natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20070926IPR10740 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20070323STO04518 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20070423IPR05701 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20070329IPR04856 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20070130IPR02600 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20070926IPR10740 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20081216STO44643 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20070423IPR05701 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20071211IPR14773 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20070130IPR02600 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20061207IPR01148 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20081020IPR39973 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20051017FCS01528 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20071211IPR14773 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT PRESS DN-20041214-1 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20061207IPR01148 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20080902IPR35954 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20051017FCS01528 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20071109IPR12793 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT PRESS DN-20041214-1 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20061207IPR01153 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20080902IPR35954 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20061020IPR11905 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20071109IPR12793 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20080709IPR33858 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20080709IPR33858 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20080408IPR26107 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20080408IPR26107 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20090113IPR46099 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20060210IPR05183 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20060608IPR08814 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20080604IPR30761 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT TA P6-TA-2008-0257 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT PRESS DN-20041202-1 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT PRESS DN-20041202-1 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20070710IPR09049 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20080521IPR29591 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20080521IPR29591 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT PRESS DN-20050113-1 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT PRESS DN-20050113-1 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20060524IPR08482 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20090203IPR48108 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT PRESS TW-20040720-S 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT PRESS TW-20040720-S 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT PRESS DN-20041118-1 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT PRESS DN-20041118-1 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT TA P6-TA-2005-0350 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT TA P6-TA-2005-0350 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20050921IPR00563 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT IM-PRESS 20050921IPR00563 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT TA P6-TA-2008-0363 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT TA P6-TA-2008-0363 0 NOT XML V0//EN
-//EP//TEXT TA P6-TA-2006-0268 0 NOT XML V0//SL
-//EP//TEXT TA P6-TA-2006-0268 0 NOT XML V0//EN
Pomembni dosežki Evropskega parlamenta v zakonodajnem obdobju 2004-2009
Top Stories from the European Parliament 2004-2009
REACH: manj tveganja za okolje in manj bremen za industrijo
REACH: reducing chemical risks without penalising industry
Parlament je decembra 2006 potrdil vseobsežno zakonodajo o kemikalijah, ki industriji nalaga breme dokazovanja, da so njeni izdelki varni.
Ambitious legislation on chemicals, placing the onus on industry to show that its products are safe, was passed by Parliament in December 2006.
Namen zakonodaje je povečati varnost kemijskih izdelkov, zmanjšanje poskusov na živalih ter povečanje konkurenčnosti in obsega trgovanja.
The legislation aims to increase the safety of chemical products and promote alternatives to animal testing, while enhancing competitiveness and facilitating trade.
Uredba, ki je začela veljati junija 2007, je nadomestila približno 40 dotlej veljavnih pravnih aktov s tega področja.
When it entered into force in June 2007, it replaced some 40 previous laws.
V treh letih razprav z Evropsko komisijo in državami članicami je Parlament dosegel korenite spremembe osnutka uredbe, med katere sodijo obveznost zamenjave najnevarnejših snovi z varnejšimi alternativami, kadar so te na voljo, načelo skrbnega ravnanja proizvajalcev z vidika zdravja in okolja ter zahteva po spodbujanju alternativ poskusom na živalih.
In three years' debate with the European Commission and Member States, Parliament made important changes to the draft regulations, which include an obligation to replace the most hazardous substances with safer alternatives where these exist, a manufacturer's "duty of care" for health and the environment, and a requirement to promote alternatives to animal testing.
Uredba REACH, ki jo je Komisija predlagala 29. oktobra 2003, nadomešča približno 40 pravnih aktov.
The REACH regulation, formally proposed by the Commission on 29 October 2003, replaces some 40 previous pieces of legislation.
Njen namen je zbrati več informacij o varnosti in drugih elementih za približno 30.000 snovi, ki so bile prvič dane v promet pred letom 1981 (od tega leta dalje se zahtevajo uradne vloge za avtorizacijo) ter so proizvedene ali uvožene v količini več kot ene tone na leto.
It aims to gather more information on the safety or otherwise of around 30 000 substances first placed on the market before 1981 (since when formal applications for authorisation have been required) and manufactured or imported in quantities of over one tonne per year.
Javno zdravje in konkurenčnost kemične industrije
Public health vs. chemical industry competitiveness
Sodobna družba ne more brez kemikalij, ta industrijska panoga pa je ključnega pomena za gospodarstvo EU.
Modern society cannot do without chemicals and the industry is crucial to the EU economy.
Vendar pa proizvodnja in uporaba kemikalij lahko pomenita tveganje za zdravje in okolje.
