natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
14 TABLE 1 Member State Start of 1994–99 programme period End of 2000–06 programme period Ireland1 20 % (1994) 87 % (2006) Spain2 41 % (1995) 77 % (2005) Portugal3 32 % (1994) 80 % (2006) Greece4 < 20 % (1994) 85 % (2005) TABLE 2 Member State Start of 1994–99 programme period (1995)1 End of 2000–06 programme period Ireland 2% 8 % (2006)2 Spain 3% 84 % (2005)3 Portugal 0% 63 % (2005)4 Greece 6% 55 % (2006)5 EVOLUTION OF PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION OF URBAN AGGLOMERATIONS SERVED BY TREATMENT PLANTS PROVIDING SECONDARY TREATMENT 1 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — Office of Environmental Enforcement, Urban Waste Water Discharges in Ireland — Reports for the Years 2002–03 and 2004–05. 
3/2009 – Uspešnost porabe iz strukturnih ukrepov za čiščenje odpadne vode za programski obdobji 1994–1999 in 2000–2006 14 TABELA 1 Država članica Začetek programskega obdobja 1994–1999 Konec programskega obdobja 2000–2006 Irska1 20 % (1994) 87 %(2006) Španija2 41 % (1995) 77 % (2005) Portugalska3 32 % (1994) 80 % (2006) Grčija4 < 20 % (1994) 85 % (2005) TABELA 2 Država članica Začetek programskega obdobja 1994–1999 (1995)1 Konec programskega obdobja 2000–2006 Irska 2% 8 % (2006)2 Španija 3% 84 % (2005)3 Portugalska 0% 63 % (2005)4 Grčija 6% 55 % (2006)5 SPREMEMBA ODSTOTKA PREBIVALSTVA MESTNIH AGLOMERACIJ, OPREMLJENIH S ČISTILNIMI NAPRAVAMI S SEKUNDARNIM ČIŠČENJEM 1 Agencija za varstvo okolja (EPA) – Urad za izvajanje okoljske zakonodaje, Izpusti komunalne odpadne vode na Irskem – Poročili za leta 2002–2003 in 2004–2005.
2006 figures provided by Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. 
Podatke za leto 2006 je zagotovilo Ministrstvo za okolje, dediščino in lokalno upravo.
2 For 1995 data, report prepared according to Article 16 of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, sent by Spain to the Commission (October 2004) and, for 2005, estimate received from the Ministry of the Environment. 
2 Podatki za leto 1995 so iz poročila, pripravljenega na podlagi člena 16 direktive o čiščenju komunalne odpadne vode, ki ga je Španija poslala Komisiji (oktobra 2004), za leto 2005 pa iz ocene Ministrstva za okolje.
3 Strategic Plan for Water and Waste Water Treatment (2007–13). 
3 Strateški načrt za vode in čiščenje odpadne vode (2007–2013).
4 Ministry of Environment — Central Water Agency estimate. 
4 Ocena Ministrstva za okolje – Osrednje agencije za vode.
EVOLUTION OF PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION OF URBAN AGGLOMERATIONS LOCATED IN SENSITIVE AREAS SERVED BY TREATMENT PLANTS PROVIDING SECONDARY AND TERTIARY TREATMENT 1 OECD Environmental Data (Compendium 2006). 
SPREMEMBA ODSTOTKA PREBIVALSTVA MESTNIH AGLOMERACIJ NA OBČUTLJIVIH OBMOČJIH, OPREMLJENIH S ČISTILNIMI NAPRAVAMI S SEKUNDARNIM IN TERCIARNIM ČIŠČENJEM 1 Okoljski podatki OECD (Zbornik 2006).
2 For 2006, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and for 2009 the Department of Environment has estimated that the percentage will increase to 80 %. 
2 Za leto 2006 sta Agencija za varstvo okolja (EPA), za leto 2009 pa Ministrstvo za okolje ocenila, da se bo delež povečal na 80 %.
3 Ministry of Environment. 
3 Ministrstvo za okolje.
(INAG I. P.) has estimated that the percentage will increase to 78 % in 2008. 
(INAG I. P.) je ocenil, da se bo delež leta 2008 povečal na 78 %.
5 Ministry of Environment — Central Water Agency. 
5 Ministrstvo za okolje – Osrednja agencija za vode.
The figure had increased to 97 % by 2007. 
