natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In almost all Member States, the competent court for challenging a recovery order is an administrative court.
Po ugotovitvi dolga med upravnim postopkom izterjave se v prvi fazi ponavadi upravičenca pozove k plačilu nepravilno prejetega zneska.
In just a few Member States, the debtor may bring an action before the civil courts (75).
Uporabljena poimenovanja za ta upravni ukrep se zelo razlikujejo od ene države do druge.
If the debtor considers the decision of the court to be unsatisfactory, he may appeal against it. An appeal against a court decision has a suspensory e ect in some legal systems (76).
Naj gre za opomin dolžniku, sklep o izterjavi, ki ga izda upravni organ, pisni opomin, račun ali zahtevek za plačilo, vsaka država ima svoj upravni postopek, s katerim upravičenca spodbudi, da prostovoljno vrne znesek pred sprejetjem prisilnih ukrepov.
In some Member States, the court may suspend enforcement only if the debtor explicitly requests this (77).
V nekaterih državah članicah(71) zakon določa, da se upravičenec zasliši pred začetkom kakršnega koli postopka izterjave.
Administrative recovery procedure.
Prednost javnih upnikov.
In the 25 Member States, the administrative recovery procedure takes different and specific forms.
Nekateri javne terjatve, predvsem davčne ali carinske terjatve, imajo lahko posebno prednost(78) – zlasti v skupnem postopku –, ki upniku omogoča izterjavo dolga, čeprav skupna vrednost dolgov presega vrednost premoženja.
A er the establishment of a claim in an administrative recovery procedure, the rst step is usually to call upon the beneficiary to pay the amount received unduly. e nomenclature used for the administrative measures varies considerably from one Member State to another.
Na podlagi analize prispevkov držav članic javne terjatve v zvezi s pomočmi (nacionalnimi pomočmi ali pomočmi Skupnosti) nimajo prednosti in se jih obravnava enako kot druge terjatve, razen če so bile predvidene pogodbene garancije.
Whether in the form of a debit note, a recovery decision issued by an administrative body, a written reminder, an invoice or an invitation to pay, each state has its own particular administrative procedure to induce the beneficiary to pay back the amount voluntarily before enforcement measures are taken.
Ko je upravičenec pozvan k prostovoljnemu plačilu, ima ponavadi na voljo rok za vračilo dolgovanega zneska. Ta rok je lahko določen z zakonom, upravno odločbo pristojnega organa ali upravno prakso.
In some Member States (71), the law stipulates that the beneficiary must rst be heard before any recovery action is launched.
Povprečni rok za prostovoljno plačilo je okoli 30 dni (roki, ki so jih sporočile države članice, trajajo od 15 dni do dveh mesecev), čeprav nekateri pravni sistemi ne določajo natančnega roka. Francija in Finska se sklicujeta na „razumni rok“.
When called upon to pay voluntarily, the debtor is given a deadline by which he has to return the amount due. e
Je zelo učinkovito sredstvo za izterjavo javnih sredstev, če to omogočajo nacionalni pravni predpisi in če
Such measures may include attachments, mortgages, the lodging of bank guarantees, the prohibition of some actions on the assets of the debtor, seizure and confiscation, to give only a few examples.
Estonija, Grčija, Nizozemska, Portugalska in Finska.
(66) Czech Republic, Lithuania, Hungary, the Netherlands and Slovakia.(67) In Sweden a debt cannot be recovered from a bona de third party.
Skoraj vse države članice so navedle, da se upravni prisilni ukrepi sprejmejo, kadar dolžnik ne plača prostovoljno v roku.
In France, Italy, Finland, Scotland and Slovenia, bona de third parties can oppose recovery that would injure them, though this is subject to certain conditions.
Ti ukrepi imajo različne oblike in imena v 25 državah članicah.
In Spain they can do so if they were unaware of Community law because it had not been transposed into Spanish law.
Nalog za izterjavo, zadnji plačilni nalog in nalog za izvršbo so najpogostejši izrazi.
