natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
12 Fifteenwastemanagement infrastructures benefited from Cohesion Fund financial support (including five ex-ISPA facilities launched in Romania when the country was in the process of becoming a Member State). 
12 Finančno podporo iz Kohezijskega sklada je prejelo 15 objektov za gospodarjenje z odpadki (vključno s petimi nekdanjimi objekti ISPA iz časa, ko je bila Romunija v procesu pristopa k EU).
The grant was approved by the Commission. 
Sredstva je odobrila Komisija.
Eleven were ERDF projects contained in operational programmes and approved by the responsible managing authorities. Special Report No 20/2012 – Is structural measures funding for municipal waste management infrastructure projects effective in helping Member States achieve EU waste policy objectives? 
11 projektov pa je bilo vključenih v operativne programe ESRR, ki so jih odobrili odgovorni organi za upravljanje. Posebno poročilo št. 20/2012 – Ali financiranje projektov za izgradnjo objektov za gospodarjenje s komunalnimi odpadki v okviru strukturnih ukrepov uspešno pomaga državam članicam pri doseganju ciljev politike EU glede gospodarjenja z odpadki?
The audit was conducted between January and November 2011. 
Revizija je potekala med januarjem in novembrom 2011.
Project files were reviewed at the Commission and in the four Member States sampled and interviews were held with Commission staff, Member State authorities and infrastructure operators. 
Pregledana je bila projektna dokumentacija na Komisiji in v štirih državah članicah v vzorcu, z uslužbenci Komisije, organi držav članic in upravitelji objektov pa so bili opravljeni razgovori.
All the waste management infrastructures in the sample were visited during the course of the audit. 
Med revizijo so bili obiskani vsi objekti za gospodarjenje z odpadki v vzorcu.
The Court was assisted by external independent experts knowledgeable in the field of municipal waste management. 
Sodišču so pomagali zunanji neodvisni strokovnjaki za gospodarjenje s komunalnimi odpadki.
Audit criteria were established with the assistance of external experts and discussed with the Commission when planning the audit. 
Revizijska merila so bila določena s pomočjo zunanjih strokovnjakov, o njih pa se je pri načrtovanju revizije razpravljalo tudi s Komisijo.
17 Special Report No 20/2012 – Is structural measures funding for municipal waste management infrastructure projects effective in helping Member States achieve EU waste policy objectives? 18 OBSERVATIONS HAVE MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURES BEEN SUCCESSFUL? 
20/2012 – Ali financiranje projektov za izgradnjo objektov za gospodarjenje s komunalnimi odpadki v okviru strukturnih ukrepov uspešno pomaga državam članicam pri doseganju ciljev politike EU glede gospodarjenja z odpadki? 18 OPAŽANJA ALI SO BILI OBJEKTI ZA GOSPODARJENJE S TRDNIMI KOMUNALNIMI ODPADKI USPEŠNI?
The performance of the co-financed infrastructures should be in line with their technical design, the funding application and generally accepted standards. 
Sofinancirani objekti bi morali delovati v skladu s tehnološkim projektom, vlogo za financiranje in splošno sprejetimi standardi.
According to the waste directive, waste management infrastructures have to be designed and operated to guarantee that waste is treated and disposed of without risk to water, air and soil and without causing noise or odour problems. 
V skladu z direktivo o odpadkih je treba objekte za gospodarjenje z odpadki zasnovati in upravljati na način, ki zagotavlja, da se odpadki obdelujejo in odlagajo brez tveganja za vodo, zrak in tla, ter ne povzroča problemov s hrupom in vonjavami.
In addition, the landfill directive requires the setting-up of a financial security to cover closure and after-care costs for a period of at least 30 years, as potential environmental threats extend after the operational phase. 
V direktivi o odlagališčih se poleg tega zahteva zagotovitev sredstev za zaprtje in upravljanje po zaprtju za vsaj 30 let, saj morebitna okoljska nevarnost lahko obstaja še po fazi obratovanja.
The Court examined whether: (a) co-financed municipal waste management infrastructures were effective, in terms of the achievement of the expected results; (b) the operation of co-financed municipal waste management infrastructures had caused environmental problems. 
