natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
22 TABLE 5 EU recommended reuse methods Non-reuse methods Total Land application Incineration Municipal landfills Treatment plant on-site Other Spain 16 0 2 0 1 19 Ireland 17 0 1 0 0 18 Portugal 14 0 1 3 0 18 Greece 0 1 14 2 1 18 Total 47 1 18 5 2 73 DISPOSAL OF THE SEWAGE SLUDGE PRODUCED BY THE TREATMENT PLANTS IN THE AUDIT SAMPLE Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods 
22 TABELA 5 Načini ponovne uporabe, ki jih priporoča EU Načini brez ponovne uporabe Skupaj Uporaba na zemljiščih Sežiganje Komunalna odlagališča Čistilna naprava – na kraju samem Drugo Španija 16 0 2 0 1 19 Irska 17 0 1 0 0 18 Portugalska 14 0 1 3 0 18 Grčija 0 1 14 2 1 18 Skupaj 47 1 18 5 2 73 ODLAGANJE BLATA IZ ČISTILNIH NAPRAV, KI GA PROIZVAJAJO ČISTILNE NAPRAVE V REVIDIRANEM VZORCU Posebno poročilo št. 3/2009 – Uspešnost porabe iz strukturnih ukrepov za čiščenje odpadne vode za programski obdobji 1994–1999 in 2000–2006
Non-reuse methods were practised at the other 25 treatment plants for various reasons: (a) although Greece is currently developing a national plan to deal with the issue of sewage sludge disposal, at the time of the audit neither national nor regional plans were in place and 14 of the 18 Greek treatment plants audited disposed of their sewage sludge in municipal landfills; (b) in Greece and Portugal, some treatment plants do not have a viable strategy for sludge disposal, particularly those municipally operated. 
Preostalih 25 čistilnih naprav se za ponovno uporabo ni odločilo iz različnih razlogov: (a) čeprav v Grčiji pravkar pripravljajo nacionalni načrt za odlaganje blata iz čistilnih naprav, pa v času revizije ni bil oblikovan noben nacionalni niti regionalni načrt in 14 od 18 revidiranih grških čistilnih naprav je blato odlagalo na komunalnih odlagališčih; (b) v Grčiji in na Portugalskem nekatere, zlasti občinske, čistilne naprave nimajo izvedljive strategije za odlaganje blata.
This has led to on-site storage and, in one case, dumping in an abandoned mine. 
Tako ga skladiščijo na kraju samem, v enem primeru pa odlagajo v opušče-nem rudniku.
One large treatment plant in Greece did not have a valid contract for the sludge disposal and, as a result, 13 450 tonnes of sludge were each year stored on-site (Picture 6). 
Ena velika čistilna naprava v Grčiji ni imela veljavne pogodbe za odlaganje blata, zato so vsako leto 13 450 ton blata skladiščili na kraju samem (slika 6).
23 PICTURES 56 EXAMPLES OF DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE SLUDGE Picture 5: EU-encouraged practice Picture 6: Poor practice: storage on-site of reuse on agricultural lands at treatment plant visited Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods 
23 SLIKI 56 PRIMERI ODLAGANJA BLATA IZ ČISTILNIH NAPRAV Slika 5: Praksa ponovne uporabe na kmetijskih Slika 6: Neustrezna praksa: skladiščenje na kraju zemljiščih, ki jo spodbuja EU samem v obiskani čistilni napravi Posebno poročilo št. 3/2009 – Uspešnost porabe iz strukturnih ukrepov za čiščenje odpadne vode za programski obdobji 1994–1999 in 2000–2006
For the Member States visited, the Court’s review of data on the disposal of sewage sludge indicated that there had been a noticeable increase in reuse of sewage sludge as encouraged by the EU (Table 6 and Textbox 3). 
Pregled podatkov o odlaganju blata iz čistilnih naprav, ki ga je opravilo Sodišče, je za obiskane države članice pokazal precejšnje povečanje njegove ponovne uporabe, ki jo spodbuja EU (tabela 6 in Okvir 3).
