natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Vprašanje je, kako strogi pogoji naj za potrditev/odobritev veljajo: ali naj država članica postopke potrditve izvaja za vsak primer posebej?
The question is how rigorous a clearance/ approval on this basis would have to be: would a Member State operate clearance procedures on a case-by-case basis?
Ali naj se vsakič sklicuje na Komisijo?
Would there be a reference to the Commission each time?
Morda se najboljši predlog ali vsaj eden od predlogov skriva v zamisli odbora, da bi Komisija izdelala smernice za potek analize življenjskega cikla odpadkov.
Perhaps, the best course - or at least one suggestion - is contained in the committee's idea that the Commission might establish guidelines as to how life cycle analysis might work.
Nato se je potrebno vprašati, kaj sledi.
Then there is the question of what happens next.
Potrebni so namreč nadaljnji ukrepi za določitev tega, kateri tokovi odpadkov bodo zajeti v določbe iz člena 11 in se jih bo preneslo iz kategorije odpadkov v kategorijo proizvodov.
We need further action to determine which waste streams will be covered by the provisions of Article 11 and moved from categorisation as waste to classification as a product.
V predlogu spremembe odbora k členu 11, novi odstavek 3a, je naveden časovni načrt za prihodnje delovanje Komisije.
The committee's amendment to Article 11, new paragraph 3a, sets out an agenda for future action by the Commission.
Kar zadeva vprašanje postopka, poročevalka meni, da se v direktivi preveč zanaša na uporabo postopka komitologije, kot je naveden v sklepu Sveta št. 1999/468/ES.
On the question of procedure, the rapporteur concludes that there is far too great a reliance in the directive on the use of the commitology process, as set out in Council Decision 1999/468/EC.
V različnih členih direktive se namreč enajstkrat omenja sklepe, ki naj bi se jih predložilo v postopek komitologije.
The Directive contains 11 references in various articles to decisions that are to be referred to the commitology process.
Vendar pa je treba upoštevati razliko med uporabo komitologije za tehnične prilagoditve in njenim izkoriščanjem za sprejemanje odločitev bolj splošnega in zelo političnega značaja, ki pa jih je najbolj primerno sprejeti v postopku soodločanja.
But a distinction needs to be made between using commitology for technical adaptations, and misusing it to take decisions of a more general, highly political nature, that are best taken through the codecision process.
Iz tega sledi predlog, da bi se postopek komitologije uporabljalo za člen 5 (določitev meril učinkovitosti), člen 11 (določitev meril za to, kdaj odpadek postane proizvod) in člen 21 (minimalni standardi za dovoljenja).
For this reason, it is suggested that we move to the codecision procedure in article 5 (to establish efficiency criteria), in Article 11 (to establish criteria for when waste becomes a product) and in Article 21 (minimum standards for permits.)
Razprava o spremembah postopka komitologije je sicer v teku, vendar pa poročevalka ne verjame, da bo poslancem Evropskega parlamenta prinesla več moči pri uporabi veta ali pa zagotovila večjo vlogo zunanjih interesnih skupin.
Changes to the Commitology process are certainly under discussion but the rapporteur is not optimistic that they will add up to more powers for MEPs to veto a decision, or to more involvements by outside interests.
Državam članicam in Komisiji namreč ustreza, da je postopek, kar se da zaprt.
It suits the Member States and Commission to keep the process as closed as possible.
Zaradi tega se moramo odločno upreti nedopustni zlorabi demokratičnega sprejemanja odločitev.
That is why we must resolutely resist its inappropriate encroachment on democratic decision taking.
Direktiva zajema obstoječe direktive o nevarnih odpadkih in odpadnih oljih.
The Directive encompasses the existing directives on hazardous waste and waste oils.
Ne glede na to je bil k členu 18 vključen predlog spremembe, ki spodbuja k regeneraciji odpadnih olj.
One amendment to article18 in the direction of the promotion of waste oil regeneration has however been included.
Vprašanje, kaj bo v skladu z direktivo sodilo v postopek predelave in kaj v postopek odstranjevanja, je bistvenega pomena.
The question of what will qualify under the Directive as a recovery process and what will qualify as a disposal process is a vital one.
Direktiva uvaja razvrstitev, ki je zasnovana na merilih učinkovitosti iz člena 5.
The Directive introduces a qualification based on efficiency criteria in article 5.
Merila so navedena v Prilogi II, razdelek R1.
The criteria are set out in Annex II, section R1.