Sodišče je preučilo: (a) ali so sofinancirani objekti za gospodarjenje s komunalnimi odpadki uspešni pri doseganju pričakovanih rezultatov; (b) ali je obratovanje sofinanciranih objektov za gospodarjenje s komunalnimi odpadki povzročilo okoljske probleme.
WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANTS WERE EFFECTIVE TO VARYING DEGREES BUT THOSE RECEIVING UNSORTED WASTE UNDERPERFORMED SORTING PLANTS 23. The five sorting plants reviewed by the Court, which were designed to recuperate packaging waste (and in some cases paper and glass) segregated at source by households, generally performed satisfactorily in relation to their technical design and to generally acceptable standards in terms of ratio input/output13 and quality of the materials recovered: (a) they recovered between 50 % and 74 % of the packaging waste received; (b) the quality of the materials recovered was usually in line with market specifications and therefore was saleable. 
Pet sortirnic, ki jih je pregledalo Sodišče in so bile zasnovane za predelavo odpadne embalaže iz gospodinjstev (in v nekaterih primerih papirja in stekla), ločene pri viru, je v glavnem delovalo zadovoljivo glede na tehnološki projekt in splošno sprejete standarde v smislu razmerja med vložkom in izložkom13 ter kakovosti predelanih materialov: (a) predelane je bilo med 50 % in 74 % prevzete odpadne embalaže; (b) kakovost predelanih materialov je bila običajno v skladu s tržnimi specifikacijami, zato jih je bilo mogoče prodati.
13 Ratio indicating the proportion between the tonnes of waste treated in the plant and the tonnes of materials recovered. Special Report No 20/2012 – Is structural measures funding for municipal waste management infrastructure projects effective in helping Member States achieve EU waste policy objectives? 
13 Razmerje med težo v obratu obdelanih odpadkov in težo predelanih materialov. Posebno poročilo št. 20/2012 – Ali financiranje projektov za izgradnjo objektov za gospodarjenje s komunalnimi odpadki v okviru strukturnih ukrepov uspešno pomaga državam članicam pri doseganju ciljev politike EU glede gospodarjenja z odpadki?
24. 
19 24.
However, three of the five sorting plants were operating at between 106 % and 154 % of their design capacity after 6 or 7 years of operation due to weaknesses at the planning stage of the infrastructures. 
Vendar so tri od petih sortirnic po šestih ali sedmih letih obratovanja zaradi slabosti v fazi njihovega načrtovanja obratovale z zmogljivostjo, ki je znašala od 106 % do 154 % načrtovane zmogljivosti.
In one case more municipalities than initially planned were served by the plant and in two cases the quantity of waste collected separately at source exceeded the forecast. 
V enem primeru je sortirnico uporabljalo več občin, kot je bilo sprva načrtovano, v dveh primerih pa je količina zbranih odpadkov, ločenih pri viru, presegla napoved.
Overloading results in the risk of reducing the ratio of materials recovered as well as of not meeting the quality standards for recovered materials required by recycling companies. 
Preobremenitev povzroči tveganje, da se bo delež predelanih materialov zmanjšal in da standardi kakovosti za predelane materiale, ki jih zahtevajo podjetja za recikliranje, ne bodo doseženi.
COMPOSTING AND ANAEROBIC DIGESTION PLANTS 25. 
KOMPOSTARNE IN OBJEKTI ZA ANAEROBNO RAZGRADNJO 25.
The performance of the seven composting or anaerobic digestion plants, intended to treat biodegradable waste producing compost, varied. 
Delovanje sedmih kompostarn in objektov za anaerobno razgradnjo, namenjenih kompostiranju in obdelavi biološko razgradljivih odpadkov, je bilo različno.
