natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
While the capacity of the EU-12 fishing fleet in terms of GT and kW decreased by 29 % in the same period, the effective capability taking into account the impact of technological improvements, is estimated to have increased by 14 %25. 
Čeprav se je v istem obdobju zmogljivost ribolovne flote EU-12, merjena v BT in kW, zmanjšala za 29 %, se je po ocenah dejanska ribolovna zmožnost ob upoštevanju učinka tehnoloških izboljšav povečala za 14 %25.
Furthermore, the Commission considers that the engine power expressed in kW is not being properly measured in many cases26. 
Poleg tega Komisija meni, da se v kilovatih izražena moč motorja v številnih primerih ne meri pravilno26.
FLEET CAPACITY CEILINGS BECOMING INCREASINGLY IRRELEVANT 23. As the capacity of the European fishing fleet in terms of GT/ kW has actually been decreasing for many years (paragraph 9) the ceilings applying to Member States (‘reference levels’ and ‘exit–entry ceilings’) have become irrelevant. 
Ker se je zmogljivost evropske ribolovne flote, merjena v BT/ kW, dejansko dolga leta zmanjševala (odstavek 9), so postale zgornje meje, ki veljajo za države članice („referenčne ravni“ in „zgornje meje za vstop/izstop“), nepomembne.
By the end of 2009 the fishing fleet capacity in GT in the EU represented 73 % of the reference levels and 90 % of the ‘entry–exit’ ceiling, representing a gap of 565 000 tonnes and 198 000 tonnes respectively. 
Do konca leta 2009 je zmogljivost ribolovne flote v BT v EU predstavljala 73 % referenčnih ravni in 90 % zgornje meje za „vstop/ izstop“, kar je pomenilo razliki v višini 565 000 ton oziroma 198 000 ton.
These gaps have widened as the size of the fleet decreases. 
Ti razliki se z zmanjševanjem flote povečujeta.
The fishing fleet capacity limits therefore no longer have a significant impact in terms of adapting fishing fleet capacity to available fishing opportunities. 
Omejitve zmogljivosti ribolovne flote torej nimajo več bistvenega učinka na prilagajanje zmogljivosti ribolovne flote razpoložljivim ribolovnim možnostim.
The limits no longer impose real restrictions on Member States’ fleet management policies; the Member States’ fishing fleets could be almost 200 000 GT bigger and still comply with the rules (see Figure 3). 
Omejitve ne pomenijo več dejanskih omejitev v politikah držav članic na področju upravljanja flot, ribolovne flote držav članic bi bile namreč še vedno skladne s pravili, tudi če bi bile za skoraj 200 000 BT večje (glej diagram 3).
25 Estimated by the Court on the basis that older vessels leave the fleet first: Increase in fishing ability of the 1992 fleet remaining in 2008 = (160 % × (100%–29%))–100%. 
25 Sodišče je to ocenilo na podlagi predpostavke, da starejša plovila prva zapustijo floto: povečanje ribolovne zmožnosti flote iz leta 1992, ki je še obstajala leta 2008 = (160%x(100%–29%))–100%.
26 The rules regarding the measurement of engine power were reinforced by the new control regulation. Special Report No 12/2011 – Have EU measures contributed to adapting the capacity of the fishing fleets to available fishing opportunities? 
26 Pravila za merjenje moči motorja so bila okrepljena z novo uredbo o nadzoru. Posebno poročilo št. 12/2011 – Ali so ukrepi EU prispevali k prilagoditvi zmogljivosti ribolovnih flot razpoložljivim ribolovnim možnostim?
18 FISHING OVERCAPACITY HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED AND QUANTIFIED 24. 
18 PRESEŽNA RIBOLOVNA ZMOGLJIVOST NI BILA OPREDELJENA IN KOLIČINSKO DOLOČENA 24.
The adaptation by Member States of fishing capacity to fishing opportunities is one of the cornerstones of the CFP and the EFF. 
Prilagajanje ribolovne zmogljivosti držav članic ribolovnim možnostim je eden od temeljev SRP in ESR.
However, the concept of fishing overcapacity is not addressed in the CFP and EFF regulations. 
Vendar koncept presežne ribolovne zmogljivosti v uredbah o SRP in ESR ni obravnavan.
