natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Whilst the Food and Veterinary Office (‘FVO’) of the Health and Consumers DG normally carries out audits of the Member States’ official controls, it does not assume exclusive responsibility for audits of the GI scheme. 
Urad za prehrano in veterinarstvo GD SANCO sicer običajno opravlja revizije uradnega nadzora, ki ga izvajajo države članice, vendar ne prevzema izključne odgovornosti za revizije sheme GO.
It considers that the legislation refers to ‘Commission experts’ and, as such, there is nothing to suggest that the performance of Community controls is limited to FVO activities, nor that the FVO has sole responsibility to carry out audits in this area. 
Meni, da zakonodaja omenja „strokovnjake Komisije“ in da v njej ni ničesar, iz česar bi se dalo sklepati, da je izvajanje nadzora Skupnosti omejeno na dejavnosti Urada niti da je za izvajanje revizij na tem področju odgovoren edinole Urad.
The Court notes that to date no audits have been carried out. 
Sodišče ugotavlja, da doslej ni bila izvedena še nobena revizija.
The FVO explained that they have not been carried out due to its limited resources and its prioritisation of risks in terms of food safety, animal and plant health and animal welfare. 
Urad je pojasnil, da so vzrok za to njegovi omejeni viri in opredelitev prednostnega vrstnega reda tveganj za varnost hrane, zdravje živali in rastlin ter dobro počutje živali.
Accordingly, currently the Commission does not closely monitor the implementation of the GI scheme in the Member States. Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective? 
Komisija torej ne spremlja natančno izvajanja sheme GO v državah članicah. Posebno poročilo št. 11/2011 – Ali zasnova in upravljanje sheme geografskih označb omogočata njeno uspešnost?
21 member states’reporting concerning their checks of the geographicaL indications scheme is incompLete 31. 
21 poročanje držav članic o njihovih pregledih sheme geografsKih označb je nepopolno 31.
Member States’ reporting on checks related to the GI scheme forms part of the reporting under Articles 41 and 44 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004, which require MANCPs and annual reports on their implementation. 
Poročanje držav članic o pregledih v zvezi s shemo GO je del poročanja po členih 41 in 44 Uredbe (ES) št. 882/2004, v katerih se zahtevajo večletni nacionalni načrti nadzora in letna poročila o njihovem izvajanju.
The Agriculture and Rural Development DG carried out an analysis of MANCPs and annual reports for the first time in 2009. 
Leta 2009 je GD AGRI prvič analiziral večletne nacionalne načrte nadzora in letna poročila.
This analysis covered four Member States and dealt with the existence and the extent of information on checks and protection of product names registered as a PDO or PGI. 
Analiza je vključevala štiri države članice ter obravnavala obstoj in obseg informacij o pregledih in zaščiti imen proizvodov, registriranih kot proizvodi z ZOP ali ZGO.
The Agriculture and Rural Development DG’s analysis showed a clear lack of information on such checks, which was either missing or incomplete. 
Analiza GD AGRI je pokazala nedvomno pomanjkanje informacij o teh pregledih, ki jih ni bilo ali pa so bile nepopolne.
Information available at the Commission on the Member States’ control systems is therefore very limited. 
Informacije, ki jih ima Komisija o sistemih nadzora v državah članicah, so torej zelo omejene.
Based on this information it is not possible for the Commission to obtain a clear picture about which authorities carry out checks in each Member State and what the results of these checks are. 
Na podlagi teh informacij Komisija ne more imeti jasne slike o tem, kateri organi izvajajo preglede v posameznih državah članicah niti kakšni so rezultati teh pregledov.
The extent to which the GI scheme is successful depends on its ability to attract producers. 
Kako uspešna bo shema GO, je odvisno od njene zmožnosti, da pritegne proizvajalce.
Replies to the online survey show that half the Member States’ authorities assess the take-up in their country as either ‘low’ or ‘very low’ after considering the potential of products to be registered in their country for their assessment24. 
Odgovori na spletno anketo kažejo, da organi v polovici držav članic24 ocenjujejo, da je vključenost v njihovi državi „majhna“ ali „zelo majhna“, potem ko so preverili, kakšne možnosti imajo proizvodi za registracijo v njihovi državi.