The Court noted that: (a) the quantity of compost produced compared to the tonnage of municipal waste entering the facilities was below the design target in four of the selected plants (the ratio input/output ranged in those plants from 1 % to 22 %) resulting in significant quantities of residual waste being landfilled; (b) in two plants, the quality of the compost produced was below the objectives set in the applications, especially when it resulted from mixed waste, as a result of the high content of heavy metals, therefore reducing its suitability for other usages, such as agriculture. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da: (a) je bila v štirih izbranih obratih (razmerje med vložkom in izložkom je bilo med 1 % in 22 %) količina proizvedenega komposta v primerjavi s količino komunalnih odpadkov, ki jih je obrat prevzel, pod načrtovano ciljno vrednostjo, zaradi česar so bile velike količine preostalih odpadkov odložene na odlagališča; (b) je bila v dveh obratih kakovost proizvedenega komposta zaradi visoke vsebnosti težkih kovin pod cilji, navedenimi v vlogah, zlasti če se je kompost proizvajal iz mešanih odpadkov, kar je zmanjšalo njegovo primernost za drugo uporabo, na primer v kmetijstvu.
In a third plant the operator only tested the content of heavy metals during the first year of operation and not in the following 4 years; 19 BOX 2 AN EXAMPLE OF HOW COMPOST CAN SUCCESSFULLY BE MARKETED A Portuguese composting plant (LIPOR), serving approximately 1 million inhabitants, received only separately collected biodegradable waste, whether food and kitchen or green waste. 
V tretjem objektu je upravitelj vsebnost težkih kovin preverjal samo v prvem letu obratovanja, v naslednjih štirih letih pa ne; OKVIR 2 PRIMER USPEŠNEGA TRŽENJA KOMPOSTA Portugalska kompostarna (LIPOR), ki jo uporablja približno milijon prebivalcev, je sprejemala samo ločeno zbrane biološko razgradljive odpadke, in sicer odpadno hrano ter kuhinjske ali zelene odpadke.
The operator of the plant, through actions such as the development of awareness campaigns, focused on the appropriate sorting and collection of biodegradable waste in order to improve the quality of the raw material going into compost. 
Upravitelj objekta se je na primer z razvojem kampanj za ozaveščanje osredotočil na ustrezno sortiranje in zbiranje biološko razgradljivih odpadkov, da je izboljšal kakovost surovin za kompost.
In 2010, the plant produced 10 027 tonnes of high-quality compost, which was easily marketed at an average price of 71,8 euro per tonne. 
Objekt je leta 2010 proizvedel 10 027 ton visokokakovostnega komposta, ki ga je zlahka tržil po povprečni ceni 71,8 EUR na tono.
Special Report No 20/2012 – Is structural measures funding for municipal waste management infrastructure projects effective in helping Member States achieve EU waste policy objectives? 20 (c) the compost produced was difficult to sell in five of the seven facilities sampled due to the lack of development of the compost market14 and its poor quality. 
20/2012 – Ali financiranje projektov za izgradnjo objektov za gospodarjenje s komunalnimi odpadki v okviru strukturnih ukrepov uspešno pomaga državam članicam pri doseganju ciljev politike EU glede gospodarjenja z odpadki? 20 (c) je pet od sedmih objektov v vzorcu proizvedeni kompost težko prodalo, ker trg komposta ni bil razvit14 in ker kompost ni bil kako-vosten.
The compost was eventually disposed of for less than 1 euro per tonne. 
Kompost so nazadnje prodali za manj kot 1 EUR na tono.
In two cases, stocks were accumulated despite production being significantly below target; (d) two plants were operating at a rate below 10 % of their capacity as most biodegradable waste collected separately was unusable because it was mixed with other types of waste and had to be directly landfilled. 
V dveh primerih so se zaloge kopičile, kljub temu da je bila proizvodnja bistveno manjša od ciljne; (d) sta dva objekta delovala z manj kot 10 % svoje zmogljivosti, ker je bila večina ločeno zbranih biološko razgradljivih odpadkov neupo-rabnih, saj so vsebovali tudi druge vrste odpadkov, zato so jih morali odložiti naravnost na odlagališče.
In contrast, two other plants were overloaded as they were operating at 102 % and 119 % of capacity. 
Druga dva objekta pa sta bila preobremenjena, saj sta delovala s 102 % in 119 % zmogljivostjo.
MECHANICAL BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PLANTS 26. 
OBJEKTI ZA MEHANSKOBIOLOŠKO OBDELAVO 26.