There has not been a formal assessment of the level of overcapacity of the Member States’ fishing fleets since 1995, when it was estimated at 40 %. 
Raven presežne zmogljivosti ribolovnih flot držav članic ni bila uradno ocenjena od leta 1995, ko je bila ocenjena na 40 %.
This lack of definition and of quantification creates general problems in identifying fishing overcapacity, deciding whether or how to reduce it and assessing the performance of those actions. 
To pomanjkanje opredelitve in količinske določitve ustvarja splošne težave pri ugotavljanju presežne ribolovne zmogljivosti, odločanju o tem, kako jo zmanjšati, in ocenjevanju uspešnosti teh ukrepov.
FIGURE 3 THE REDUCING RELEVANCE OF THE FISHING FLEET CAPACITY CEILINGS 700000 600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 Reference level gap (EU 15) Exit entry gap (all MS) The gap between actual fishing capacity and the regulatory fishing capacity ceilings 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Source: Annual Commission reports on Member States’ efforts to balance fleet capacity with fishing opportunities. Special Report No 12/2011 – Have EU measures contributed to adapting the capacity of the fishing fleets to available fishing opportunities? 
DIAGRAM 3 700000 600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 razlika pri referenčni ravni (EU-15) razlika pri vstopu/izstopu (vse DČ) ZMANJŠANJE POMEMBNOSTI ZGORNJIH MEJA ZMOGLJIVOSTI RIBOLOVNE FLOTE Razlika med dejansko ribolovno zmogljivostjo in zgornjimi mejami ribolovne zmogljivosti, določenimi v uredbah 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Vir: Letna poročila Komisije o prizadevanjih držav članic za doseganje ravnovesja med zmogljivostjo flote in ribolovnimi možnostmi. Posebno poročilo št. 12/2011 – Ali so ukrepi EU prispevali k prilagoditvi zmogljivosti ribolovnih flot razpoložljivim ribolovnim možnostim?
Capacity (GT) 
Zmogljivost (BT)
There are examples of fleets27 which represent exceptions to these general problems, whose capacity in terms of GT and kW greatly exceeds that necessary to harvest the available quota (for example certain large-scale pelagic fisheries in the north-east Atlantic) but which can operate profitably while targeted fish stocks remain within sustainable limits. 
Obstajajo primeri flot27, ki predstavljajo izjeme pri teh splošnih težavah, katerih zmogljivost v BT in kW močno presega zmogljivost, ki je potrebna za ulov razpoložljive kvote (na primer, določen obsežen pelagični ribolov v severovzhodnem Atlan-tiku), vendar lahko donosno poslujejo, pri čemer ciljni ribji staleži ostajajo v okviru trajnostnih meja.
The CFP regulation28 provides for the withdrawal of the fishing licence and ‘fishing authorisations as defined in the relevant regulations’ when fishing vessels are decommissioned with public aid. 
Uredba o SRP28 določa, da se umakneta dovoljenje za gospodarski ribolov in „ribolovno pooblastilo, kakor je opredeljeno v ustreznih predpisih“, kadar se ribiška plovila umaknejo iz obratovanja z javno pomočjo.
In addition the vessel’s underlying capacity in terms of GT and kW is reduced from the total fishing capacity ceilings. 
Poleg tega se umaknjena zmogljivost plovila v BT in kW odšteje od skupnih zgornjih meja ribolovne zmogljivosti.
While the fishing licence and capacity of a specific vessel may be withdrawn, this does not affect the fishing quotas allocated to Member States. 
Čeprav se lahko dovoljenje za gospodarski ribolov in zmogljivost posameznega plovila umakneta, to ne vpliva na ribolovne kvote, dodeljene državam članicam.
These quotas cannot be permanently withdrawn as Member States may reallocate them to individual fishing vessels in the way they decide and Member States may operate transferable quota systems. 
Teh kvot ni mogoče trajno umakniti, saj jih lahko države članice predodelijo posameznim ribiškim plovilom po lastni presoji, prav tako pa lahko izvajajo sisteme prenosljivih kvot.
There is not a clear definition of which fishing rights (authori-sations and licences) need to be withdrawn when fishing vessels are decommissioned with public aid. 
