natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
68. the principle of charging water costs to users is strengthened by the water framework directive, which establishes an obligation regarding cost recovery for water services as an incentive for stimulating sustainable demand by the users. the obligation is due to be applied by 2010. the cost recovery can however be modulated by taking into account various factors such as ‘the social, environmental and economic effect of the recovery as well as the geographic and climatic conditions’ of the regions affected26. 
68. Načelo zaračunavanja stroškov za vodo uporabnikom se je okrepilo z okvirno direktivo o vodah, s katero je bila uvedena obveznost povračila stroškov za storitve oskrbe z vodo kot spodbuda za spodbujanje uporabnikov k trajnostnemu povpraševanju. to obveznost je treba izpolniti do leta 2010. povračilo stroškov pa je vseeno mogoče uravnavati z upoštevanjem različnih dejavnikov, kot so „socialni, okoljski in gospodarski učinki povračil ter geografske in podnebne razmere“ v zadevnih regijah26. z drugimi besedami, cilj ni nujno doseganje 100-odstotnega povračila stroškov od uporabnikov27.
More explicit rules were established by the commission in 200628, in accordance with council regulation (Ec) no 1083/2006 on the structural funds29. the new guidance specified that ‘tariffs should at least cover operating and maintenance costs, as well as a significant part of the assets’ depreciation’. an adequate tariff structure should be envisaged to maximise the project’s revenues before public subsidies, while taking affordability into account. a commonly accepted affordability ratio for water supply and sanitation is 4 % of household income30. 
69. komisija je leta 2006 vzpostavila jasnejša pravila28 v skladu z uredbo Sveta 1083/2006 o strukturnih skladih29. v novih navodilih je bilo določeno, da bi morale tarife pokriti vsaj stroške za poslovanje, vzdrževanje in velik del amortizacije sredstev. Načrtovati bi bilo treba primerno tarifno strukturo, da se ma-ksimirajo prihodki projekta pred prejetjem javnih subvencij, ter pri tem upoštevati dostopnost za potrošnike. Splošno veljavna stopnja razpoložljivosti za oskrbo z vodo in sanitarne storitve je 4 % gospodinjskih dohodkov30.
70. as regards the new programme period, the four Member states covered by this audit have all set up procedures requiring that proposals for water infrastructures whose total cost is greater than one million euro should provide a financial cba. In three of the regions visited, the new national procedures require that a specific analysis of water tariff levels should be included in the cbas. however, only in portugal have clear rules been established to determine the amount of the grant, based on how the cost recovery principle is applied by the municipalities concerned. the affordability level for water services has been defined in both relative terms (tariffs as a percentage of household income) and absolute terms (maximum price per m3). 
70. v novem programskem obdobju so vse štiri revidirane države članice vzpostavile postopke, v skladu s katerimi mora biti predlogom za infrastrukture za oskrbo z vodo, katerih skupni stroški presegajo 1 milijon eur, priložena finančna analiza stroškov in koristi. v treh obiskanih regijah je treba po novih nacionalnih postopkih v analizo stroškov in koristi vključiti posebno analizo stopenj tarif za vodo. vendar so bila jasna pravila za določanje zneska donacije vzpostavljena samo na portugalskem, in sicer na osnovi tega, kako se v zadevnih občinah uporablja načelo povračila stroškov.
26 article 9.1 of the water framework directive (directive 2000/60/Ec). 
26 člen 9.1 okvirne direktive o vodah (direktiva 2000/60/eS).
27 see ‘common implementation strategy for the water framework directive — guidance document no 1’, 2004. 
27 glej Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (Skupna strategija za izvajanje okvirne direktive o vodah), smernice št.
28 European commission, ‘the new programming period 2007–13 — guidance on the methodology for carrying out cost-benefit analyses — working document no4’,8/2006.thisguidancewas prepared according to article 40(e) of regulation (Ec) no 1083/2006. see also ‘guidance note on article 55 of council regulation (Ec) no 1083/2006: revenue generating projects’. 
1, 2004. 28 evropska komisija, Novo programsko obdobje 2007–2013 – Navodilo za uporabo metodologije pri izdelavi analize stroškov in koristi – delovni dokument 4, 8/2006.
29 see article 55 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 (oj l 210, 31.7.2006, p. 
