natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
19 Tariffs were calculated based on the square metres of apartments or houses, on the number of persons per household, on drinking water consumption or on a combination of these elements, without taking into consideration the quantity of waste generated by each household. 
19 Cene so bile izračunane na podlagi kvadrature stanovanj ali hiš, števila članov gospodinjstva, porabe pitne vode ali na podlagi kombinacije teh elementov, ne da bi se upoštevala količina odpadkov, ki jo povzroči posamezno gospodinjstvo.
20 As well as to private citizens in the case of disposal in landfills. 
20 Pa tudi zasebnikom pri odlaganju odpadkov na odlagališča.
BOX 10 EXAMPLES OF WASTE MANAGEMENT TARIFFS WITH ELEMENTS TO ENCOURAGE RECYCLING In order to encourage recycling, some municipalities in Catalonia applied discounts to the waste management tariff paid by households based on home composting, use of collection centres or participation in awareness campaigns. 
OKVIR 10 PRIMERI CEN ZA ODVOZ ODPADKOV Z ELEMENTI ZA SPODBUJANJE RECIKLIRANJA Nekatere občine v Kataloniji so za spodbujanje recikliranja uporabljale popuste pri ceni za odvoz odpadkov, ki jo plačujejo gospodinjstva, za domače kompostiranje, uporabo centrov za zbiranje odpadkov ali sodelovanje v kampanjah za ozaveščanje.
The separate collection rate achieved by these municipalities (39 %) was higher than the one observed in municipalities not applying economic incentives (29 %). 
Delež ločeno zbranih odpadkov, ki so ga dosegle te občine (39 %), je bil višji od deleža v občinah, ki niso uporabljale ekonomskih spodbud (29 %).
Other municipalities in Catalonia took into account the proportion of waste landfilled when establishing the tariff to benefit the households of those municipalities with lower landfill rates. 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? 
Druge občine v Kataloniji so pri določanju cene upoštevale delež odpadkov, odloženih na odlagališča, pri čemer so imela koristi gospodinjstva v občinah z manjšim deležem. 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?
36 FIGURE 7 WASTE DISPOSAL TAX AND PERCENTAGE OF MUNICIPAL WASTE LANDFILLED IN 20091 100 % 90 % 80% 70% 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % RO-Nord-Est ES-Andalucía RO-Sud-Vest PT-Norte PT-LVT IT-Puglia ES-Catalonia 0% 0 5 10 15 20 25 Average waste disposal tax in euro per tonne landfilled 1 For ES-Andalucía and IT-Puglia data refer to 2008. 
100 % Romunija – Nord-Est 90 % Italija – Apulija 36 DIAGRAM 7 DAJATEV ZA ODLAGANJE ODPADKOV IN DELEŽ KOMUNALNIH ODPADKOV, ODLOŽENIH NA ODLAGALIŠČA LETA 20091 80% 70% 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % Španija – Andaluzija Romunija – Sud-Vest Portugalska – Norte Portugalska – LVT Španija – Katalonija Italija – Sardinija 0% 0 5 10 15 20 25 povprečna dajatev za odlaganje odpadkov v EUR na tono odpadkov, odloženih na odlagališča 1 Podatki za Andaluzijo v Španiji in Apulijo v Italiji se nanašajo na leto 2008.
For RO-Nord-Est and RO-Sud-Vest the proportion of waste landfilled does not take into consideration waste not collected. 
Pri deležu odpadkov, odloženih na odlagališča, za regiji Nord-Est in Sud-Vest v Romuniji niso upoštevani odpadki, ki niso bili zbrani.
IT-Sardinia BOX 11 AN EXAMPLE OF THE WASTE DISPOSAL TAX SET FOR WASTE LANDFILLED OR INCINERATED BASED UPON THE PERCENTAGE OF SEPARATE COLLECTION ACHIEVED BY EACH MUNICIPALITY Since 2005, to promote separate collection of waste at source, Sardinia has adapted the tariff charged to waste landfilled or incinerated, based on the separate collection rate achieved by each municipality. 