24 TABLE 6 Member State Start of 1994–99 programme period End of 2000–06 programme period Reuse method Ireland 12 % / 15 % (1994) 76 % / 83 % (2005) Agriculture/all land Spain 46 % (1997) 66 % (2003) Agriculture Portugal 30 % (1995) 42 % (2005) Agriculture Greece 0 % (1997) 0 % (2005) / 50 % (mid–07)2 Energy (incineration) TEXTBOX 3 EVOLUTION OF PERCENTAGE OF REUSE OF TREATMENT PLANT SEWAGE SLUDGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH EU RECOMMENDED PRACTICES1 1 Reports on sewage sludge that Member States prepare according to Article 17 of the Sewage Sludge Directive. 
24 TABELA 6 Država članica Začetek programskega obdobja 1994–1999 Konec programskega obdobja 2000–2006 Način ponovne uporabe Irska 12 % / 15 % (1994) 76 % / 83 % (2005) kmetijstvo/vsa zemljišča Španija 46 % (1997) 66 % (2003) kmetijstvo Portugalska 30 % (1995) 42 % (2005) kmetijstvo Grčija 0 % (1997) 0 % (2005) / 50 % (sredi 2007)2 energija (sežiganje) OKVIR 3 SPREMEMBA DELEŽA V ODSTOTKIH PONOVNE UPORABE BLATA IZ ČISTILNIH NAPRAV V SKLADU S PRIPOROČENIMI PRAKSAMI EU1 1 Poročila o blatu iz čistilnih naprav, ki jih države članice pripravljajo v skladu s členom 17 direktive o blatu iz čistilnih naprav. 2 Ocena.
Ministry of Environment. 
Ministrstvo za okolje.
EXAMPLE OF HOW ONE MEMBER STATE ENCOURAGED EU RECOMMENDED PRACTICE The performance achieved by Ireland was attributable in part to its implementation of the Sewage Sludge Directive through the development and application of guidelines identifying best practice for sewage sludge treatment and disposal. 
PRIMER, KAKO JE ENA DRŽAVA ČLANICA SPODBUJALA PRIPOROČENO PRAKSO EU Uspešnost Irske je bilo mogoče delno pripisati njenemu izvajanju direktive o blatu iz čistilnih naprav tako, da je pripravila in uporabljala smernice, v katerih je bila opredeljena najboljša praksa za obdelavo in odlaganje blata iz čistilnih naprav.
One guideline focused on the preparation of effective sludge management plans for local authorities, whereas two others dealt with the safe disposal of sludge on agricultural lands, including a requirement for the use of a ‘Nutrient Management Plan’ for each farmer. Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods 
Ena smernica je bila usmerjena na pripravo učinkovitih načrtov za ravnanje z blatom za lokalne organe, dve pa sta obravnavali varno odlaganje blata na kmetijskih zemljiščih, skupaj z zahtevo za uporabo načrta za ravnanje s hranili za vsakega kmeta. Posebno poročilo št. 3/2009 – Uspešnost porabe iz strukturnih ukrepov za čiščenje odpadne vode za programski obdobji 1994–1999 in 2000–2006
For the treatment plants audited on-site in the three Member States applying sludge to land, lab tests carried out on heavy metal concentrations in sewage sludge and soils, prior to the application of the sludge, gave results which were in compliance with the maximum limits required by the Sewage Sludge Directive. 
V na terenu revidiranih čistilnih napravah v treh državah članicah, ki blato uporabljajo na zemljiščih, so bili rezultati laboratorijskih preizkusov o koncentraciji težkih kovin v blatu iz čistilnih naprav in tleh pred uporabo blata skladni z največjimi dovoljenimi omejitvami iz direktive o blatu iz čistilnih naprav.
Checks were carried out for other compounds, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), although not required by the directive (see Textbox 4). 
Preverjena je bila tudi vsebnost drugih spojin, kot so poliklorirani bifenili (PCB), čeprav tega direktiva ne zahteva (glej Okvir 4).
REVISION OF THE DIRECTIVE? 35. 
MOREBITNA REVIZIJA DIREKTIVE 35.