But chemical production and use may also pose risks to health and the environment.
Kemikalijam vsaj delno pripisujejo krivdo za povečanje števila obolenj, kot so alergije, astma, nekatere vrste raka in reproduktivne težave.
Chemicals are thought to be at least partly to blame for the rise in ailments such as allergies, asthma, some forms of cancer and reproductive problems.
Informacije pa so nezanesljive, saj v mnogih primerih niso bile izvedene dovolj obsežne raziskave.
But information is inadequate, because in many cases, insufficient research has been done.
Najbolj sporna točka v dolgih in intenzivnih parlamentarnih razpravah je bilo vprašanje, kako najti ravnovesje med varovanjem javnega zdravja in okolja ter zaščito konkurenčnosti kemične industrije.
The most controversial question in long and intensive debates in Parliament was how to balance protecting public health and the environment with safeguarding chemical industry competitiveness.
Na začetku so se stališča političnih skupin in odborov močno razlikovala, zlasti glede zahtev za registracijo in avtorizacijo.
At the outset, views differed markedly between political groups and committees, particularly on registration and authorisation requirements.
Pozneje so se postopoma izoblikovali sporazumni predlogi sprememb, ki jih je potrdila večina v Parlamentu.
Compromise amendments were gradually hammered out to win the backing of a majority in Parliament.
Evropska agencija za kemikalije (ECHA) s sedežem v Helsinkih je začela delovati junija 2007, registracije pa je začela izvajati 1. junija 2008.
The Helsinki-based European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), started work in June 2007 and has been able to accept registrations since 1 June 2008.
Registracija in poročila o varnosti
Registration and safety reports
V skladu z uredbo morajo evropski proizvajalci in uvozniki kemikalij, katerih količina presega eno tono na leto, dokazati njihovo varnost z dokazilom v registracijski dokumentaciji, ki jo predložijo Evropski agenciji za kemikalije.
The approved text requires EU manufacturers and importers of chemicals produced or imported in quantities over one tonne per year to demonstrate their safety with evidence in a registration dossier submitted to the European Chemicals Agency.
Če registracija ne bo uspešna, bosta uvoz ali proizvodnja te snovi v Uniji prepovedana.
Failure to register will mean the substance must not be imported or manufactured in the EU.
Poslanci Evropskega parlamenta in Svet so se končno strinjali o zmanjšanju zahtev po informacijah za registracijo snovi, ki se proizvajajo v količinah, manjših od 10 ton na leto.
MEPs and the Council finally agreed to reduce information requirements for the registration of substances produced in quantities of less than 10 tonnes per year.
Avtorizacija nevarnih snovi
Authorisation of hazardous substances
Uredba REACH zahteva tudi avtorizacijo snovi, ki "zbujajo veliko skrb".
REACH also requires authorisation of substances rated as being “of very high concern”.
Avtorizacija je bila za Parlament ena od najbolj spornih zadev, doseženi kompromis pa je v središče zakonodaje vnovič postavil varovanje okolja in zdravja s časovno omejitvijo avtorizacij za najbolj nevarne snovi ter z zahtevo po njihovi zamenjavi z varnejšimi alternativami, ko te postanejo razpoložljive.
This authorisation was one of the most controversial issues in Parliament, whose compromise restores environment and health protection to the heart of the system by limiting the duration of authorisations for the most hazardous substances and requiring that they be replaced with safer alternatives as these become available.
Ocene kažejo, da naj bi bilo med 30.000 snovmi, ki jih je treba registrirati v skladu z uredbo REACH, približno 3.000 nevarnih snovi, za katere se bo uporabljal zahtevnejši postopek avtorizacije – kar pa še ne zagotavlja, da bodo lahko še naprej ostale na tržišču.
It is estimated that of the 30 000 substances to be registered with REACH around 3 000 are considered hazardous and hence are subject to the strict authorisation procedure – with no guarantee that they will be able to remain on the market.
Dokazno breme
Burden of proof
Uredba REACH prenaša dokazno breme (tj. preskušanje in evalvacijo kemikalij, da se dokaže njihova varnost) z inšpekcijskih organov na industrijo.
REACH transfers the burden of proof (i.e. testing and evaluating chemicals to establish their safety) from the authorities to industry.
V okviru prejšnjega sistema ni bilo ocenjenih približno 100.000 kemikalij, ki so že v prometu.
The old regulatory structure had failed to assess the estimated 100 000 chemicals already on the market.
