natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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? 51 2007–13 PROGRAMMING PERIOD Member State EU earmarked amount % over total Poland 1 311 253 636 21,01 Romania 792 840 872 12,71 Czech Republic 520 258 572 8,34 Spain 462 015 554 7,40 Greece 432 176 450 6,93 Slovakia 368 600 000 5,91 Hungary 366 500 000 5,87 Italy 338 072 531 5,42 Bulgaria 300 521 138 4,82 Lithuania 278 995 046 4,47 Portugal 224 088 076 3,59 Slovenia 205 568 426 3,29 France 134 470 000 2,16 Latvia 129 500 000 2,08 Cyprus 125 495 000 2,01 Estonia 70 302 813 1,13 Malta 55 250 000 0,89 Germany 47 745 110 0,77 EU cross-border cooperation 47 890 793 0,77 United Kingdom 20 230 668 0,32 Ireland 3 000 000 0,05 Belgium 2 382 219 0,04 Netherlands 2 667 500 0,04 TOTAL 6 239 824 404 100,00 Source: European Commission. 
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? 51 PROGRAMSKO OBDOBJE 2007-2013 Država članica Znesek namenskih sredstev EU % skupnega zneska Poljska 1 311 253 636 21,01 Romunija 792 840 872 12,71 Češka 520 258 572 8,34 Španija 462 015 554 7,40 Grčija 432 176 450 6,93 Slovaška 368 600 000 5,91 Madžarska 366 500 000 5,87 Italija 338 072 531 5,42 Bolgarija 300 521 138 4,82 Litva 278 995 046 4,47 Portugalska 224 088 076 3,59 Slovenija 205 568 426 3,29 Francija 134 470 000 2,16 Latvija 129 500 000 2,08 Ciper 125 495 000 2,01 Estonija 70 302 813 1,13 Malta 55 250 000 0,89 Nemčija 47 745 110 0,77 Čezmejno sodelovanje EU 47 890 793 0,77 Združeno kraljestvo 20 230 668 0,32 Irska 3 000 000 0,05 Belgija 2 382 219 0,04 Nizozemska 2 667 500 0,04 SKUPAJ 6 239 824 404 100,00 Vir: Evropska komisija.
53 Region (Member State) Project title Type of waste management infrastructure EU fund Norte (Portugal) Integrated management of solid waste by LIPOR — organic recovery plant Composting plant Cohesion Fund Norte (Portugal) Multi-municipal system for the recovery and treatment of municipal solid waste (Baixo Tâmega) Sorting plant Cohesion Fund Norte (Portugal) Multi-municipal system for the recovery and treatment of municipal solid waste (Baixo Tâmega) Landfill Cohesion Fund Nord-Est (Romania) Piatra Neamt waste management programme Composting plant Cohesion Fund (ex-ISPA) Nord-Est (Romania) Piatra Neamt waste management programme Sorting plant Cohesion Fund (ex-ISPA) Nord-Est (Romania) Piatra Neamt waste management programme Landfill Cohesion Fund (ex-ISPA) Sud-Vest (Romania) Integrated municipal waste management system (Râmnicu Vâlcea) Composting plant Cohesion Fund (ex-ISPA) Sud-Vest (Romania) Integrated municipal waste management system (Râmnicu Vâlcea) Landfill Cohesion Fund (ex-ISPA) Complementary ERDF operational programmes reviewed for which no infrastructures were audited Catalonia (Spain) Single programming document Cataluña 2000–06 Andalucía (Spain) Operational programme Andalucía 2000–06 Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) Operational programme Castilla-La Mancha 2000–06 Comunidad de Madrid (Spain) Single programming document Comunidad de Madrid 2000–06 Madeira (Portugal) Operational programme Madeira 2000–06 Sicilia (Italy) Operational programme Sicilia 2000–06 Source: European Court of Auditors. 
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?
