natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This applies irrespective of the fact that some debt was passed on to HB following the sale of TB's assets to HB as described in recital (61) above.
To velja ne glede na dejstvo, da je bilo nekaj dolga prenesenega na HB po prodaji sredstev družbe TB družbi HB, kot je opisano v uvodni izjavi 61 zgoraj.
In any event, the price paid for the assets was clearly not reduced in so far as the transfer of the claims is concerned, given that HB paid almost the market value of the assets.
V vsakem primeru cena, plačana za sredstva, očitno ni bila znižana, kar zadeva prenos sredstev, saj je družba HB plačala skoraj tržno vrednost sredstev.
The Commission is aware of the fact that it is ‘not required to determine […] to what extent each undertaking had benefited from the [aid], but could merely instruct [the Member State] to recover that aid from the recipient or recipients thereof, that is, from the undertaking or undertakings which had had actual use thereof,’ see Joined Cases T-111/01 and T-133/01 Saxonia Edelmetalle, point 124.
Komisija se zaveda dejstva, da se od nje „ne zahteva, naj ugotovi, […] koliko je imelo vsako podjetje koristi od [pomoči], temveč lahko zgolj da navodila [državi članici], naj izterja to pomoč od prejemnika ali prejemnikov pomoči, tj. od podjetja ali podjetij, ki je (so) dejansko imelo(imeli) korist od nje“, glej združeni zadevi T-111/01 in T-133/01 Saxonia Edelmetalle, točka 124.
However, while the Commission may limit itself to instructing the Member State to indicate the company from which the aid is to be recovered, nothing prevents the Commission from determining who actually benefited from the aid.
Komisija se mora sicer omejiti na to, da državi članici zgolj da navodila, naj navede podjetje, od katerega je treba pridobiti povrnjeno pomoč, vendar pa Komisiji nič ne preprečuje, da ne bi ugotovila, kdo je dejansko imel koristi od pomoči.
Case 277/00 SMI [2004] ECR I - 4355 point 85, Case 52/84 Commission v Belgium [1986] ECR 89, point 14, and Case C-142/87 Tubemeuse [1990] ECR I-959, points 60 to 62.
Zadeva 277/00 SMI [2004] PSES I–4355, točka 85, zadeva 52/84 Komisija proti Belgiji [1986] PSES 89, točka 14, in zadeva C-142/87 Tubemeuse [1990] PSES I-959, točke od 60 do 62.
Joined cases C-328/99 and C-399/00 Seleco [2003] ECR I-4035, Case 277/00 SMI [2004] ECR I - 4355, case T-318/00 and T-324/00 CDA Albrechts II [2005] ECR II-4179.
Združeni zadevi C-328/99 in C-399/00 Seleco [2003] PSES I-4035, zadeva 277/00 SMI [2004] PSES I-4355, zadeva T-318/00 in T-324/00 CDA Albrechts II [2005] PSES II-4179.
Case 277/00 SMI [2004] ECR I - 4355 point 86, read in conjunction with point 92.
Zadeva 277/00 SMI [2004] PSES I-4355, točka 86, beri v povezavi s točko 92.
This is the case if the assets have not been transferred at the market price or if the transaction is motivated by the intention to evade recovery.
To je primer, če sredstva niso bila prenesena po tržni ceni ali če se je transakcija zgodila, da bi se izognili izterjavi.
See point 86 of Case 277/00 SMI [2004] ECR I-4355, in which the Court ruled that ‘it is certainly possible that, in the event that hive-off companies are created in order to continue some of the activities of the undertaking that received the aid, where that undertaking has gone bankrupt, those companies may also, if necessary, be required to repay the aid in question, where it is established that they actually continue to benefit from the competitive advantage linked with the receipt of the aid.’
Glej točko 86 zadeve 277/00 SMI [2004] PSES I-4355, v kateri je sodišče razsodilo, da „je gotovo mogoče, da se v primeru ustanovitve odcepljenih družb, nastalih zaradi nadaljevanja dela dejavnosti podjetja, ki je prejelo pomoč, če je takšno podjetje šlo v stečaj, od teh družb ravno tako lahko po potrebi zahteva povrnitev zadevne pomoči, če se ugotovi, da imajo dejansko še naprej korist zaradi konkurenčne prednosti, povezane s prejetjem pomoči“.