Za okoli 140 kemikalij je bilo v zadnjih 25 letih ugotovljeno, da je treba zanje izdelati celotno oceno tveganja, vendar jih je bilo preučenih le 40.
Over 20-25 years about 140 had been identified as needing a full risk assessment; of those, only 40 had been studied.
Dolžnost skrbnega ravnanja in poskusi na živalih
Duty of care and animal testing
Na zahtevo Parlamenta nalaga uredba proizvajalcem tudi dolžnost skrbnega ravnanja, da bi se tako preprečili škodljivi vplivi na zdravje ljudi in okolje, javnost pa mora biti bolje seznanjena z morebitnimi nevarnostmi.
At Parliament's request, the regulation also imposes a "duty of care" on manufacturers to ensure that human health and the environment are not adversely affected and to inform the public of dangers.
Zakonodaja predvideva tudi varovanje zaupnih informacij in prinaša določbe za preprečevanje podvajanja poskusov na živalih.
It also includes safeguards for confidential information and provisions to prevent the duplication of animal testing.
Spodbujanje iskanja alternativ za preskušanje kemikalij na živalih je bila najpomembnejša skrb poslancev Evropskega parlamenta, zdaj pa je eden od ciljev uredbe REACH.
Promoting alternatives to testing chemicals on animals was a prime concern for MEPs, and is now a REACH goal.
Zaradi njenih ciljev, področja uporabe in tehnične kompleksnosti je uredba REACH eden najobsežnejših zakonodajnih aktov, ki jih doslej obravnaval Evropski parlament.
Its ambition, scope and technical complexity made REACH one of the most substantial pieces of legislation ever examined by the European Parliament.
Sodelovalo je kar 10 parlamentarnih odborov in besedilo, ki je v prvi obravnavi novembra 2005 presegalo 1.000 strani, je na koncu še vedno obsegalo 750 strani.
No fewer than 10 parliamentary committees were involved and the text, which exceeded 1,000 pages at first reading in November 2005, was still 750 pages long at the end.
2006) Izjave pred zaključnim plenarnim glasovanjem (13.
Not all political groups were happy with the final outcome.
2006) Sporočilo za javnost (13.
By contrast, Dutch MEP Hans Blokland (IND/DEM) consoled critics by saying that "the better is the enemy of the good.
2006) Evropska agencija za kemikalije (ECHA) Spletna stran Komisije o uredbi REACH
1999/45/EC and Reg. on persistent organic pollutants) European Chemicals Agency European Commission homepage on REACH
Dejavnosti CIA v Evropi: Parlament razkril nepreglednost nekaterih članic EU
CIA activities in Europe: European Parliament denounces secretiveness of some Member States
Začasni odbor Evropskega parlamenta za dejavnosti ameriške obveščevalne agencije CIA v Evropi je ugotovil, da je agencija uporabila evropski zračni prostor za več kot tisoč letov svojih letal, v ameriških vojaških oporiščih po Evropi pa so morda obstajali tajni objekti za pridržanje oseb.
Over one thousand CIA flights used European airspace and secret detention facilities may have been located at US military bases in Europe, according to the European Parliament’s Temporary Committee on CIA activities.
Končno poročilo, sprejeto leta 2007, obžaluje pasivnost nekaterih držav članic Unije ob nezakonitih dejavnostih agencije CIA in pomanjkanje sodelovanja s Svetom.
Its final report, adopted in 2007, deplores the passivity of some Member States in the face of illegal CIA operations and also the Council’s lack of cooperation.
Končno poročilo začasnega odbora, ki ga je Parlament sprejel na plenarnem zasedanju 14. februarja 2007, navaja, da so določene evropske države namenoma spregledale lete agencije CIA, katerih namen je bil v nekaterih primerih izredna izročitev ali nezakonit prevoz zapornikov.
According to the Temporary Committee’s final report, adopted by Parliament on 14 February 2007, certain European countries have been ‘turning a blind eye’ to flights operated by the CIA which ‘on some occasions were being used for extraordinary rendition or the illegal transportation of detainees’.
Poročilo poudarja, da so bili tajni objekti za pridržanje v nekaterih primerih morda v ameriških vojaških oporiščih in da evropske države gostiteljice teh oporišč morda niso nadzorovale v zadostni meri.
The report highlights that ‘secret detention facilities in European countries may have been located at US military bases’ and that ‘there may have been a lack of control’ over these bases by host European countries.
Parlament je zato izrazil pričakovanje, da bo Svet izvajal pritisk na vse zadevne vlade, da podajo Svetu in Komisiji izčrpne podatke in, kjer je potrebno, začel z zaslišanji in takoj naročil neodvisno preiskavo.