Delež se je do leta 2007 povečal na 97 %.
15 AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH 15. 
15 OBSEG REVIZIJE IN REVIZIJSKI PRISTOP 15.
The main objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods. 
Glavni namen revizije je bil oceniti uspešnost porabe iz strukturnih ukrepov za čiščenje odpadne vode v programskih obdobjih 1994–1999 in 2000–2006.
The Court addressed the following questions: (a) Do EU co-financed treatment plants achieve an adequate performance in the treatment of waste water? (b) Is the sludge produced by the treatment plants being used appropriately? (c) Is the Commission fulfilling its role in relation to project selection, monitoring of outcomes through its analysis of final reports and promotion of environmental principles? 
Sodišče je obravnavalo naslednja vprašanja: (a) Ali so čistilne naprave, ki jih sofinancira EU, dovolj učinkovite pri čiščenju odpadne vode? (b) Ali se blato iz čistilnih naprav primerno uporablja? (c) Ali Komisija opravlja svojo vlogo pri izbiri projektov, spremljanju rezultatov z analizo končnih poročil in pri spodbujanju okoljskih načel?
The audit was carried out at the European Commission and in four Member States: Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland. 
Revizija je bila izvedena v Evropski komisiji in štirih državah članicah: v Španiji, na Portugalskem, v Grčiji in na Irskem.
The total Community expenditure on waste water treatment projects for these Member States was 5,2 billion euro for the programme period 1994–99 and 5,9 billion euro for the 2000–06 period. 
Skupni odhodki Skupnosti za projekte čiščenja odpadne vode v teh državah članicah so znašali 5,2 milijarde EUR v programskem obdobju 1994–1999 in 5,9 milijarde EUR v obdobju 2000–2006.
The audit was conducted from May 2007 to March 2008. 
Revizija je bila izvedena med majem 2007 in marcem 2008.
The audit was based on an assessment of the performance of a sample of 73 operating treatment plants co-financed during the relevant programme periods. 
Temeljila je na oceni uspešnosti vzorca 73 delujočih čistilnih naprav, sofinanciranih v obravnavanih programskih obdobjih.
In the Member States, the Court interviewed representatives from the various local, regional and national authorities charged with the design, selection, operation and monitoring of treatment plants. 
V državah članicah je Sodišče opravilo razgovore s predstavniki različnih lokalnih, regionalnih in nacionalnih organov, pristojnih za zasnovo, izbiro, obratovanje in spremljanje čistilnih naprav.
The Court visited 26 projects (Table 3), accompanied by independent experts knowledgeable in the areas of treatment plant operation, maintenance and control. 
V spremstvu neodvisnih strokovnjakov s področij obratovanja, vzdrževanja in nadziranja čistilnih naprav je obiskalo 26 projektov (tabela 3).
In order to identify and compare benchmarks and best practices in the field, a review of standards of some non-EU countries was undertaken (USA, Switzerland, Canada, Australia and Japan). Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods 
Da bi opredelili in primerjali merila uspešnosti in najboljše prakse na tem področju, je bil opravljen tudi pregled standardov nekaterih držav zunaj EU (ZDA, Švica, Kanada, Avstralija in Japonska). Posebno poročilo št. 3/2009 – Uspešnost porabe iz strukturnih ukrepov za čiščenje odpadne vode za programski obdobji 1994–1999 in 2000–2006
16 TABLE 3 Cohesion Fund ERDF Total Spain 5 1 6 Portugal 5 1 6 Greece 6 0 6 Ireland 6 2 8 Total 22 4 26 WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS VISITED AS PART OF THE COURT’S AUDIT: BY LOCATION AND FUNDING SOURCE Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods 
16 TABELA 3 Kohezijski sklad ESRR Skupaj Španija 5 1 6 Portugalska 5 1 6 Grčija 6 0 6 Irska 6 2 8 Skupaj 22 4 26 ČISTILNE NAPRAVE, OBISKANE V OKVIRU REVIZIJE SODIŠČA: PO LOKACIJI IN VIRU FINANCIRANJA Posebno poročilo št.
BACKGROUND 20. 
OZADJE 20.
The purpose of the treatment of domestic and pre-treated industrial waters is to reduce pollutants to an acceptable level which can then be safely absorbed by the receiving water bodies. 