A similar rationale was applied in Case C-415/03 Commission vs. Greece (Olympic) [2005] ECR I-3875.
Podobna utemeljitev je bila uporabljena v zadevi C-415/03 Komisija proti Grčiji (Olympic) [2005] PSES I-3875.
As regards HB the hive-off was already envisaged in the original IBP, see recital (59) above.
V zvezi s HB je bila ustanovitev odcepljene družbe predvidena že v prvotnem IPN, glej uvodno izjavo 59 zgoraj.
However, the proceeds from enforcement of claims after August 2006 may be taken into consideration when the amounts to be recovered are established.
Vendar pa je mogoče prihodke iz izterjave zahtevkov po avgustu 2006 upoštevati pri določanju zneskov, ki jih je treba povrniti.
Further to the Commission Decision 2006/937/EC.
Na podlagi Odločbe Komisije 2006/937/ES.
OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1.
UL L 140, 30.4.2004, str 1.
Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1935/2006 of 20 December 2006 (OJ L 407, 30.12.2006, p. 1).
Uredba, nazadnje spremenjena z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 1935/2006 z dne 20. decembra 2006 (UL L 407, 30.12.2006, str. 1).
The majority shareholder of TB, with about 78,1 %, is Górnośląski Fundusz Restrukturyzacyjny S.A. (Upper Silesian Restructuring Fund, hereinafter ‘GFR’), whose main shareholder, with 51,3 %, was, until 30 December 2005, Eurofaktor SA (hereinafter ‘EF’).
Večinski delež TB, približno 78,1 %, je v rokah Górnośląski Fundusz Restrukturyzacyjny S.A. (Sklada Zgornje Šlezije za prestrukturiranje, v nadaljevanju „GFR“), katerega glavni delničar je bil z 51,3 % do 30. decembra 2005 Eurofaktor SA (v nadaljevanju „EF“).
EF’s shareholders are private investors, such as Bonum Sp. z o.o.
Delničarji EF so zasebni vlagatelji, kot so Bonum Sp. z o.o.
(11,31 %) and Stabilo Group Sp. z o.o.
(11,31 %) in Stabilo Group Sp. z o.o.
Above all, it follows from the scope of the NRP, which Protocol No 8 implements.
Predvsem izhaja iz področja uporabe NPP, ki ga uresničuje Protokol št. 8.
In fact, half of the recipients under the last NRP are tube producers, namely Huta Andrzej S.A. (bankrupt), Huta Batory S.A. (bankrupt), Huta Pokój, a subsidiary of Mittal Steel Poland (former PHS) and TB.
Pravzaprav je polovica prejemnikov v skladu z zadnjim NPP proizvajalcev cevi, in sicer Huta Andrzej S.A. (v stečaju), Huta Batory S.A. (v stečaju), Huta Pokój, odvisna družba Mittal Steel Poland (prej PHS) in TB.
Page 38.
Stran 38.
Nevertheless, the Commission notes that the compatibility argument does not mean that the aid would be compatible in the absence of the restructuring project.
Vendar pa Komisija navaja, da argument združljivosti ne pomeni, da bo pomoč združljiva, če ni projekta prestrukturiranja.
On the other hand, the Commission is not able to establish that the misused restructuring aid awarded before 2004 was used for the benefit of any of TB’s subsidiaries.
Po drugi strani Komisija ne more ugotoviti, da je bila zlorabljena pomoč za prestrukturiranje, dodeljena pred letom 2004, uporabljena v korist katere koli odvisne družbe TB.
It must therefore be recovered from TB.
Zato jo je treba izterjati od TB.
See Case 323/82 Intermills, point 11, where the court stated: ‘[…] it must therefore be accepted that, in spite of the fact that the three manufacturing companies each has a legal personality separate from the former SA Intermills, all those undertakings together form a single group, at least as far as the aid awarded by the Belgian authorities is concerned.’ A similar approach is also suggested by Advocate General Geelhoed in Joined Cases C-328/99 and C-399/00 Seleco [2003] ECR I-4035, despite the fact that the Commission had argued that the recovery claim should be extended to the hived-off entity (and did not raise the economic continuity argument).
