natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
When assessing operational programmes or projects for which it had responsibility, the Commission did not encourage the implementation of supporting measures. 
Komisija ni spodbujala izvajanja podpornih ukrepov, ko je ocenjevala operativne programe ali projekte, za katere je bila odgovorna.
The success of the co-financed infrastructures depends on the existence of effective separate collection at source, which was often not the case. 
Uspeh sofinanciranih objektov je odvisen od uspešnega ločenega zbiranja odpadkov pri viru, ki ga pogosto ni bilo.
Although all the regions sampled showed some improvements in the management of waste, only 25 % achieved EU waste policy objectives, mainly those who put supporting measures in place. PERFORMANCE OF MUNICIPAL WASTE MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURES 70. 
Čeprav se je v vseh regijah v vzorcu pokazalo neko izboljšanje na področju gospodarjenja z odpadki, je samo 25 % regij doseglo cilje politike EU glede gospodarjenja z odpadki, večinoma tiste, ki so vzpostavile podporne ukrepe.
The performance of co-financed infrastructures was highly dependent upon waste collection strategies: (a) sorting plants, intended to recover packaging waste segregated at source by households, performed satisfactorily (see paragraphs 23 and 24); (b) in general, composting and anaerobic digestion plants treating biodegradable waste collected separately (when it was not con-taminated) performed better than the plants treating unsorted waste where performance was unsatisfactory (see paragraph 25); (c) mechanical biological treatment plants receiving waste unsorted at source did not manage in general to contribute to the achievement of EU waste policy objectives as most of the waste entering the plants was landfilled (see paragraphs 26 and 27). 
USPEŠNOST DELOVANJA OBJEKTOV ZA GOSPODARJENJE S KOMUNALNIMI ODPADKI 70. Uspešnost delovanja sofinanciranih objektov je močno odvisna od strategije zbiranja odpadkov: (a) uspešnost delovanja sortirnic za izločanje odpadne embalaže iz gospodinjstev, ločene pri viru, je bila zadovoljiva (glej odstavka 23 in 24); (b) na splošno so kompostarne in objekti za anaerobno razgradnjo, ki so obdelovali ločeno zbrane biološko razgradljive odpadke (kadar ti niso bili pomešani z drugimi odpadki), delovali uspešneje kot objekti, ki so obdelovali nesortirane odpadke, katerih delovanje je bilo nezadovoljivo (glej odstavek 25); (c) objekti za mehansko-biološko obdelavo, ki so prevzemali odpadke, ki se niso ločevali pri viru, na splošno niso prispevali k doseganju ciljev politike EU glede gospodarjenja z odpadki, saj so večino odpadkov, ki so jih prevzeli, odložili na odlagališča (glej odstavka 26 in 27).
Waste was deposited following either inadequate treatment or without any treatment whatsoever in all of the landfill sites sampled, resulting in a high content of biodegradable matter being landfilled (see paragraph 28). 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? 
Na no obdelani ali pa sploh niso bili obdelani, zato je bilo na odlagališča odloženih tudi veliko biološko razgradljivih snovi (glej odstavek 28). vsa odlagališča v vzorcu so se odlagali odpadki, ki niso bili ustrez-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?
Almost all of the infrastructures audited met environmental requirements. However, five of the seven selected landfills did not set up a sufficient financial security to cover closure and after-care costs. 
Skoraj vsi revidirani objekti so izpolnjevali okoljske zahteve, vendar pet od sedmih izbranih odlagališč ni imelo zagotovljenih dovolj sredstev za pokritje stroškov zaprtja in upravljanja po zaprtju.
Significant differences were observed in the methodology used to determine the amount of financial security required. 
Pri metodologiji za določanje zneska teh sredstev so bile ugotovljene precejšnje razlike.
In most cases the amounts established would be insufficient to cover all the associated costs (see paragraphs 29 to 34). 
V večini primerov izračunani zneski ne bi zadostovali za pokritje vseh stroškov, povezanih z zaprtjem (glej odstavke od 29 do 34).