Ni jasno opredeljeno, katere ribolovne pravice (pooblastila in dovoljenja) je treba umakniti, ko se plovila umaknejo iz obratovanja z javno pomočjo.
This requirement of the CFP regulation to withdraw fishing rights is contradicted by the annual TAC regulations which allow for reallocation of fishing rights related to such fishing vessels in certain cases29. 
Ta zahteva iz uredbe o SRP za umik ribolovnih pravic je v nasprotju z letnimi uredbami o TAC, ki v določenih primerih dovoljujejo predodelitev ribolovnih pravic, povezanih s takšnimi ribiškimi plovili29.
Some Member States allow certain fishing rights to be transferred to other fishing vessels or other fishers (for example, Denmark and Spain) whereas others cancel them (for example, France and Poland). 
Nekatere države članice dovoljujejo prenos določenih ribolovnih pravic na druga ribiška plovila ali druge ribiče (na primer Danska in Španija), medtem ko jih druge razveljavijo (na primer Francija in Poljska).
27 Source: North Sea Regional Advisory Council. 
27 Vir: Regionalni svetovalni svet za Severno morje.
28 Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002. 
28 Člen 11.3 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 2371/2002.
29 Forexample,AnnexIIA, point 10; Annex IIB, point 9; and Annex IIC, point 9 to Council Regulation (EC) No 40/2008 (OJ L 19, 23.1.2008, p. 
29 Naprimer,PrilogaIIA, odstavek 10; Priloga IIB, odstavek 9; Priloga IIC, odstavek 9 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 40/2008 (UL L 19, 23.1.2008, str.
1); Annexes IIB and IIC to Council Regulation (EC) No 43/2009 (OJ L 22, 26.1.2009, p. 
1); Prilogi IIB in IIC Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 43/2009 (UL L 22, 26.1.2009, str.
1) and Council Regulation (EU) No 53/2010 (OJ L 21, 26.1.2010, p. 
1) in Uredba Sveta (EU) št.
Where Member States allow beneficiaries of public aid for fishing vessel decommissioning to transfer associated fishing rights or quotas, this provides the beneficiaries with additional resources to contribute to restructure their remaining fishing activities or to pursue other interests. 
Če države članice upravičencem do javne pomoči za umik ribiških plovil iz obratovanja dovoljujejo prenos s tem povezanih ribolovnih pravic ali kvot, to upravičencem zagotavlja dodatna sredstva za prestrukturiranje njihovih preostalih ribolovnih dejavnosti ali za izvajanje drugih dejavnosti.
This is in addition to the public aid co-financed from the EFF for decommissioning their vessel. 
Ta sredstva prejmejo poleg javne pomoči, sofinancirane iz ESR za umik njihovih plovil iz obratovanja.
The EFF regulation does not refer to the possibility of recognising these additional resources, when setting rates of public aid for fishing vessel decommissioning. 
Uredba o ESR ne omenja možnosti upoštevanja teh dodatnih sredstev pri določanju stopenj javne pomoči za umik ribiških plovil iz obratovanja.
Other policy instruments can be used to restructure fishing fleets and reduce fishing capacity. 
Za prestrukturiranje ribolovnih flot in zmanjšanje ribolovne zmogljivosti se lahko uporabijo tudi drugi instrumenti politike.
The ability to transfer fishing rights can provide an incentive for restructuring fishing fleets and contribute to reductions in fishing overcapacity. 
Možnost prenosa ribolovnih pravic lahko zagotovi spodbudo za prestrukturiranje ribolovnih flot in prispeva k zmanjšanju presežne ribolovne zmogljivosti.
For example, the fishing capacity of the Danish fishing fleet was reduced by 27 % between 2003 and 200930, mostly without the use of public aid for fishing vessel decommissioning. 
Ribolovna zmogljivost danske ribolovne flote je bila, na primer, med letoma 2003 in 2009 zmanjšana za 27 %30, večinoma brez uporabe javne pomoči za umik ribiških plovil iz obratovanja.
This was encouraged by the introduction of transferable quota systems to most of the fishing fleet. 
To je spodbudila uvedba sistemov prenosljivih kvot za večino ribolovne flote.
In the United Kingdom the implementing body for Scotland introduced in 2010 a fishing vessel decommissioning scheme with public aid which required beneficiaries to transfer fishing rights to other fishing vessels. 