Namen čiščenja gospodinjske in predhodno prečiščene tehnološke vode je zmanjšanje vsebnosti onesnaževal na sprejemljivo raven, ki jo lahko nato sprejemne vode varno sprejmejo.
The quality of the effluent is monitored through the taking of water samples. 
Kakovost odplak se spremlja z odvzemom vzorcev vode.
The Court examined: (a) whether the treatment plants operated at an appropriate capacity; (b) whether the quality of the effluent produced was acceptable; (c) whether the treatment plants were adequately monitored with regard to performance. 
Sodišče je preverilo: (a) ali čistilne naprave delujejo z ustrezno zmogljivostjo; (b) ali je kakovost odplak sprejemljiva; (c) ali se ustrezno spremlja uspešnost čistilnih naprav.
MOST OF THE TREATMENT PLANTS OPERATED AT AN APPROPRIATE CAPACITY... 
VEČINA ČISTILNIH NAPRAV JE OBRATOVALA Z USTREZNO ZMOGLJIVOSTJO, ...
Of the treatment plants visited, 18 out of 26 were deemed to be operating satisfactorily with regard to capacity, having an utilisation rate above 50 %. 
Od 26 obiskanih čistilnih naprav jih je 18 obratovalo z zadovoljivo zmogljivostjo in več kot 50-odstotnim izkoristkom.
In these cases, there was an adequate connection of households and industrial users to the treatment plant. ... 
V teh primerih so bili gospodinjstva in industrijski uporabniki ustrezno priključeni na čistilno napravo. ...
BUT A NUMBER OF TREATMENT PLANTS OPERATED WELL BELOW CAPACITY... 
VENDAR SO ŠTEVILNE OBRATOVALE VELIKO POD SVOJO ZMOGLJIVOSTJO, ...
Plants operating at less than 50 % capacity can be considered as being underutilised. 
Čistilne naprave, ki obratujejo z manj kot 50 % zmogljivosti, so premalo izkoriščene.
In the Court’s sample, seven plants were operating as such and their underutilisation can be explained as follows14: 14 Two treatment plants operated at a capacity of 35 %, four at around 40 % and one at 45 %. Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods 
V vzorcu Sodišča je tako obratovalo sedem čistilnih naprav, njihovo premajhno izkoriščenost pa je mogoče razložiti, kot sledi14: 14 Dve čistilni napravi sta obratovali s 35-odstotno zmogljivostjo, štiri s približno 40-odstotno, ena pa s 45-odstotno. Posebno poročilo št. 3/2009 – Uspešnost porabe iz strukturnih ukrepov za čiščenje odpadne vode za programski obdobji 1994–1999 in 2000–2006
(a) six of the seven cases of underutilisation resulted from problems in completing the network, with many households and industrial users remaining unconnected to the treatment plants despite the plants being five years or more in operation. 
(a) šest od sedmih primerov premajhne izkoriščenosti je bilo posledica težav z dokončanjem omrežja, saj veliko gospodinjstev in industrijskih uporabnikov še vedno ni bilo priključenih na čistilne naprave, čeprav so te delovale pet let ali več.
As a result, not all of the waste water produced in the area was treated; (b) the other plant was operating at lower than planned capacity due to the loss of local industries, which led to a drastic reduction in the quantity of water received for treatment. ... 
Zato vsa odpadna voda s teh območij ni bila očiščena; (b) sedma čistilna naprava je z manjšo zmogljivostjo od načrtovane delovala zaradi izgube lokalne industrije, kar je pripeljalo do velikega zmanjšanja količine odpadne vode. ...
AND ONE TREATMENT PLANT HAD INSUFFICIENT CAPACITY 24. 
ENA PA JE IMELA NEZADOSTNO ZMOGLJIVOST 24.
One plant was operating at full capacity due to the unexpectedly rapid economic growth of the region concerned. 
Ena čistilna naprava je obratovala s polno zmogljivostjo zaradi nepričakovano hitre gospodarske rasti v regiji.
As a result the treatment plant did not have enough capacity to handle its waste water load at the time of the Court’s visit. 
Zato ob obisku Sodišča ni imela zadostne zmogljivosti za obdelavo vhodne odpadne vode.
A LARGE MAJORITY OF THE TREATMENT PLANTS PRODUCED EFFLUENT MEETING EU REQUIREMENTS 25. 
VELIKA VEČINA ČISTILNIH NAPRAV JE PROIZVAJALA ODPLAKE, KI IZPOLNJUJEJO ZAHTEVE EU 25.