1083/2006: projekti, ki ustvarjajo prihodek). 29 glejčlen55uredbeSveta(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.
30 a review carried out by the Ebrd presents benchmarks ranging from 2,5%intheUsaupto5%forthe world bank. see fankhauser, s. and s. tepic. 
30 v poročilu, ki ga je pripravila evropska banka za obnovo in razvoj so predstavljene primerjalne vrednosti, ki se gibljejo od 2,5 % v zdA do 5 % za Svetovno banko. glej Fankhauser, S. in S. tepic.
2007: ‘can poor consumers pay for energy and water? an affordability analysis for transition countries’. wp no 92, Ebrd 2005. 
2007: Can Poor Consumers Pay for Energy and Water?
38 special report no 9/2010 – Is EU structural measures spending on the supply of water for domestic consumption used to best effect? 
38 posebno poročilo št. 9/2010 – Ali so sredstva eu iz strukturnih ukrepov za oskrbo z vodo za gospodinjsko uporabo porabljena učinkovito?
40 rEcommEndatIon 1 (a) the member states should: (i) improve their ex-ante analyses and forecasts of future water needs by taking into account recent and accurate data (in particular by taking into consideration the downward trends in per capita consumption) and improve their inventory and review of all available water resources; (ii) pay greater attention to alternatives to the supply side solutions, for example by taking into account the potential for reducing water losses, taking action on the demand side, implementing measures for the protection of water quality. (b) the commission should: (i) in deciding whether to grant financial support to projects, systematically assess whether all necessary measures for efficient water resource management are implemented in the areas concerned. 
9/2010 – Ali so sredstva eu iz strukturnih ukrepov za oskrbo z vodo za gospodinjsko uporabo porabljena učinkovito? 40 PrIPOrOčIlO 1 (a) države članice bi morale: (i) z upoštevanjem posodobljenih in natančnih podatkov izboljšati svoje predhodne analize in napovedi prihodnjih potreb po vodi (predvsem z upoštevanjem trenda zmanjševanja porabe vode na prebivalca) ter izboljšati popis in pregled vseh dostopnih vodnih virov; (ii) nameniti več pozornosti alternativnim možnostim oskrbe, na primer z upoštevanjem možnosti za zmanjševanje izgub vode, z ukrepanjem v zvezi s povpraševanjem in z izvajanjem ukrepov za zaščito kakovosti vode. (b) komisija bi morala: (i) pri odločanju o dodelitvi finančne pomoči projektom sistematično ocenjevati, ali se na zadevnih območjih izvajajo vsi potrebni ukrepi za učinkovito upravljanje z vodnimi viri. zagotoviti bi morala tudi, da se učinek teh ukrepov upošteva pri napovedih potreb po vodi in ocenah alternativnih možnosti, na katerih temeljijo projekti; (ii) spodbujati organe upravljanja držav članic, naj razmislijo o učinkovitem upravljanju z vodnimi viri na zadevnih območjih, ki se oskrbujejo s sofinancirano infrastrukturo. dOseGanje cIljeV 73.
It should also ensure that the effect of these measures is taken into account in the water needs’ forecasts and assessments of alternatives underpinning the projects; (ii) encourage member states’ managing authorities to give due consideration to efficient water resource management in the areas concerned by the water infrastructure co-financed. achIEVEmEnt of aIms 73. the co-financed projects are contributing towards improvements in the water supply to EU citizens in the areas concerned. however, although some projects had been completed several years before the audit took place, they were not in operation because of missing links in the water supply network (see paragraphs 41 to 44). 
Sofinancirani projekti na zadevnih območjih prispevajo k izboljšanju oskrbe državljanov eu z vodo. vendar nekateri projekti niso obratovali zaradi manjkajočih povezav v omrežju za oskrbo z vodo, čeprav so bili dokončani več let pred revizijo (glej odstavke od 41 do 44).
74. the current monitoring procedures and tools are only partly useful for informing the commission and the Member states’ managing authorities about the achievements of the projects. where the commission has imposed particular conditions, it has not always adequately checked whether they are implemented (see paragraphs 45 to 48). special report no 9/2010 – Is EU structural measures spending on the supply of water for domestic consumption used to best effect? 