V Združenem kraljestvu je izvajalski organ za Škotsko leta 2010 uvedel shemo za umik ribiških plovil iz obratovanja z javno pomočjo, v skladu s katero so moralo upravičenci ribolovne pravice prenesti na druga ribiška plovila.
The Court noted that fishing licence transfer schemes are used by the Norwegian authorities to adjust fishing capacity to fishing opportunities, rather than the CFP approach of fishing capacity ceilings and public aid for fishing vessel decommissioning. 
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da norveški organi za prilagajanje ribolovne zmogljivosti ribolovnim možnostim uporabljajo sheme za prenos dovoljenj za gospodarski ribolov namesto pristopa SRP v obliki zgornjih meja ribolovne zmogljivosti in javne pomoči za umik ribiških plovil iz obratovanja.
The practices of Denmark, Norway and Scotland relate to specific fisheries which are different from the mixed fisheries which exist in other EU waters and reflect choices made by those states to manage their specific fishing sectors. 
Danska, norveška in škotska praksa so povezane s posebnimi vrstami ribolova, ki se razlikujejo od mešanega ribolova, ki se izvaja v drugih vodah EU, in odražajo odločitve teh držav v zvezi z upravljanjem njihovih specifičnih ribolovnih sektorjev.
They nevertheless indicate that fishing rights transfer schemes, which are not expressly included in the CFP, can be used to provide incentives for reducing fishing overcapacity. 
Kljub temu kažejo, da je sheme prenosa ribolovnih pravic, ki niso izrecno vključene v SRP, mogoče uporabiti za zagotavljanje spodbud za zmanjšanje presežne ribolovne zmogljivosti.
30 The reduction in terms of GT was from 107 578 GT in 2003 to 78 821 GT in 2009. 
30 Bruto tonaža se je zmanjšala s 107 578 BT leta 2003 na 78 821 BT leta 2009.
31 Annual report for 2009 of the Danish authorities on their efforts to balance fishing capacities with fishing opportunities, April 2010. 20 Special Report No 12/2011 – Have EU measures contributed to adapting the capacity of the fishing fleets to available fishing opportunities? 
31 Letno poročilo danskih organov za leto 2009 o njihovih prizadevanjih za doseganje ravnovesja med ribolovnimi zmogljivostmi in ribolovnimi možnostmi, april 2010. 20 Posebno poročilo št. 12/2011 – Ali so ukrepi EU prispevali k prilagoditvi zmogljivosti ribolovnih flot razpoložljivim ribolovnim možnostim?
POOR DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION 34. 
SLABA ZASNOVA IN IZVAJANJE 34.
The fishing capacity of the fishing fleet was reduced by 138 427 GT between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2009, which already largely achieved the Commission’s mid-term EFF target (see paragraph 11). 
1. 12. 2009 zmanjšana za 138 427 BT, s čimer je bil cilj Komisije za ESR za sredino obdobja že v veliki meri dosežen (glej odstavek 11).
However fish stocks remain at reduced levels, the target of fishing at maximum sustainable yields has not been reached and despite reductions in capacity in terms of GT and kW, real fishing capacity is increasing. 
Vendar ribji staleži ostajajo zmanjšani, cilj ribolova v skladu z največjim trajnostnim donosom ni bil dosežen in kljub zmanjšanju zmogljivosti v BT in kW se dejanska ribolovna zmogljivost povečuje.
Member States have therefore failed to put in place effective measures to match the fishing capacity of their fishing fleets to fishing opportunities as required by the CFP. 
Državam članicam torej ni uspelo vzpostaviti uspešnih ukrepov za uskladitev ribolovne zmogljivosti njihovih ribolovnih flot z ribolovnimi možnostmi, kot zahteva SRP.
Under the shared management arrangements which apply in this area, Member States are responsible for implementation and the Commission has little ability to influence the way in which they do so. 
V okviru ureditev deljenega upravljanja, ki se uporablja za to področje, so za izvajanje odgovorne države članice in Komisija ima malo možnosti, da bi vplivala na način, za katerega se odločijo.
The Commission’s monitoring did not avoid this failure. 
Spremljanju, ki ga izvaja Komisija, tega neuspeha ni uspelo preprečiti.