Glej zadevo 323/82 Intermills, točka 11, v kateri je sodišče navedlo: „[…] zato je treba upoštevati, da kljub dejstvu, da je vsako od treh proizvodnih podjetij pravna oseba, ki je ločena od nekdanje družbe SA Intermills, vsa ta podjetja skupaj tvorijo eno samo skupino, vsaj kar zadeva pomoč, ki so jo odobrili belgijski organi.“ Podoben pristop je priporočil tudi generalni pravobranilec Geelhoed v združenih zadevah C-328/99 in C-399/00 Seleco [2003] PSES I-4035 kljub dejstvu, da je Komisija menila, da bi bilo treba zahtevek za povrnitev sredstev razširiti na odcepljeno pravno osebo (in ni sprožila argumenta gospodarske kontinuitete).
Indeed, the Court had clarified that ‘if it were permissible, without any condition, for an undertaking experiencing difficulties and on the point of being declared bankrupt to create, during the formal inquiry into the aid granted it, a subsidiary to which it then transfers its most profitable assets before the conclusion of the inquiry, that would amount to accepting that any company may remove such assets from the parent undertaking when aid is recovered, which would risk depriving the recovery of that aid of its effect in whole or in part.’ C-328/99 and C-399/00 Seleco [2003] ECR I-4035, point 77.
Sodišče je dejansko pojasnilo, da „če bi bilo brezpogojno dopustno, da podjetje, ki je v težavah in tik pred objavo stečaja, med uradno preiskavo pomoči, ki mu je bila odobrena, ustanovi podružnico, na katero potem prenese svoja najbolj dobičkonosna sredstva pred koncem preiskave, bi to pripeljalo do dopustitve, da lahko katero koli podjetje odstrani takšna sredstva iz matične družbe, ko je pomoč povrnjena, kar bi lahko pomenilo nevarnost, da bi povrnitev te pomoči v celoti ali deloma ostala brez učinka.“ C-328/99 in C-399/00 Seleco [2003] ECR I-4035, točka 77.
Provision was also made for an additional PLN 12 to 13 million for 2005 and 2006, including the bringing forward of the launch of production of chromium pipe elements, with a new welding line due to be purchased in 2006 (about PLN 6000000).
Vse potrebno je bilo pripravljeno tudi za dodatnih od 12 do 13 milijonov PLN za leti 2005 in 2006, vključno s pospešitvijo zagona proizvodnje cevnih elementov iz kroma z novo varilno linijo, ki naj bi jo kupili leta 2006 (približno 6000000 PLN).
As far as the Commission is aware, however, this was not built.
Vendar pa po vedenju Komisije ta ni bila zgrajena.
At that time it became clear that TB was not able to honour its previous rescheduling agreements and would not be able to meet its current engagements.
Takrat je postalo jasno, da TB ni bil zmožen spoštovati svojih prejšnjih sporazumov o reprogramiranju in da ne bo mogel izpolniti svojih tekočih obveznosti.
No updated plan had been presented and nor was there any perspective of the company becoming profitable.
Predložen ni bil noben posodobljen načrt, pa tudi nikakršnih obetov ni bilo, da bo družba postala dobičkonosna.
SAMKOL, while part of the group, is not a steel producer.
SAMKOL je sicer del skupine, vendar ni proizvajalec jekla.
No investments were made in the company and nor were any assets or capital transferred to it between 2003 and 2006 (and probably not before then either).
V to družbo ni bilo nobenih vlaganj in prenosa sredstev ali kapitala iz TB med letoma 2003 in 2006 (in verjetno niti pred tem ne).
On 25 March 2003 it was assessed by the Commission.
Komisija ga je ocenila 25. marca 2003.
This is not disputed by the Commission.
Komisija temu ne oporeka.
TB used most of the aid it was awarded under the restructuring plan for R&D. Poland has confirmed that the aid was used for that purpose.
TB je porabil večino pomoči, odobrene v načrtu prestrukturiranja za R in R. Poljska je potrdila, da je bila pomoč porabljena v ta namen.
As the aid classified as R&D in the IBP was provided by KBN it can be regarded as compatible aid. In addition, the Commission notes that Poland was able to demonstrate that the aid was paid out only in connection with the performance of R&D activities.