In Belgium they can oppose recovery in the agricultural sphere.
Rok za uradni opomin je ponavadi en mesec, čeprav so roki v nekaterih državah
In Poland and Slovakia they can do so where they have a claim on goods to be seized.
(74) Češka, Italija, Ciper, Latvija, Avstrija, Poljska, Slovaška in Švedska.(75) Belgija, Španija, Irska, Italija in Avstrija (v nekaterih primerih).(76) Belgija, Nemčija, Irska, Ciper, Latvija, Litva, Avstrija, Finska, Švedska in Združeno kraljestvo.
In Austrian law the amount recovered may be reduced if necessary to protect a bona de third party (e.g. for wages paid).(68) Belgium (Walloon Region), Estonia, Greece, Latvia (in the area of the Structural Funds), Austria and Poland (for agriculture), and Slovakia.
Brez odložilnega učinka: Češka, Grčija, Španija, Francija,
No suspensory e ect: Czech Republic, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Slovakia.
) Belgija (Valonska regija), Estonija, Grčija, Latvija (na področju strukturnih
) Cyprus and the United Kingdom.)
Italija, Nizozemska, Poljska, Portugalska in Slovaška.
Finland and the United Kingdom.) Greece, Portugal and Finland.
(77) Češka, Grčija, Španija, Luksemburg.(78) Več držav članic je navedlo, da imajo davčne ali carinske terjatve prednost: Češka, Španija, Francija, Irska, Ciper, Litva, Madžarska, Nizozemska, Slovaška.
(77) Spain, Greece, Luxembourg, Czech Republic.
skladov), Avstrija in Poljska (na kmetijskem področju), Slovaška.(69) Ciper in Združeno kraljestvo.(70) Finska in Združeno kraljestvo.(71) Grčija, Portugalska in Finska.
ANNUAL REPORT 2005 FROM THE COMMISSION ON THE PROTECTION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES’ FINANCIAL INTERESTS FIGHT AGAINST FRAUD
LETNO POROČILO 2005 POROČILO KOMISIJE O ZAŠČITI FINANČNIH INTERESOV SKUPNOSTI BOJ PROTI GOLJUFIJAM ima dolžnik posojilo od ali terjatev do javnih organov (ali kombinacijo obojega), ki se lahko poravna s pobotom.
Examination of the Member States’ contributions suggests that public claims connected with aid (national and Community) do not take precedence and are dealt with exactly like other claims, unless there are contractual guarantees.
Če dolžnik, potem ko so bili poslani pisni in uradni opomini, ni plačal dolga in če računovodja ni mogel izterjati terjatve s pobotom ali unovčitvijo bančne garancije, ki jo je položil dolžnik, odredbodajalec nemudoma določi način prisilne izterjave terjatve.
As regards the public funds of the Member States in gen- eral, all legal systems bar two (79
Kar zadeva javna sredstva držav članic na splošno, vsi pravni sistemi, razen dveh izjem(79), poznajo mehanizem pobota, čeprav se njegova opredelitev in področje uporabe razlikujeta od ene države do druge.
) recognise offsetting, setting, though its de nition and scope vary from one country to another.
Večina držav članic izjavlja, da uporablja pobot za vsa javna sredstva na vseh
If, a er reminders and letters of formal notice have been sent, the debtor has not paid the debt and the accounting officer has not been able to recover the amount due by o -setting or calling in a bank guarantee, the authorising of- cer determines, without delay, what method of enforced recovery should be applied to the debt.
Obstajata dva možna načina, ki se medsebojno izključujeta, za pridobitev izvršilnega naslova, ki dovoljuje izvršbo na premoženju dolžnika:
In some Member States, offsetting can be used solely for ere are two mutually exclusive ways of obtaining anenforceable order to seize the debtor’s assets: recovery in the tax sector (82
V nekaterih državah članicah se lahko ta mehanizem uporablja samo za izterjavo na davčnem področju(82).