The following sections outline factors which the Court considers to contribute to this failure. 
V naslednjih oddelkih so navedeni dejavniki, ki so po mnenju Sodišča prispevali k njemu.
Member States incurred delays in implementing capacity adjustment measures, which were not based on sound performance objectives and plans. 
Države članice so zamujale z izvajanjem ukrepov za prilagajanje zmogljivosti, ki niso temeljili na trdnih ciljih in načrtih smotrnega poslovanja.
Some investments on board increased the fishing ability of individual fishing vessels. 
Nekatere naložbe v ribiška plovila so povečale dejansko ribolovno zmožnost posameznih ribiških plovil.
Decommissioning schemes were not adequately designed or implemented and there was inadequate reporting of results. 21 Special Report No 12/2011 – Have EU measures contributed to adapting the capacity of the fishing fleets to available fishing opportunities? 
Sheme za umik plovil iz obratovanja niso bile ustrezno zasnovane ali izvajane, prav tako pa ni bilo ustrezno poročanje o rezultatih. 21 Posebno poročilo št. 12/2011 – Ali so ukrepi EU prispevali k prilagoditvi zmogljivosti ribolovnih flot razpoložljivim ribolovnim možnostim?
22 SIGNIFICANT DELAYS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EFF BY THE MEMBER STATES 36. 
22 PRECEJŠNJE ZAMUDE PRI IZVRŠEVANJU EVROPSKEGA SKLADA ZA RIBIŠTVO V DRŽAVAH ČLANICAH 36.
By the end of 2010, implementation of the EFF in terms of expenditure certified by Member States amounted to 645 million euro, or 15 % of the amount available from 2007 to 201332. 
Do konca leta 2010 je izvrševanje odhodkov ESR, ki so jih potrdile države članice, znašalo 645 milijonov EUR, kar je 15 % zneska, ki je na voljo za obdobje od leta 2007 do leta 201332.
Most of this amount was declared in 2010 and 292 million euro was still not paid by the Commission as at 31 December 2010. 
Večina tega zneska je bila prijavljena leta 2010, Komisija pa do 31. 12. 2010 še vedno ni plačala 292 milijonov EUR.
The delays were mainly caused by a combination of the following factors: (a) late issuing of operational programmes; (b)priority being given to finalising the Financial Instrument for Fishery Guidance; (c) late establishment of management and control systems acceptable to the Commission services, before which interim payments cannot be made. 
Zamude je večinoma povzročila kombinacija naslednjih dejavnikov: (a) pozno izdajanje operativnih programov; (b) prednost je imelo dokončanje Finančnega instrumenta za usmerjanje ribištva; (c) pozna vzpostavitev upravljavskih in kontrolnih sistemov, sprejemljivih za službe Komisije, pred čemer ni mogoče izvršiti vmesnih plačil.
Approval was granted for the management and control systems of 11 Member States only in 2010, including the three Member States (Spain, Poland and Italy) with the highest EFF budgets. 
Upravljavski in kontrolni sistemi enajstih držav članic so bili odobreni šele leta 2010, med temi so bile tudi tri države članice (Španija, Poljska in Italija) z največjimi proračuni ESR.
By the end of 2010, the systems of Belgium, Romania and the United Kingdom still had to be approved (see Figure 4). 
Do konca leta 2010 še vedno niso bili odobreni sistemi Belgije, Romunije in Združenega kraljestva (glej diagram 4).
32 Implementation of measures to adapt the fishing fleets amounted to 385 million euro, or 31 % of the amount available from 2007 to 2013. 
32 Izvajanje ukrepov za prilagajanje ribolovnih flot je znašalo 385 milijonov EUR oziroma 31 % zneska, ki je na voljo za obdobje od leta 2007 do leta 2013.
FIGURE 4 DELAYS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EFF Approval of Member States’ EFF management and control systems (MCS) 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 not approved by end 2010 3 500 3 000 2 500 2 000 1 500 1 000 500 0 11 11 3 1 2008 2009 EFF contribution 2010 MCS approval Source: Commission’s database for fund management (‘SFC 2007’). Special Report No 12/2011 – Have EU measures contributed to adapting the capacity of the fishing fleets to available fishing opportunities? 