Six audited mechanical biological treatment plants were operational; however, a seventh, located in Puglia, for which the works were completed in 2003 was not in operation at the time of the audit due to significant problems in the awarding of the contract for the operation and in delays in obtaining the necessary permits. 
Šest revidiranih objektov za mehansko-biološko obdelavo je obratova-lo, sedmi, ki je v Apuliji in za katerega so bila dela zaključena leta 2003, pa v času revizije ni obratoval zaradi precejšnjih problemov z dodeljevanjem pogodbe za upravljanje in z zamudami pri pridobivanju potrebnih dovoljenj.
During this period since 2003, the plant has been kept under conservative maintenance at a cost of 3,5 million euro (or 24 % of the total investment cost) supported by the Member State. 
V obdobju po letu 2003 je osnovno vzdrževanje objekta stalo 3,5 milijona EUR (ali 24 % celotnih stroškov naložbe), ki jih je krila država članica.
Five of the six operational mechanical biological treatment plants audited, were intended to treat mixed waste (including biodegradable waste). 
Pet od šestih revidiranih obratujočih objektov za mehansko-biološko obdelavo je bilo namenjenih obdelavi mešanih odpadkov (vključno z biološko razgradljivimi odpadki).
The Court noted a very low performance in terms of recovered materials and waste diversion from landfill. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo zelo nizko uspešnost pri predelavi materialov in preusmerjanju odpadkov z odlagališč.
In terms of performance these six mechanical biological treatment plants can be divided into three groups: (a) one mechanical biological treatment plant clearly contributed to the achievement of EU waste policy objectives and particularly to landfill diversion, even if not fully achieving the targets set in its technical design (see Box 3); (b) another mechanical biological treatment plant had a mixed level of performance. 
Teh šest objektov za mehansko-biološko obdelavo je glede na uspešnost mogoče razdeliti v tri skupine: (a) en objekt za mehansko-biološko obdelavo je nedvoumno prispeval k doseganju ciljev politike EU glede gospodarjenja z odpadki, zlasti k preusmerjanju z odlagališč, čeprav ni v celoti dosegel ciljnih vrednosti iz tehnološkega projekta (glej okvir 3); (b) drugi objekt za mehansko-biološko obdelavo je dosegal različne ravni uspešnosti.
It succeeded in sending the dry part of the waste to an external plant to produce refuse-derived fuel and less than 50 % of the waste entering the plant was landfilled. 
Suho frakcijo odpadkov mu je uspelo poslati v zunanji objekt za proizvodnjo goriva iz odpadkov, na odlagališče pa je bilo odloženih manj kot 50 % odpadkov, ki jih je objekt prevzel.
However, with the exception of a small amount of metals recovery, no other material recovery was carried out, and biodegradable waste was not recycled as all the digest resulting from the process was landfilled; (c) four mechanical biological treatment plants did not significantly reduce the quantity of waste landfilled (see Box 4). 
Vendar razen majhne količine kovin niso bili izločeni nobeni drugi materiali, biološko razgradljivi odpadki pa niso bili reciklirani, saj je bil ves digestat, ki je nastal pri tem procesu, odložen na odlagališče; (c) štirje objekti za mehansko-biološko obdelavo niso pomembno zmanjšali količine odpadkov, odloženih na odlagališča (glej okvir 4).
14 An adequate compost market would imply the existence of compost quality standards, the indication of potential appropriate usages and the implementation of awareness campaigns intended to promote compost utilisation. Special Report No 20/2012 – Is structural measures funding for municipal waste management infrastructure projects effective in helping Member States achieve EU waste policy objectives? 
14 Za ustrezen trg komposta so potrebni standardi kakovosti za kompost in opredelitev različnih vrst ustrezne uporabe, izvajati pa je treba tudi kampanje za ozaveščanje, s katerimi se spodbuja uporaba komposta. Posebno poročilo št. 20/2012 – Ali financiranje projektov za izgradnjo objektov za gospodarjenje s komunalnimi odpadki v okviru strukturnih ukrepov uspešno pomaga državam članicam pri doseganju ciljev politike EU glede gospodarjenja z odpadki?