With regard to Community funds, all Member States bar
– sprejetje odločbe, ki je izvršilni naslov v smislu člena 256 ES (v tem primeru institucija formalizira ugotovitev terjatve v odločbi, ki je izvršilni naslov),
) use offsetting where they can to speed up recovery.
– pridobitev izvršilnega naslova po sodni poti pred nacionalnimi sodišči ali sodišči Skupnosti.
• adoption of a decision constituting an enforceable order within the meaning of Article 256 EC (in this case, the institution formalises the establishment of the entitlement in a decision which constitutes an enforceable order); ere are, however, substantial differences in the way it is applied.
Kar zadeva sredstva Skupnosti, vse države članice razen dveh(83) izjavljajo, da uporabljajo pobot, kadar je to mogoče, za pospešitev izterjave. V resnici obstajajo precejšnje razlike v načinu njegove uporabe.
Sometimes it is possible, for instance, to clear debts and claims for the same programme or project (84), the same paying agency (85) or the same managing authority (86). In
Včasih ga je na primer mogoče uporabiti pri obravnavi dolgov in terjatev, ki so nastali v okviru istega programa ali projekta(84) ali ki zadevajo isti plačilni organ(85) ali jih upravlja isti organ(86).
• securing of an order before the national or Community courts.
V nekaterih državah članicah se pobot pogosteje uporablja, na primer med dolgovi interjatvami plačilnih organov, ki so vzpostavili sistem
some Member States offsetting is applied more widely, for instance to the debts and claims of paying agencies that have
Kadar terjatev Skupnosti sodi na področje uporabe izvršilnega sklepa v smislu člena 256 ES (subvencije, ki izpolnjujejo nekatera merila), se izterjava obvezno izvrši s takšno odločbo.
8 8 set up a coordination system (
usklajevanja (87
Two Member States (
Dve državi članici(88
) stated that a tax claim could be offset by Community funds but there is no detailed information on this subject.
) sta navedli, da je mogoče davčno terjatev pobotati s sredstvi Skupnosti,vendar o tem ni podrobnih podatkov.
e authorising officer is not free to choose between these two possibilities.
4.3 „Projektna skupina za izterjavo“in Jamstveni sklad EKUJS
When the Commission’s claim falls within the scope of the enforceable decision within the meaning of Article 256 EC (grants satisfying certain criteria), recovery is not possible without such a decision.
Na področjih, kjer sredstva neposredno upravljajo institucije, nepravilno izplačane zneske neposredno izterjajo te institucije brez posredovanja držav članic.
In this case, the overall time between establishment of the claim andactual recovery can be shortened considerably.
Komisija je leta 2002(89) napovedala ustanovitev „projektne skupine za izterjavo“ (Recovery Task Force – RTF), da bi analizirala velike zaostanke pri obravnavi primerov izterjav glede Jamstvenega sklada EKUJS.
In the areas where funds are managed directly by the institutions, amounts unduly paid are recovered directly by them, without the intervention of the Member States.
Dolžniku se na ustrezno utemeljeno pisno zahtevo odobrijo dodatni roki za plačilo, če se obveže, da bo plačal obresti in položil nančno garancijo.
Portugal, Slovenia and Slovakia.(81) Latvia, Finland and the United Kingdom.(82) Belgium, Czech Republic, the Netherlands and Sweden.(83) Malta and Lithuania, where the mechanism does not exist at all.(84) Denmark (for the Social Fund), Estonia and Portugal.
Portugalska, Slovenija in Slovaška. (81) Latvija, Finska in Združeno kraljestvo.(82) Belgija, Češka, Nizozemska in Švedska.
In 2002, the Commission announced the setting-up of a Recovery Task Force (RTF) (89) to examine the considerable backlog of recovery cases concerning the EAGGF Guarantee Section.
TFR je leta 2005 revidirala tudi 32 primerov, ki so posamezno znašali nad 500 000 EUR in niso bili prej revidirani.
It is up to the RTF to draw up decisions on nancial liability under the formal clearance procedure in the EAGGF Guarantee Section for unrecovered amounts resulting from an irregularity notified to the Commission prior to 1999.