Točnejših podatkov o tem, kakšne gospodarske in socialne posledice bi sprožilo izvajanje omenjenih meril, ne prinašajo ne direktiva, ne tematska strategija in ne priložena ocena vplivov.
Neither the Directive, nor the thematic strategy nor the impact assessment attached to it gives any details at all of the likely economic and social impact of the application of these criteria.
Glede na kratek časovni rok, predviden za začetek izvajanja novih standardov, se zdi malo verjetno, da bodo delujoči izvajalci postopke sposobni pravočasno prilagoditi.
Given the short time scale before the new standards are supposed to apply, it seems unlikely that existing operators could adjust their processes in time.
Zelo verjetno je, da bodo nova merila vplivala na obstoječe pogodbe in da bodo v škodo službam in načrtom lokalnih oblasti za ravnanje z odpadki.
The new criteria are highly likely to cut across existing contracts and may damage jobs and local authority waste plans.
Podatki iz Francije kažejo, da le 14 od skupno 85 delujočih obratov ustreza izbranim merilom predelave.
Evidence from France suggests that out of a total of 85 existing plants, only 14 could satisfy the recovery criteria chosen.
Ne bi bilo prav, da bi v času, ko je povsod polno predlogov za izboljšanje ocenjevanja vplivov, izpustili oceno o tako bistvenem vidiku direktive.
It cannot be right that at a time when the air is thick with suggestions for making impact assessment more efficient, we should miss such an assessment out completely on this crucial aspect of the Directive.
Ob koncu naj omenimo, da vsebuje direktiva dva niza predlogov za načrte in programe ravnanja z odpadki.
Finally, the Directive contains two sets of proposals for waste plans and programmes.
V predlogih sprememb odbora so ohranjeni splošni cilji spodbujanja načrtov za ravnanje z odpadki in programov za preprečevanje nastajanja odpadkov.
The committee's amendments retain the overall objective of encouraging planning for waste plans and prevention programmes.
Vendar pa predlagane spremembe zagotavljajo manj birokratske podrobne zahteve, ki so, v skladu z načelom subsidiarnosti, bolj prilagojene različnim lokalnim pogojem.
But the changes proposed make the detailed requirements less bureaucratic and better matched, in tune with the principle of subsidiarity, with differing local conditions.
Prav tako se moramo vprašati, kaj natančno namerava Komisija storiti s preobilico načrtov in programov, ki jih bo morala nadzorovati.
We should also ask what precisely the Commission is going to do with the plethora of plans and programmes that it will now have to monitor.
Stalen nadzor je bolje prepustiti Evropski agenciji za okolje.
Such continuous monitoring is better left to the work of the European Environment Agency.
Ta v direktivi ni omenjena, vendar bi zagotovo morala igrati ključno vlogo pri zagotavljanju tega, da so države članice v boju proti odpadkom in za boljšo uporabo virov v koraku druga z drugo.
The Agency is not mentioned in the Directive but should surely play a key role in ensuring that Member States are broadly in step with each other in the war against waste and for the better use of resources.
predlogu Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o odpadkih
on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste
Namen spremembe direktive 75/442/EGS, predložene Parlamentu, je nedvomno posodobiti nekatere vidike, kot denimo vključiti okoljske cilje in popraviti pomanjkljivosti opredelitev in drugih načel, ki so po mnenju številnih sektorjev in strokovnjakov ena od šibkih točk predhodne direktive.
The revision of directive 75/442/EEC which has been submitted to Parliament undoubtedly seeks to update some aspects, such as introducing environmental objectives and remedying shortcomings in the definitions and other concepts which, in the view of many sectors and experts, are one of the weak points of the previous directive.
Poleg teh jasno navedenih ciljev so še drugi predlogi: prvič, poenostaviti sedanji pravni okvir in drugič, predlagati razveljavitev Direktive 75/439/EGS o odstranjevanju odpadnih olj in okvirno Direktivo Sveta 91/689/EGS o nevarnih odpadkih.
In addition to these clearly stated objectives there are other proposals: (1) to simplify the current legal framework; (2) to propose repeal of Directive 75/439/EC on the disposal of waste oils and Council Framework Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste.
Iz celotnega besedila je jasno razvidna tudi namera, da se odpravi hierarhija odpadkov in določanje prednosti, ki sta bili ključni značilnosti politike EU glede ravnanja z odpadki v prejšnjih desetletjih.
There is also a clear intention throughout the text not to perpetuate the hierarchies of waste and prioritisation which have been an essential feature of EU waste policy in previous decades.
Potreba po poenostavljanju je zlasti zaskrbljujoča pri direktivi o nevarnih odpadkih, ki jo je družba sprejela in uspešno izvajala.