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? ANNEX IV RATES OF ASSISTANCE GRANTED COMPARED TO RATES THAT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE LEVEL OF COVERAGE OF OPERATING COSTS BY HOUSEHOLDS 54 Infrastructure Total cost coverage by tariffs Operating cost coverage by tariffs Rate assistance applied Proposed rates of assistance to be applied3 Year of reference ES-CA1 40 % 42 % 80 % 50 % 2010 ES-CA2 56 % 59 % 80 % 50 % 2010 ES-CA3 76 % 80 % 80 % 50 % 2010 IT-SA1 78 % 84 % 50 % 40 % 2009 IT-SA2 77 % 83 % 50 % 40 % 2009 IT-SA3 78 % 84 % 50 % 40 % 2009 IT-PU1 96 % 100 % 50 % 40 % 2009 IT-PU2 and 3 85 % 91 % 50 % 40 % 2009 IT-PU4 NA. 
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? PRILOGA IV STOPNJE ODOBRENE POMOČI V PRIMERJAVI S STOPNJAMI, PRI KATERIH SE UPOŠTEVA DELEŽ OPERATIVNIH STROŠKOV, KI JIH KRIJEJO GOSPODINJSTVA 54 Objekti Skupni stroški, ki se krijejo s cenami Stroški delovanja, ki se krijejo s cenami Uporabljena stopnja pomoči Predlagana stopnja pomoči, ki se lahko uporabi 3 Referenčno leto ES-CA1 40 % 42 % 80 % 50 % 2010 ES-CA2 56 % 59 % 80 % 50 % 2010 ES-CA3 76 % 80 % 80 % 50 % 2010 IT-SA1 78 % 84 % 50 % 40 % 2009 IT-SA2 77 % 83 % 50 % 40 % 2009 IT-SA3 78 % 84 % 50 % 40 % 2009 IT-PU1 96 % 100 % 50 % 40 % 2009 IT-PU2 in 3 85 % 91 % 50 % 40 % 2009 IT-PU4 NR.
The project was not in operation at the time of the audit visit. ES-AN1 NA. 
Projekt v času revizijskega obiska ni obratoval. ES-AN1 NR.
The operating and depreciation costs of the sorting plant are covered by companies having introduced packaging into the market. 
Stroške poslovanja in amortizacije sortirnice pokrivajo podjetja, ki so embalažo dala na trg.
ES-AN2 and 3 83 % 88 % 80 % 50 % 2009 PT-LVT1 55 % 66 % 75 % 50 % 2010 PT-LVT21 0% 0% 50 % 50 % 2010 PT-NO1 and 2 27 % 33 % 75 % 50 % 2010 PT-NO3 73 % 88 % 75 % 50 % 2010 PT-NO4 68 % 82 % 50 % 50 % 2010 PT-NO5 and 6 24 % 29 % 85 % 50 % 2010 RO-PN1, 2 and 3 No info 73 % 75 % 50 % 2010 RO-RV1 and 2 No info 89 %2 75 % 50 % 2010 1 Information was only made available to the Court for two of the three municipalities for which it was requested. 
ES-AN2 in 3 83 % 88 % 80 % 50 % 2009 PT-LVT1 55 % 66 % 75 % 50 % 2010 PT-LVT21 0% 0% 50 % 50 % 2010 PT-NO1 in 2 27 % 33 % 75 % 50 % 2010 PT-NO3 73 % 88 % 75 % 50 % 2010 PT-NO4 68 % 82 % 50 % 50 % 2010 PT-NO5 in 6 24 % 29 % 85 % 50 % 2010 RO-PN1, 2 in 3 ni podatkov 73 % 75 % 50 % 2010 RO-RV1 in 2 ni podatkov 89 %2 75 % 50 % 2010 1 Sodišče je dobilo informacije samo za dve od treh občin, za katere je zaprosilo.
2 Not including the operating costs of the landfill and of composting plant. 
2 Ne vključuje stroškov poslovanja odlagališča in kompostarne.
3 Based on ‘Technical paper 1 — Application of the polluter pays principle — Differentiating the rates of Community assistance for Structural Funds, Cohesion Fund and ISPA infrastructure operations’ (6.12.1999). 