Za te primere so bili državam članicam poslani uradni dopisi o nančni odgovornosti skupaj s predlogi Komisije glede nančnih popravkov, ki jih je treba izvesti, v skupni višini okoli 92 milijonov EUR.
) Belgium, Austria and Finland.)
) Litva in Malta, kjer ta mehanizem sploh ne obstaja. )
Czech Republic, Greece, Latvia and the Netherlands.)
Danska (za Socialni sklad), Estonija, Portugalska.) Belgija, Avstrija in Finska. )
France, Italy, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia.)
Češka, Grčija, Latvija, Nizozemska. )
Denmark (for agriculture) and Hungary.
Francija, Italija, Poljska, Slovenija in Slovaška. )
(89) See reference at point 1.1.
(89) Glej reference v točki 1.1.
Overview of non-recovered amounts from EAGGF Guarantee irregularities communicated by Member States under Regulation (EEC) No 595/91
Pregled zneskov, ki niso bili izterjani zaradi nepravilnosti (Jamstveni sklad EKUJS) in so jih države članice sporočile na podlagi Uredbe (ES) št. 595/91
Initial situation end 2002: Non-recovery cases communicated before 1999, subject to RTF audits
Prvotni položaj konec leta 2002: primeri neizterjave, sporočeni pred letom 1999, ki jih je revidirala projektna skupina za izterjavo
Progress made in 2005
Napredek v letu 2005
For 3 227 cases each with a value of less than EUR 500 000 communicated before 1999, a document audit using SAGE (an automated management and evaluation system) was launched in 2005.
Primeri pod 500 000 EUR, ki jih TFR še ni obravnavala/revidirala in za katere se postopek potrjevanja obračunov še ni začel
Proceduresfor certifying the accounts principles set out in Court of Auditors’ Opinion
Postopki potrjevanja računov
No 2/2004 (95) (‘gap assessment’).
5.1 Časovni načrt za pozitivno izjavoo zanesljivosti
On the basis of these Commission documents and the discussions of a group of experts from the national administrations of the Member States, the Ecofin Council adopted conclusions on 8 November 2005 in which it took the view that ‘the existing statements at the operational level may constitute a significant level of assurance for the Commission and ultimately for the Court of Auditors and should prove useful and provide a satisfactory cost-effectiveness ratio and be taken into account by the Commission and ultimately by the Court of Auditors in order to obtain a positive statement of assurance’. e Council called on the Commission to provide an assessment of the controls and the value of the existing statements.
Komisija je ob upoštevanju sklepov Sveta januarja 2006 sprejela akcijski načrt za integrirani okvir kontrole(96), v katerem meni, da morajo države članice „zagotoviti, da pri upravljanju sredstev v imenu Komisije zmanjšujejo tveganje nepravilnih odhodkov na sprejemljivo raven ter da to lahko prikažejo nacionalnim revizorjem in revizorjem Skupnosti“. Ker se upravljanje 80 % sredstev Skupnosti deli z državami članicami, je bil poudarek na poenostavitvi zakonodaje za programsko obdobje 2007–2013, uskladitvi načel in standardov kontrole, ki jih uporabljajo Komisija in države članice, s tem ko delijo rezultate kontrole in spodbujajo donosnost, ter uporabi obstoječih izjav o upravljanju operativnih organov na ravni držav članic, ki so pomembno zagotovilo za Komisijo in nazadnje tudi za Računsko sodišče.
Although it acknowledged the progress made by the Commission and the Member States in improving their budgetary control systems, for the 11th consecutive year the Court of Auditors could only deliver a partially positive statement of assurance for payment appropriations under the Community budget.
Čeprav je Računsko sodišče priznalo napredek, ki so ga Komisija in države članice dosegle pri izboljšavi sistemov proračunskega nadzora, je že enajsto leto zapored izdalo samo delno pozitivno izjavo o zanesljivosti za odobritve plačil iz proračuna Skupnosti.