42 RECOMMENDATION 1 (a) Member States should: (i) focus on waste management infrastructures treating waste previously segregated at source (including biodegradable waste when cost-effective); (ii) ensure that municipal waste deposited in landfills has been treated before disposal; (iii) make sure that landfill sites possess a sufficient financial security to cover closure and after-care costs for a period of at least 30 years, the calculation of which should be based on an appropriate methodology. 
42 PRIPOROČILO 1 (a) Države članice naj: (i) se osredotočijo na objekte za gospodarjenje z odpadki, v katerih se obdelujejo odpadki, ločeni pri viru (vključno z biološko razgradljivimi odpadki, kadar je to stroškovno učinkovito); (ii) zagotovijo obdelavo komunalnih odpadkov pred odlaganjem na odlagališče; (iii) zagotovijo, da bodo imela odlagališča na voljo potrebna sredstva za zaprtje in upravljanje po zaprtju za vsaj 30 let. Izračun zneska teh sredstev naj temelji na ustrezni metodologiji.
The Commission should make the EU contribution subject to the implementation of these recommendations by the Member States. (b) 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? 
Komisija naj za odobritev prispevka EU zahteva izvajanje teh priporočil v državah članicah. (b) 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?
EU WASTE POLICY OBJECTIVES AT REGIONAL LEVEL 73. 
CILJI POLITIKE EU GLEDE GOSPODARJENJA Z ODPADKI NA REGIONALNI RAVNI 73.
The Court noted significant weaknesses regarding the reporting by Member States of the achievement of EU targets, resulting in the inability of the Commission to evaluate in all cases whether the performance being achieved by Member States was in line with EU waste targets. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo pomembne slabosti pri poročanju držav članic o doseganju ciljnih vrednosti EU, zato Komisija ni mogla v vseh primerih oceniti, ali je uspešnost držav članic v skladu s ciljnimi vrednostmi EU za odpadke.
The Commission checks the consistency of the figures received, but does not assess their reliability and does not compile information on the achievement of EU targets at regional level (see paragraphs 37 and 38). 
Komisija preverja doslednost prejetih podatkov, vendar ne ocenjuje njihove zanesljivosti in ne zbira informacij o doseganju ciljnih vrednosti EU na regionalni ravni (glej odstavka 37 in 38).
Although in almost all the regions selected some improvements in the management of waste were observed: (a) per capita waste generation increased in six of the eight regions sampled despite prevention being fundamental in the hierarchy of EU waste management actions (see paragraph 39); (b) only one quarter of the regions sampled significantly increased their separate collection rate resulting in a reduction of the reliance on landfilling and contributed to achieving EU targets (see paragraphs 40 to 42); (c) waste was generally landfilled without having been adequately treated or not treated at all (see paragraph 44). 
Čeprav je bilo v skoraj vseh izbranih regijah ugotovljeno delno izboljšanje na področju gospodarjenja z odpadki: (a) se je količina povzročenih odpadkov na prebivalca povečala v šestih od osmih regij v vzorcu, kljub temu da je preprečevanje nastajanja odpadkov osnovno v hierarhiji ukrepov EU za gospodarjenje z odpadki (glej odstavek 39); (b) je samo četrtina regij v vzorcu močno povečala stopnjo ločenega zbiranja, s čimer je zmanjšala zanašanje na odlaganje na odlagališča, ter prispevala k doseganju ciljnih vrednosti EU (glej odstavke od 40 do 42); (c) so se odpadki v glavnem odlagali na odlagališča neustrezno obdelani ali sploh neobdelani (glej odstavek 44).
43 RECOMMENDATION 2 (a) Member States should set up reliable waste management databases, both to monitor their progress towards the achievement of EU waste policy objectives and to underpin their reporting to the Commission. (b) The Commission should assess the data received from Member States for reliability. (c) The Commission, the Parliament and the Council should consider linking EU financial support to the achievement of EU waste policy objectives. 
43 PRIPOROČILO 2 (a) Države članice bi morale vzpostaviti zanesljive zbirke podatkov o gospodarjenju z odpadki za spremljanje svojega napredka pri doseganju ciljev politike EU glede gospodarjenja z odpadki in za podkrepitev svojega poročanja Komisiji. (b) Komisija bi morala oceniti zanesljivost podatkov, ki jih prejme iz držav članic. (c) Komisija, Parlament in Svet naj razmislijo o vezavi finančne podpore EU na doseganje ciljev politike EU glede gospodarjenja z odpadki.