DIAGRAM 4 11 11 3 1 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Ni bilo odobreno do konca leta 2010 3 500 3 000 2 500 2 000 1 500 1 000 500 0 ZAMUDE PRI IZVRŠEVANJU EVROPSKEGA SKLADA ZA RIBIŠTVO Odobritev upravljavskih in kontrolnih sistemov (UKS) držav članic v okviru ESR 2008 2009 Prispevek ESR 2010 Odobritev UKS Vir: Skupna podatkovna zbirka Komisije za upravljanje skladov („SFC za leto 2007“). Posebno poročilo št. 12/2011 – Ali so ukrepi EU prispevali k prilagoditvi zmogljivosti ribolovnih flot razpoložljivim ribolovnim možnostim?
EFF contribution to operational programme Member States’ MCS systems approved 
Prispevek ESR k operativnemu programu Odobreni UKS držav članic
Significant delays in the implementation of planned measures in Italy (notably the decommissioning of fishing vessels) were attributed by the Italian authorities to the need to implement management and control systems acceptable to the Commission. 
Precejšnje zamude pri izvajanju načrtovanih ukrepov v Italiji (predvsem umik ribiških plovil iz obratovanja) so italijanski organi pripisali potrebi po izvajanju upravljavskih in kontrolnih sistemov, ki so sprejemljivi za Komisijo.
FEAPs constitute the main instrument33 to implement reductions in the fishing effort. They should be justified, notably by reference to recovery plans, fisheries agreements, management plans or national decommissioning schemes. 
FEAP so glavni instrument33 za zmanjševanje ribolovnega napora in morajo biti utemeljeni, zlasti s sklicevanjem na načrte za obnovo, ribolovne sporazume, upravljavske načrte ali nacionalne sheme za umik plovil iz obratovanja.
The EFF regulation provides support for the adaptation of the Community fishing fleet and makes available public aid for owners of fishing vessels and fishers affected by Member States’ FEAPs. 
V uredbi o ESR je določena podpora za prilagoditev ribolovne flote Skupnosti, hkrati pa je na voljo javna pomoč za lastnike ribiških plovil in ribiče, ki so jih prizadeli FEAP držav članic.
There is no provision that national FEAPs should be reviewed or approved by the Commission. 
V uredbi ni določbe, da bi morala Komisija pregledati ali odobriti nacionalne FEAP.
The EFF regulation does not sufficiently define the content of FEAPs in order to ensure that they are adequately targeted and reduce fishing effort. 
V uredbi o ESR vsebina FEAP ni dovolj opredeljena, da bi se zagotovilo, da so ustrezno ciljno usmerjeni in da zmanjšujejo ribolovni napor.
There are no rules for the following key issues: (a)whether a single FEAP should be prepared by a Member State, or whether FEAPs are required for each fishery subject to publicly funded decommissioning schemes; (b)whether national decommissioning schemes can be considered as FEAPs; (c)whether recovery plans and management plans already adopted by the Council when the Member State’s operational programme was approved need to be included in the FEAP; (d)to what extent FEAPs should result in adapting fishing fleet capacity to fishing opportunities. 
Za naslednja ključna vprašanja ni nobenih pravil: (a) ali bi morala država članica pripraviti en sam FEAP ali pa je potreben poseben FEAP za vsako vrsto ribolova, za katerega se uporabljajo javno financirane sheme za umik plovil iz obratovanja; (b) ali je mogoče nacionalne sheme za umik plovil iz obratovanja šteti za FEAP; (c) ali je treba v FEAP vključiti načrte za obnovo in upravljavske načrte, ki jih je Svet že sprejel, ko so bili odobreni operativni programi držav članic; (d) v kolikšnem obsegu bi morali FEAP privesti do prilagoditve zmogljivosti ribolovne flote ribolovnim možnostim.
33 EFFvademecum,Commission Document EFFC/10/2007 of 26 March 2007. 23 Special Report No 12/2011 – Have EU measures contributed to adapting the capacity of the fishing fleets to available fishing opportunities? 
33 EFF Vademecum, dokument Komisije EFFC/10/2007 z dne 26.3.2007. 23 Posebno poročilo št. 12/2011 – Ali so ukrepi EU prispevali k prilagoditvi zmogljivosti ribolovnih flot razpoložljivim ribolovnim možnostim?