The main reasons provided for the ‘low’ or ‘very low’ take-up are: (a) ‘Operators consider that the procedures for application are too time-consuming’; (b) ‘Lack of tradition in the Member State concerned for the GI scheme’; 24 Belgium,Denmark,Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Netherlands, Austria, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden. Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective? 
Glavni razlogi za „majhno“ ali „zelo majhno“ vključenost, ki so jih navedli, so: (a) „Gospodarski subjekti menijo, da postopki za vlogo zahtevajo preveč časa.“ (b) „V zadevni državi članici shema GO nima tradicije.“ 24 Belgija,Danska,Nemčija, Estonija, Irska, Latvija, Litva, Malta, Nizozemska, Avstrija, Slovaška, Finska, Švedska. Posebno poročilo št. 11/2011 – Ali zasnova in upravljanje sheme geografskih označb omogočata njeno uspešnost?
22 (c) ‘Lack of consumers’ awareness of the existence of the GI s c h e m e ’ ; (d) ‘Lack of producers’ awareness of the existence of the GI scheme’. 
22 (c) „Potrošniki se ne zavedajo, da obstaja shema GO.“ (d) „Proizvajalci se ne zavedajo, da obstaja shema GO.“ 34.
The spread of registered names in the Member States as at the end of 2010, shown in Graph 2, corroborates the assessment made by certain Member States that the take-up in their country is low/very low. 
Porazdelitev registriranih imen v državah članicah konec leta 2010, prikazana v diagramu 2, potrjuje oceno nekaterih držav članic, da je vključenost v njihovi državi majhna/zelo majhna.
The graph shows a concentration of the registered product names in a limited number of Member States: 77 % of the product names registered originate from only five Member States, whilst in 14 Member States less than five product names had been registered by the end of 2010, including six Member States where no product name had been registered25. 
Diagram prikazuje koncentracijo registriranih imen proizvodov v omejenem številu držav članic. 77 % registriranih imen proizvodov izvira iz samo petih držav članic, medtem ko je bilo v 14 državah članicah do konca leta 2010 registriranih manj kot pet imen proizvodov.
This uneven spread indicates a clear difference in the attractiveness of the GI scheme amongst producers in the Member States. 
Ta neenakomerna porazdelitev jasno kaže razliko v privlačnosti sheme GO za proizvajalce v državah članicah.
A probable explanation for this situation is that some Member States, such as France, Italy or Spain had similar national schemes before the introduction of the EU scheme and therefore producers in these countries have more experience and a better knowledge and interest in the scheme. 
Verjetna razlaga za takšno stanje je, da so imele nekatere države članice, kot so Francija, Italija ali Španija, podobne nacionalne sheme pred že uvedbo sheme EU, zato imajo proizvajalci v teh državah več izkušenj ter bolje poznajo shemo in so zanjo bolj zainteresirani.
25 Bulgaria,Estonia,Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Romania. 
25 Bolgarija, Estonija, Latvija, Litva, Malta, Romunija.
GRAPH 2 PRODUCT NAMES REGISTERED AS PDO AND PGI PER MEMBER STATE1 250 200 150 100 50 0 IT FR ES PT EL DE UK CZ PL AT BE NL HU SK IE SE LU FI DK SI CY 1 Two third countries (Colombia and China) had one product each registered as at the end of 2010. 
DIAGRAM 2 IMENA PROIZVODOV, REGISTRIRANIH KOT PROIZVODI Z ZOP IN ZGO, PO DRŽAVAH ČLANICAH1 250 200 150 100 50 0 IT FR ES PT EL DE UK CZ PL AT BE NL HU SK IE SE LU FI DK SI CY 1 Dve tretji državi (Kolumbija in Kitajska) sta imeli konec leta 2010 registriran vsaka po en proizvod.
Source: European Commission, Agriculture and Rural Development DG. Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective? 
Vir: Evropska Komisija, GD AGRI. Posebno poročilo št. 11/2011 – Ali zasnova in upravljanje sheme geografskih označb omogočata njeno uspešnost?
