen učinka ter za predčasno objavo celovitih časovnih načrtov za predlagano zakonodajo, tako da bi bil zagotovljen enak dostop do zakonodajnega postopka za vse zainteresirane strani; zato meni, da bi bilo treba čas, ki ga ima Komisija za posvetovanje, podaljšati na 12 tednov;
Calls for the maximum of transparency when drawing up impact assessments, including the early publication of comprehensive Road Maps of proposed legislation to ensure equal access to the legislative procedure for all stakeholders; considers therefore also that the Commission's current consultation period should be extended to 12 weeks;
meni, da ne bi smelo biti možno, da ocene učinkov projektov ali zakonodaje, ki jih podpira javna uprava ali njena odvisna podjetja, odobri ta uprava;
Takes the view that it should not be possible for impact assessments on projects or legislation sponsored by public administrations or their dependent undertakings to be approved by the administration concerned;
meni, da je bistveno, da države članice ocene učinka predhodno preverijo ter tako ocenijo vpliv zakonodajnega predloga na nacionalne zakonodaje in javne politike; poziva k izvajanju obsežnejših naknadnih ocen in dodatnemu premisleku o vključitvi obveznih korelacijskih tabel, na podlagi katerih bi lahko ugotovili, ali so države članice ustrezno uveljavile zakonodajo EU in uresničile njene cilje;
Considers that it is essential that impact assessments are scrutinised by Member States ex-ante, to assess the effects of proposed legislation on national laws and public policies; calls for greater ex-post evaluation to be carried out and for further consideration of the inclusion of mandatory correlation tables to ensure that EU legislation has been correctly implemented by Member States and has met its objectives;
meni, da je ocena učinka primeren instrument za preverjanje ustreznosti predlogov Komisije, še zlasti njihove skladnosti z načeloma subsidiarnosti in sorazmernosti, in za jasnejšo razlago sozakonodajalcem in javnosti o razlogih za izbiro določenega ukrepa;
Believes the impact assessment to be a suitable instrument for verifying the relevance of Commission proposals, and in particular compliance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, and for explaining more clearly to the co-legislators and the public at large the reasons behind opting for a given measure;
poudarja, da so ključni elementi dobre ocene učinka prepoznavanje problema, posvetovanje z deležniki, opredelitev ciljev, ki jih je treba doseči, in oblikovanje možnih strateških ukrepov;
Stresses that the key elements of a good impact assessment are recognition of the problem, consultation of the parties concerned, definition of the objectives to be achieved and the elaboration of strategic policy options;
meni, da je pomembno, da nove zakonodajne predloge spremlja ocena učinka; opozarja, da to lahko velja tako za poenostavitve in preoblikovanja prava Skupnosti kot za delegirane in izvedbene akte v skladu s členom 290 oziroma členom 291 PDEU, kjer je to primerno;
Considers it important for new legislative proposals to be accompanied by an impact assessment; notes that this may also apply to the simplification and recasting of EU law and to delegated acts and implementing acts pursuant to Articles 290 and 291 TFEU, where appropriate;
meni, da je ocena učinka „živ“ dokument, ki je del postopka priprave zakonodaje; poudarja, da je treba zagotoviti dovolj prožnosti, ki bo v prihodnje omogočala izvajanje ocen učinka med samim postopkom priprave zakonodaje;
Regards the impact assessment as a ‘living document’ forming part of the lawmaking process; stresses the need to guarantee sufficient flexibility so that further impact assessments can be conducted during the lawmaking process;
poziva, naj se ocene učinka ne osredotočajo izključno na analizo stroškov in koristi, ampak naj v skladu z načelom celovitega pristopa upoštevajo več različnih meril in tako zakonodajalcu zagotovijo čim bolj celovito sliko; v zvezi s tem opozarja na gospodarske, socialne in okoljske vidike, omenjene v medinstitucionalnem sporazumu z dne 16. decembra 2003 in v skupnem pristopu iz leta 2005, ki jih je treba združiti v skupno oceno; ob tem poudarja, da je treba zagotoviti doslednost med politikami in dejavnostmi EU, in sicer z upoštevanjem vseh njenih ciljev in v skladu z načelom prenosa pristojnosti iz člena 7 PDEU;
Calls for impact assessments to not focus exclusively on cost/benefit-analysis but to take a large number of criteria into account, in accordance with the principle of an integrated approach, in order to provide the legislator with as comprehensive a picture as possible; draws attention in this context to the economic, social and environmental aspects referred to in the interinstitutional agreement of 16 December 2003 and the common approach of 2005, which are to be combined in a single evaluation; underlines, in this respect, the need to ensure consistency between policies and activities of the EU by taking all of its objectives into account and in accordance with the principle of conferral of powers as laid down in Article 7 TFEU;
