natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission has recognised the need for appropriate action and in the report referred to in paragraph 50, it stated that a decision on whether restrictions on phosphates in detergents would be taken if justified and that an impact assessment and eventual presentation of a legislative proposal would follow if considered appropriate. 
Komisija je priznala potrebo po ustreznih ukrepih in v poročilu iz odstavka 50 navedla, da bi bil sklep o omejitvah fosfatov v detergentih sprejet, če bi bil upravičen, in če bi se to zdelo primerno, bi sledili presoja vpliva in morebitna predstavitev zakonodajnega predloga.
Concerning the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the Water Framework Directive requires by 2010 the adoption of water-pricing policies providing incentives for the efficient use of water resources and recovery of costs. 
V zvezi z načelom, da plača povzročitelj obremenitve, okvirna direktiva o vodah do leta 2010 zahteva sprejetje cenovne politike za vodo ter določa spodbude za gospodarno rabo vodnih virov in povračilo stroškov.
20 The good ecological status is defined in the Water Framework Directive based on three groups of elements: biological quality elements, hydromorphological quality elements and physico-chemical quality elements (Article 2 and Annex V). 
20 Dobro ekološko stanje je opredeljeno v okvirni direktivi o vodah na podlagi treh skupin elementov: bioloških, hidromorfoloških in fizikalno-kemijskih elementov kakovosti (člen 2 in Priloga V).
21 Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament pursuant to Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents, concerning the use of phosphates / COM(2007) 234 final — Brussels, 4 May 2007. 
21 Poročilo Komisije Svetu in Evropskemu parlamentu v skladu s členom 16 Uredbe (ES) št. 648/2004 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 31. marca 2004 o detergentih glede uporabe fosfatov / COM(2007) 234 konč. – Bruselj, 4. maja 2007.
22 EU Environment Directorate — Final Report on Phosphates and Alternative Detergent Builders / WRc Ref: UC 4011 / June 2002 pages 120, 121 and 125, UNDP/GEF report at Danube River and MARE/HELCOM project on the Baltic Sea area. 
22 Direktorat za okolje EU – Končno poročilo o fosfatih in alternativnih sestavinah detergentov / WRc Sklic: UC 4011 / junij 2002, strani 120, 121 in 125, poročilo Globalnega sklada za okolje pri Programu ZN za razvoj (UNDP/GEF) o Donavi in projekt MARE/HELCOM o območju Baltskega morja.
23 Bulgaria and Romania were not taken into account in this study. 
23 Bolgarija in Romunija v tej študiji nista bili upoštevani.
24 The Commission reported that two of the countries which had received large amounts of assistance from the EU in support of waste water treatment investment, and which were visited in this audit, were less than 50 % phosphate-free in laundry detergents. 29 Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods 
24 Po poročanju Komisije sta dve od držav, ki so prejele velike zneske pomoči EU v podporo naložbam v čiščenje odpadnih voda in so bile med to revizijo obiskane, imeli manj kot 50 % pralnih sredstev brez fosfatov. 29 Posebno poročilo št. 3/2009 – Uspešnost porabe iz strukturnih ukrepov za čiščenje odpadne vode za programski obdobji 1994–1999 in 2000–2006
When assessing a grant application, the Commission is required to verify compliance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle and this may influence the rate of assistance granted25. 
Pri presoji vlog za subvencijo mora Komisija preveriti skladnost z načelom, da plača povzročitelj obremenitve, kar lahko vpliva na dodeljeno stopnjo pomoči25.
However, no specific benchmarks are provided against which to assess the proposed tariff rates in the application. 
Vendar pa niso določena konkretna merila za ocenjevanje zneskov pristojbin, predlaganih v vlogi.
The Court noted that tariff rates were never included in the granting decision and often not in the final reports, thereby making difficult an assessment of financial sustainability. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da zneski pristojbin niso bili nikoli vključeni v sklep o subvenciji, pogosto pa tudi ne v končna poročila, zato je bila ocena finančne vzdržnosti otežena.