3 Na podlagi tehničnega dokumenta 1 – Application of the polluter pays principle – Differentiating the rates of Community assistance for Structural Funds, Cohesion Fund and ISPA infrastructure operations (uporaba načela „plača povzročitelj obremenitve“ – diferenciranje stopenj pomoči Skupnosti za strukturne sklade, Kohezijski sklad in infrastrukturne ukrepe ISPA) (6.
This technical paper proposes rates of assistance to be applied. 
1999), v katerem so predlagane stopnje pomoči, ki jih je treba uporabljati.
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? 
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?
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY III. 
ODGOVOR KOMISIJE POVZETEK III.
In the framework of projects co-financed by the cohesion policy, the Commission was not empowered to check the appropriateness and assess on substance the waste management plans or to impose the inclusion of supporting measures. 
Komisija v okviru projektov, ki se sofinancirajo iz kohezijske politike, ni bila pooblaščena za preverjanje ustreznosti in oceno vsebine načrtov za gospodarjenje z odpadki ali za določitev vključitve podpornih ukrepov.
III. (a) The Commission acknowledges that the issues concerning the concept of treatment and closure and after-care costs are systemic issues in need of a global approach, on which case-law will further develop and technical discussions will take place, respectively. 
III. (a) Komisija priznava, da so vprašanja v zvezi z obdelavo ter stroški za zapiranje odlagališč in njihovo upravljanje po zaprtju sistemska vprašanja, pri katerih je potreben globalen pristop, ki bo spodbudil nadaljnji razvoj sodne prakse in omogočil tehnične razprave.
In accordance with the ‘Roadmap to a resource efficient Europe’ (COM(2011) 571 final), the Commission will develop policy aiming at minimising the landfilling of waste while increasing the recycling rates. 
V skladu s Časovnim okvirom za Evropo, gospodarno z viri (COM(2011) 571 final), bo Komisija razvila politiko, katere cilj bo čim bolj zmanjšati odlaganje odpadkov in hkrati povečati stopnje recikliranja.
To this end, the implementation of economic instruments, e.g. landfill tax, ‘pay as you throw’ schemes related to waste separate collection, are regarded as crucial for success. 
Zato je za uspeh ključno izvajanje ekonomskih instrumentov, npr. dajatev za odlaganje na odlagališča in sistemov plačevanja za dejansko odvržene odpadke v zvezi z ločenim zbiranjem odpadkov.
III. (b) Improvements in the collection and evaluation of data on waste have been made in the years after the period audited by the Court. 
III. (b) Zbiranje in vrednotenje podatkov o odpadkih sta se izboljšala v letih po obdobju, v katerem je Sodišče opravilo revizijo.
Concerning municipal waste, the Commission has established since 1995 a system for the collection and compilation of data at national level on a voluntary basis and applies the quality framework for official statistics. 
V zvezi s komunalnimi odpadki je Komisija leta 1995 vzpostavila sistem za prostovoljno zbiranje in urejanje podatkov na nacionalni ravni, medtem ko za uradne statistične podatke uporablja okvir za kakovost.
The Commission has put in place a voluntary system for the production of regional level statistics since 2010. 
Komisija je leta 2010 vzpostavila prostovoljni sistem za pripravo statističnih podatkov na regionalni ravni.
During the period observed by the Court (2000–09) the per capita generation of municipal waste increased in 16 Member States, decreased in nine and remained unchanged in two. 
V obdobju, ki ga je proučevalo Sodišče (2000–2009), se je količina odpadkov na prebivalca povečala v šestnajstih državah članicah in zmanjšala v devetih državah članicah, medtem ko se v dveh državah članicah ni spremenila.
56 III. (c) As regards waste management, one criterion in the ex ante waste conditionality proposed for 2014–20 requires the Member States to provide waste management plans compliant with the requirements of the 2008 waste framework directive so that Member States will no longer be able to provide incomplete reports and at the same time benefit from structural measures. 
56 III. (c) Na področju gospodarjenja z odpadki eno od meril, ki je bilo v okviru predhodne pogojenosti glede odpadkov predlagano za obdobje 2014–2020, od držav članic zahteva, da predložijo načrte za gospodarjenje z odpadki v skladu z zahtevami okvirne direktive o odpadkih iz leta 2008, tako da države članice ne bodo več pripravljale nepopolnih poročil in bodo hkrati imele koristi od strukturnih ukrepov.