predlaga, da se v okviru ocen učinka stalno izvaja analiza stroškov in koristi, tj. preverjanje stroškovne učinkovitosti vseh programov in ukrepov, ki vplivajo na odhodke, ter se preučijo možni učinki za mala in srednja podjetja (MSP); v zvezi s tem poziva k dosledni uporabi testa MSP v skladu z aktom o malih podjetjih iz leta 2008; v zvezi s tem opozarja, da je treba pri vsakem novem zakonu, ki bremeni MSP, skrbno oceniti obstoječe predpise, da bi tako zmanjšali skupno regulativno obremenitev MSP;
Urges that, in connection with the impact assessment, a cost-benefit analysis – i.e. an examination of the cost-efficiency of all programmes and measures involving expenditure – should always be carried out, and potential implications for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) examined; calls in this connection for the consistent application of the ‘SME test’ proposed in the 2008 Small Business Act; recalls in this context that in every law imposing burdens on SMEs there should be a careful evaluation of existing regulations with the aim at reducing the overall regulatory burden on SMEs;
zahteva, da se v okviru ocen učinka izvede natančna analiza vseh predlogov politik, ki znatno vplivajo na konkurenčnost industrije; nadalje poziva k izvedbi naknadne ocene učinka zakonodaje EU na konkurenčnost evropskega gospodarstva; opozarja, da je v sporočilu o celostni industrijski politiki za dobo globalizacije tudi Komisija napovedala takšno ravnanje;
Calls, in the context of impact assessments, for an intensive analysis to be carried out on all new policy proposals with significant effects on industrial competitiveness; further calls for an ex-post assessment of the impact of EU legislation on the competitiveness of the European economy; notes that the Commission in fact promised such a procedure in its communication on an Integrated Industrial Policy for the Globalisation Era;
poudarja, da se je treba, preden se predlaga nova zakonodaja, naučiti iz naknadnih ocenjevanj veljavne zakonodaje in analiz ustrezne sodne prakse Sodišča ter da je potrebna ustrezna razprava o strateških izbirah, ki so na voljo znotraj določene politike;
Emphasises the need to learn lessons from the ex-post evaluation of existing legislation and an analysis of relevant case law of the Court of Justice, and for a proper discussion to take place on the strategic choices available in a certain policy area before new legislation is proposed;
predlaga, da se v ocenah učinka na evropski ravni oceni tudi evropska dodana vrednost v smislu znižanja stroškov, ki bi ga zagotovila evropska rešitev, oziroma dodatnih stroškov v državah članicah, če ne bi bilo rešitve na ravni EU;
Urges that impact assessments at European level should look into the European added-value in terms of what savings will result from a European solution and/or what supplementary costs would arise for the Member States in the absence of a European solution;
meni, da je treba pri ocenah učinka upoštevati učinek na gospodarska partnerstva EU, pa tudi posledice izbire določenega evropskega standarda namesto mednarodnega;
Believes that the impact on EU economic partnerships as well as the implications of choosing a specific European standard instead of an international standard should be taken into consideration in impact assessments;
poudarja, da morajo ocene učinka v celoti obravnavati razpoložljive možnosti, ki so na voljo zakonodajalcu, te pa morajo vedno vključevati tudi temeljito analizo možnosti neukrepanja;
Stresses that impact assessments must fully consider the alternatives available to the legislator, which should always include a serious examination of the option of taking no action;
poudarja, da ocene učinka ne smejo povečati birokracije in povzročiti nepotrebnih zamud v zakonodajnem postopku; vseeno pa je treba ocenam učinka dati dovolj časa, da bi lahko prinesle zanesljiv rezultat; v zvezi s tem poudarja, da se ocene učinka ne smejo zlorabiti za preprečevanje sprejetja neželenih pravnih predpisov; zato predlaga, da se zagotovijo tehnični in upravni pogoji za hitro in pravočasno izvajanje ocen učinka, na primer z instrumenti, kot so okvirni sporazumi, pospešen postopek javnih razpisov in optimalna uporaba lastnih virov;
Stresses that impact assessments must not lead to more bureaucracy and unnecessary delays in the legislative procedure; however, impact assessments must be allowed sufficient time in order to produce a reliable result; further stresses in this connection that impact assessments should not be abused as a means of holding up unwanted legislation; urges, therefore, that the technical and administrative conditions be created to ensure that impact assessments are carried out speedily and promptly, e.g. through such instruments as framework agreements, accelerated tendering procedures and the optimal use of resources;