The effectiveness of EU funding was not maximised due to the weak implementation of supporting measures. 
Financiranje EU ni bilo tako uspešno, kot bi bilo mogoče, zaradi slabega izvajanja podpornih ukrepov.
The development of supporting information, administrative and economic measures varied significantly in the regions sampled: (a) A high level of public awareness and willingness to participate in waste management schemes appeared to be key factors for the success of waste management infrastructures, especially in relation to waste segregation at source by households. 
Razvoj informativnih, upravnih in ekonomskih podpornih ukrepov se je v regijah v vzorcu močno razlikoval: (a) visoka raven ozaveščenosti javnosti in pripravljenost za sodelovanje v shemah za gospodarjenje z odpadki sta se izkazali za ključna dejavnika za uspešnost objektov za gospodarjenje z odpadki, zlasti v zvezi z ločevanjem gospodinjskih odpadkov pri viru.
In none of the regions sampled did the responsible authorities measure the results of the information measures they had put in place (see paragraphs 47 and 48). (b) Only regions having implemented separate collection at source of biodegradable waste contributed to meeting the related EU diversion targets (see paragraphs 50 and 51). (c) Four of the eight regions sampled lacked any quality standard for compost and in the remaining four regions the acceptable concentration limit for heavy metals varied significantly, contributing to the poor development of a market for the compost produced by the composting and anaerobic digestion plants in the sample (see paragraph 52). (d) The implementation of economic instruments via tariffs or through waste disposal taxes proved to have a significant impact on the performance of projects and regions in the management of waste (see paragraphs 53 and 54). (e) The Commission did not encourage the implementation of supporting measures, especially of the ‘polluter pays principle’ as no differentiated rates of assistance were found to have been applied in the projects sampled (see paragraphs 55 to 60). 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? 
Odgovorni organi v nobeni od regij v vzorcu niso merili rezultatov informativnih ukrepov, ki so jih izvajali (glej odstavka 47 in 48); (b) samo regije, ki so ločeno zbirale biološko razgradljive odpadke pri viru, so prispevale k doseganju ciljnih vrednosti EU v zvezi s preusmerjanjem odpadkov z odlagališč (glej odstavka 50 in 51); (c) štiri od osmih regij v vzorcu niso imele nobenih standardov kakovosti za kompost, v preostalih štirih regijah pa se je meja sprejemljive vsebnosti težkih kovin zelo razlikovala, zato trg komposta, ki so ga proizvedli kompostarne in objekti za anaerobno razgradnjo, ni bil dobro razvit (glej odstavek 52); (d) uporaba ekonomskih instrumentov s cenami ali dajatvami za odlaganje odpadkov je precej vplivala na uspešnost projektov in regij na področju gospodarjenja z odpadki (glej odstavka 53 in 54); (e) Komisija ni spodbujala izvajanja podpornih ukrepov, predvsem načela „povzročitelj plača“, saj pri projektih v vzorcu ni bila ugotovljena uporaba diferenciranih stopenj pomoči (glej odstavke od 55 do 60). 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?
45 RECOMMENDATION 3 (a) Member States should: (i) pay greater attention to increasing public awareness and participation in waste management schemes, especially in relation to waste segregation at source by households. 
45 PRIPOROČILO 3 (a) Države članice naj: (i) namenijo več pozornosti ozaveščanju javnosti in spodbujanju udeležbe v shemah za gospodarjenje z odpadki, zlasti v zvezi z ločevanjem gospodinjskih odpadkov pri viru.
Results achieved by awareness-raising campaigns and educational strategies should be systematically measured; (ii) focus on separate collection implementation, including biodegradable waste when cost-effective, in order to maximise the performance of waste management infrastructures and to progress towards the achievement of EU waste policy objectives; (iii) introduce economic instruments in the management of waste to promote waste prevention and recycling, particularly through a waste disposal tax, ‘pay as you throw’ schemes and other incentives in the tariffs paid by households. 