Ker je pomoč, ki je v IPN opredeljena kot R in R, zagotovil KBN, lahko velja za združljivo pomoč.
on the rules of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland concerning permit exemptions for undertakings and establishments recovering hazardous waste under Article 3 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC
o pravilih Anglije, Walesa, Severne Irske in Škotske v zvezi z odstopanjem od zahteve za pridobitev dovoljenja za podjetja in obrate, ki predelujejo nevarne odpadke v skladu s členom 3 Direktive Sveta 91/689/EGS
(notified under document number C(2008) 1212)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2008) 1212)
Having regard to Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste [1], and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Direktive Sveta 91/689/EGS z dne 12. decembra 1991 o nevarnih odpadkih [1] in zlasti člena 3(4) Direktive,
By notifications of 13 September 2005, 18 January 2006, 3 and 4 August 2006 and 6 December 2006 the United Kingdom sent to the Commission the proposed changes to the existing waste management licensing exemptions relating to hazardous waste in England, Wales and Scotland set out in Schedule 3 (Activities Exempt from Waste Management Licensing) of the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 (Statutory Instrument (SI) No 1056/1994, as amended).
Združeno kraljestvo je s priglasitvami z dne 13. septembra 2005, 18. januarja 2006, 3. in 4. avgusta 2006 ter 6. decembra 2006 poslalo Komisiji predlagane spremembe obstoječih odstopanj od zahteve za pridobitev dovoljenja v zvezi z ravnanjem z nevarnimi odpadki v Angliji, Walesu in na Škotskem iz seznama 3 z naslovom Dejavnosti, za katere ni treba pridobiti dovoljenja v zvezi z ravnanjem z odpadki (Activities Exempt from Waste Management Licensing), k predpisom o izdaji dovoljenj v zvezi z ravnanjem z odpadki iz leta 1994 (Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994) (podzakonski akt (SI) št. 1056/1994, kakor je bil spremenjen).
The United Kingdom only notified the paragraphs 17(1), 18(1), 38, 39(1) and (2), 43, 45(1) and (2), 47A(2) and 48A(2) of the Draft Waste Management Exemptions (Amendment and Related Provisions) (England and Wales) Regulations 2006 which are relating to hazardous waste.
Združeno kraljestvo je priglasilo le odstavke 17(1), 18(1), 38, 39(1) in (2), 43, 45(1) in (2), 47A(2) ter 48A(2) iz spremembe ter povezanih določb (Amendment and Related Provisions) osnutka predpisov Anglije in Walesa o odstopanjih od zahteve za pridobitev dovoljenja v zvezi z ravnanjem z nevarnimi odpadki iz leta 2006 (Draft Waste Management Licensing Exemptions Regulations 2006).
For Northern Ireland the paragraphs 49-51 of Annex A to Schedule A to Schedule 2 (Exemptions from Waste Management Licensing) of the Waste Management Licensing Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003, were notified.
Za Severno Irsko so bili priglašeni odstavki 49–51 Priloge A k seznamu A seznama 2 z naslovom Odstopanja od zahteve za pridobitev dovoljenja v zvezi z ravnanjem z odpadki (Exemptions from Waste Management Licensing) predpisov Severne Irske o izdaji dovoljenj v zvezi z ravnanjem z odpadki iz leta 2003 (Waste Management Licensing Regulations 2003).
In contrast Scotland notified permit exemptions governing hazardous and non-hazardous waste all together (paragraphs 3(a)(ii), 3(c), 6(1) and (2), 17(1), 18(2)(a) and (b), 28, 36(1) to (3), 38, 39(1) and (2), 43(1) to (3), 45(1) and (2), 47(2) and 48(2) of the Draft Waste Management Licensing Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2006).
Nasprotno je Škotska priglasila odstopanja od zahteve za pridobitev dovoljenj, ki urejajo nevarne in nenevarne odpadke (odstavki 3(a)(ii), 3(c), 6(1) in (2), 17(1), 18(2)(a) in (b), 28, 36(1) do (3), 38, 39(1) in (2), 43(1) do (3), 45(1) in (2), 47(2) ter 48(2) iz osnutka spremembe predpisov Škotske o izdaji dovoljenj v zvezi z ravnanjem z odpadki iz leta 2006 (Draft Waste Management Licensing Amendment Regulations 2006).
With regard to the compliance with Article 3(2) of Directive 91/689/EEC, the notified exemptions relating to hazardous waste in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland do fulfil the requirements under that Directive.