Although the Court found that the requirements of the Sewage Sludge Directive were being satisfactorily adhered to, as the current directive was adopted in 1986, it does not take into account subsequent developments in techniques and methods of sludge treatment and disposal. 
Čeprav je Sodišče ugotovilo, da so bile zahteve direktive o blatu iz čistilnih naprav zadovoljivo izpolnjene, pa zdajšnja direktiva, ki je bila sprejeta leta 1986, ne upošteva poznejšega napredka v tehnikah in metodah obdelave in odlaganja blata.
For example the directive does not require testing for organic contaminants such as PCBs, or pathogens such as E. coli, whereas some EU Member States set maximum concentration levels for organic contaminants in their national regulations and certain non-EU countries have set standards aimed at reducing the harmful effects of pathogens in sludge. 
Tako denimo ne zahteva preizkusov na organska onesnaževala, kot so PCB, ali patogene, kot je E. coli, čeprav nekatere države članice EU določajo stopnje najvišje dopustne koncentracije organskih onesnaževal v nacionalnih predpisih, nekatere države zunaj EU pa so določile standarde, s katerimi želijo zmanjšati škodljive posledice patogenov v blatu.
In addition, there is no mention in the directive of other popular land applications such as forestry. 
Poleg tega direktiva ne omenja drugih pogostih načinov uporabe na zemljiščih, denimo v gozdarstvu.
25 TEXTBOX 4 EXAMPLES OF CHECKS FOR OTHER COMPOUNDS IN SEWAGE SLUDGE In Ireland, three of eight treatment plants visited periodically tested for fluoride, arsenic, selenium and magnesium. 
25 OKVIR 4 PRIMERI PREVERJANJA VSEBNOSTI DRUGIH SPOJIN V BLATU IZ ČISTILNIH NAPRAV Na Irskem so tri od osmih obiskanih čistilnih naprav redno preverjale prisotnost fluora, arzena, selena in magne-zija.
Some plants also tested polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). 
Nekatere čistilne naprave so preverjale tudi prisotnost policikličnih aromatskih ogljikovodikov (PAO) in polikloriranih bifenilov (PCB).
In Portugal, since 2006, sludge produced by treatment plants receiving industrial waters has to be checked for organic compounds and dioxins. 
Na Portugalskem je treba od leta 2006 v blatu iz čistilnih naprav, ki sprejemajo tehnološko vodo, preverjati prisotnost organskih spojin in dioksinov.
This had been carried out at four of the six treatment plants visited. Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods 
To se izvaja v štirih od šestih obiskanih čistilnih naprav. Posebno poročilo št. 3/2009 – Uspešnost porabe iz strukturnih ukrepov za čiščenje odpadne vode za programski obdobji 1994–1999 in 2000–2006
If a revision is deemed necessary, it is likely that new limits for various substances would be more stringent than those found in the current directive. 
Če se bo sprememba zdela potrebna, je zelo verjetno, da bodo nove mejne vrednosti za različne snovi strožje kot v zdajšnji direktivi.
However, in other instances, there may be an opportunity, in the light of research carried out since the adoption of the 1986 directive, to relax certain limits which were thought prudent in the past. 
Vendar pa bi ob upoštevanju raziskav, izvedenih po sprejetju direktive v letu 1986, revizija v drugih primerih pomenila priložnost za sprostitev nekaterih omejitev, ki so v preteklosti veljale za previdnostne.
There may also be a need to instigate tests for contaminants not mentioned in the current directive. 
Morda bi bilo treba pripraviti tudi preizkuse za onesnaževala, ki jih zdajšnja direktiva ne navaja.
The Court’s review of sludge quality testing and recording for the operating plants in the sample indicated that the frequency of sampling and the choice of sampling method for the sewage sludge testing were generally in accordance with the Sewage Sludge Directive, even if some weaknesses were identified concerning the number of tests carried out. 
Pregled preizkušanja in evidentiranja kakovosti blata v delujočih čistilnih napravah v vzorcu, ki ga je opravilo Sodišče, je pokazal, da sta bili pogostnost vzorčenja in izbira načina vzorčenja blata na splošno v skladu z direktivo o blatu iz čistilnih naprav, čeprav so bile opažene nekatere slabosti glede števila izvedenih preizkusov.