Rezultate kampanj za ozaveščanje in izobraževalnih strategij bi bilo treba sistematično meriti; (ii) se osredotočijo na izvajanje ločenega zbiranja odpadkov, vključno z biološko razgradljivimi odpadki, kadar je to stroškovno učinkovito, da bi dosegle največjo mogočo uspešnost objektov za gospodarjenje z odpadki in napredovale pri doseganju ciljev politike EU glede gospodarjenja z odpadki; (iii) v gospodarjenje z odpadki uvedejo ekonomske instrumente za preprečevanje nastajanja odpadkov in spodbujanje recikliranja, zlasti z dajatvijo za odlaganje odpadkov, shemami „plačaj, kolikor odvržeš“, in drugimi cenovnimi spodbudami za gospodinjstva.
The Commission should: (i) make the EU contribution subject to the implementation of these recommendations by the Member States; (ii) in relation to the ‘polluter pays principle’, when approving operational programmes, request from the Member States the application of reduced rates of assistance when waste management tariffs paid by households do not cover operating costs and a large part of depreciation costs of municipal waste management. 
Komisija naj: (i) za odobritev prispevka EU zahteva izvajanje teh priporočil v državah članicah; (ii) pri odobravanju operativnih programov v zvezi z načelom „povzročitelj plača“ od držav članic zahteva uporabo znižanih stopenj pomoči, kadar cene za odvoz odpadkov, ki jih plačujejo gospodinjstva, ne pokrijejo stroškov delovanja in večine stroškov amortizacije pri gospodarjenju s komunalnimi odpadki.
The Commission should apply itself this principle when approving major projects. (b) 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? 
Komisija bi se morala pri odobravanju velikih projektov tudi sama držati tega načela. (b) 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?
Improvements in the EU regulatory framework and EU guidelines can contribute towards maximising the effectiveness of structural measures funding of municipal waste management infrastructures. 
Izboljšanje zakonskega okvira in smernic EU lahko prispeva k doseganju največje mogoče uspešnosti financiranja objektov za gospodarjenje s komunalnimi odpadki v okviru strukturnih ukrepov.
The Court noted: (a) a lack of focus of EU waste directives’ targets on waste prevention despite prevention being the first management option according to the waste directive (see paragraphs 62 and 63); (b) a lack of clarity of the concept of treatment before disposal, resulting in different strategies at national and regional level (see paragraphs 64 and 65); (c) a lack of EU quality standards for compost, despite the absence or inconsistency of standards available at Member State level, which hampered the development of a compost market (see paragraphs 66 and 67); (d) a lack of guidance on the methodology to be used to assess the closure and after-care costs of landfills (paragraph 68). 
Sodišče je ugotovilo: (a) da ciljne vrednosti iz direktiv EU za preprečevanje nastajanja odpadkov niso dovolj usmerjene, čeprav je preprečevanje povzročanja odpadkov v skladu z direktivo o odpadkih prva izbira pri gospodarjenju z odpadki (glej odstavka 62 in 63); (b) da pojem obdelave pred odlaganjem ni dovolj jasen, zato na nacionalni in regionalni ravni obstajajo različne strategije (glej odstavka 64 in 65); (c) da ni standardov kakovosti EU za kompost, kljub temu da tudi na ravni držav članic ni takih standardov ali pa so nedosledni, kar je oviralo razvoj trga komposta (glej odstavka 66 in 67); (d) da ni smernic o metodologiji za oceno stroškov zaprtja in upravljanja po zaprtju odlagališč (odstavek 68).
RECOMMENDATION 4 The Commission should: (a) propose waste prevention targets in line with the EU waste hierarchy pyramid; (b) clarify the concept of treatment before disposal contained in the landfill directive, to ensure a consistent approach by Member States; (c) consider the opportunity to develop with Member States EU quality standards for compost to encourage the development of a compost market; (d) provide appropriate guidance and disseminate best practices in relation to the methodology to be used to estimate closure and after-care costs of landfills to be covered by the financial security. 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? 