OKVIR 11 PRIMER DAJATVE ZA ODLAGANJE ODPADKOV, ODLOŽENIH NA ODLAGALIŠČA, ALI SEŽGANIH ODPADKOV NA PODLAGI DELEŽA DOSEŽENEGA LOČENEGA ZBIRANJA ODPADKOV V POSAMEZNIH OBČINAH Na Sardiniji so bile leta 2005 za spodbujanje ločenega zbiranja odpadkov pri viru cene, ki se zaračunajo za odlaganje na odlagališča ali sežiganje odpadkov, prilagojene na podlagi stopnje ločenega zbiranja odpadkov, ki so jo dosegle posamezne občine.
For example, in 2010, if the separate collection rate reached a level between 50 % and 60 % a tax relief of 20 % was applied. 
Leta 2010 se je na primer uporabilo znižanje dajatve za 20 %, če je delež ločeno zbranih odpadkov dosegel od 50 % do 60 %.
If separate collection was above 60 % municipalities benefited from a tax relief of 40 %. 
Če je bil delež ločeno zbranih odpadkov višji od 60 %, se je dajatev za občine zmanjšala za 40 %.
However if separate collection was below 50 % (or 40 % depending on the number of inhabitants of the municipality) a penalty of an additional 5,16 euro/tonne was charged. 
Če pa je bilo ločeno zbranih manj kot 50 % (ali 40 %, odvisno od števila občanov), se je zaračunala kazen v znesku 5,16 EUR na tono.
37 WHEN APPROVING OPERATIONAL PROGRAMMES OR PROJECTS, THE COMMISSION DID NOT ENCOURAGE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUPPORTING MEASURES 55. 
37 KOMISIJA PRI ODOBRAVANJU OPERATIVNIH PROGRAMOV ALI PROJEKTOV NI SPODBUJALA IZVAJANJA PODPORNIH UKREPOV 55.
Structural measures funding did not influence the implementation of information, administrative and economic supporting measures. 
Financiranje v okviru strukturnih ukrepov ni vplivalo na izvajanje informativnih, upravnih in ekonomskih podpornih ukrepov.
The Commission required limited information on such instruments when deciding on the co-financing of waste management infrastructures: (a) for ERDF funding, the Court noted that 9 of the 10 operational programmes selected did not contain information regarding specific administrative measures nor any reference to waste disposal taxes or types of waste management tariffs paid by households (flat rate or based on ‘pay as you throw’ schemes); (b) even if each Cohesion Fund project was individually assessed and approved by the Commission during the 2000–06 programme period, the Court noted that the level of detail concerning supporting measures requested by the Commission from Member States did not in general ensure their existence before the granting of EU funding. 
Komisija je pri odločanju, ali bo sofinancirala objekte za gospodarjenje z odpadki, zahtevala malo informacij o teh instrumentih: (a) pri financiranju iz ESRR je Sodišče ugotovilo, da devet od desetih izbranih operativnih programov ni vsebovalo informacij o posebnih upravnih ukrepih niti omembe dajatev za odlaganje odpadkov ali načinov določanja cen za odvoz odpadkov, ki jih plačujejo gospodinjstva (pavšalne ali na podlagi sheme „plačaj, kolikor odvržeš“); (b) čeprav je Komisija v programskem obdobju 2000–2006 vsak projekt v okviru Kohezijskega sklada posamično ocenila in odobrila, je Sodišče ugotovilo, da stopnja podrobnosti v zvezi s podpornimi ukrepi, ki jih od držav članic zahteva Komisija, na splošno ni zagotavljala, da so ukrepi zares obstajali, preden so bila sredstva EU odobrena.
Implementation reports submitted by the sampled Member States to comply with the requirements set in EU waste directives contain some information on such supporting measures (information on landfill tax implementation, inspections, public information, etc.). 