The Court’s review of the tariffs applied by the plants visited showed that generally tariffs are too low to cover operating costs (see Textbox 5). 
Pregled pristojbin v obiskanih čistilnih napravah, ki ga je opravilo Sodišče, je pokazal, da so te na splošno prenizke, da bi pokrile obratovalne stroške (glej Okvir 5).
25 EC DG Regio ‘Cohesion Fund 2000–06 Manual of Procedures’ (Version 2006–09) — page 21. 
25 EK GD REGIO, Vodnik po postopkih Kohezijskega sklada 2000–2006 (različica 2006–2009) – stran 21.
30 TEXTBOX 5 EXAMPLES OF TARIFFS APPLIED BY THE TREATMENT PLANTS VISITED The tariffs applied by the treatment plants visited in Spain, Portugal and Greece varied significantly (e.g. ranging for a quantity of water over 20 m3 from 0,079 euro/m3 to 1,17 euro/m3). 
30 OKVIR 5 PRIMERI PRISTOJBIN V OBISKANIH ČISTILNIH NAPRAVAH Pristojbine obiskanih čistilnih naprav v Španiji, na Portugalskem in v Grčiji se zelo razlikujejo (npr. za količino vode nad 20 m3 od 0,079 EUR/m3 do 1,17 EUR/m3).
Ireland does not directly charge domestic users for their use of water and waste water services, though it does charge commercial and industrial users of water and waste water services. Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods 
Irska gospodinjstvom vodarine in kanalščine ne zaračunava neposredno, zaračunava pa komercialnim in industrijskim uporabnikom vode in komunalnih storitev. Posebno poročilo št. 3/2009 – Uspešnost porabe iz strukturnih ukrepov za čiščenje odpadne vode za programski obdobji 1994–1999 in 2000–2006
31 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 57. 
31 ZAKLJUČKI IN PRIPOROČILA 57.
The overall conclusion of the Court is that Structural Measures have contributed to the improvement of waste water treatment in the four Member States audited. 
Sodišče je prišlo do zaključka, da so strukturni ukrepi na splošno prispevali k izboljšanju čiščenja odpadne vode v štirih revidiranih državah članicah.
WASTE WATER TREATMENT 58. 
ČIŠČENJE ODPADNE VODE 58.
As regards the performance of waste water treatment plants, the Court found that in general those plants co-financed by Structural Measures perform at an adequate level (paragraphs 22 and 25). 
Kar zadeva uspešnost čistilnih naprav za odpadno vodo, je Sodišče ugotovilo, da čistilne naprave, sofinancirane iz strukturnih ukrepov, na splošno obratujejo z ustrezno uspešnostjo (odstavka 22 in 25).
However: (a) seven of the 26 plants were found to be operating below capacity due, in six cases, to a failure to connect all potential domestic and industrial users to the treatment plants and in one case to the loss of local industries (paragraphs 23 and 24); (b) the quality of the effluent did not meet EU requirements in nine out of 73 cases due to inadequately pre-treated industrial waste water being discharged into the sewage network, a lack of expertise on the part of some local authorities and a lack of adequate equipment or technology in areas designated as sensitive (paragraph 26). 
Vendar: (a) je sedem od 26 čistilnih naprav delovalo pod svojo zmogljivostjo, kar je bilo v šestih primerih posledica tega, da nanje niso bili priključeni vsi možni gospodinjski in industrijski porabniki, v enem pa izgube lokalne industrije (odstavka 23 in 24); (b) kakovost odplak ni izpopolnjevala zahtev EU v devetih od 73 primerov zaradi neustrezno predhodno prečiščene tehnološke odpadne vode, ki se izpušča v kanalizacijsko omrežje, zaradi pomanjkanja strokovnega znanja pri nekaterih lokalnih organih in pomanjkanja primerne opreme ali tehnologije na občutljivih območjih (odstavek 26).