This urge towards simplification is particularly worrying in the case of the directive on hazardous waste, a directive that society had accepted and applied with relative success.
Njena razveljavitev bi utegnila za seboj pustiti praznino brez zadostnih zaščitnih ukrepov v enem od sektorjev z najvišjim tveganjem.
Its repeal could leave a vacuum without sufficient safeguards in one of the sectors most fraught with risks.
Če je treba določiti prednostno nalogo, je po našem mnenju to prva in najjasnejša.
If there is a proposal for prioritisation, we consider that this should be the first and clearest.
V zvezi z odpadnimi olji naš predlog upošteva njihovo uporabnost in se zaveda dejstva, da ne smejo škodovati obstoječi industriji in tržišču.
With regard to waste oil, our proposal takes account of its usefulness and the need not to harm the existing industry and market.
Glavni razlog za spremembo zakonodaje so številne sodbe Sodišča v Luksemburgu zoper vrsto držav, ki niso izvedle prenosa evropske zakonodaje, so to storile prepočasi ali so, lahko bi rekli, neustrezno opredelile osnovne pojme iz predhodnih direktiv.
The main reason to revise the legislation is the numerous judgments issued by the Court of Justice in Luxembourg against various countries for failure to transpose the European legislation, or their slowness in doing so, or what could be called an insufficient definition of the basic concepts in the previous directives.
S tem, ko skuša predlog izboljšati nekatere pomanjkljivosti, namreč povzroča nove.
This proposal, while seeking to remedy some deficiencies, has added others.
Za vse opredelitve so se za referenco uporabile opredelitve Sodišča iz obrazložitev njegovih sodb.
For all the definitions, the reference text has been the definitions drawn up by the Court of Justice in its explanations of decisions.
Druga novost predloga direktive je vpliv odpadkov na okolje, ki zajema dve oceni: tveganje, ki ga odpadki povzročajo za zdravje in okolje, ter stroške energije za recikliranje in predelavo odpadkov.
Another innovation in this draft directive is the environmental impact of waste, including two assessments: risks posed by waste to health and the environment, and also the energy costs of recycling and recovery.
Zato se je uvedel nov pojem življenjskega cikla , ki ga je treba upoštevati pred sprejemanjem odločitev o obstoječih alternativah za ravnanje z odpadki.
Thus a new concept (the ‘life cycle’) has been introduced, which must be taken into account before decisions are taken on the alternatives which exist to deal with waste.
Pristop življenjskega cikla mora izrecno vsebovati oceno stroškov za energijo.
The life cycle approach must specifically include assessment of energy costs.
Kljub temu, da je ocena življenjskega cikla teoretično zelo dobra in se zdi vključitev stroškov energije v postopek odločanja logična, pa je stvar dejansko dosti bolj zapletena in življenjski cikel lahko postane zelo nevaren kriterij.
Although on paper the life cycle assessment is very ‘good’, and it seems logical to include energy costs in the decision-making process, the reality is much more complex, and it can become a particularly dangerous criterion.
S tem namenom pri eni od uvodnih izjav in členu pozivamo, da se opredelitev življenjskega cikla znanstveno preuči, da se pripravijo različni in odprti predlogi glede na vrsto odpadkov, območje in prevoz, kalorično zmogljivost, gospodarske ukrepe in drugo ter da so države članice odgovorne za izvedbo, saj za vsak posamezen primer dobro poznajo obstoječe odpadke, stroške zanje in tehnično zmogljivost.
Therefore in one recital and article we call for a scientific study of the definition of the life cycle, and for diverse and flexible proposals depending on types of waste, territories, transport, calorific capacity, economic measures, etc and for the Member States to be responsible for carrying this out, since in each case they have expert knowledge of existing waste, costs and technical capacity.
Ključno vprašanje v zvezi s tem je, ali direktiva daje prednost predelavi in recikliranju ali odlaganju odpadkov.
The fundamental question in this directive is whether the priority should lie in recovery and recycling rather than disposal.
V zadnjih tridesetih letih sta se v Evropi dobro razvila industrija in tržišče za recikliranje in predelavo odpadkov in zdi se samoumevno, da nova direktiva v ta proces ne sme posegati s tem, da daje prednost odlaganju odpadkov.
A major industry and market for recycling and recovery has developed in Europe in the last 30 years and it seems logical that this new directive should not interfere with this process by giving priority to disposal.