In Member States, the Court noted that: (a) at the various levels, the authority responsible for monitoring sewage sludge were often not able to indicate the quantity of sludge produced, its content or how it was disposed of; (b) as different units were sometimes responsible for monitoring agricultural and non-agricultural sludge disposal separately, there was a lack of overview with regard to the situation of each treatment plant as a whole. 
Sodišče je v državah članicah ugotovilo: (a) da odgovorni organi za spremljanje blata iz čistilnih naprav na različnih ravneh pogosto niso mogli navesti količine proizvedenega blata, njegove vsebine ali načina odlaganja; (b) da ni bilo pregleda nad celotnim stanjem vsake čistilne naprave, ker so bile za ločeno spremljanje blata za kmetijske in nekmetijske namene včasih pristojne različne enote.
IS THE COMMISSION FULFILLING ITS ROLE? 
ALI KOMISIJA IZVAJA SVOJO VLOGO?
BACKGROUND 39. 
OZADJE 39.
The approval and follow-up of waste water treatment projects co-financed by the EU involves two Directorates-General of the European Commission: DG REGIO and DG ENV. 
Pri odobravanju in spremljanju izvajanja projektov čistilnih naprav za odpadno vodo, ki jih sofinancira EU, sodelujeta dva generalna direktorata Evropske komisije: GD REGIO in GD ENV.
For the Cohesion Fund and ERDF major projects, the Commission’s role in the appraisal of grant applications and the decision process relates to individual projects, whereas for smaller ERDF projects, its intervention is at the level of the operational programme (paragraphs 8 to 13). 26 Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods 
Pri velikih projektih Kohezijskega sklada in ESRR se vloga Komisije pri presoji vlog za subvencije in postopku odločanja nanaša na posamične projekte, medtem ko pri manjših projektih ESRR ukrepa na ravni operativnega programa (odstavki 8 do 13). 26 Posebno poročilo št. 3/2009 – Uspešnost porabe iz strukturnih ukrepov za čiščenje odpadne vode za programski obdobji 1994–1999 in 2000–2006
For Cohesion Fund and ERDF major projects, the Court examined whether the Commission: (a) checked in a consistent manner the environmental information contained in the grant applications; (b) reviewed the outcomes achieved by approved projects before paying the balance of the grant; (c) ensured that Member States applied the EU environmental principles that pollution should be reduced at source and the polluter should pay. 
Sodišče je preučilo, ali Komisija pri velikih projektih iz Kohezijskega sklada in ESRR: (a) dosledno preverja okoljske informacije v vlogah za subvencije; (b) pregleduje rezultate odobrenih projektov pred izplačilom preostanka subvencije; (c) zagotavlja, da države članice uporabljajo okoljski načeli EU, da je treba onesnaževanje zmanjšati pri viru in da plača povzročitelj obremenitve.
For the Commission to ensure that all grant applicants are treated equally and that all aspects of the applications are covered, an appropriate and systematically applied framework including internal guidelines and checklists is essential. 
Da bi Komisija zagotovila enakopravno obravnavo vseh vlog za subvencije in upoštevanje vseh vidikov vlog, je nujen ustrezen okvir, ki vključuje notranje smernice in kontrolne sezname in se sistematično uporablja.
During the course of its audit, the Court noted an absence of such guidelines and checklists. 
Sodišče je med revizijo opazilo pomanjkanje takih smernic in kontrolnih seznamov.
The Commission’s Cohesion Fund 2000–06 Guide stipulated certain key documents and information which had to be included with grant applications. 
Komisijin Vodnik po Kohezijskem skladu za obdobje 2000–2006 je določal nekatere bistvene dokumente in informacije, ki jih je treba priložiti vlogam za subvencije.
Such information was not always included with the applications reviewed by the Court and the use of checklists could have prevented this. 
Vlogam, ki jih je revidiralo Sodišče, take informacije niso bile vedno priložene, kar bi bilo mogoče preprečiti z uporabo kontrolnih seznamov.