With the above in mind, Parliament asked the Council to ‘put pressure on all the governments concerned to give full and thorough information to the Council and the Commission and, where necessary, to start hearings and commission an independent investigation without delay’.
Poleti agencije CIA
CIA flights
Letala, ki jih je upravljala CIA, so od konca leta 2001 do konca leta 2005 opravila najmanj 1245 letov v evropskem zračnem prostoru ali imela postanke na evropskih letališčih, vendar niso bili vsi leti uporabljeni za izredne izročitve.
‘At least 1 245 flights operated by the CIA flew into European airspace or stopped over at European airports between the end of 2001 and the end of 2005’, although, as emphasised by MEPs, ‘not all those flights were used for extraordinary rendition’.
V delovnih dokumentih, ki jih je objavil poročevalec Claudio Fava, so navedene dodatne informacije o izrednih izročitvah, kakor tudi o podjetjih, povezanih z ameriško obveščevalno agencijo, ter o evropskih državah, kjer so letala opravljala postanke.
Working documents published by rapporteur Claudio Fava ‘provide strong evidence of the extraordinary renditions analysed by the committee, as well as of the companies linked to the CIA ... and the European countries in which CIA aircraft made stopovers’.
V poročilu poslanci omenjajo 21 dobro dokumentiranih primerov izrednih izročitev, ko je prevoz potekal prek ozemlja evropske države ali pa so bile žrtve v času ugrabitve zakoniti stalni prebivalci države članice.
In their report, MEPs mention 21 well-documented cases of extraordinary rendition in which victims were transported via a European country or were residents in a Member State at the time of their kidnapping.
Poročilo zato evropske države poziva, naj nedolžnim žrtvam izrednih izročitev izplačajo odškodnino.
With this in mind, the report ‘calls on European countries to compensate the innocent victims of extraordinary rendition’.
Parlament je obsodil izredne izročitve kot nezakonit instrument, ki ga Združene države Amerike uporabljajo v boju proti terorizmu in obsodil dejstvo, da so bile tajne službe ter drugi vladni organi nekaterih evropskih držav večkrat pripravljeni sprejeti in prikriti ta dejanja.
Parliament therefore condemned these renditions ‘as an illegal instrument used by the United States in the fight against terrorism’ and also ‘the acceptance and concealing of the practice, on several occasions, by the secret services and governmental authorities of certain European countries’.
Svet EU in članice je pozval, naj pripravijo jasno in prepričljivo izjavo, s katero bodo od ameriške administracije zahtevali odpravo prakse izrednih aretacij in izročitev.
As a result, MEPs called on the Council and the Member States ‘to issue a clear and forceful declaration calling on the US Government to put an end to the practice of extraordinary arrests and renditions’.
Poročilo ugotavlja, da so izročitve v večini primerov vključevale pridržanje v osamitvi in mučenje med zaslišanji, kar so potrdile same žrtve ali njihovi odvetniki, ki so pričali pred začasnim odborom.
The report notes that the renditions analysed by the Temporary Committee in the majority of cases involved incommunicado detention and torture during interrogation, as confirmed by the victims – or their lawyers – who gave testimony to Parliament’s Temporary Committee on the CIA’s illegal activities in Europe.
Pričevanje nekdanjega britanskega veleposlanika v Uzbekistanu Craiga Murrayja je tudi pokazalo, da je bilo posredovanje podatkov, pridobljenih z mučenjem, običajna praksa sodelovanja obveščevalnih služb tretjih držav z britanskimi obveščevalnimi službami, o kateri je bila britanska vlada obveščena in jo je dopuščala.
According to the testimony of the former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan, Mr Craig Murray, the sharing of intelligence obtained under torture by third countries’ secret services with the British secret services was a practice known and tolerated by the UK Government.
V luči vseh dokazov poslanci ugotavljajo, da obstaja velika verjetnost, da so nekatere evropske države lahko prejele podatke, pridobljene z mučenjem.
In light of the available evidence, MEPs note that there is a ‘strong possibility that some European countries may have received [ …] information obtained under torture’.
Zavračanje sodelovanja
Reluctance to cooperate
Poslanci so nezadovoljni zaradi slabega sodelovanja številnih držav članic in Sveta EU z začasnim odborom in menijo, da je znatno pomanjkanje konkretnih odgovorov na vprašanja, ki jih postavljajo žrtve, nevladne organizacije, mediji in poslanci, le še potrdilo resničnost že znanih obtožb.