V poročilih o izvajanju, ki so jih države članice v vzorcu predložile v skladu z zahtevami iz direktiv EU o odpadkih, je nekaj informacij o podpornih ukrepih (npr. informacije o uporabi dajatev za odlaganje na odlagališča, inšpekcijskih pregledih, informacije javnega značaja itd.), vendar Sodišče ni opazilo nobene povezave med ocenami poročil o izvajanju, ki jih pripravlja Generalni direktorat za okolje, in financiranjem EU za objekte za gospodarjenje z odpadki, za katero je odgovoren Generalni direktorat za regionalno in mestno politiko.
The lack of a link between EU funding and the existence of supporting instruments was especially significant in relation to the implementation of the ‘polluter pays principle’, which is one of the principles on which EU environmental policy is based21. The 1975 waste directive established this principle22 which was then included in other specific directives on waste management, such as the landfill directive23. 
To, da ni povezave med financiranjem EU in obstojem podpornih instrumentov, je bilo zlasti pomembno pri izvajanju načela„povzročitelj plača“, ki je eno od načel, na katerih temelji okoljska politika EU.21 To načelo22, ki je bilo potem vključeno v druge posebne direktive o gospodarjenju z odpadki, kot je na primer direktiva o odlagališčih23, je bilo uvedeno z direktivo o odpadkih iz leta 1975.
According to cohesion policy regulations and to Commission internal guidelines, EU financial support should take into consideration the implementation of the principle through differentiated rates of assistance24. 
Pri finančni podpori EU bi bilo treba v skladu z uredbami o kohezijski politiki in internimi smernicami Komisije upoštevati izvajanje načela z uporabo diferenciranih stopenj pomoči24.
21 Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated version). 
21 Člen 191(2) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije (konsolidirana različica).
22 Article 15 of Directive 75/442/EEC, Article 15 of Directive 91/156/EEC, Article 15 of Directive 2006/12/EC and Article 14 of Directive 2008/98/EC. 
22 Člen 15 Direktive 75/442/EGS, člen 15 Direktive 91/156/EGS, člen 15 Direktive 2006/12/ES in člen 14 Direktive 2008/98/ES.
23 Article 10 of Directive 1999/31/EC. 
23 Člen 10 Direktive 1999/31/ES.
24 Article 29 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds: ‘The contribution of the Funds shall be differentiated through the application of the polluter pays principle’. 
24 Člen 29 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1260/1999 z dne 21. junija 1999 o splošnih določbah o Strukturnih skladih: prispevek skladov se diferencira z uporabo načela, da plača povzročitelj obremenitve.
Article 52 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999: ‘The contribution from the Funds may be modulated through the application of the polluter pays principle’. 
Člen 52 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1083/2006 z dne 11. julija 2006 o splošnih določbah o Evropskem skladu za regionalni razvoj, Evropskem socialnem skladu in Kohezijskem skladu in razveljavitvi Uredbe (ES) št.
Article 55 of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006: ‘In calculating the eligible expenditure on revenue-generating projects, the managing authority shall take account of the application of the polluter-pays principle’. 
Člen 55 Uredbe (ES) št.
58. This principle of differentiated rates of assistance was further developed by the Commission during the 2000–06 period in a technical paper25 which established that ‘where the financing of a project includes a system of charges (such as low flat rate charges), which are not based on the actual consumption of resources and do not provide the necessary financial means to properly maintain the infrastructure nor to cover the operational costs and a large part of the depreciation costs, then the rate of assistance should be reduced’. 
CENE ZA ODVOZ ODPADKOV, KI SO JIH PLAČEVALA GOSPODINJSTVA V OBČINAH V VZORCU V LETIH 2009 IN 2010 38 58. To načelo diferencirane stopnje pomoči je Komisija v obdobju 2000–2006 dodatno razvila v tehničnem dokumentu25, v katerem je določeno, da je treba pavšalno pomoč znižati, kadar financiranje projekta vključuje sistem stroškov (npr. nizki pavšalni stroški), ki ne temelji na dejanski porabi virov in ne zagotavlja dovolj finančnih sredstev za ustrezno vzdrževanje objektov niti ne pokrije stroškov delovanja in večine stroškov amortizacije.