21 BOX 3 EXAMPLE OF ONE MECHANICAL BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PLANT IN LINE WITH EU WASTE HIERARCHY AND WASTE DIVERSION FROM LANDFILL One mechanical biological treatment plant in Spain (Sant Adrià de Besòs) received only residual waste, as packaging, glass, paper and cardboard, and biodegradable waste were previously separately collected through dedicated bins available for the entire population of the area covered by the facility. 
21 OKVIR 3 PRIMER OBJEKTA ZA MEHANSKOBIOLOŠKO OBDELAVO, KI DELUJE V SKLADU S HIERARHIJO EU ZA GOSPODARJENJE Z ODPADKI IN PREUSMERJANJEM ODPADKOV Z ODLAGALIŠČ Objekt za mehansko-biološko obdelavo v Španiji (Sant Adrià de Besòs) je prevzemal samo preostale odpadke, saj so bili embalaža, steklo, papir in karton ter biološko razgradljivi odpadki predhodno ločeno zbrani v posebnih smetnjakih, ki so na voljo vsem prebivalcem območja, ki mu je objekt namenjen.
The plant separated the dry fraction from the biowaste. 
V objektu so od bioloških odpadkov ločili suho frakcijo.
The remaining dry fraction, following the recovery of materials suitable for sale to reprocessors, such as glass, plastics, metals and paper and cardboard, was incinerated and energy recovered in a facility within the same waste management complex. 
Po izločitvi materialov, ki so primerni za prodajo predelovalcem, kot so steklo, plastika, kovine ter papir in karton, je bila preostala suha frakcija sežgana zaradi proizvodnje energije v napravi v istem kompleksu za gospodarjenje z odpadki.
Biowaste was subject to an anaerobic treatment to produce biogas which was then used as a source of energy. 
Biološki odpadki so bili anaerobno obdelani zaradi pridobivanja bioplina, ki se je potem uporabil kot vir energije.
As a result of the process, in 2010, materials recovery amounted to 8 % of residual waste entering the plant compared to 10 % set in the application, biodegradable matter for biological treatment to 20 % compared to 26,5 % planned and residual waste for incineration to 70 % compared to 63,5 %. 
Zaradi tega procesa so v letu 2010 izločeni materiali obsegali 8 % preostalih odpadkov, ki jih je obrat prevzel, namesto 10 %, kot je bilo določeno v vlogi, biološko razgradljive snovi za biološko obdelavo 20 % namesto načrtovanih 26,5 %, preostali odpadki za sežig pa 70 % namesto 63,5 %.
BOX 4 FOUR MECHANICAL BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT PLANTS NOT ACHIEVING THEIR TARGETS AND NOT CONTRIBUTING TO WASTE DIVERSION FROM LANDFILLS In three Italian mechanical biological treatment facilities (Villacidro, Olbia and Cerignola) the operator entirely landfilled the outputs from the process: the dry fraction with no material recovery as well as the digest produced, amounting in total to 68 %, 82 % and 93 % of the waste entering the respective facilities. 
OKVIR 4 ŠTIRJE OBJEKTI ZA MEHANSKOBIOLOŠKO OBDELAVO, KI NISO DOSEGLI SVOJIH CILJNIH VREDNOSTI IN NISO PRISPEVALI V PREUSMERJANJU ODPADKOV Z ODLAGALIŠČ V treh italijanskih objektih za biološko obdelavo (Villacidro, Olbia in Cerignola) je upravitelj vse izložke procesov odložil na odlagališče: suho frakcijo brez izločitve materialov in proizvedeni digestat, ki sta skupaj dosegala 68 %, 82 % oz. 93 % odpadkov, ki jih je prejel posamezni objekt.
Only process losses (such as evaporation or leachate generation) reduced the quantity of waste landfilled. In two of the plants the co-financed machinery for refuse-derived fuel production was in one case not put into operation and in the other was dismantled as a result of the lack of potential buyers for the fuel. 