23 LENGTHY REGISTRATION PROCEDURES DISCOURAGE POTENTIAL APPLICANTS 36. 
23 DOLGOTRAJNI POSTOPKI REGISTRACIJE ODVRAČAJO MOREBITNE VLOŽNIKE 36.
One of the main reasons provided for the low/very low take-up of the GI scheme is that operators consider that the procedures for application are too time-consuming. 
Eden od najpomembnejših razlogov za majhno/zelo majhno vključenost v shemo GO je mnenje gospodarskih subjektov, da postopki za vlogo zahtevajo preveč časa.
The Court therefore examined the procedure and the time taken for it. 
Sodišče je zato preverilo postopek in zanj potreben čas.
Graph 3 presents the different stages of the procedure. 
Diagram 3 prikazuje različne faze postopka.
GRAPH 3 Applicant group Definition of the product according to a specification Member State’s authority Scrutiny of the application by the national authority to verify its compliance with the conditions of the Regulation Commission - Agriculture and Rural Development DG - Scrutiny of the single document by Commission services should not exceed 12 months First publication in the Official Journal 6-month opposition period Registration Rejection if application considered as not complying with EU legislation If opposition, appropriate consultation between interested parties REGISTRATION PROCEDURE Source: European Commission, Agriculture and Rural Development DG. Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective? 
DIAGRAM 3 Skupina, ki je predložila vlogo Opredelitev proizvoda v skladu s specifikacijo Organ države članice Preverjanje vloge, ki ga opravi nacionalni organ, da preveri skladnost proizvoda s pogoji iz Uredbe Komisija – GD AGRI Preverjanje enotnega dokumenta, ki ga opravi Komisija, ne sme trajati dalj kot 12 mesecev Prva objava v Uradnem listu 6-mesečno obdobje za ugovor Registracija Zavrnitev, če se šteje, da vloga ni skladna z zakonodajo EU V primeru ugovora ustrezno posvetovanje med zainteresiranimi stranmi POSTOPEK REGISTRACIJE Vir: Evropska Komisija, GD AGRI. Posebno poročilo št. 11/2011 – Ali zasnova in upravljanje sheme geografskih označb omogočata njeno uspešnost?
The Court found that both the scrutiny at national and at Commission level are lengthy, the latter taking on average four years26. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da sta obe preverjanji – na nacionalni ravni in ravni Komisije – dolgotrajni in da zadnje v povprečju traja štiri leta26.
The main reasons for these lengthy procedures found by the Court were a thorough national scrutiny, incomplete applications filed by the applicant groups and the time needed by the national authorities to provide additional information concerning the single document at the request of the Agriculture and Rural Development DG. 
Glavni razlogi za te dolgotrajne postopke, ki jih je ugotovilo Sodišče, so bili temeljito preverjanje na nacionalni ravni, nepopolne vloge skupin vložnikov ter čas, ki so ga nacionalni organi potrebovali, da so na zahtevo GD AGRI zagotovili dodatne informacije v zvezi z enotnim dokumentom.
It addressed the last issue by making two draft guides available in 2010, one dealing with the main elements to be checked by the national authorities and one for the applicants providing details on the completion of the single document. 
GD AGRI je nazadnje omenjeni problem poskusil rešiti tako, da je leta 2010 pripravil dva predloga vodnikov, od katerih eden obravnava glavne elemente, ki jih morajo preveriti nacionalni organi, drugi pa je namenjen vložnikom in navaja podrobnosti o izpolnjevanju enotnega dokumenta.
The impact of these guidelines on the length of the scrutiny can only be assessed in the future. 
Vpliv teh smernic na trajanje preverjanj bo mogoče oceniti šele v prihodnosti.
THE MEASURE AVAILABLE IS ONLY INDIRECTLY RELATED TO ATTRACTIVENESS 38. 
UKREP, KI JE NA VOLJO, JE LE POSREDNO POVEZAN S PRIVLAČNOSTJO 38.
The primary instrument available to provide financial support to participants in the GI scheme is the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (‘EAFRD’) measure No 132 — Participation of farmers in food quality schemes. 