THE COURT THEREFORE RECOMMENDS THAT: (a) Member States should ensure that sufficient thought is given to the connection of newly constructed treatment plants to the sewage network; (b) Member States should, in order to improve the quality of the water discharged, pay greater attention to the adequate pre-treatment of industrial waste water and to promote the sharing of best practice amongst operators. Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods 
SODIŠČE ZATO PRIPOROČA, DA: (a) države članice zagotovijo, da se dovolj razmisli o priključitvi novih čistilnih naprav na kanalizacijsko omrežje; (b) države članice večjo pozornost namenijo ustreznemu predhodnemu prečiščenju tehnološke odpadne vode in spodbujajo izmenjavo najboljše prakse med upravljavci, da bi izboljšale kakovost odpadne vode. Posebno poročilo št. 3/2009 – Uspešnost porabe iz strukturnih ukrepov za čiščenje odpadne vode za programski obdobji 1994–1999 in 2000–2006
As regards the plants’ treatment and disposal of sewage sludge, the Court found that two thirds of the treatment plants co-financed by Structural Measures reuse the sludge resulting from the treatment of waste water following methods recommended in EU directives, with almost all of them prefering its reuse on agricultural land (paragraph 31). 
Kar zadeva obdelavo in odlaganje blata iz čistilnih naprav, je Sodišče ugotovilo, da dve tretjini čistilnih naprav, sofinanciranih iz strukturnih ukrepov, blato, ki nastaja pri čiščenju odpadne vode, znova uporablja skladno s priporočenimi načini v direktivah EU, večina najraje na kmetijskih zemljiščih (odstavek 31).
However: (a) in 25 out of 73 plants unsustainable non-reuse methods were found, such as on-site storage (paragraph 32); (b) in three out of four Member States, for some plants, the relevant authorities were not able to indicate the quantity of sludge produced, its content or how it was disposed of (paragraph 38); (c) although the Court found that the requirements of the Sewage Sludge Directive were being adhered to, developments in sludge treatment and disposal subsequent to 1986 are not taken account of in EU legislation, though some Member States apply more stringent standards (paragraphs 35 and 36). 
Vendar: (a) so bili v 25 od 73 čistilnih naprav odkriti netrajnostni načini brez ponovne uporabe, kot je skladiščenje na kraju samem (odstavek 32); (b) v treh od štirih držav članic pristojni organi za nekatere čistilne naprave niso mogli navesti količine proizvedenega blata, njegove vsebine ali načina odlaganja (odstavek 38); (c) v zakonodaji EU ni bil upoštevan tehnični napredek pri obdelavi in odlaganju blata po letu 1986, čeprav je Sodišče ugotovilo, da so bile zahteve direktive o blatu iz čistilnih naprav izpolnjene, in čeprav nekatere države članice uporabljajo strožje standarde (odstavka 35 in 36).
32 THE COURT THEREFORE RECOMMENDS THAT: (a) Member States should, before submitting the project for co-financing, ensure that urban waste water treatment plants have a strategy for the disposal of sewage sludge; (b) Member States should ensure that their databases on sewage sludge contains information for each plant on the quantity of sludge produced, its content and method of disposal; (c) the Commission should consider whether the time is now appropriate for the revision of the Sewage Sludge Directive. 
32 SODIŠČE ZATO PRIPOROČA: (a) pred predložitvijo projekta v sofinanciranje bi morale države članice zagotoviti, da imajo komunalne čistilne naprave strategijo za odlaganje blata iz čistilnih naprav; (b) države članice bi morale zagotoviti, da njihove zbirke podatkov o blatu iz čistilnih naprav za vsako čistilno napravo vsebujejo informacije o količini proizvedenega blata, njegovi vsebini in načinu odlaganja; (c) Komisija bi morala premisliti, ali je zdaj pravi čas za spremembo direktive o blatu iz čistilnih naprav.
Any revision should take into account the costs and benefits of proposing new measures as well as the need to maintain a balance with other EU policies. 