Priglašena odstopanja v zvezi z nevarnimi odpadki v Angliji, Walesu, Severni Irski in na Škotskem v skladu s členom 3(2) Direktive 91/689/EGS ne izpolnjujejo zahtev iz te direktive.
The notified drafts list the types and maximum quantities of hazardous wastes, and prescribe further requirements relating to the carrying out of the storage activities.
Priglašeni osnutki navajajo vrste in največje količine nevarnih odpadkov in predpisujejo dodatne zahteve v zvezi z opravljanjem dejavnosti skladiščenja.
The typology of the waste involved is appropriately identified according to Commission Decision 2000/532/EC of 3 May 2000 replacing Decision 94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council Decision 94/404/EC establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste [2].
Tipologija zadevnih odpadkov je ustrezno opredeljena v skladu z Odločbo Komisije 2000/532/ES z dne 3. maja 2000 o nadomestitvi Odločbe 94/3/ES o oblikovanju seznama odpadkov, skladno s členom 1(a) Direktive Sveta 75/442/EGS o odpadkih, in Odločbe Sveta 94/904/ES o oblikovanju seznama nevarnih odpadkov, skladno s členom 1(4) Direktive Sveta 91/689/EGS o nevarnih odpadkih [2].
Paragraph 38 of the notified drafts, covering the storage of waste which is being tested to establish its classification and to ensure it is treated in the right way, does not contain the appropriate reference according to Decision 2000/532/EC.
Odstavek 38 priglašenih osnutkov se nanaša na skladiščenje odpadkov, ki se preverjajo zaradi ustrezne razvrstitve in pravilne obdelave, ne vsebuje ustreznega sklicevanja v skladu z Odločbo 2000/532/ES.
The Commission has, however, accepted this exception as the testing and analysis of waste is necessary to ascertain the characteristics of some wastes, including whether it is hazardous or non-hazardous.
Vseeno je Komisija sprejela to odstopanje, ker je preskušanje in analiziranje odpadkov nujno za ugotovitev značilnosti nekaterih odpadkov, vključno z ugotovitvijo o njihovi morebitni nevarnosti.
Thus the correct waste reference can only be assigned after the testing and the waste treated appropriately.
Zato se lahko pravilno sklicevanje na odpadke določi le po preverjanju in pravilni obdelavi odpadkov.
The exemption does not extend to any treatment of the waste that will be regulated under a separate waste authorisation.
Odstopanje ne zajema obdelave odpadkov, ki bo urejena v skladu s posebnim dovoljenjem za odpadke.
The Commission is of the opinion that with regard to the notified exemptions the provision of the limits for the content of hazardous substances in the waste and emission limit values would be disproportionate.
Komisija meni, da bi bila glede na priglašena odstopanja določitev mejnih vrednosti za vsebnost nevarnih snovi v odpadkih in mejnih vrednosti emisij nesorazmerna.
The Commission considers that, by fulfilling the other requirements listed in Article 3(2) and 3(3) of Directive 91/689/EEC, the management of the exempted waste is satisfactorily ensured pursuant to Article 1(1) of Directive 91/689/EEC.
Komisija meni, da je ravnanje z izvzetimi odpadki z izpolnitvijo drugih zahtev iz člena 3(2) in (3) Direktive 91/689/EGS zadovoljivo zagotovljeno v skladu s členom 1(1) Direktive 91/689/EGS.
As regards the condition in Article 3(2) of Directive 91/689/EEC concerning the compliance of the types or quantities of waste and methods of recovery with the conditions laid down in Article 4 of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste [3], Paragraph 4(1)(a) of Schedule 4 to the SI No 1056/1994 duplicates the requirements of Article 4 of Directive 2006/12/EC.
V zvezi s pogoji iz člena 3(2) Direktive 91/689/EGS o skladnosti vrst ali količin odpadkov in metod predelave s pogoji iz člena 4 Direktive 2006/12/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 5. aprila 2006 o odpadkih [3] odstavek 4(1)(a) seznama 4 iz podzakonskega akta SI št. 1056/1994 ponavlja zahteve iz člena 4 Direktive 2006/12/ES.
The condition of Article 3(2) of Directive 91/689/EEC is, therefore, fulfilled.
Zato je pogoj iz člena 3(2) Direktive 91/689/EGS izpolnjen.