IV. (a) An ex ante conditionality linked to the provisions of the waste framework directive is included in the Commission's proposed common provisions regulation1 for the 2014–20 programming period. 
IV. (a) Predhodna pogojenost v zvezi z določbami okvirne direktive o odpadkih je vključena v predlog uredbe Komisije o skupnih določbah1 za obdobje načrtovanja 2014–2020.
IV. (b) The Commission supports this recommendation and encourages Member States to establish public databases on waste management. 
IV. (b) Komisija podpira to priporočilo in spodbuja države članice k vzpostavitvi javnih zbirk podatkov o gospodarjenju z odpadki.
A framework is provided by the Commission's proposal for a shared environmental information system (SEIS)2. 
Okvir zagotavlja predlog Komisije za skupni okoljski informacijski sistem (SEIS)2.
IV. (c) The separate collection will become a legal obligation for a number of waste streams (except for biodegradable waste) as of 2015. 
IV. (c) Ločeno zbiranje bo od leta 2015 zakonsko določeno za številne tokove odpadkov (razen za biološko razgradljive odpadke).
To this end, the implementation of economic instruments, e.g. landfill tax, ‘pay as you throw’ schemes, related to waste separate collection are regarded as crucial for success. 
Zato je za uspeh ključno izvajanje ekonomskih instrumentov, npr. dajatev za odlaganje na odlagališča in sistemov plačevanja za dejansko odvržene odpadke v zvezi z ločenim zbiranjem odpadkov.
The Commission has proposed ex ante conditionality for the cohesion policy 2014–20. 
Komisija je za kohezijsko politiko v obdobju 2014–2020 predlagala predhodno pogojenost.
As regards waste management, one criterion of the waste conditionality requires the Member States to establish waste prevention plans as required by Article 29 of the 2008 waste framework directive. 
Na področju gospodarjenja z odpadki eno od meril v okviru pogojenosti glede odpadkov od držav članic zahteva, da pripravijo načrte preprečevanja nastajanja odpadkov v skladu s členom 29 okvirne direktive o odpadkih iz leta 2008.
1 COM (2011) 615 final/2 of 6 October 2011, as amended on 14 March 2012 and 11 September 2012. 
1 COM(2011) 615 final/2 z dne 6. oktobra 2011, kot je bila spremenjena 14. marca 2012 in 11. septembra 2012.
2 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/seis/ REPLY OF THE COMMISSION For revenue-generating projects, the Commission currently applies the ‘polluter pays principle’ and reduced rates of assistance, using a comprehensive approach which takes into account affordability and effectiveness. 
2 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/seis/ ODGOVOR KOMISIJE Pri projektih, ki ustvarjajo prihodek, Komisija trenutno izvaja načelo „povzročitelj plača“ in zmanjšane stopnje pomoči, pri čemer uporablja celovit pristop, ki upošteva cenovno dostopnost in uspešnost.
IV. (d) The current waste framework directive (2008/98/EC) sets out legally binding requirements relating to the waste management hierarchy, separate collection, recycling targets, waste management plans and waste prevention programmes. 
IV. (d) Veljavna okvirna direktiva o odpadkih 2008/98/ES določa pravno zavezujoče zahteve v zvezi s hierarhijo gospodarjenja z odpadki, ločenim zbiranjem, ciljnimi vrednostmi recikliranja, načrti gospodarjenja z odpadki in programi preprečevanja nastajanja odpadkov.
In June 2012, the Commission published guidelines on the key requirements of this directive3. 
Komisija je junija 2012 objavila smernice o ključnih zahtevah te direktive3.
The planned 2014 revision of the waste framework directive should focus on waste prevention objectives for 2020 as well as the revision of the 2020 recycling targets. 
Revizija okvirne direktive o odpadkih, ki je predvidena za leto 2014, se mora osredotočiti na cilje preprečevanja nastajanja odpadkov do leta 2020 in revizijo ciljnih vrednosti recikliranja do leta 2020.