74. trenutni postopki in orodja za spremljanje so le delno koristni za obveščanje komisije in organov upravljanja držav članic o dosežkih projektov. kjer je komisija postavila posebne pogoje, ni vedno primerno preverila, ali so izpolnjeni (glej odstavke od 45 do 48). posebno poročilo št. 9/2010 – Ali so sredstva eu iz strukturnih ukrepov za oskrbo z vodo za gospodinjsko uporabo porabljena učinkovito?
42 rEcommEndatIon 3 (a) the member states should: (i) pay more attention, during the planning phase, to factors which often cause delays, such as environmental impact assessments, administrative permits, and estimates and calculations for the projects; (ii) improve the quality of the ex ante analyses of the projects and take their results into account when determining the size of new infrastructures; (iii)systematically analyse the pros and cons of building infrastructure in stages, with the aim of making better use of the capacity built, and develop it according to the evolution of needs. (b) the commission should: (i) pay more attention to the quality of the financial analysis accompanying the grant applications and request the information it needs to set the grant at the appropriate level; (ii) ensure an adequate application of the cost recovery principle to increase the efficient use of EU funds. this report was adopted by chamber II, headed by Mr Morten lEvysohn, Member of the court of auditors, in luxembourg at its meeting of 8 september 2010. 
9/2010 – Ali so sredstva eu iz strukturnih ukrepov za oskrbo z vodo za gospodinjsko uporabo porabljena učinkovito? 42 PrIPOrOčIlO 3 (a) države članice bi morale: (i) v načrtovalni fazi nameniti več pozornosti dejavnikom, ki pogosto povzročajo zamude, kot so presoje vplivov na okolje, upravna dovoljenja ter ocene in izračuni za projekt; (ii) izboljšati predhodne analize projektov in njihove rezultate upoštevati pri določanju velikosti nove infrastrukture; (iii)sistematično analizirati prednosti in slabosti izgradnje infrastrukture po fazah, da se doseže boljša izkoriščenost zgrajenih zmogljivosti, ter infrastrukturo razvijati v skladu z razvojem potreb. (b) komisija bi morala: (i) nameniti več pozornosti kakovosti finančnih analiz, priloženih vlogam za dodelitev donacije, in zahtevati podatke, ki jih potrebuje za določitev donacije na primerni ravni; (ii) zagotoviti ustrezno uporabo načela povračila stroškov, da se poveča učinkovita poraba sredstev eu. to poročilo je sprejel senat II, ki ga vodi g.
For the Court of Auditors vítor Manuel da sIlva caldEIra President special report no 9/2010 – Is EU structural measures spending on the supply of water for domestic consumption used to best effect? 
Morten LevYSohN, član evropskega računskega Sodišča, v Luxembourgu na svojem zasedanju 8. septembra 2010. Za Računsko sodišče vítor Manuel da SILvA cALdeIrA Predsednik posebno poročilo št.
annEx I WatEr suPPly systEms Underground water collection point (little pollution) Sinking Distribution pipes. 
PrIlOGa I sIstemI Oskrbe z VOdO Podzemno zbirališče vode (nizka stopnja onesnaženja) Izkop Distribucijske cevi.
Diameters 10 cm to 15 cm Reservoir Water conveyance Dam Relay plant (overpressure) Raw water supply. 
Premeri od 10 cm do 15 cm Zajetje Omrežje za prenos vode. Prenos proti rezervoarjem.
Diameters up to 2 meters Pumping station Waste water Treatment plant Secondary pipes. 
Premer do 2 m Jez Relejski obrat (nadtlak) Oskrba z neobdelano vodo.
Transport towards tanks. Diameters 20 cm to 40 cm Relay plant (overpressure) Tank Waste water + rain water (sewerage network) special report no 9/2010 – Is EU structural measures spending on the supply of water for domestic consumption used to best effect? 
Od zajetja do obrata za pridobivanje vode Rezervoar Reka Čistilna naprava Odpadna voda Čistilna naprava Sekundarne cevi. Prenos do rezervoarjev. Premeri od 20 cm do 40 cm Črpalna postaja Relejski obrat (nadtlak) Rezervoar Odpadna voda + deževnica (kanalizacijsko omrežje) posebno poročilo št.