Pri morebitni spremembi direktive bi bilo treba upoštevati vse stroške in koristi novih ukrepov ter potrebo po ohranitvi uravnoteženosti z drugimi politikami EU.
As regards the role played by the Commission in relation to its approval and follow up of Cohesion Fund projects and ERDF major projects, the Court noted the following significant weaknesses: (a) the Commission approved projects which did not include key information in the application for assistance as required by the Guide to the Cohesion Fund (e.g. performance objectives in relation to sludge disposal and quality of receiving waters). 
Kar zadeva vlogo Komisije pri odobritvi in spremljanju izvajanja projektov Kohezijskega sklada in velikih projektov ESRR, je Sodišče ugotovilo naslednje bistvene slabosti: (a) Komisija je odobrila projekte, pri katerih vloge za pomoč niso vsebovale bistvenih informacij, kakor zahteva Vodnik po Kohezijskem skladu (npr. ciljev glede uspešnosti pri odlaganju blata in kakovosti sprejemnih voda).
Such information facilitates the assessment of achieved results to be included in the project final report (paragraphs 41 to 45); (b) individual Cohesion Fund project final reports often do not contain results concerning the quality of the discharged water, the receiving waters and the quality and the nature of the disposal of the sewage sludge. 
S takimi informacijami je lažje oceniti dosežene rezultate, ki se vključijo v končno poročilo o projektu (odstavki 41 do 45); (b) končna poročila o posameznih projektih Kohezijskega sklada pogosto ne zajemajo rezultatov glede kakovosti izpuščene vode, sprejemnih voda ter kakovosti in načina odlaganja blata iz čistilnih naprav.
Without such information the Commission is not in a position to carry out the necessary evaluation of final reports before payment of the final balance (paragraphs 46 to 48). 
Brez takih informacij Komisija ne more izdelati potrebne ocene končnih poročil pred izplačilom preostanka sredstev (odstavki 46 do 48).
As regards the consideration given by the Commission relating to EU environmental principles, the Court noted the following: (a) a number of studies have indicated possible benefits on the environment to be gained by moving to non-phosphate-based detergents. 
Kar zadeva pozornost, ki jo Komisija namenja okoljskima načeloma EU, je Sodišče ugotovilo naslednje: (a) več študij je pokazalo možne koristi za okolje, ki bi jih prinesel prehod na detergente brez fosfatov.
Assessment of this issue should continue to be balanced, with an adequate component of cost–benefit analysis (paragraphs 50 to 53); (b) the Commission did not always take the ‘polluter-pays’ principle sufficiently into account, as the Court’s review found that the tariffs applied were generally too low to cover operating costs. 
Presoja tega vprašanja bi morala biti še naprej uravnotežena, s primerno zastopanostjo analize stroškov in koristi (odstavki 50 do 53); (b) Komisija ni vedno dovolj upoštevala načela, da plača povzročitelj obremenitve, saj je Sodišče pri reviziji ugotovilo, da so bile določene pristojbine na splošno prenizke, da bi pokrile obratovalne stroške.
Furthermore, tariff rates were not often included in final reports, making difficult any assessment of financial sustainability (paragraphs 54 to 56). 33 Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods 
Poleg tega zneski pristojbin pogosto niso bili vključeni v končna poročila, tako da je bilo težko oceniti finančno vzdržnost (odstavki 54 do 56). 33 Posebno poročilo št. 3/2009 – Uspešnost porabe iz strukturnih ukrepov za čiščenje odpadne vode za programski obdobji 1994–1999 in 2000–2006
This report was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its meeting of 18 and 19 March 2009. 
To poročilo je sprejelo Računsko sodišče v Luxembourgu na svojem zasedanju dne 18. in 19. marca 2009.
For the Court of Auditors Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira President 34 THE COURT THEREFORE RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD: (a) require that information allowing the setting of performance targets, in such key areas as quality of water discharged, quality of receiving water bodies, volume of water to be treated and intended method of sludge disposal should be included in grant applications and systematically checked as part of the project appraisal process. 