46 PRIPOROČILO 4 Komisija naj: (a) predlaga ciljne vrednosti za preprečevanje nastajanja odpadkov v skladu s hierarhijo EU za gospodarjenje z odpadki; (b) razjasni pojem obdelave pred odlaganjem iz direktive o odlagališčih, da se zagotovi dosleden pristop držav članic; (c) razmisli o možnosti, da bi skupaj z državami članicami razvila standarde kakovosti EU za kompost, da bi spodbudila razvoj trga komposta; (d) zagotovi ustrezne smernice in razširi dobre prakse v zvezi z metodologijo za oceno stroškov zaprtja odlagališč in njihovega upravljanja po zaprtju, za katere je treba zagotoviti sredstva. 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?
47 This report was adopted by Chamber II, headed by Mr Harald NOACK, Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 24 October 2012. 
To poročilo je sprejel senat II, ki ga vodi g. Harald NOACK, član Evropskega računskega sodišča, v Luxembourgu na zasedanju 24. oktobra 2012.
For the Court of Auditors Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA President 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? 
Za Računsko sodišče Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA Predsednik 47 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?
48 ANNEX I WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FROM WASTE SOURCE TO FINAL DISPOSAL Prevention Re-use Recycling Biodegradable waste Prevention Separate collection Re-use MUNICIPAL WASTE GENERATION Sorting plant (packaging, glass, paper, metals, etc.) Composting Anaerobic digestion (biogas) Organic waste Remaining fraction Packaging, glass, paper, metals, etc. 
SISTEM GOSPODARJENJA Z ODPADKI OD VIRA DO KONČNE ODSTRANITVE 48 PRILOGA I Preprečevanje nastajanja preprečevanje nastajanja Ponovna uporaba Recikliranje biološko razgradljivi odpadki ločeno zbiranje ponovna uporaba NASTAJANJE KOMUNALNIH ODPADKOV sortirnica (embalaža, steklo, papir, kovine itd.) kompostiranje anaerobna razgradnja (bioplin) organski odpadki preostala frakcija embalaža, steklo, papir, kovine itd. kompost se nanese na tla preostali odpadki mehanska biološka obdelava digestat sortirani materiali ostanki Predelava Odstranitev sežig (energetska predelava) preostali odpadki sortirani/reciklirani materiali ostanki odlagališče energija iz odlagališčnega plina Posebno poročilo št.
Less desirable option Complementary notes to diagram According to the waste directive, Prevention: means measures, taken before a substance material or product has become waste, that reduce: the quantity of waste, the adverse impacts of the generated waste on the environment and human health or the content of harmful substances in materials and products. 
Manj primerna možnost Dodatna pojasnila k diagramu V skladu z direktivo o odpadkih: preprečevanje nastajanja pomeni ukrepe, sprejete preden snov, material ali proizvod postane od-padek, ki zmanjšajo: količino odpadkov, škodljive vplive nastalih odpadkov na okolje in zdravje ljudi ali vsebnost nevarnih snovi v materialih in proizvodih; ponovna uporaba pomeni vsak postopek, pri katerem se proizvodi ali sestavni deli, ki niso odpadki, ponovno uporabijo za namene, za katere so bili prvotno izdelani; recikliranje pomeni vsak postopek predelave, pri katerem se odpadne snovi ponovno predelajo v proizvode, materiale ali snovi za prvotni namen ali druge namene.
Recycling: means any recovery operation by which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials or substances whether for the original or other purposes. It includes the reprocessing of biodegradable material but does not include energy recovery and the reprocessing into materials that are to be used as fuels or for backfilling operations. Recovery: means any operation the principal result of which is waste serving a useful purpose by replacing other materials which would otherwise have been used to fulfil a particular function, or waste being prepared to fulfil that function, in the plant or in the wider economy. 
Opredelitev vključuje ponovno predelavo biološko razgradljivih snovi, ne vključuje pa energetske predelave in ponovne predelave v materiale, ki se bodo uporabili kot gorivo ali za zasipanje; predelava pomeni vsak postopek v obratu ali širšem gospodarstvu, katerega glavni rezultat je, da odpadki služijo koristnemu namenu tako, da nadomestijo druge materiale, ki bi se sicer uporabili za izpolnitev določene funkcije, ali so odpadki pripravljeni za izpolnitev te funkcije; odstranjevanje pomeni vsak postopek, ki ni predelava, tudi če je sekundarna posledica postopka pridobivanje snovi ali energije.
49 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? 
49 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?