In its review of the 22 treatment plants visited on the spot and co-financed by the Cohesion Fund the Court noted: (a) while almost all applications and Commission decisions include targets for the quality of discharged water and the volume of waste water to be treated, they contain little information about the nature of sewage sludge disposal (only indicated in eight applications for assistance and six granting decisions) or about the quality of sewage sludge (referred to in only two applications for assistance and one granting decision); (b) an absence of quantified receiving water quality performance indicators in almost all applications for assistance and corresponding Commission decisions (and this was confirmed by the findings of an ex post evaluation carried out for the Commission). 
Pri pregledu 22 čistilnih naprav, obiskanih na kraju samem, sofinanciranih iz Kohezijskega sklada, je Sodišče ugotovilo: (a) čeprav skoraj vse vloge in sklepi Komisije vključujejo cilje glede kakovosti izpuščene vode in količine odpadne vode, ki jo je treba očistiti, vsebujejo le malo informacij o načinu odlaganja blata iz čistilnih naprav (navaja jih samo osem vlog za pomoč in šest sklepov o dodelitvi) ali kakovosti blata (navajajo jo samo dve vlogi za pomoč in en sklep o dodelitvi); (b) odsotnost količinsko opredeljenih kazalnikov uspešnosti glede kakovosti sprejete vode v skoraj vseh zahtevkih za pomoč in ustreznih sklepih Komisije (to so potrdile tudi ugotovitve naknadnega vrednotenja, ki ga je izvedla Komisija). 27 Posebno poročilo št. 3/2009 – Uspešnost porabe iz strukturnih ukrepov za čiščenje odpadne vode za programski obdobji 1994–1999 in 2000–2006
Indeed, the Court has noted that the assessment of whether projects have met their objectives can be affected by shortcomings in aid applications, in particular concerning anticipated effects and indicators19. 
Sodišče je dejansko ugotovilo, da lahko pomanjkljive vloge za pomoč, zlasti z vidika pričakovanih učinkov in kazalnikov19, vplivajo na ocenjevanje, ali so projekti dosegli svoje cilje.
A more rigorous examination of projects at application stage could have identified and helped solve certain problems noted during the course of the audit: (a) inadequate treatment plant quality in sensitive areas due to a lack of appropriate nutrient removal equipment (paragraph 26); (b) inadequate disposal of sludge, with some large treatment plants accumulating its sewage sludge on-site (paragraph 32). 
S strožjim pregledom vlog za projekte bi bilo mogoče ugotoviti in rešiti nekatere težave, ugotovljene med revizijo: (a) neustrezno kakovost čistilnih naprav na občutljivih območjih zaradi pomanjkanja primerne opreme za odstranjevanje hranil (odstavek 26); (b) neustrezno odlaganje blata, pri čemer ga nekatere velike čistilne naprave skladiščijo na kraju samem (odstavek 32).
NEED FOR BETTER MONITORING OF OUTCOMES 46. 
POTREBA PO BOLJŠEM SPREMLJANJU REZULTATOV 46.
Before paying the balance of the grant of Cohesion Fund projects, a final report containing in particular an assessment of whether anticipated results have been achieved has to be submitted to the Commission. 
Pred izplačilom preostanka donacije za projekte Kohezijskega sklada je treba Komisiji predložiti končno poročilo, ki vsebuje predvsem oceno tega, ali so bili predvideni rezultati doseženi.
If the final report is not sent to the Commission within 18 months of the final date in the granting decision, the remaining balance of the payment should, according to the relevant EU legislation, be cancelled. 
Če se končno poročilo Komisiji ne pošlje v 18 mesecih od končnega datuma v sklepu o dodelitvi, naj bi se v skladu z ustrezno zakonodajo EU preostalo izplačilo preklicalo.
In its audit of the final reports of the 22 treatment plants co-financed by the Cohesion Fund and visited by the Court, it was noted that only six final reports provided data on the quality of the discharged water, only one provided data related to measured water quality improvement and only three indicated the method of sewage sludge disposal. 