Primarni instrument za zagotavljanje finančne podpore sodelujočim v shemi GO je ukrep št. 132 – Sodelovanje kmetov v shemah kakovosti hrane Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja (EKSRP).
This measure addresses the costs incurred by farmers for their participation in EU or national food quality schemes27. 
Ta ukrep je namenjen pokrivanju stroškov, ki jih imajo kmetje s sodelovanjem v shemah kakovosti hrane EU ali nacionalnih shemah27.
The aid is available for products intended for human consumption and its maximum amount is 3 000 euro per holding (for a maximum period of 5 years). 
Pomoč je na voljo za proizvode, namenjene prehrani ljudi, njen najvišji znesek pa je 3 000 EUR na gospodarstvo na podeželju (največ za pet let).
The measure is, however, only used by 16 Member States. 
Vendar ukrep uporablja samo 16 držav članic.
Moreover, it does not address the lack of producers’ awareness of the GI scheme, which in the view of national authorities is another main reason for the scheme’s very low/low take-up (see paragraph 33)28. 
Poleg tega se ukrep ne ukvarja s premajhnim poznavanjem sheme GO med proizvajalci, kar je po mnenju nacionalnih organov še eden od pomembnih vzrokov za zelo majhno/majhno vključenost v shemo (glej odstavek 33)28.
This latter issue is examined in the next part of this Special Report, dealing with the consumer awareness of the GI scheme. 
To vprašanje preučuje naslednji del tega posebnega poročila, ki obravnava poznavanje sheme GO med potrošniki.
26 The average time needed between receiving the application and registering the product name was 47 months for names registered in 2008 and 46 months for names registered in 2009. 
26 Povprečen čas med prejemom vloge in registracijo imena proizvoda je znašal 47 mesecev za imena, registrirana leta 2008, in 46 mesecev za imena, registrirana leta 2009.
Amendment applications were excluded from the calculations. 27 Article 20(c)(ii) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ L 277, 21.10.2005, p. 
27 Člen 20(c)(ii) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1698/2005 z dne 20. septembra 2005 o podpori za razvoj podeželja iz Evropskega kmetijskega sklada za razvoj podeželja (EKSRP) (UL L 277, 21.10.2005, str.
28 Asattheendof2010, measure No 132 was included in the 2007–13 rural development programmes of 16 Member States with a total allocated amount of 294 million euro. 
28 Konec leta 2010 je bil ukrep št. 132 vključen v programe razvoja podeželja 2007–2013 16 držav članic, celotna dodeljena sredstva pa so znašala 294 milijonov EUR.
The accumulated expenditure declared (utilisation by the farmers) for all eligible quality schemes until the end of 2010 amounts to 18,6 million euro. 24 Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective? 
Prijavljeni kumulativni odhodki (ki so jih koristili kmetje) za vse upravičene sheme kakovosti do konca leta 2010 znašajo 18,6 milijona EUR. 24 Posebno poročilo št. 11/2011 – Ali zasnova in upravljanje sheme geografskih označb omogočata njeno uspešnost?
CONSUMER RECOGNITION OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS SCHEME IS LOW AND THE OPTIONS USED ARE UNLIKELY TO INCREASE IT CONSUMER RECOGNITION OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS SCHEME IS LOW 39. 
POTROŠNIKI SLABO POZNAJO SHEMO GEOGRAFSKIH OZNAČB IN NI VERJETNO, DA BI SE TO IZBOLJŠALO S SREDSTVI, KI SE UPORABLJAJO POTROŠNIKI SLABO POZNAJO SHEMO GEOGRAFSKIH OZNAČB 39.
Reference to the consumer awareness of the GI scheme was made in a recent study carried out on behalf of the Commission29. 
Ozaveščenost potrošnikov o shemi GO je omenjena v nedavni študiji, ki jo je naročila Komisija29.
This study included an analysis of a survey of awareness of the PDO and PGI symbols. 
Študija vključuje analizo raziskave poznavanja simbolov za ZOP in ZGO.
A single page with the two symbols and three other international food symbols was shown to the consumers participating30. 
Potrošnikom, ki so sodelovali v raziskavi, so pokazali stran s tema simbo-loma in tremi drugimi mednarodnimi simboli za živila30.