v smislu načela primerov najboljše prakse poziva k upoštevanju izkušenj drugih držav, v katerih se ocene učinka izvajajo že vrsto let, saj se bodo tako ocene učinka na ravni Evropske unije še izboljšale;
Urges, in accordance with the Best Practice principle, that use be made of experience gained in other countries where impact assessments have already been carried out for several years, in order to further improve impact assessments at EU level;
poziva k posodabljanju ocen učinka skozi celoten zakonodajni postopek, da bodo tako upoštevane spremembe, do katerih bo prišlo v tem postopku;
Calls for impact assessments to be updated during the course of the legislative process as a whole, to enable account to be taken of changes occurring during this process;
poudarja, da se morajo ocene učinka izvajati ne le pred sprejetjem zakonodajnega besedila (predhodno), temveč tudi po njem (naknadno); 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; kljub temu poudarja, da naknadna ocena ne sme nikoli nadomestiti obveznosti Komisije, ki mora kot „varuhinja Pogodb“ učinkovito in pravočasno spremljati izvajanje prava Unije v državah članicah;
Stresses that impact assessments 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; stresses nevertheless that the ex-post evaluation should never replace the Commission's duty as ‘Guardian of the Treaties’ to monitor effectively and in a timely manner the application of Union law by Member States;
poudarja osnovno odgovornost Komisije za izvajanje visoko kakovostnih ocen učinka njenih predlogov, ko uveljavlja pravico do pobude v skladu s Pogodbo;
Underlines the Commission's primary responsibility for conducting high quality impact assessments of its proposals when exercising its right of initiative in accordance with the Treaty;
priznava, da je Komisija v preteklih letih optimizirala ocene učinka, vendar poudarja, da jih mora še dodatno izboljšati;
Acknowledges that the quality of Commission impact assessments has gone up in recent years, but stresses that there is further need for improvement;
v zvezi s tem opozarja na odbor Komisije za oceno učinka, ki je bil ustanovljen leta 2006 in je v veliki meri odgovoren za nadaljnji razvoj ocen učinka Komisije;
Refers in this connection to the Commission's Impact Assessment Board (IAB) founded in 2006, which is responsible for the development of Commission impact assessments;
poudarja, da so člani odbora za oceno učinka le formalno neodvisni, saj jih imenuje predsednik Komisije, katerega navodila sprejemajo, zato ni mogoče govoriti o popolni neodvisnosti; zato poziva k temu, da člane odbora za oceno učinka pred njihovim imenovanjem preverita Evropski parlament in Svet, da ne bodo več vezani na navodila predsednika Komisije; poziva, naj delo odbora za oceno učinka in strokovnjakov poteka v okviru javnih pristojnosti ob največji možni preglednosti, da se njihova neodvisnost lahko preveri v praksi;
Stresses that the members of the IAB are independent only in formal terms, since they are currently appointed by and subject to the instructions of the Commission President, and cannot therefore be said to be fully independent; calls, therefore, for the members of the IAB to be scrutinized by the European Parliament and the Council prior to appointment and no longer be subject to the instructions of the Commission President; calls for the work of the IAB and experts to take place in the public remit with the highest transparency so that their independence can be verified in practice;
poziva tudi, naj se v delo odbora za oceno učinka vključijo strokovnjaki z vseh političnih področij, pa tudi vse zainteresirane strani; poziva, naj ti strokovnjaki ne prihajajo iz služb Komisije in naj ne bodo vezani na njena navodila;
Calls also for the involvement of experts from all policy areas as well as all stakeholder groups affected in the IAB's work; call for these experts to come from outside the Commission and not be subject to instructions;
spodbuja k zgodnji in celoviti vključitvi Evropskega parlamenta in zlasti pristojnih parlamentarnih odborov, na primer z obveščanjem in vmesnimi poročili, v celoten proces priprave ocene učinka in v delo odbora za oceno učinka; poziva Komisijo, naj Parlamentu in Svetu ob predložitvi zakonodajnega predloga pošlje po dve do štiri strani dolge povzetke s celovito oceno učinka, ki bo po potrebi vključevala pojasnilo, zakaj določena ocena učinka ni bila izvedena; s tem bosta ti dve instituciji lahko preverili, ali so obravnavana vsa ustrezna vprašanja, ne da bi z vplivanjem na dejansko ocenjevanje ogrozili neodvisnost ocene;
Calls for the early and comprehensive involvement – including by means of notification and interim reports – of the European Parliament, and in particular of its relevant committees, in the whole impact assessment process and in the work of the IAB; invites the Commission to provide Parliament and the Council with two-to-four-page summaries with the full impact assessment, including when relevant an explanation for the reasons for not carrying out an impact assessment, when submitting the legislative proposal in order to verify that all relevant issues are addressed without jeopardizing the independence of the assessment by influencing the actual evaluation;