Po drugi strani pa ostaja stališče, da je treba zmanjšati stroške za energijo in možnost, da se energijo lahko proizvaja iz odpadkov, nas vodi v razmišljanje, da na odlaganje gledamo kot alternativo, ki bi v prihodnosti lahko nadomestila nekatere postopke recikliranja.
On the other hand, another view maintains that energy expenditure must be reduced, and the possibility of producing energy from waste obliges us to consider disposal as an alternative which in future could replace some recycling operations.
Nedvomno ne smemo pozabiti, da je glavni cilj direktive kar se da zmanjšati tveganje, povezano z odpadki, preprečiti nastajanje odpadkov in kar se da izkoristiti vire in proizvode, kar pomeni, da je izginotje preteklih in sedanjih odlagališč ter njihova predelava in odstranitev prednostna naloga.
Certainly we cannot forget that the main objective of this directive is to reduce as far as possible the risks associated with waste, prevent its creation and make the maximum possible use of resources and products, which means that the disappearance of previous or current waste dumps, and the recovery or removal of them is a priority.
Treba je torej upoštevati podatke o pridobivanju energije, ki morajo biti rezultat znanstvenih študij, v katerih se analizirajo vse kategorije proizvodov.
Consequently, the figures for energy recovery which should come from scientific studies in which each category of products is analysed, must be taken into account.
Odbor za industrijo, raziskave in energetiko poziva Odbor za okolje, javno zdravje in varnost hrane, kot pristojni odbor, da v svoje poročilo vključi naslednje predloge sprememb:
The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy calls on the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:
(2) Sklep št. 1600/2002/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 22. julija 2002 o šestem okoljskem akcijskem programu Skupnosti zahteva razvoj ali spremembo zakonodaje o odpadkih med drugim vključno s pojasnitvijo razlikovanja med odpadki in ne-odpadki in razvoj ustreznih meril za nadaljnjo pripravo Prilog IIA in IIB Direktive 75/442/EGS.
(2) Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002 laying down the sixth Community Environment Action Programme calls for development or revision of the legislation on wastes, including, inter alia, clarification of the distinction between waste and non-waste and development of adequate criteria for the further elaboration of Annexes IIA and IIB to Directive 75/442/EEC.
(2) Sklep št. 1600/2002/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 22. julija 2002 o šestem okoljskem akcijskem programu Skupnosti zahteva oblikovanje in izvedbo ukrepov za preprečevanje nastajanja odpadkov in ravnanje z njimi, med drugim z oblikovanjem niza količinskih in kakovostnih ciljev za zmanjševanje odpadkov, ki zajemajo vse zadevne odpadke in ki bodo doseženi do leta 2010; spodbujanje ekološko prijaznega in trajnostnega oblikovanja proizvodov; oblikovanje operativnih ukrepov za spodbudo preprečevanja odpadkov, kot je s spodbujanjem ponovne uporabe in predelave, opuščanjem nekaterih snovi in surovin s pomočjo ukrepov o proizvodih; razvoj ali spremembo zakonodaje o odpadkih med drugim vključno z gradbenimi odpadki in odpadki, ki nastanejo pri rušenju objektov, biološko razgradljivimi odpadki , s pojasnitvijo razlikovanja med odpadki in ne-odpadki in razvoj ustreznih meril za nadaljnjo pripravo Prilog IIA in IIB Direktive 75/442/EGS.
(2) Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002 laying down the sixth Community Environment Action Programme calls for developing and implementing measures on waste prevention and management by, inter alia, developing a set of quantitative and qualitative reduction targets covering all relevant waste, to be achieved by 2010; encouraging ecologically sound and sustainable product design; the formulation of operational measures to encourage waste prevention, e.g. by stimulating re-use and recovery, the phasing out of certain substances and materials through product-related measures; the development or revision of the legislation on wastes, including, inter alia, construction and demolition waste, biodegradable wastes, clarification of the distinction between waste and non-waste and development of adequate criteria for the further elaboration of Annexes IIA and IIB to Directive 75/442/EEC.
Komisija je izbrala le nekaj prednostnih ukrepov za izpolnjevanje ciljev iz člena 8 šestega okoljskega akcijskega programa o trajnostni uporabi naravnih virov in ravnanju z njimi ter ravnanju z odpadki.
The Commission cherry-picked only a few of the priority actions for the pursuit of the objectives laid down in Article 8 of the 6EAP on the sustainable use and management of natural resources and wastes.
Pomembno je v celoti predstaviti prednostne ukrepe šestega okoljskega akcijskega programa, ki so tukaj uporabni.
It is important to fully represent the priority actions of the 6EAP that are applicable here.