43 annEx II ProjEcts sElEctEd for thE audIt 44 Country Project title EU fund Total elegible cost (million euro) ERDF/CF contribution (million euro) Greece Water supply of Thessaloniki from Aliakmon river, ΥΔΡΕΥΣΗ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΗΣ ΑΠΟ ΤΟΝ ΠΟΤΑΜΟ ΑΛΙΑΚΜΟΝΑ CF 79,42 60,88 Greece Renovation of external aqueduct of municipalities in Pieria region, ΑΝΑΚΑΙΝΙΣΗ ΕΞΩΤΕΡΙΚΟΥ ΥΔΡΑΓΩΓΕΙΟΥ ΥΔΡΕΥΣΗΣ ΣΥΝΔΕΣΜΟΥ ΚΟΙΝΟΤΗΤΩΝ ΝΟΜ. 
43 PrIlOGa II PrOjektI, IzbranI za reVIzIjO 44 Država Naslov projekta Sklad EU Skupni upravičeni stroški (v milijonih EUR) Prispevek ESRR ali Kohezijskega sklada (v milijonih EUR) Grčija Oskrba z vodo iz reke Aliakmon za Solun, ΥΔΡΕΥΣΗ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΗΣ ΑΠΟ ΤON ΠΟΤΑΜΟ ΑΛΙΑΚΜΟΝΑ Kohezijski sklad 79,42 60,88 Grčija Obnova zunanjega akvadukta občin v regiji Pieria, ΑΝΑΚΑΙΝΙΣΗ ΕΞΩΤΕΡΙΚΟΥ ΥΔΡΑΓΩΓΕΙΟΥ ΥΔΡΕΥΣΗΣ ΣΥΝΔΕΣΜΟΥ ΚΟΙΝΟΤΗΤΩΝ ΝΟΜ.
annEx III housEhold WatEr ExPEndIturE and dIsPosablE IncomEs In thE arEas sErVEd by thE ProjEcts 46 Project Area/ municipality concerned Project rate of co-financing (%) Expenditure for standard annual household consumption of 120 m3 incl. 
PrIlOGa III OdhOdkI GOsPOdInjsteV za VOdO In njIhOVI razPOlOžljIVI dOhOdkI na ObmOčjIh, kI jIh OskrbUjejO PrOjektI 46 Projekt Zadevno območje/občina Stopnja sofinanciranja projekta (v %) Odhodki za standardno letno gospodinjsko porabo 120 m3 z DDV1, 2 Cena na m3 (na osnovi porabe 120 m3 na leto) v EUR z DDV Letni razpoložljivi dohodki gospodinjstev3 Stroški za storitve za rabo vode (z DDV) kot % razpoložljivih dohodkov gospodinjstev EL 1 Solun 77 97,30 0,81 30 168 0,32 EL 2 Pidna 80 89,02 0,74 30 168 0,30 Elafina 77,62 0,65 30 168 0,26 Methoni 62,23 0,52 30168 0,21 EL 3 Litohoro 75 35,21 0,29 30 168 0,12 EL 4 mesto Kozani4 75 149,76 1,25 31 665 0,47 okraji okrožja Kozani4 105,61 0,88 31 665 0,33 EL 5 Deskati 80 44,60 0,37 31 665 0,14 EL 6 Ptolemaida4 80 159,96 1,33 31 665 0,51 Mavropigi 72,11 0,60 31 665 0,23 Asvestopetra 90,90 0,76 31 665 0,29 Proastio 55,20 0,46 31 665 0,17 IT 1 območje Palerma 45 85,84 0,72 40 617 0,21 IT 2, 3 mesto Palermo 42 85,84 0,72 40 617 0,21 IT 4, 5 Agrigento 40 176,88 1,47 32 725 0,54 IT 4, 5 Caltanissetta 45 197,27 1,64 37 288 0,53 PT 1 Felgueiras 85 88,83 0,74 33 086 0,27 Lousada 134,97 1,12 24 557 0,55 Paços de Ferreira 202,73 1,69 26 928 0,75 Paredes 113,27 0,94 27 446 0,41 PT 2 Arcos de Valdevez 75 101,68 0,85 17 548 0,58 PT 3 Barcelos 65 165,94 1,38 29 066 0,57 PT 4 Guimarães 65 145,26 1,21 31 672 0,46 Vizela 145,26 1,21 28 337 0,51 posebno poročilo št.