ugotavlja, da bi se morala Komisija pri pripravi ocene učinka posvetovati tudi z državami članicami, saj morajo te direktive pozneje prenesti v nacionalno zakonodajo in nacionalni organi praviloma bolje vedo, kakšen vpliv imajo predpisi v praksi;
Notes that, in carrying out its impact assessments, the Commission should also consult with the Member States, because the latter must later transpose the directives into national law, and national authorities usually know better how legal provisions will work in practice;
poudarja, da pametni predpisi, ki temeljijo na popolni in objektivni oceni učinka, ostajajo skupna odgovornost evropskih institucij in držav članic ter da mora Komisija zato upoštevati tudi povratne informacije, ki jih prejme od Evropskega parlamenta, Odbora regij, Evropskega ekonomsko-socialnega odbora in držav članic;
Emphasises that smart regulation based on complete and objective impact assessment remains the shared responsibility of the European institutions, and that the Commission must therefore also take into account feedback received from the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Member States;
opozarja, da je treba pred dokončnim sprejetjem ocene učinka njene začasne ugotovitve vedno ponuditi v zunanji pregled; zato se zavzema za to, da je ta pregled dostopen javnosti;
Notes that, before the final adoption of an impact assessment, its preliminary results must always be subjected to an external review; calls for the findings of this review to be publicly accessible;
opozarja na kritiko Evropskega računskega sodišča, da Komisija včasih začne obravnavo zakonodajnih pobud, čeprav proces priprave ocene učinka še ni zaključen; poleg tega je seznanjen s kritikami, da vsem političnim opcijam ni namenjena enaka raven pozornosti; poudarja, da je treba v procesu priprave ocene učinka v celoti upoštevati vse politične opcije;
Notes the criticism by the European Court of Auditors to the effect that the Commission sometimes undertakes legislative initiatives even though the impact assessment process has not been completed; further notes the criticism that not all policy options may receive the same level of attention; stresses that all policy options must be fully considered in the impact assessment process;
poziva k večji preglednosti s splošno objavo vseh strokovnjakov in drugih udeležencev, ki so sodelovali v procesu priprave ocene učinka, in njihovih izjav o interesih;
Calls, in the interest of greater transparency, for the publication of the names of all experts and other participants in the impact assessment process as well as of their declaration of interests;
v zvezi z javnimi posvetovanji spodbuja pravočasno obveščanje zainteresiranih strani o načrtovanem posvetovanju; nadalje predlaga, da zainteresirane strani v okviru javnih posvetovanj dobijo tudi priložnost, da izrazijo mnenje o ocenah učinka, in sicer pravočasno, torej pred objavo kakršnega koli predloga Komisije;
Calls, in connection with public consultations, for the early notification of stakeholder groups concerning any planned consultation; further takes the view that stakeholder groups should be given the opportunity, as part of the public consultation process, to comment on impact assessments, and that this should take place in good time, before the Commission proposal is published;
zahteva, da so podatki, ki jih uporablja Komisija, zanesljivi in primerljivi;
Insists that the data used by the Commission be reliable and comparable;
poziva Komisijo, naj v ocenah učinka sistematično preučuje upravno obremenitev, ki jo prinašajo zakonodajni predlogi, in vedno jasno poudari, katera od preučenih možnosti odpravlja največ upravnih obremenitev oziroma povzroči najmanj dodatne birokracije;
Calls on the Commission, in its impact assessments, to look systematically at the administrative burden imposed by proposed legislation, and always to state clearly which of the options assessed eliminates the most administrative burdens or creates fewest new ones;
opozarja, da je istočasna predstavitev rezultatov ocene učinka in zakonodajnega predloga neugodna, saj vzbuja vtis, da ocena učinka služi predvsem kot utemeljitev predloga Komisije; zato poziva k zgodnji objavi dokumentov v vseh fazah zakonodajnega postopka ter k temu, da se končna ocena učinka Komisije, ki jo je odobril odbor za oceno učinka, objavi, preden se začnejo posvetovanja med službami;
Notes that presenting the results of an impact assessment at the same time as a legislative proposal is unhelpful, as it gives the impression that the principal aim of the impact assessment is to justify the Commission proposal; therefore advocates the early publication of documents at every stage of the legislative process, including the publication of the Commission's final impact assessment, as approved by the IAB, before inter-service consultations begins;