The Court assessed the quality of the water discharged by the 73 treatment plants selected against the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive15. 
Sodišče je ocenilo kakovost izpuščene vode iz 73 izbranih čistilnih naprav glede na zahteve direktive o čiščenju komunalne odpadne vode15.
The directive was in turn compared with regulations in existence in non-EU countries with a similar level of economic and social development. 
Direktiva je bila nato primerjana s predpisi v državah zunaj EU s podobno stopnjo gospodarskega in družbenega razvoja.
In 64 cases the quality of the discharged water met EU requirements and Table 4 summarises the results. 
V 64 primerih je kakovost izpuščene vode izpolnjevala zahteve EU, rezultati so povzeti v tabeli 4.
15 Council Directive 91/271/EEC, Annex I, Tables 1 and 2 establish requirements for discharges concerning biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total suspended solids (TSS) for normal areas, and in addition, for sensitive areas, total phosphorus (TP) and/or total nitrogen (TN) (see the Annex). 18 Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods 
15Vtabelah1in2vPrilogiI k Direktivi Sveta 91/271/EGS so določene zahteve za izpuste glede biološke potrebe po kisiku (BPK5), kemične potrebe po kisiku (KPK), skupnih neraztopljenih delcev (ND) za manj občutljiva območja, za občutljiva območja pa poleg tega še skupni fosfor (P) in/ali skupni dušik (N) (glej Prilogo). 18 Posebno poročilo št. 3/2009 – Uspešnost porabe iz strukturnih ukrepov za čiščenje odpadne vode za programski obdobji 1994–1999 in 2000–2006
TABLE 4 Treatment plants audited EU requirements clearly met EU requirements borderline met EU requirements not met Spain 19 9 7 3 Ireland 18 12 5 1 Portugal 18 8 6 4 Greece 18 12 5 1 Total 73 41 23 9 % 100 % 56,2 % 31,5 % 12,3 % PICTURES 14 19 PERFORMANCE OF TREATMENT PLANTS IN THE AUDIT SAMPLE WITH REGARD TO EU EFFLUENT QUALITY REQUIREMENTS EXAMPLES OF TREATMENT PLANTS MEETING EU REQUIREMENTS Picture 1: Psyttalia treatment plant — Greece Picture 2: Febros treatment plant — Portugal Picture 3: León treatment plant — Spain Picture 4: Drogheda treatment plant — Ireland Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods 
TABELA 4 Revidirane čistilne naprave Zahteve EU očitno izpolnjene Zahteve EU komaj izpolnjene Zahteve EU neizpolnjene Španija 19 9 7 3 Irska 18 12 5 1 Portugalska 18 8 6 4 Grčija 18 12 5 1 Skupaj 73 41 23 9 % 100 % 56,2 % 31,5 % 12,3 % SLIKE 14 19 USPEŠNOST ČISTILNIH NAPRAV V REVIDIRANEM VZORCU GLEDE NA ZAHTEVE EU ZA KAKOVOST ODPLAK PRIMERI ČISTILNIH NAPRAV, KI IZPOLNJUJEJO ZAHTEVE EU Slika 1: Čistilna naprava Psitalia, Grčija Slika 2: Čistilna naprava Febros, Portugalska Slika 3: Čistilna naprava León, Španija Slika 4: Čistilna naprava Drogheda, Irska Posebno poročilo št.
As presented in Table 4, in nine cases the quality of the discharged water did not meet EU requirements and the following problems were noted: (a) industrial waste water should normally be pre-treated before being discharged into the municipal sewage system to avoid problems in the performance of the treatment plant. 
Kot je razvidno iz tabele 4, kakovost izpuščene vode v devetih primerih ni izpolnjevala zahtev EU, opažene pa so bile naslednje težave: (a) tehnološka odpadna voda bi morala biti navadno predhodno pre-čiščena pred izpustom v komunalni kanalizacijski sistem, da bi se izognili težavam pri uspešnosti čistilne naprave.
In four treatment plants not meeting EU requirements, the main problems were due to the reception by the plants of water from industrial sources which had not been fully pre-treated and in some cases the operators had not been informed as to the composition of the industrial waste water they were receiving (see Textbox 2); (b) some treatment plants were being operated by local authorities lacking adequate resources and expertise and with no mechanisms in place to be informed of best practice; (c) in other cases poor performance resulted from failure to adequately remove the eutrophication-inducing nutrients due to a lack of appropriate nutrient removal equipment. 