2 vat of 10 % in Italy, of 7 % in spain and portugal; in greece vat of 9 % applies to water tariff, 19 % to fixed and special fee. 
2 v Italiji je ddv za tarife za vodo 10 %, v Španiji in na portugalskem 7 %, v grčiji pa je ddv za tarife za vodo 9 %, za fiksno in posebno pristojbino pa 19 %.
3 calculated as disposable income per capita (at nUt s2, or nUt s3 if available) multiplied by average number of persons in a household. 
3 Izračunano kot razpoložljiv dohodek na prebivalca (na ravni NutS2 ali NutS3, če je na voljo), pomnožen s povprečnim številom članov gospodinjstva.
It: average number of persons in household; source: family components in sicily, Ist at 2003. disposable income per capita; source: valore aggiunto per abitante, Ist at 2006. gr: disposable income of private households in 2006 (at nUt s3 level, in purchasing power standards); source: Eurostat 2009. average size of the household. source: household budget survey 2004, greek statistical office. pt: average size of household based on census 2001 data. disposable income based on purchasing power per capita 2005 in regions and average income level of (1 032 = 100). source: statistical office of portugal. 
It: povprečno število članov gospodinjstva: vir Family components in Sicily (družinski elementi na Siciliji), IStAt 2003. razpoložljiv dohodek na prebivalca – vir: Valore aggiunto per abitante, IStAt 2006. eL: razpoložljiv dohodek zasebnih gospodinjstev v letu 2006 (na ravni NutS2, merjeno po standardih kupne moči) – vir: eurostat 2009.
Es: average size of household in nUt s3 - source continuous survey of family budgets, data of 2005. gross disposable income of households in 2006, spanish regional accounts, national Institute of statistics. for jaca, source: Instituto aragonés de Estadística (data of 2005). 
Average size of the household (povprečna velikost gospodinjstva) – vir: anketa o porabi v gospodinjstvih 2004, grški statistični urad. pt: povprečna velikost gospodinjstva temelji na podatkih iz popisa prebivalstva leta 2001. razpoložljiv prihodek temelji na kupni moči na prebivalca leta 2005 v regijah in povprečni ravni dohodka (1 032 = 100) – vir: portugalski statistični urad. eS: povprečna velikost gospodinjstva na ravni NutS3 – vir: kontinuirana anketa o porabi v gospodinjstvih, podatki za leto 2005. bruto razpoložljiv dohodek gospodinjstev leta 2006, španski regionalni računi, nacionalni statistični inštitut. za jaco, vir: aragonski statistični urad (Instituto Aragonés de estadística) (podatki iz leta 2005).
4 for calculation of total water expenditure, a half a special fee was taken into account besides fixed and volumetric fee in case of kozani and ptolemaida (law on dEya provides for a special fee of 80 % of water tariff for future investments in water supply and sewerage infrastructure). special report no 9/2010 – Is EU structural measures spending on the supply of water for domestic consumption used to best effect? 
4 pri izračunu skupnih odhodkov za vodo se je, kar zadeva kozani in ptolemaido, upoštevala polovica posebnih pristojbin, poleg fiksnih in volumetričnih (v zakonu o občinskih podjetjih za oskrbo z vodo in kanalizacijo (deYA) je določena posebna pristojbina v višini 80 % tarife za vodo za prihodnje naložbe v infrastrukturo za oskrbo z vodo in kanalizacijsko infrastrukturo). posebno poročilo št. 9/2010 – Ali so sredstva eu iz strukturnih ukrepov za oskrbo z vodo za gospodinjsko uporabo porabljena učinkovito?
48 ExEcutIVE summary III. the European regional development fund (Erdf) and cohesion fund (cf) co-financed in 2000–06 well over 100 projects in the field of water supply aiming to improve the management of water resources. the financing of such projects needs to be assessed in the framework of the national plans or strategic frameworks that cohesion Member states (in this case, greece, spain, Italy and portugal) transmitted to the commission at the beginning of the 2000–06 programming period. 
48 POVzetek III. evropski sklad za regionalni razvoj (eSrr) in kohezijski sklad sta v obdobju 2000–2006 sofinancirala več kot 100 projektov na področju oskrbe z vodo z namenom izboljšati gospodarjenje z vodnimi viri.