V reviziji končnih poročil 22 čistilnih naprav, sofinanciranih iz Kohezijskega sklada, ki jih je obiskalo Sodišče, je bilo ugotovljeno, da je samo šest končnih poročil vsebovalo podatke o kakovosti izpuščene vode, samo eno podatke o izmerjenem izboljšanju kakovosti vode in samo tri način odlaganja blata.
The Court concludes that the Commission is not in a position to properly evaluate final reports without being in possession of fundamental and key information such as referred to in paragraph 47. 
Sodišče je prišlo do zaključka, da Komisija končnih poročil ne more ustrezno oceniti brez osnovnih in bistvenih informacij, navedenih v odstavku 47.
Given such lack of information, suspension or cancellation of the balance of a payment will only occur on the non-submission of a report, rather than following an assessment as to whether anticipated results have actually been achieved. 
Glede na takšno pomanjkanje informacij bo preostalo izplačilo zadržano ali preklicano samo, če se poročilo ne predloži, ne pa tudi glede na oceno, ali so bili pričakovani rezultati dejansko doseženi.
19 The most recent examples were observed by the Court in its Special Report No 1/2008 concerning the procedures for the preliminary examination and evaluation of major investment projects for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods (OJ C 81, 1.4.2008, p. 
19 Zadnje primere je Računsko sodišče obravnavalo v svojem posebnem poročilu št. 1/2008 o procesu obravnavanja vlog in vrednotenja v zvezi z velikimi naložbenimi projekti iz programskih obdobij 1994–1999 in 2000–2006 (UL C 81, 1.4.2008, str.
28 Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods MORE CONSIDERATION OF EU ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES REQUIRED 49. 
3/2009 – Uspešnost porabe iz strukturnih ukrepov za čiščenje odpadne vode za programski obdobji 1994–1999 in 2000–2006 OKOLJSKI NAČELI EU JE TREBA BOLJ UPOŠTEVATI 49.
Preserving the good ecological status of water bodies20 requires not only the satisfactory treatment of waste water at individual plant level but also application of the EU environmental principles that pollution should be reduced at source and the polluter should pay. 
Za ohranjanje dobrega ekološkega stanja voda20 ni nujno samo zadovoljivo čiščenje odpadne vode na ravni posamezne čistilne naprave, temveč tudi uporaba okoljskih načel EU, da je treba onesnaževanje zmanjšati pri viru in da naj plača povzročitelj obremenitve.
A Commission report asserts21 that two of the main sources of eutrophication of fresh waters by urban agglomerations are phosphate-based domestic laundry detergents and human metabolic waste. 
Poročilo Komisije trdi21, da sta dva glavna vzroka evtrofikacije sladke vode zaradi mestnih aglomeracij pralna sredstva, ki vsebujejo fosfate, in človeški presnovki.
Concerns over the contribution of phosphate-based laundry detergents have led most Member States to move towards phosphate-free detergents. 
Zaradi zaskrbljenosti glede prispevka pralnih sredstev, ki vsebujejo fosfate, je večina držav članic prešla na pralna sredstva brez fosfatov.
Other reports22 conclude that the provision of tertiary treatment alone may not in itself be sufficient in avoiding eutrophication without a move away from phosphate-based detergents. 
Druga poročila22 ugotavljajo, da terciarno čiščenje samo po sebi morda ni dovolj za preprečevanje evtrofikacije, če ni odmika od detergentov, ki vsebujejo fosfate.
The Commission has studied the potential environmental benefits for Member States of such a move away from phosphate-based detergents and concluded that 24 of the 2523 studied would benefit in varying degrees24. 
Komisija je preučila morebitne okoljske koristi za države članice, ki bi jih prinesel tak odmik od detergentov, ki vsebujejo fosfate, in ugotovila, da bi 24 od 2523 obravnavanih držav imelo od tega različno korist24.
Amongst the factors taken into account for each Member State were the annual consumption of detergent phosphates, the provision of tertiary water treatment and the extent of concern over eutrophication. 
Med upoštevanimi dejavniki za vsako državo članico so bili letna poraba fosfatov v detergentih, zagotavljanje terciarnega čiščenja vode in stopnja zaskrbljenosti zaradi evtrofikacije.