In these cases, the proposed rate of assistance should normally be as set out in column 5 of Annex IV. 
V teh primerih bi morala biti priporočena stopnja pomoči prikazana v stolpcu 5 Priloge IV.
The Court noted that although for the selected infrastructures, operating and depreciation costs were not covered by the waste management tariff charged to households, the Commission did not apply the principle of a differentiated rate of assistance by reducing the co-financing rate. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da Komisija za izbrane objekte ni uporabila načela diferencirane stopnje pomoči z zmanjšanjem deleža sofinanciranja, čeprav cene za odvoz odpadkov, ki so se zaračunavale gospodinjstvom, niso pokrile stroškov delovanja in amortizacije.
As a result, in almost all the cases the co-financing rate granted was higher than the one that should have applied in accordance with the principle of differentiated rates of assistance (see Annex IV). 
Zato je bila odobrena stopnja sofinanciranja v skoraj vseh primerih višja od tiste, ki bi jo bilo treba uporabiti v skladu z načelom diferenciranih stopenj pomoči (glej Prilogo IV).
Some municipalities did not charge any waste management tariff to households. 
Nekatere občine gospodinjstvom odvoza odpadkov sploh niso zaračunavale.
Tariffs charged by municipalities to households for the management of waste varied significantly, even within each region (see Table 3). 
Cene, ki so jih občine gospodinjstvom zaračunavale za odvoz odpadkov, so se celo v isti regiji zelo razlikovale (glej tabelo 3).
Dif-ferences, reaching in some cases up to 300 % within the same region, could not be solely explained by differences in the average income of households and their affordability level or in the cost of waste management among the municipalities sampled. 
Razlik, ki so v nekaterih primerih v isti regiji znašale do 300 %, ni mogoče razložiti samo z razliko v povprečnih dohodkih gospodinjstev in ravnijo dostopnosti ali z razliko v stroških gospodarjenja z odpadki v občinah v vzorcu.
25 ‘The new programming period 2000-2006: Technical paper 1 — Application of the polluter pays principle — Differentiating the rates of Community assistance for Structural Funds, Cohesion Fund and ISPA infrastructure operations’ (6.12.1999). 
25 Novo programsko obdobje 2000–2006: tehnični dokument 1 – Application of the polluter pays principle – Differentiating the rates of Community assistance for Structural Funds, Cohesion Fund and ISPA infrastructure operations (uporaba načela„plača povzročitelj obremenitve“ – diferenciranje stopenj pomoči Skupnosti za strukturne sklade, Kohezijski sklad in infrastrukturne ukrepe ISPA) (6.
38 TABLE 3 WASTE MANAGEMENT TARIFFS PAID BY HOUSEHOLDS IN THE MUNICIPALITIES SAMPLED IN 2009 OR 2010 Region Lowest tariff noted Highest tariff noted Difference in % ES-Catalonia IT-Sardinia IT-Puglia ES-Andalucía PT-Norte PT-Lisboa Vale do Tejo RO-Nord-Est RO-Sud-Vest 40,25 euro per household 1,02 euro per m2 of surface 1,57 euro per m2 of surface 69,60 euro per household 0 euro 0 euro 166,50 euro per household 3,3 euro per m2 of surface 2,62 euro per m2 of surface 94,36 euro per household 76,20 euro per household 70,38 euro per household 8,69 euro per person (the infrastructures sampled served only one municipality) 16,2 euro per person (the infrastructures sampled served only one municipality) 314 % 224 % 67 % 36 % - - NA NA Source: European Court of Auditors based on audit evidence obtained during the audit. 