The survey included the replies of 16 718 respondents and showed that the recognition of the symbols for PDO and PGI is low. 
Pre-jeli so 16 718 odgovorov, ki so pokazali, da anketiranci slabo poznajo simbola za ZOP in ZGO.
Only 8 % recognised the PDO or PGI symbols. 
Simbol za ZOP ali ZGO je prepoznalo samo 8 % anketiranih.
Excluding Greece, which is an outlier, the average EU recognition rate is only 5,6 %31. 
Razen Grčije, ki je izjema, znaša povprečna stopnja prepoznavanja v EU samo 5,6 %31.
As a comparison, the same survey identified the rate of recognition as 16 % for the organic logo and 22 % for the Fairtrade one. 
Za primerjavo: z isto raziskavo je bilo ugotovljeno, da je stopnja prepoznavanja logotipa za ekološka živila 16 %, za Fairtrade pa 22 %.
Details are shown in Graph 4. 
Podrobnosti so prikazane v diagramu 4.
29 London Economics: Evaluation of the CAP policy on the protected designations of origin (PDO) and protected geographical indications (PGI) (2008). 
29 London Economics, Vrednotenje skupne kmetijske politike na področju zaščitenih označb porekla (ZOP) in zaščitenih geografskih označb (ZGO) (2008).
30 The survey covered a representative sample in each Member State and was addressed to the main shopper of the household interviewed. 
30 V raziskavo je bil vključen reprezentativen vzorec iz vsake države članice, vprašalnik pa je bil poslan članu gospodinjstva, ki običajno nakupuje.
31 An explanation provided by London Economics for the high recognition rate in Greece is the fact that the registration of the product name ‘Feta’ as a PDO and the related European Court of Justice cases (Joined Cases C-465/02 and C-466/02 for withdrawal of the registration) had large coverage in the Greek press. 
31 Kot razlago za visoko stopnjo prepoznavanja v Grčiji London Economics navaja dejstvo, da so grški časopisi veliko pisali o registraciji„fete“ kot proizvoda z ZOP in s tem povezanih primerih Sodišča EU (združeni zadevi C-465/02 in C-466/02 za umaknitev registracije).
25 GRAPH 4 RECOGNITION OF PDO AND PGI LOGO PER MEMBER STATE1 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0% EL IT PT BE CY SI ET IE LU RO CZ PL SK LT LV FR BG ES DE UK AT DK SE FI NL HU MT 1 The survey in the UK did not include Northern Ireland. 
25 DIAGRAM 4 PREPOZNAVANJE LOGOTIPOV ZA ZOP IN ZGO PO DRŽAVAH ČLANICAH1 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0% EL IT PT BE CY SI ET IE LU RO CZ PL SK LT LV FR BG ES DE UK AT DK SE FI NL HU MT 1 V Združenem kraljestvu v raziskavo ni bila vključena Severna Irska.
Source: London Economics. 
Vir: London Economics.
The survey further showed that there is lack of knowledge as to the meaning of the scheme. 
Raziskava je pokazala, da je premalo znano, kaj shema pomeni.
Of those who recognised the logos only half were able to identify that they imply that the product has been produced in a particular geographical area. 
Od tistih, ki so prepoznali logotipe, jih je bila le polovica sposobna pojasniti, da logotipi pomenijo, da je bil proizvod proizveden na določenem geografskem območju.
THE OPTIONS USED ARE UNLIKELY TO RAISE AWARENESS OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS SCHEME 41. 
NI VERJETNO, DA BI SE POZNAVANJE SHEME GEOGRAFSKIH OZNAČB IZBOLJŠALO S SREDSTVI, KI SE UPORABLJAJO 41.
Various options are available to raise awareness of the GI scheme, such as providing financial aid for measures which address this issue or the Commission taking own initiatives. 
Na voljo je več možnosti za izboljšanje poznavanja sheme GO, npr. finančna pomoč za ukrepe, ki obravnavajo to vprašanje, ali pobude Komisije.
EAFRD measure No 133 provides financial support to producer groups to inform consumers and promote products belonging to EU or national food quality schemes. 