Regulation 18(1) of the SI No 1056/1994 provides that it is an offence for an establishment or undertaking to carry on an exempt activity involving the recovery or disposal of waste without being registered with the appropriate registration authority.
Predpis 18(1) iz SI št. 1056/1994 določa, da obrat ali podjetje stori prekršek, če opravlja izvzeto dejavnost, ki vključuje predelavo ali odstranjevanje odpadkov in je ni registriral ustrezen registracijski organ.
Therefore the registration requirement contained in Article 3(3) of Directive 91/689/EEC is satisfied through that provision.
S tem je zahteva za registracijo iz člena 3(3) Direktive 91/689/EGS izpolnjena.
The Commission has consulted Member States for their views on compliance of the notified exemptions with Article 3 of Directive 91/689/EEC.
Komisija se je posvetovala z državami članicami glede skladnosti priglašenih odstopanj s členom 3 Direktive 91/689/EGS.
During the consultation phase, no Member State has objected to the draft rules being accepted.
Med postopkom posvetovanja nobena država članica ni nasprotovala sprejetju osnutka pravilnika.
In the light of the consultation with the Member States, and in view of its own analysis that the draft rules comply with the requirements of Article 3 of Directive 91/689/EEC, the draft rules should be finally agreed upon.
Glede na posvetovanja z državami članicami in ugotovitev, da je osnutek pravilnika v skladu z zahtevami iz člena 3 Direktive 91/689/EGS, se osnutek pravilnika dokončno lahko sprejme.
The Annex to this Decision provides a summary of the rules notified by the United Kingdom which are compliant with the conditions set out in Article 3(2) and (4) of Directive 91/689/EEC in conjunction with Article 11(1)(b) of Directive 2006/12/EC.
Priloga k tej odločbi povzema pravila, ki jih je priglasilo Združeno kraljestvo ter so v skladu s pogoji iz člena 3(2) in (4) Direktive 91/689/EGS v povezavi s členom 11(1)(b) Direktive 2006/12/ES.
This agreement relates exclusively to the provisions as summarised in the Annex and is without prejudice to the application of other provisions contained in Directives 2006/12/EC and 91/689/EEC or other Community legislation to the notified Regulations.
Ta sporazum se nanaša izključno za določbe, kakor so povzete v Prilogi, in ne posega v uporabo določb iz direktiv 2006/12/ES in 91/689/EGS ali druge zakonodaje Skupnosti v zvezi s priglašenimi predpisi.
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 18 of Directive 2006/12/EC,
Ukrepi, predvideni v tej odločbi, so v skladu z mnenjem odbora, ustanovljenega s členom 18 Direktive 12/2006/ES –
The rules on permit exemptions concerning the recovery of hazardous wastes laid down in the draft Waste Management Licensing Exemptions (Amendment and Related Provisions) (England and Wales) Regulations 2006, the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Waste Management Licensing) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2006 and the Waste Management Licensing Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2006, notified by the United Kingdom and listed in the Annex to this Decision, comply with Article 3(2) and (4) of Directive 91/689/EEC.
Pravila o odstopanjih od zahteve za pridobitev dovoljenja v zvezi s predelavo nevarnih odpadkov iz spremembe in povezanih določb osnutka predpisov Anglije in Walesa o izdaji dovoljenj v zvezi z ravnanjem z odpadki iz leta 2006, predpisov Severne Irske o izdaji dovoljenj v zvezi z ravnanjem z odpadno električno in elektronsko opremo (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) iz leta 2006 in spremembi predpisov Škotske o izdaji dovoljenj v zvezi z ravnanjem z odpadki iz leta 2006 (Waste Management Licensing Amendment Regulations 2006), ki jih je priglasilo Združeno kraljestvo in so navedeni v Prilogi k tej odločbi, so v skladu s členom 3(2) in (4) Direktive 91/689/EGS.
Rules notified by the United Kingdom and considered by the Commission compliant with Article 3(2) to (4) of Directive 91/689/EEC in conjunction with Article 11(1) (b) of Directive 2006/12/EC
Pravila, ki jih je priglasilo Združeno kraljestvo in ki jih je obravnavala Komisija v skladu s členom 3(2) do (4) Direktive 91/689/EGS v povezavi s členom 11(1)(b) Direktive 2006/12/ES