Za Računsko sodišče Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira Predsednik 34 SODIŠČE ZATO KOMISIJI PRIPOROČA, DA: (a) zahteva, da se v vloge za subvencije vključijo informacije, ki omogočajo določitev ciljev uspešnosti na ključnih področjih, kot so kakovost izpuščene vode, kakovost sprejemnih voda, količina odpadne vode za čiščenje in načrtovani način odlaganja blata, nato pa se v postopku ocenjevanja projekta sistematično preverjajo.
The establishment of appropriate internal guidelines and checklists for use by desk officers would facilitate this; (b) encourage Member States to assess the achievement of the anticipated results at project level as set out in the application for assistance, noting that for the period 2007–13 no final report is required to be submitted to the Commission in respect of Cohesion Fund projects and ERDF major projects; (c) assess whether a further move away from phosphate-based detergents is justifiable on the basis of costs and benefits to the EU citizen; (d) ensure that the financial sustainability of treatment plant projects is considered at the application approval stage and pertinent information such as proposed tariffs is given due consideration. 
To bi olajšali z uvedbo ustreznih notranjih smernic in kontrolnih seznamov, ki bi jih uporabljali uslužbenci, pristojni za projekte; (b) države članice spodbuja, da ocenijo doseganje pričakovanih rezultatov na ravni projekta, kot so bili predvideni v vlogi za pomoč, ter pri tem opaža, da se za obdobje 2007–2013 ne zahteva nobeno končno poročilo, ki bi moralo biti predloženo Komisiji v zvezi s projekti Kohezijskega sklada in velikimi projekti ESRR; (c) oceni, ali je še večji odmik od detergentov, ki vsebujejo fosfate, upravičen na podlagi stroškov in koristi za državljana EU; (d) zagotovi, da se ob odobritvi vlog obravnava finančna vzdržnost projektov za čistilne naprave, pri tem pa upoštevajo ustrezni podatki, kot so predlagane pristojbine. Posebno poročilo št. 3/2009 – Uspešnost porabe iz strukturnih ukrepov za čiščenje odpadne vode za programski obdobji 1994–1999 in 2000–2006
36 ANNEX COMPLEMENTARY NOTES TO DIAGRAM DIFFERENT WASTE WATER AND SEWAGE TREATMENT STAGES Waste water is collected through the urban sewage pipe network and pumped to the urban waste water treatment plant (UWWTP), where it undergoes several stages of treatment before its discharge into the waterways of the river basin. 
36 PRILOGA DODATNE OPOMBE K DIAGRAMU RAZLIČNE STOPNJE ČIŠČENJA ODPADNE VODE IN ODPLAK Odpadna voda se zbira s kanalizacijo in prečrpa v komunalno čistilno napravo, kjer gre skozi več faz čiščenja, preden se izpusti v vodotoke povodja.
Waste water pre-treatment This mechanical phase involves the removal of the largest pieces of waste through screening (e.g. paper, plastic ...) as well as of sand and oil through other processes. 
Predhodno čiščenje odpadne vode V tej mehanski fazi se s prestrezanjem odstranijo največji delci odpadkov (npr. papir, plastika ...), z drugimi postopki pa tudi pesek in olja.
Waste water primary treatment This mechanical phase involves the initial separation from waste water of large sewage particles, which settle at the bottom of the tank. 
Primarno čiščenje odpadne vode V tej mehanski fazi se iz odpadne vode izločijo večji delci odplak, ki se posedejo na dno rezervoarja.
These particles are then scraped and channelled as sewage sludge for subsequent treatment and reuse. 
Ti delci se nato postrgajo in kot blato odvedejo v nadaljnje čiščenje in ponovno uporabo.
Waste water secondary treatment This biological phase involves the treatment of waste water to eliminate biodegradable organic pollutants, as measured in BOD5, COD and TSS concentration levels (see Quality Parameters). 