(6a) Treba je izvesti analizo življenjskega cikla proizvodov in surovin, pri čemer naj se upošteva novost in kompleksnost pojma.
(6a) An analysis should be carried out of the life cycle of categories of products and materials, taking account of the novelty and complexity of that concept.
Kriteriji morajo biti gospodarski in okoljski, vključevati morajo dejavnike, kot so prevoz, stroški za energijo, mogoče tehnologije in z njimi povezani stroški, ter morajo temeljiti na povsem znanstvenem pristopu.
The criteria should be economic and environmental, including factors such as transport, energy expenditure, technologies that may be used and their cost, from a purely scientific point of view.
Pri določanju kriterijev morajo dejavno sodelovati vsi, ki jih to zadeva, tako industrija in organi javne uprave kot potrošniki.
All those concerned – industry, public administrations and consumers – should participate in drawing up the criteria.
(10a) Cilj zakonodaje o odpadkih mora biti zmanjšanje uporabe naravnih virov, hkrati pa mora spodbujati uporabo hierarhije ravnanja z odpadki.
(10a) Waste legislation should aim at reducing the use of natural resources, and foster the application of the waste hierarchy.
Zato izvajanje te hierarhije prinaša okoljske koristi in prispeva k učinkoviti uporabi naravnih virov in zmanjšanju odvisnosti od energije, saj spodbuja zmanjševanje količine odpadkov in njihovo recikliranje.
Therefore to apply waste hierarchy leads to environmental gains, contribute to the efficient use of natural resources and the reduction of energy dependency, by promoting the minimization of waste production and the material recycling of wastes.
(17a) Države članice lahko za odpadke, namenjene sežigu, pri čemer se proizvaja energija, uporabljajo načela bližine in samozadostnosti in se nanje sklicujejo, s tem, da omogočijo ustrezno načrtovanje naprav za ravnanje z odpadki in zagotavljajo, da se vnetljivim odpadkom, nastalim na njihovem ozemlju, omogoči dostop do nacionalnih sežigalnih naprav.
(17a) Member States should be free to invoke and apply the principles of proximity and self-sufficiency to waste destined for incineration with energy recovery, so as to allow for adequate planning of treatment capacity and to ensure that combustible waste produced within their territory is given access to national incineration facilities.
Zaradi njihovih nevarnih lastnosti moramo z nevarnimi odpadki ustrezno ravnati, kar vključuje posebne in prilagojene tehnike zbiranja in obdelave, poseben nadzor ter prave načine sledljivosti.
On account of its hazardous properties, hazardous waste requires appropriate management involving suitable specific collection and treatment techniques, special checks and a traceability scheme.
Vse osebje, ki ravna z nevarnimi odpadki, mora imeti ustrezne kvalifikacije, izobrazbo in dovoljenja.
All hazardous-waste operators must have suitable skills, training and permits .
(20) Ker prednost, dana regeneraciji v Direktivi Sveta 75/439/EGS z dne 16. junija 1975 o odstranjevanju odpadnih olj, nič več ne odraža jasnih koristi za okolje, se mora ta direktiva razveljaviti.
(20) Since the priority given to regeneration in Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils no longer reflects a clear environmental benefit, that Directive should be repealed .
Direktivo 75/439/EGS je zato treba razveljaviti .
Directive 75/439/EEC should therefore be repealed.
(20) Prednost, dana regeneraciji v Direktivi Sveta 75/439/EGS z dne 16. junija 1975, se kljub razveljavitvi direktive ohrani.
(20) The priority given to regeneration in Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 should be maintained, despite the repeal of that directive .
Direktiva 75/439/EGS se torej razveljavi .
Directive 75/439/EEC is therefore to be repealed.
Razveljavitev direktive kot del ukrepov o boljši pripravi zakonodaje ne pomeni, da se razveljavijo tudi njeni cilji.
Repeal of the directive as part of the ‘better lawmaking’ policy does not imply that the aims it sought must not be maintained.
Ta direktiva določa merila za zmanjšanje celotnega vpliva na okolje, povezanega z uporabo virov , nastajanjem odpadkov in ravnanjem z njimi.
This Directive lays down measures with a view to reducing the overall environmental impacts , related to the use of resources, of the generation and management of waste.
Ta direktiva določa merila za izboljšanje trajnostne uporabe virov in za zmanjševanje vpliva na okolje , ki ga povzroča nastajanje odpadkov in ravnanje z njimi.
This Directive lays down measures with a view to improving the sustainable use of resources and mitigating the environmental impacts of the generation and management of waste.