V štirih čistilnih napravah, ki niso izpolnjevale zahtev EU, so bile glavne težave posledica sprejemanja vode iz industrijskih virov, ki ni bila popolnoma predhodno prečiščena, v nekaterih primerih pa upravljavci niso bili seznanjeni s sestavo tehnološke odpadne vode, ki so jo sprejemali (glej Okvir 2); (b) nekatere čistilne naprave so upravljali lokalni organi, ki niso imeli primernih virov in strokovnega znanja ter mehanizmov za seznanjanje z najboljšo prakso; (c) v drugih primerih je bila slaba učinkovitost posledica neustreznega odstranjevanja hranil, ki povzročajo evtrofikacijo, zaradi pomanjkanja ustrezne opreme.
20 TEXTBOX 2 EXAMPLES OF INADEQUATE PRE-TREATMENT OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE WATER In Spain, operators of two of the three treatment plants not meeting standards, noted in their ‘Monthly Operating Reports’ that industries were channelling untreated waste water to their plants which had an adverse impact on performance. 
20 OKVIR 2 PRIMERI NEUSTREZNEGA PREDHODNEGA PREČIŠČENJA TEHNOLOŠKE ODPADNE VODE V Španiji sta upravljavca dveh od treh čistilnih naprav, ki niso izpolnjevale standardov, v mesečnih poročilih o delu zapisala, da industrija v njihovo čistilno napravo odvaja neprečiščeno odpadno vodo, kar negativno vpliva na uspešnost delovanja.
For one of these two plants, 74 of the 93 self-checks carried out during 2006 deviated by more than 100 % from the limits established in the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. 
V eni od teh dveh je 74 od 93 samopreverjanj v letu 2006 za več kot 100 % odstopalo od omejitev iz direktive o čiščenju komunalne odpadne vode.
In Portugal, in two of the four treatment plants not meeting EU requirements, industries were discharging directly into the municipal sewage system without carrying out appropriate pre-treatment. 
Na Portugalskem je v dveh od štirih čistilnih naprav, ki niso izpolnjevale zahtev EU, industrija vode odvajala neposredno v komunalni kanalizacijski sistem brez ustreznega predhodnega čiščenja.
The situation was known to the operators and furthermore had been noted in the reports of the independent body charged with monitoring treatment plant performance. Special Report No 3/2009 — The effectiveness of Structural Measures spending on waste water treatment for the 1994–99 and 2000–06 programme periods 
Upravljavca sta bila s tem seznanjena, poleg tega je bilo to omenjeno v poročilih neodvisnega organa za spremljanje uspešnosti čistilnih naprav. Posebno poročilo št. 3/2009 – Uspešnost porabe iz strukturnih ukrepov za čiščenje odpadne vode za programski obdobji 1994–1999 in 2000–2006
Generally, for the 26 treatment plants visited, the self-checks carried out by the plant operator were in accordance with the standards set out in the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive with regard to their frequency and the sampling methods used. 
Samopreverjanja, ki jih je izvajal upravljavec, so bila v 26 obiskanih čistilnih napravah na splošno skladna s standardi direktive o čiščenju komunalne odpadne vode tako glede pogostosti kot uporabljenih metod vzorčenja.
However, some weaknesses were identified especially at smaller plants: (a) in one case, the frequency of the self-checks was insufficient (five self-checks were carried out in 2006 instead of the 12 required); (b) in three cases the sampling method used was not in compliance with the directive (grab sampling was used while the directive provides for 24h-composite or flow-proportional sampling). 
Vendar so bile zlasti v manjših čistilnih napravah ugotovljene nekatere slabosti: (a) v enem primeru samopreverjanja niso bila dovolj pogosta (leta 2006 jih je bilo izvedenih pet namesto zahtevanih 12); (b) v treh primerih uporabljena metoda vzorčenja ni bila v skladu z direktivo (uporabljen je bil enkratni odvzem, čeprav direktiva določa 24-urni odvzem združenih ali pretočno sorazmernih vzorcev).
During the audit a number of good practices were observed which were additional to the requirements of the directive: (a) operators in treatment plants with a capacity above 50 000 p.e. were performing more self-checks than the 24 required by the directive16. 