Količino na odlagališča odloženih odpadkov so zmanjševale samo izgube pri procesih (npr. izhlapevanje in nastajanje izcednih vod). V enem objektu sofinancirane naprave za proizvodnjo goriva iz odpadkov nikoli niso začele obratovati, v nekem drugem pa so jih demontirali zaradi pomanjkanja mogočih kupcev goriva.
The mechanical sorting unit of the third plant was not in use 6 years after the plant entered into operation, as it was no longer required, since biodegradable waste was collected separately at source. 
Enota za mehansko sortiranje v tretjem objektu šest let po začetku njegovega delovanja ni bila v uporabi, saj zaradi ločenega zbiranja biološko razgradljivih odpadkov pri viru ni bila več potrebna.
Moreover, the three plants were overloaded and as a result 13 %, 52 % and 65 % respectively of the waste received by the facilities was not treated at all and directly landfilled with a high content of biodegradable matter, as biodegradable waste was not collected separately in two cases. 
Poleg tega so bili vsi trije objekti preobremenjeni, zato 13 %, 52 % oz. 65 % odpadkov z velikim deležem biološko razgradljivih snovi, ki so jih prevzeli, sploh niso obdelali, temveč so jih odložili neposredno na odlagališče, saj se v dveh primerih biološko razgradljivi odpadki niso zbirali ločeno.
The fourth plant within this group (Linares, Spain) had implemented the recovery of materials and did not landfill the compost produced, which was used in civil works and in agriculture. 
Četrti obrat v tej skupini (Linares, Španija) je izločal materiale in proizvedenega komposta ni odlagal na odlagališče, pač pa se je ta uporabljal pri gradbenih delih in v kmetijstvu.
However, recovery targets were not met: only between 6 % and 9 % of biodegradable waste and 4 % of recoverable materials were recovered compared to a target of 25 % to 28 % and 7 % to 8 % respectively. 
Vendar ciljne vrednosti za predelavo niso bile dosežene: predelanih je bilo samo od 6 % do 9 % biološko razgradljivih odpadkov in 4 % materialov, ki jih je mogoče predelati, v primerjavi s ciljnimi vrednostmi 25 %–28 % oz. 7 %–8 %.
As a result 85 % of waste entering the plant was landfilled with a high content of biodegradable matter. 
Zato je bilo 85 % odpadkov z velikim deležem biološko razgradljivih snovi, ki jih je obrat prevzel, odloženih na odlagališče.
The resulting compost produced was difficult to sell and approximately 50 % of total production of the plant was stockpiled at the time of the audit. 
Proizvedeni kompost je bilo težko prodati in približno 50 % skupne proizvodnje obrata je bilo v času revizije na zalogi.
22 LANDFILLS 28. 
22 ODLAGALIŠČA 28.
Regarding the seven selected landfill sites, the Court noted that the quantity of biodegradable waste landfilled ranged from 31 % to 55 % of total waste landfilled as a result of a failure to effectively treat such waste: (a) waste was landfilled without any treatment in five of the seven landfills reviewed. 
Sodišče je v zvezi s sedmimi izbranimi odlagališči ugotovilo, da je delež odloženih biološko razgradljivih odpadkov znašal od 31 % do 55 % vseh odloženih odpadkov, ker ti odpadki niso bili ustrezno obdelani: (a) na pet od sedmih pregledanih odlagališč so se odpadki odlagali brez vsakršne obdelave.
Even if, in three of these five landfill sites biodegradable waste was collected separately, in two cases more than 90 % of biodegradable waste was contaminated with non-biodegradable waste and as a result directly landfilled; (b) waste deposited in the remaining two selected landfills was treated in mechanical biological treatment plants prior to disposal. 
Na treh od teh petih odlagališč so se biološko razgradljivi odpadki sicer zbirali ločeno, vendar je bilo v dveh primerih več kot 90 % biološko razgradljivih odpadkov pomešanih z biološko nerazgradljivimi odpadki, zato so bili odloženi naravnost na odlagališče; (b) odpadki, odloženi na preostali dve izbrani odlagališči, so bili pred tem obdelani v objektu za mehansko-biološko obdelavo.
However, the two treatment facilities did not perform satisfactorily. 
Vendar objekta nista delovala zadovoljivo.