The main problem, according to the Court’s reports, relates to the funds whose management is shared with the Member States.
Glede na poročila Sodišča glavni problem zadeva sklade, ki se upravljajo deljenoz državami članicami.
In Opinion No 2/2004 (92), the Court of Auditors proposed a Community internal control framework, based on common standards and principles, which could provide a reasonable assurance that revenue collection and expenditure had been executed in accordance with thelegislation in force, while at the same time taking into account the equilibrium between the cost and the advantages of internal control.
Računsko sodišče v mnenjušt. 2/2004(92) predlaga pripravo okvira notranje kontrole Skupnosti, ki temelji na skupnih standardih in načelihter bi lahko dajal razumno zagotovilo, da bodo prihodki pobrani in izdatki izvedeni v skladu z veljavnimi pravnimi določbami ob upoštevanju ravnovesja med stroški inprednostmi notranje kontrole.
Obtaining a positive DAS is one of the Barroso Commission’s strategic objectives (93).
Pridobitev pozitivne izjave o zanesljivosti je med strateškimi cilji Barrosovekomisije(93).
To that end, following the Court’s opinion, the Commission adopted in June 2005 a roadmap which makes a number of proposals for an integrated Community control framework (94).
Zato je Komisija na podlagi mnenja Računskega sodišča junija 2005 sprejela časovni načrt(94), ki daje več predlogov za okvir notranje kontrole Skupnosti.
In this document, the Commission referred to the proposal made by the European Parliament at the time of the 2003 discharge in which it suggested a provision on the ex ante publication in a formal statement, and an ex post annual statement of assurance on the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions from the political authority and highest-ranked manager in each Member State (the finance minister).
Komisija se v tem dokumentu sklicuje na predlog, ki gaje Evropski parlament predstavil ob razrešnici leta 2003 in v katerem je predlagal določbo o predhodni objavi v uradni izjavi in naknadno letno izjavo o zanesljivosti gledezakonitosti in pravilnosti operacij s strani visokegapolitičnega organa upravljanja v vsaki državi članici(ministrstvo za nance).
Taking into account the conclusions of the Council, in January 2006 the Commission adopted an action plan for an integrated control framework (96) in which it stated that it was important that the Member States ‘ensure that their management of appropriations in the name of the Commission reduces the risk of irregularities in expenditure to an acceptable level and are in a position to demonstrate this to national and Community auditors’.
Temu časovnemu načrtu je bila priložena „ocena razlik med okvirom notranje kontrole znotraj služb Komisije in načeli kontrole, navedenimiv mnenju Računskega sodišča št. 4/2004“(95) („gapassessment“).
) Opinion No 2/2004 of the Court of Auditors of the European Communities
) Mnenje Računskega sodišča Evropskih skupnosti št. 2/2004 o modelu enotne revizije (single audit) in predlog o okviru notranje kontrole Skupnosti, UL C 107, 30.4.2004.
(95) Commission working paper concerning the gap assessment between the on the ‘single audit’ model (and a proposal for a Community internal control framework) (OJ C 107, 30.4.2004).
Poleg tega bi ta poskus lahko uporabili za preučitev uporabenačela enakovredne zaščite, ki ga uvaja člen 280 Pogodbe.
(93) Strategic objectives 2005–09 (COM(2005) 12 of 26 January 2005).(94) Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Court of Auditors on a roadmap to an integrated internal control framework in the Commission services and the control principles set out in the Court of Auditors’ ‘proposal for a Community internal control framework’, Opinion No 2/2004 (SEC(2005) 1152).(96) Commission action plan towards an integrated control framework internal control framework (COM(2005) 252).
(93) Strateški cilji za obdobje 2005–2009, COM(2005) 12 z dne 26. januarja 2005.(94) Sporočilo Komisije Svetu, Evropskemu parlamentu in Računskemu sodišču o časovnem načrtu za integrirani okvir notranje kontrole, COM(2005) 252.