This will be linked with the revision of the landfill directive biodegradable diversion targets in order to avoid the landfilling of recyclable waste, also required for 2014. 
S tem bo povezana revizija ciljnih vrednosti za preusmerjanje biološko razgradljivih odpadkov iz direktive o odlagališčih, da bi se preprečilo odlaganje odpadkov, ki jih je mogoče reciklirati, ki je prav tako predvidena za leto 2014.
The development of end-of-waste criteria for biodegradable waste is being considered by the Commission. 
Komisija proučuje možnost, da bi se v zvezi z biološko razgradljivimi odpadki razvila merila za prenehanje statusa odpadka.
This should support the production of quality approved compost. 
S tem naj bi se podprla proizvodnja komposta z odobreno kakovostjo.
57 INTRODUCTION 7. 
57 UVOD 7.
Compared to the 1975 waste framework directive, the 2008 waste framework directive strengthens the waste hierarchy and the ‘polluter pays principle’. 
V primerjavi z okvirno direktivo o odpadkih iz leta 1975 okvirna direktiva o odpadkih iz leta 2008 krepi hierarhijo gospodarjenja z odpadki in načelo „povzročitelj plača“.
Common Commission reply to Observations 10 and 11 There are two main types of EU funding: funds which are managed centrally and directly by the European Commission, e.g. for research; and funds whose management is shared between the EU and the Member States, e.g. the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund. 
Skupni odgovor Komisije na opažanji 10 in 11 Financiranje v EU se izvaja na dva glavna načina: s sredstvi, ki jih na centralni ravni neposredno upravlja Evropska komisija, npr. za raziskave, in s sredstvi, ki jih skupaj upravljajo EU in države članice, npr. strukturna sklada in Kohezijski sklad.
For funds in 'shared management', Member States implement programmes at national level. 
Pri sredstvih z deljenim upravljanjem države članice izvajajo programe na nacionalni ravni.
Member States then allocate these funds to end recipients (companies, farmers, municipalities, etc.). 
Države članice nato sredstva dodelijo končnim uporabnikom (npr. podjetjem, kmetom, občinam itd.).
The Member State has primary responsibility for setting up a management and control system which complies with the requirements of the regulations, ensuring that this system functions effectively and also preventing, detecting and correcting irregularities. 
Države članice so odgovorne za vzpostavitev upravljavskega in kontrolnega sistema, ki v skladu z zahtevami uredb zagotavlja učinkovito delovanje sistema ter tudi preprečuje, ugotavlja in popravlja nepravilnosti.
The Commission plays a supervisory role by satisfying itself that the arrangements governing the management and control system are compliant. 
Komisija preverja, ali je ureditev upravljavskega in kontrolnega sistema v skladu s predpisi.
It does so by verifying the effective functioning of this system and making financial corrections, where necessary. 
To opravlja tako, da ocenjuje učinkovitost delovanja sistema in po potrebi izvaja finančne popravke.
Member States have then the primary responsibility for the selection, implementation and monitoring of ERDF projects. AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH 17. 
Za izbor, izvajanje in spremljanje projektov ESRR (Evropski sklad za regionalni razvoj) so torej v prvi vrsti odgovorne države članice.
One of the sampled countries, Romania, was not a Member of the EU in the 2000–06 period but only from 2007 onwards. 
Ena od vzorčenih držav, tj. Romunija, v obdobju 2000–2006 ni bila članica EU, ampak je pristopila šele leta 2007.
The ISPA regulation was applicable for pre-accession countries. 
Za predpristopne države se je uporabljala uredba ISPA (Instrument strukturnih politik v predpristopnem obdobju).
REPLY OF THE COMMISSION OBSERVATIONS Common reply to Observations 20 and 21 Among the 26 sampled projects, all were co-funded under the 2000–06 period; five were co-funded by ISPA, 10 by the Cohesion Fund and the remaining by the ERDF, but not as major projects; hence they were not subject to an ex ante assessment by the Commission services. 