IV. the commission recalls that when the audited projects were prepared and implemented there was no harmonised framework at EU level for the management of water resources. such a framework has been established by directive 2000/60/Ec, known as the water framework directive. this directive entered into force in december 2000, had to be transposed by december 2003, while its substantial obligations were to be implemented by the end of 2009. rEply of thE coMMIssIon V. the commission welcomes the court’s conclusion according to which the structural measures’ spending has contributed to improving the supply of water for domestic use. on the basis of subsidiarity and shared management, Member states have the primary responsibility for the selection, implementation and monitoring of Erdf projects. 
IV. komisija opozarja, da v času, ko so se revidirani projekti pripravljali in izvajali, ni bilo nobenega usklajenega okvira na ravni eu za gospodarjenje z vodnimi viri. takšen okvir je bil določen z direktivo 2000/60/eS, imenovano okvirna direktiva o vodah. direktiva je začela veljati decembra 2000, v nacionalno zakonodajo jo je bilo treba prenesti do decembra 2003, njene bistvene obveznosti pa je bilo treba izvesti do konca leta 2009. odgovorI koMISIje V. komisija pozdravlja ugotovitev Sodišča, da je poraba iz strukturnih ukrepov prispevala k izboljšanju oskrbe gospodinjstev z vodo. države članice imajo na podlagi subsidiarnosti in deljenega upravljanja glavno odgovornost za izbiro, izvedbo in spremljanje projektov eSrr. poleg tega je v zvezi s projekti kohezijskega sklada in velikimi projekti eSrr, ki jih preuči in odobri komisija, poseg komisije pogojen z veljavnim pravnim okvirom (npr. komisija mora z izvedbo ocene zagotoviti, da so skladni z veljavno zakonodajo eu).
V. first indent the commission notes that there has been a growing awareness of downward trends in water consumption. nonetheless, this was not evident in the projects reviewed by the court, as these trends were not well recognised in the 1990s or early 2000s, when the audited projects were prepared and implemented. the downward trend has been recognised by the commission in its recent communi-cations1 in relation to water scarcity and droughts, adopted in 2007 and 2008. the commission underlines that it cannot impose specific alternative solutions and cannot replace the work of national authorities, which are responsible for selecting projects and granting development consent. 
V. Prva alinea komisija ugotavlja, da se je ozaveščenost v zvezi s trendom zmanjševanja porabe vode povečevala. kljub temu iz projektov, ki jih je revidiralo Sodišče, to ni bilo razvidno, saj ti trendi v 1990-ih in na začetku tega desetletja, ko so se revidirani projekti pripravljali in izvajali, niso bili tako prepoznavni. trend zmanjševanja je komisija vključila v nedavni sporo-čili1 o pomanjkanju vode in suši, sprejeti leta 2007 oziroma 2008. komisija opozarja, da ne more predpisati posameznih alternativnih rešitev in ne more nadomestiti dela nacionalnih organov, ki so odgovorni za izbiro projektov in dajanje soglasij za izvedbo.
1 see communication from the commission ‘addressing the challenge of water scarcity and droughts in the European Union’, coM(2007) 414, and report from the commission to the council and the European parliament on the ‘follow-up to the communication on water scarcity and droughts in the European Union’, coM(2008) 875. special report no 9/2010 – Is EU structural measures spending on the supply of water for domestic consumption used to best effect? 
1 glej Sporočilo komisije„obravnavanje izziva pomanjkanja vode in suše v evropski uniji“, coM(2007) 414, in poročilo komisije Svetu in evropskemu parlamentu„poročilo o spremljanju Sporočila o pomanjkanju vode in suši v evropski uniji“, coM(2008) 875. posebno poročilo št. 9/2010 – Ali so sredstva eu iz strukturnih ukrepov za oskrbo z vodo za gospodinjsko uporabo porabljena učinkovito?
49 nonetheless, the commission has co-financed specific projects with the objective to reduce water leakage and water demand in this period. 
49 komisija je v tem obdobju kljub temu sofinancirala posamezne projekte z namenom zmanjšati puščanje vode in povpraševanje po vodi.
V. second indent the commission welcomes the court’s conclusion that measurable improvements have been achieved in many areas. 
V. druga alinea komisija pozdravlja ugotovitev Sodišča, da so bile na veliko področjih dosežene merljive izboljšave.