12. 1999). TABELA 3 Regija Najnižja ugotovljena cena Najvišja ugotovljena cena Razlika v % Španija – Katalonija Italija – Sardinija Italija – Apulija Španija – Andaluzija Portugalska – Norte Portugalska – Lisboa Vale do Tejo Romunija – Nord-Est Romunija – Sud-Vest 40,25 EUR na gospodinjstvo 1,02 EUR na m2 površine 1,57 EUR na m2 površine 69,60 EUR na gospodinjstvo 0 EUR 0 EUR 166,50 EUR na gospodinjstvo 3,3 EUR na m2 površine 2,62 EUR na m2 površine 94,36 EUR na gospodinjstvo 76,20 EUR na gospodinjstvo 70,38 EUR na gospodinjstvo 8,69 EUR na osebo (objekt v vzorcu je uporabljala samo ena občina) 16,2 EUR na osebo (objekt v vzorcu je uporabljala samo ena občina) 314 % 224 % 67 % 36 % - - NR NR Vir: Evropsko računsko sodišče na podlagi revizijskih dokazov, zbranih med revizijo.
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? 39 WEAKNESSES WERE NOTED IN THE EU WASTE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND EU GUIDELINES 61. 
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? 39 V ZAKONSKEM OKVIRU IN SMERNICAH EU GLEDE ODPADKOV SO BILE UGOTOVLJENE SLABOSTI 61.
The EU waste regulatory framework and EU guidelines can contribute to maximise the effectiveness of EU funding. 
Zakonski okvir EU za odpadke in smernice EU lahko prispevajo k doseganju največje mogoče uspešnosti financiranja EU.
The Court noted weaknesses in this area. 
Sodišče je na tem področju ugotovilo slabosti.
The EU waste hierarchy contained in the waste directive indicates prevention as the first waste management option. 
V hierarhiji EU za gospodarjenje z odpadki iz direktive o odpadkih je preprečevanje nastajanja odpadkov predstavljeno kot prva izbira pri gospodarjenju z odpadki.
The sixth environment action programme26 included an overall objective to substantially reduce waste generation and disposal. 
Splošni cilj šestega okoljskega akcijskega programa26 je bil trajno zmanjšati nastajanje in odlaganje odpadkov.
However, targets set in EU directives in the waste management field relate only to recycling, recovery and diversion of biodegradable waste from landfills and do not address prevention or reduction of waste (see paragraph 39). 
Toda ciljne vrednosti, določene v direktivah EU na področju gospodarjenja z odpadki, se nanašajo samo na recikliranje, predelavo in preusmerjanje biološko razgradljivih odpadkov z odlagališč in ne obravnavajo preprečevanja nastajanja ali zmanjševanja količine odpadkov (glej odstavek 39).
However, the directive is not clear enough on what such treatment should consist of and whether treatment requires a reduction in the quantity of waste landfilled or only a reduction of its volume27. 65. 
Vendar v direktivi ni dovolj jasno navedeno, kaj taka obdelava zajema in ali mora zmanjšati količino odpadkov, ki se odložijo na odlagališče, ali pa samo zmanjšati njihovo prostornino.27 65.
This lack of clarity regarding the concept of treatment before landfilling has resulted in different strategies at national and/or regional level. 
Zaradi nejasnosti pojma obdelave pred odlaganjem na odlagališča na nacionalni in/ali regionalni ravni obstajajo različne strategije.
One of the regions sampled focused, for example, on mechanical biological treatment plants, the performance of which in achieving the reduction of waste landfilled was not satisfactory. 
Ena regija v vzorcu se je na primer osredotočila na objekte za mehansko-biološko obdelavo, ki niso bili dovolj uspešni pri doseganju zmanjšanja odpadkov, odloženih na odlagališča.
In two other regions, when high levels of separate collection were achieved, waste was considered as having been treated and could be taken to the landfill directly (see paragraphs 28 and 44). 
V dveh drugih regijah se je štelo, da so bili odpadki obdelani in so se lahko odlagali naravnost na odlagališče, kadar je bil dosežen velik delež ločeno zbranih odpadkov (glej odstavke od 28 do 44).
26 Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the sixth environment action programme of the European Community (COM(2001) 31 final). 