Certication of national accounts by an internal
Potrjevanje nacionalnih računov s strani notranjega
Certication of national accounts by an external
Potrjevanje nacionalnih računov s strani zunanjega
Procedure for certifying proper implementation of public expenditure in the Member States
Na podlagi odgovorov na vprašalnika, poslanega državam članicam, je bilo mogoče dobiti sliko nacionalnih praks, ki obstajajo na tem področju in so predstavljene v sosednji tabeli.
Yes is table provides a summary of the answers given by the Member States.
Vseeno je treba navesti, da se to potrdilo izda na ravni upravljanja in ga ne izda notranji revizor v pravem pomenu(98).
A more comprehensive summary containing the detail of the answers can be consulted in the Commission working paper published at the same time as this report.
V velikem številu primerov organi, pristojni za izdajo potrdila, izdajo tudi mnenje o zneskih, ki bi jih lahko izterjali plačilni organi(99). Potrdilo notranjega
It should nevertheless be pointed out that o en the certification is delivered at management level and not by an internal auditor proper (98).
Na podlagi odgovorov držav članic, ki imajo sistem kontrole in notranje revizije, se zdi, da je najbolj razširjen standard Intosai.
Yes el (100); in other cases, it is delivered at the level of the management department or agency (101). e individual cases
Potrjevanje s strani zunanjega organa
) Internal body: individual, department or service dependent on the management and/or payment service for the budget to be certified. ed.
(1) Notranji organ: oseba, oddelek ali služba, ki je upravno odvisen od organa upravljanja ali/in plačilnega organa za proračun, ki ga je treba potrditi.
2 of the United Kingdom and Slovakia, where there are several levels of certification (national level, regional level and by fund), should also be noted. ese certifications issued by an internal body are submitted to the national parliaments in some cases only (102).
(2) Zunanji organ: oseba, oddelek ali služba, ki je upravno neodvisen od organa
) External body: individual, department or service that is independent
upravljanja ali/in plačilnega organa za proračun, ki ga je treba potrditi.
) have an internal auditing system to ensure the legality and regularity of the national of the management and/or payment service for the budget to be certi ed.e annual reports adopted by external bodies and submitted to the national parliament are regarded as account certification systems.(3) e certification of accounts by an external body does, however, existfor the budget of certain regions.
Letna poročila, ki jih sprejmejo zunanji organi in se predložijo nacionalnemu parlamentu, se štejejo za sisteme potrjevanja obračunov.(3) Potrjevanje obračunov s strani zunanjega organa kljub temu obstaja za proračun nekaterih regij.
) Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary, the Netherlands,
) Danska, Estonija, Irska, Latvija, Luksemburg, Madžarska, Nizozemska,
Slovakia, Finland and the United Kingdom.
Slovaška, Finska in Združeno kraljestvo.
) Certification is delivered by an internal auditor in Estonia, the Netherlands and Slovakia only.
) Notranji revizor izda potrdilo samo v Estoniji, na Nizozemskem in
) Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovakia and the United audit institution submits to the Parliament its opinion on the implementationof the budget and the nal state of the accounts. However, these opinions do not have the status of an audit.
) Danska, Estonija, Latvija, Litva, Luksemburg, Slovaška in Združeno državne račune in druge račune javnega sektorja ter upravlja javni sektor s stališča zakonitosti in racionalnosti (učinkovitost in gospodarnost).
Kingdom.(100) Czech Republic, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary and the Netherlands.(101) Estonia, Ireland, Latvia and Finland. (102) Czech Republic, Lithuania, Slovakia and the United Kingdom.(103) France, Italy, Cyprus, Lithuania, Malta, Greece and Portugal.
kraljestvo.(100) Češka, Litva, Luksemburg, Madžarska in Nizozemska.(101) Estonija, Irska, Latvija in Finska.(102) Češka, Litva, Slovaška in Združeno kraljestvo.(103) Grčija, Francija, Italija, Ciper, Litva, Malta in Portugalska.(104) Grčija, Litva in Malta.