Med revizijo je bilo opaženih več dobrih praks, ki so se izvajale poleg zahtev direktive: (a) upravljavci čistilnih naprav z zmogljivostjo več kot 50 000 PE so izvajali več kot 24 samopreverjanj, ki jih zahteva direktiva16.
In the 14 such plants visited , the number of samples taken per year varied from 38 to 365; (b) three of the four Member States visited operate a system of discharge licences establishing the discharged water requirements for each treatment plant (although some of the treatment plants visited in those Member States were operating without licences or with out of date licences). 
V 14 od obiskanih naprav se je število letno odvzetih vzorcev gibalo med 38 in 365; (b) tri od štirih obiskanih držav članic imajo vzpostavljen sistem dovoljenj za izpuste, ki določa zahteve za odpadno vodo iz vsake čistilne naprave (čeprav so nekatere od obiskanih čistilnih naprav v teh državah članicah delovale s poteklimi dovoljenji ali brez njih).
The fourth Member State launched its licensing system in 2008. 
Četrta država članica je sistem izdajanja dovoljenj uvedla v letu 2008.
The treatment of waste water results in the discharge of effluent and the production of sewage sludge. 
Pri čiščenju odpadne vode se izpuščajo odplake in nastaja blato.
The EU encourages its use as a fertiliser17, as treated sewage sludge is a good source of phosphorus, nitrogen and potasium. 
EU spodbuja njegovo uporabo za gnojilo17, saj je obdelano blato iz čistilnih naprav bogat vir fosforja, dušika in kalija.
Such use of the sludge makes economic sense for the farmer, being a good use of available resources whilst at the same time being beneficial for the soil. 
Taka uporaba blata je za kmeta gospodarsko smiselna, saj je dober način uporabe razpoložljivih virov, hkrati pa koristi tlom.
However, sewage sludge may also contain harmful contaminants which have to be kept to an acceptable level for the sludge to be used or disposed of safely. 
Vendar lahko blato iz čistilnih naprav vsebuje tudi škodljiva onesnaževala, ki ne smejo preseči sprejemljive ravni, da se blato lahko varno uporablja ali odlaga.
16 Annex I.D of the directive 91/271/EEC. 
16 Priloga I.D k Direktivi 91/271/ EGS.
17 Directive 86/278/EEC and Directive 91/271/EEC. 
17 Direktivi 86/278/EGS in 91/271/EGS.
The Court examined: (a) whether the sludge was disposed of safely, with the EU encourag-ing18 its safe reuse in agriculture and energy generation through incineration, with disposal in municipal landfills being acceptable although recognised as being the least sustainable method; (b) whether when used in agriculture, the sludge and the soil had safe levels of certain substances considered hazardous; (c) whether monitoring at operating plants and Member States provided adequate assurance that the sewage sludge was being disposed of safely. 
Sodišče je preverilo: (a) ali se blato varno odlaga, saj EU spodbuja18 njegovo varno ponovno uporabo v kmetijstvu in pridobivanje energije s sežiganjem, pri čemer je odlaganje na komunalnih odlagališčih sprejemljivo, čeprav velja za najmanj trajnosten način; (b) ali pri uporabi v kmetijstvu blato in tla vsebujeta varne ravni nekaterih nevarnih snovi; (c) ali spremljanje v delujočih čistilnih napravah in državah članicah zagotavlja ustrezno jamstvo, da se blato iz čistilnih naprav varno odlaga.
TWO THIRDS OF THE TREATMENT PLANTS AUDITED DISPOSED OF THE SEWAGE SLUDGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH EU RECOMMENDED PRACTICES 31. 
DVE TRETJINI REVIDIRANIH ČISTILNIH NAPRAV STA BLATO ODLAGALI V SKLADU S PRIPOROČENIMI PRAKSAMI EU 31.
Of the 73 treatment plants in the audit sample, of those following EU recommended reuse methods, 47 chose agriculture and one plant selected the generation of energy through incineration (see Table 5). 
Od 73 čistilnih naprav v revidiranem vzorcu se je 47 od tistih, ki se držijo priporočenih načinov ponovne uporabe EU, odločilo za kmetijstvo, ena pa za proizvodnjo energije s sežiganjem (glej tabelo 5).
18 Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 
18 Direktiva Sveta 75/442/EGS z dne 15. julija 1975 o odpadkih (UL L 194, 25.7.1975, str.