26 Sporočilo Komisije Svetu, Evropskemu parlamentu, Ekonomsko-socialnemu odboru in Odboru regij o šestem okoljskem akcijskem programu Evropske skupnosti (COM/2001/0031 final).
27 Article 6(a) of Directive 1999/31/EC stipulates that ‘by reducing the quantity of the waste or the hazards to human health or the environment’, while Article 2(h) stipulates that ‘to reduce its volume or hazardous nature, facilitate its handling or enhance recovery’. 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? 
27 V členu 6(a) Direktive 1999/31/ES je določeno, da "z zmanjšanjem količine odpadkov ali nevarnosti za zdravje ljudi ali za okolje", v členu 2(h) pa„da se zmanjša njihova prostornina ali nevarne lastnosti, da se laže ravna z njimi ali da se poveča regeneracija.“ 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?
40 LACK OF EU QUALITY STANDARDS FOR COMPOST 66. 
40 POMANJKANJE STANDARDOV KAKOVOSTI EU ZA KOMPOST 66.
The EU co-financed composting and anaerobic digestion plants in all eight regions sampled. However, at the time of the audit four of the regions reviewed lacked any quality standards for compost. 
EU je sofinancirala kompostarne in objekte za anaerobno razgradnjo v vseh osmih regijah v vzorcu, vendar v času revizije štiri pregledane regije niso imele nobenih standardov kakovosti za kompost.
In the four remaining regions, the admissible concentration levels of heavy metals varied significantly (see paragraph 52). 
V preostalih štirih regijah se je sprejemljiva vsebnost težkih kovin precej razlikovala (glej odstavek 52).
The fact that quality standards for compost at national/regional level either did not exist or if they existed, varied significantly, hampered the development of a compost market, making it difficult for plant operators to sell the compost produced. 
To, da standardi kakovosti za kompost na nacionalni/regionalni ravni ne obstajajo ali pa se precej razlikujejo, ovira razvoj trga komposta, zato upravitelji obratov težko prodajo proizvedeni kompost.
There are no EU compost quality standards. 
Standardov kakovosti EU za kompost ni.
Concerning the financial security to cover closure and after-care costs, the Court noted that significant differences existed in the methodologies applied for its calculation in the six regions where landfills were sampled, resulting in significantly varying amounts for a landfill of the same capacity, which indicates that they may not always be sufficient to cover all the costs for a period of 30 years as required by the landfill directive. 
Sodišče je v zvezi s sredstvi za zaprtje in upravljanje po zaprtju ugotovilo, da se metodologije za izračun teh sredstev v šestih regijah z odlagališči, zajetih v vzorcu, precej razlikujejo, zato so predvidena sredstva za odlagališča z enako zmogljivostjo precej različna, kar kaže na to, da ni nujno, da bodo vedno zadostovala za pokritje vseh stroškov za 30 let, kot se zahteva v direktivi o odlagališčih.
The EU has neither provided any guidelines to Member States as to how the closure and after-care costs should be estimated nor promoted any exchange of experiences among Member States in this area (see paragraphs 33 and 34). 
EU državam članicam ni dala nobenih smernic za oceno stroškov zaprtja in upravljanja po zaprtju niti ni spodbujala izmenjave izkušenj med državami članicami na tem področju (glej odstavka 33 in 34).
In almost all the regions selected some improvements in the management of waste were observed, however the effectiveness of structural measures funding for municipal waste management infrastructures in helping Member States achieve EU waste policy objectives was hampered by the poor implementation of supporting measures and by weaknesses in EU rules and guidelines. 
V skoraj vseh izbranih regijah je bilo ugotovljeno delno izboljšanje na področju gospodarjenja z odpadki, vendar so uspešnost financiranja objektov za gospodarjenje s komunalnimi odpadki pri pomoči državam članicam pri doseganju ciljev politike EU glede gospodarjenja z odpadki ovirali slabo izvajanje podpornih ukrepov ter slabosti v pravilih in smernicah EU.