MEPs also regretted ‘the lack of cooperation of many Member States’ and of the Council of the European Union towards the Temporary Committee and explained that ‘the serious lack of concrete answers to the questions raised by victims, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), the media and parliamentarians has only served to strengthen the validity of already well-documented allegations’.
Svet je najprej prikrival podatke, nato pa na zahtevo Evropskega parlamenta posredoval le delne podatke o rednih razgovorih z visokimi uradniki ameriške vlade.
The Council, they explained, had initially withheld and then supplied only piecemeal information on the regular discussions held with senior US officials.
Poročilo to dejstvo ocenjuje kot popolnoma nesprejemljivo.
The report qualifies this attitude as ‘wholly unacceptable’.
Kot lahko beremo v poročilu, pa te pomanjkljivosti v delovanju Sveta mečejo slabo luč na vse vlade držav članic, saj imajo kot članice Sveta EU skupno odgovornost.
According to the report, such ‘shortcomings’ of the Council ‘implicate all Member State governments since they have collective responsibility as members of the Council’.
Poslanci še navajajo, da se pri tem ni upoštevalo načelo poštenega sodelovanja, ki je zapisano v pogodbah EU in države članice ter evropske institucije zavezuje k spoštovanju pogodbenih obveznosti, med drugim k spoštovanju človekovih pravic.
As highlighted by MEPs in the report, the ‘principle of loyal cooperation enshrined in the Treaties – which requires Member States and the EU institutions to take measures to ensure the fulfilment of their obligations under the Treaties, such as the respect for human rights, ... has not been respected’.
Poročilo je zaradi nesodelovanja s preiskovalci EP še posebej kritično do vlad Avstrije, Italije, Poljske, Portugalske in Velike Britanije.
The national governments specifically criticised for their unwillingness to cooperate with Parliament’s investigators were those of Austria, Italy, Poland, Portugal and the United Kingdom.
Končno poročilo je Parlament sprejel s 382 glasovi za, 256 glasovi proti in 74 vzdržanimi glasovi.
The final report gained far from unanimous approval: it was approved with 382 votes in favour, 256 against and 74 abstentions.
Poročevalec Claudio Fava je bil sicer z izidom zadovoljen, saj je dokument zavrnila le tretjina poslancev.
The rapporteur, Giovanni Claudio Fava (PES, IT), declared himself ‘satisfied with the vote’ as only a third of MEPs rejected his report.
Po njegovem mnenju se v tem kaže "avtonomija Evropskega parlamenta v odnosu do nacionalnih vlad.".
He said that this reflected ‘the autonomy of the European Parliament from national governments’.
Liberalizacija storitev brez poseganja v evropski socialni model
Liberalising services without touching the European social model: mission accomplished for the EP
Od konca leta 2009 bodo lahko ponudniki storitev – od potovalnih agentov do čistilk – svoj poklic opravljali kjer koli v Evropski uniji, saj bo v veljavo stopil eden od najpomembnejših elementov zakonodaje, s katerimi se je Evropski parlament ukvarjal v zadnjih letih.
As from the end of 2009, service providers – from travel agents to office maintenance staff – will be able to pursue their occupation anywhere in the EU thanks to the entry into force of one of the most important texts dealt with by the European Parliament over the past few years.
Direktiva o storitvah, ki jo je leta 2004 predlagal takratni komisar za notranji trg Frits Bolkestein, je bila sporna za precejšen del EU, potem ko jo je Parlament popolnoma preoblikoval, pa je za večino postala sprejemljiva.
The ‘Services Directive’, proposed by Commissioner Bolkestein in 2004, had aroused deep concern throughout the EU until it was completely rewritten by the EP, ultimately achieving an acceptable result.
Namen direktive je uresničitev četrte temeljne evropske svoboščine - prostega pretoka storitev - ne da bi se s tem znižali socialni standardi v posameznih državah članicah.
The aim of this directive is to realise the fourth fundamental freedom underpinning European integration, after the free movement of persons, goods and capital, without lowering the social standards of the Member States.
Pri tem izzivu je bilo najtežje uskladiti interese potrošnikov, delavcev in ponudnikov storitev, saj je šlo za konflikt med zagovorniki liberalizacije in zagovorniki socialnih standardov.
The difficulty of the issue at hand was to balance the interests of consumers, workers and service providers, against a background of conflict between advocates of liberalisation and defenders of social standards.
Terciarni sektor predstavlja skoraj dve tretjini evropskega gospodarstva.
The tertiary sector accounts for almost two-thirds of the EU economy.