133 zagotavlja finančno podporo skupinam proizvajalcev za informiranje kupcev in pospeševanje proizvodov, vključenih v sheme kakovosti hrane EU ali držav članic.
The activities eligible for support under measure No 133 have to be designed to induce consumers to buy the agricultural product and foodstuffs covered by the food quality schemes. 
Dejavnosti, upravičene do podpore iz ukrepa št. 133, morajo biti zasnovane tako, da potrošnike spodbujajo k nakupu kmetijskih proizvodov in živil, vključenih v sheme kakovosti hrane.
They have to draw attention to the specific features or advantages of the product concerned, the legal provisions placing therefore more emphasis on the product itself than on the GI scheme. 
Opozarjati morajo na posebne značilnosti ali prednosti teh proizvodov, zato morajo zakonske določbe bolj poudarjati proizvod kot shemo GO.
The aid under this measure is available for 70 % of the eligible cost of the action and is limited to activities targeting the internal market. 
Pomoč v okviru tega ukrepa lahko doseže 70 % upravičenih stroškov akcije in je omejena na dejavnosti, namenjene notranjemu trgu.
32 Information measures provided for by Council Regulation (EC) No 814/2000 of 17 April 2000 on information measures relating to the common agricultural policy (OJ L 100, 20.4.2000, p. 
814/2000 z dne 17. aprila 2000 o ukrepih za informiranje v zvezi s skupno kmetijsko politiko (UL L 100, 20.4.2000, str.
7) are considered as being of little relevance due to the low amounts of expenditure related to the GI scheme. 
7), dokaj nepomembni, ker se za shemo GO porabi le malo sredstev.
33 OJ L 3, 5.1.2008, p. 1. 26 Special Report No 11/2011 – Do the design and management of the geographical indications scheme allow it to be effective? 
33 ULL3,5.1.2008,str.1. 26 Posebno poročilo št. 11/2011 – Ali zasnova in upravljanje sheme geografskih označb omogočata njeno uspešnost?
Data that would allow a clear conclusion to be drawn on the degree of success of measure No 133 regarding the GI scheme and more particularly on whether it increased consumer awareness of it could not be provided by the Agriculture and Rural Development DG. 
GD AGRI ni mogel zagotoviti podatkov, ki bi omogočali nedvoumne zaključke o stopnji uspešnosti ukrepa št. 133 v zvezi s shemo GO in – natančneje – o tem, ali se je zaradi njega povečala ozaveščenost potrošnikov.
Due to the existence of a number of exogenous factors that affect this question, it may not even be feasible to carry out such an analysis. 
Zaradi številnih eksogenih dejavnikov, ki vplivajo na to vprašanje, morda sploh ni mogoče izvesti take analize.
However, the extent of the measure’s uptake by the Member States and the utilisation of the funds available reflect its appeal to producer groups and indicate its appropriateness as an option to increase consumer awareness. 
Vendar obseg uporabe ukrepa v državah članicah in poraba razpoložljivih sredstev odražata njegovo privlačnost za skupine proizvajalcev ter nakazujeta, da je eden od ustreznih načinov za povečanje ozaveščenosti potrošnikov.
As at the end of 2010, measure No 133 was included in the 2007–13 rural development programme (‘RDP’) of 14 Member States with a total amount of 206 million euro. 
Konec leta 2010 je bil ukrep št. 133 vključen v programe razvoja podeželja za obdobje 2007–2013 14 držav članic, celotna sredstva pa so znašala 206 milijonov EUR.
This amount, which covers different food quality schemes, including the GI scheme, organic farming and national food quality schemes, accounts for 0,6 % of the total amount under Axis 1 of the Member States’ financial plans (32 362 million euro). 
Ta znesek, ki zajema različne sheme kakovosti hrane, vključno s shemo GO, ekološkim kmetovanjem in shemami kakovosti hrane držav članic, pomeni 0,6 % celotnega zneska za os 1 v finančnih načrtih držav članic (32 362 milijonov EUR).
Details per Member State are presented in Graph 5. 
Podrobnosti po državah članicah so prikazane v diagramu 5.