ODGOVOR KOMISIJE OPAŽANJA Skupni odgovor na opažanji 20 in 21 V obdobju 2000–2006 je bilo sofinanciranih vseh šestindvajset projektov v vzorcu, pri čemer jih je bilo pet sofinanciranih iz ISPA, deset iz Kohezijskega sklada in ostali iz ESRR, vendar ne kot veliki projekti, zato niso bili vključeni v predhodno oceno služb Komisije.
For these projects, according to shared management principles, the national managing authorities are responsible for appraising grant applications, deciding the amount of the grant and following-up project implementation. 
V zvezi s temi projekti so nacionalni organi upravljanja v skladu z načelom deljenega upravljanja odgovorni za oceno vlog za donacijo, določitev zneska donacije in spremljanje izvajanja projekta.
The over-utilisation of some sorting plants is sometimes also associated with significant and unexpected changes in economic activity and people’s behaviour in terms of waste sorting that could not be forecast beforehand. 
Čezmerna uporaba nekaterih sortirnic je včasih povezana tudi z velikimi in nepričakovanimi spremembami gospodarske dejavnosti in človekovega ravnanja v zvezi s sorti-ranjem odpadkov, ki jih ni mogoče napovedati.
25. (a) As explained in the reply to Observation 24, it is difficult to forecast the composition of collected waste. 
25. (a) Kot je pojasnjeno v odgovoru na opažanje 24, je težko napovedati sestavo zbranih odpadkov.
This in turn has consequences for performance in terms of production of compost. 
To pa vpliva na uspešnost v zvezi s proizvodnjo komposta.
Nonetheless, the performance should be assessed on a global basis: for instance, for one project, the Member State stated that the greater biodegradability of waste led to a reduction of the quantity of compost produced but resulted in the production of biogas . 
Kljub temu je treba uspešnost oceniti na globalni ravni: država članica je za en projekt na primer navedla, da se je s povečanjem biološke razgradljivosti odpadkov zmanjšala količina proizvedenega komposta, vendar je pri tem nastal bioplin.
25. (b) The Commission refers to its reply to Observation 24. 
25. (b) Komisija se sklicuje na odgovor na opažanje 24.
For ISPA/Cohesion Fund projects, the fulfilment of project objectives is checked against objectives (set in the Commission decision) by the Commission services during the project closure procedures. 
Službe Komisije med postopki zaključevanja projekta preverijo izpolnjevanje ciljev projektov ISPA/Kohezijskega sklada na podlagi ciljev (iz sklepa Komisije).
The Commission services take note of the Court’s observation and will consider it during the project closure procedure when verifying the information provided by the Member State. 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? 
Službe Komisije so seznanjene z opažanji Sodišča in jih bodo upoštevale med postopkom zaključevanja projekta, in sicer pri preverjanju informacij, ki jih predloži država članica. 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?
58 25. (c) There are no EU legal obligations for Member States to set up compost standards as these were not specified by the legislator. 
58 25. (c) Države članice nimajo pravnih obveznosti EU glede opredelitve standardov za kompost, saj jih zakonodajalec ni določil.
There are no EU harmonised standards for compost. 
Usklajenih standardov EU za kompost ni.
Please refer to the 2010 communication from the Commission on future steps in bio-waste management in the European Union (COM(2010) 235 final) at http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/waste/compost/developments.htm. 
Glej sporočilo Komisije o nadaljnjih korakih pri ravnanju z biološkimi odpadki v Evropski uniji iz leta 2010 (COM(2010) 235 final) na naslovu: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/ compost/developments.htm.
More specifically, end-of-waste criteria for biodegradable waste are being considered by the Commission.4 25. (d) For the two projects operating below their capacity, the Commission services take note of the Court’s observation and will consider it during project closure procedure when verifying the information provided by the Member State. 
25. (d) V zvezi s projektoma, ki sta delovala pod svojo zmogljivostjo, so službe Komisije seznanjene z opažanji Sodišča in jih bodo upoštevale med postopkom zaključevanja projekta, in sicer pri preverjanju informacij, ki jih predloži država članica.
The over-utilisation is extremely limited in one of the cases referred to. 
V enem od navedenih primerov je čezmerna uporaba zelo omejena.