Sekundarno čiščenje odpadne vode V tej biološki fazi se iz odpadne vode prečistijo biološko razgradljiva organska onesnaževala, merjena v koncentracijah BPK5, KPK in ND (glej Parametri kakovosti).
The most common type of secondary treatment involves the use of purifying micro-organisms which break down and consume the biodegradable sewage content. 
Najpogostejši način sekundarnega čiščenja je z mikroorganizmi, ki razgradijo in porabljajo biološko razgradljive sestavine blata.
Waste water tertiary treatment This biological/chemical phase is applied where necessary, to reduce the concentration levels of nutrients in treated waste waters prior to their discharge into river basin waterways at risk of eutrophication. Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods 
Terciarno čiščenje odpadne vode Biološka/kemična faza, ki se po potrebi uporablja za zmanjšanje stopnje koncentracije hranil v očiščeni odpadni vodi pred izpustom v vodotoke porečja, v katerih obstaja nevarnost evtrofikacije. Posebno poročilo št. 3/2009 – Uspešnost porabe iz strukturnih ukrepov za čiščenje odpadne vode za programski obdobji 1994–1999 in 2000–2006
Eutrophication arises from the explosive growth of algae induced by nutrients, which leads to the reduction of oxygen levels in water resulting in the disappearance of native marine plants, fish and other acquatic animal life. 
Evtrofikacija je posledica nebrzdane rasti alg zaradi hranil, zaradi česar se zmanjša stopnja kisika v vodi, to pa pripelje do izginotja prvotnih morskih rastlin, rib in drugih vodnih živali.
The two major eutrophication-inducing nutrients are phosphorus (in relation to fresh water) and nitrogen (in relation to salt waters). 
Najpomembnejši hranili, ki jo povzročata, sta fosfor (v sladki vodi) in dušik (v slani vodi).
Waste water quaternary treatment This radiation phase is applied where necessary, to eliminate harmful bacteria (E. coli) to humans using nearby waters, commonly for bathing. 
Čiščenje odpadne vode četrte stopnje Ta faza z obsevanjem se uporablja, kjer je to potrebno, za uničevanje bakterij (E. coli), škodljivih za ljudi, ki uporabljajo bližnje vodotoke, navadno za kopanje.
This treatment usually involves the disinfectment of treated sewage using ultraviolet light. 
Pri tej vrsti čiščenja se že obdelane odplake dezinficirajo z ultravijolično svetlobo.
Biosludge and biofert may be reused in land applications, provided contaminant levels are not exceeded. 
Obe obliki se lahko znova uporabita na zemljiščih, če seveda niso presežene stopnje onesnaževal.
In addition biofert may be reused in energy generation though incineration. 
Poleg tega se peleti lahko uporabijo v kurilnih napravah za proizvodnjo energije.
QUALITY CONTROL PARAMETERS MANDATED BY EU DIRECTIVES Treated waste water (Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive) The following parameters are tested in treated waste water prior leaving the UWWTP for discharge into the receiving waters of the river basin: 37 Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) Quantity of oxygen consumed by micro-organisms to eliminate biodegradable organic and mineral matter contained in water. 
PARAMETRI KONTROLE KAKOVOSTI, DOLOČENI Z DIREKTIVAMI EU Očiščena odpadna voda (Direktiva o čiščenju komunalne odpadne vode) Preden se očiščena odpadna voda iz komunalne čistilne naprave izpusti v sprejemne vodotoke porečja, se preverijo naslednji parametri: Biokemijska potreba po kisiku (BPK) Količina kisika, ki jo porabijo mikroorganizmi, da odstranijo biološko razgradljive organske in mineralne snovi v vodi.
BOD5 is conventionally used to measure oxygen consumption in terms of mg O2/l after 5 days. 
BPK5 se navadno uporablja za merjenje porabe kisika v mg O2/l po 5 dneh.
The higher the BOD5 value, the greater the consumption of oxygen by micro-organisms and the greater the pollution. 
Čim višja je vrednost BPK5, tem večja je potreba mikroorganizmov po kisiku in tem večja je onesnaženost.