natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Odpadki se zbirajo v gospodinjstvih in podjetjih in se nato prepeljejo do obrata, kjer se lahko predelajo na okolju varen način.
Waste is collected from households and firms and subsequently transported to a plant where it can be processed in an environmentally sound fashion.
Do težav pride zato, ker je vedno več pošiljk odpadkov na dolge razdalje – tudi preko državnih meja in izven Evropske Unije.
There is a problem, however, in that there are more and more waste shipments over long distances - even across national borders and beyond the European Union.
Z leti je nastal evropski trg odpadkov, tekoča mednarodna trgovina z odpadki.
Over the years, a European waste market has emerged, with brisk international trade in waste.
Ta lahko povzroči težave zlasti novim državam članicam, ker se uvažajo tipi odpadkov, ki se jih ne da predelati na okolju prijazen način.
Especially for the new Member States this can be a problem, because of the import of all kinds of waste which can not be processed in an environmental friendly way.
Zato je treba poudariti, da še vedno veljata načeli samozadostnosti in bližine v skladu z Okvirno direktivo o odpadkih 75/442/EGS.
For this reason it is good to stress that the principles of self sufficiency and proximity still apply according to the Waste Framework Directive 75/442/EEC.
Konkurenca temelji na ceni in okoljskih zahtevah.
Competition is based on price and environmental requirements.
Cenovna konkurenca je nepogrešljiv del evropskega notranjega trga; okoljska konkurenca pa ni.
Price competition is part and parcel of the European internal market; but eco-competition is not.
Za boj proti okoljski konkurenci je v evropski zakonodaji treba določiti najmanjše okoljske zahteve.
To counter eco-competition, minimum environmental requirements need to be laid down in European legislation.
Zgodovina osnutka Uredbe
History of the draft regulation
Julija 2003 je Komisija predložila predlog Uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o pošiljkah odpadkov.
On 1 July 2003, the Commission presented its proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on shipments of waste.
Evropski parlament je predložil mnenje 19. novembra 2003.
The European Parliament gave its Opinion on 19 November 2003.
10. marca 2004 je Komisija predložila spremenjen predlog.
On 10 March 2004, the Commission presented its amended proposal.
24. junija 2005 je Svet sprejel skupno stališče.
On 24 June 2005, the Council adopted its common position.
Splošni cilji predlagane Uredbe so:
The general objectives of the proposed Regulation are to:
– prenesti v zakonodajo Skupnosti spremenjen Sklep Sveta OECD
- transpose into Community legislation the revised OECD Council Decision
Sklep Sveta OECD C(2001)107 konč. z dne 21. maja 2002 o spremembi Sklepa C(92)39/konč. o nadzoru prehoda odpadkov za predelavo preko meja. in spremenjeno Baselsko konvencijo
OECD Decision C (2001) 107 Final of 21 May 2002 concerning the revision of Decision C(92) 39/FINAL on the control of transboundary movements of wastes destined for recovery operations. and the revised Basel Convention
Baselska konvencija z dne 22. marca 1989 o nadzoru prehoda nevarnih odpadkov preko meja in njihovega odstranjevanja, spremenjena 6. novembra 1998. o nadzoru prehoda odpadkov preko meja;
Basel Convention of 22 March 1989 on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal, amended on 6 November 1998. on the control of transboundary movements of waste;
– obravnavati težave, nastale pri uporabi, upravljanju in izvajanju Uredbe Sveta 1993 („Uredba 1993“)
- address the difficulties encountered in applying, administering and enforcing the 1993 Council Regulation ("the 1993 Regulation")
– uveljavljati globalno usklajevanje na področju čezmejnih pošiljk odpadkov in
- pursue global harmonisation in the area of transboundary shipments of waste, and
– preurediti in poenostaviti obliko členov Uredbe 1993.
- reorganise and simplify the structure of the Articles of the 1993 Regulation.
Glavni predlagani elementi med drugim vključujejo spremembe celotnega procesnega okvira (še zlasti v zvezi s predhodno pisno prijavo in soglasjem ter zahtevami za informacije), spremembe in pojasnitve v zvezi s področjem uporabe in opredelitvami, določbe v zvezi s pošiljkami odpadkov med državami članicami in znotraj njih ter določbe o izvozih in uvozih.
The main elements proposed include, inter alia, changes to the overall procedural framework (in particular regarding prior written notification and consent and information requirements), changes and clarifications regarding scope and definitions, provisions regarding shipments of waste between and within Member States, and provisions for exports and imports.
Na prvi obravnavi je Evropski parlament sprejel 103 predloge sprememb.
In the first reading, the European Parliament adopted 103 amendments.
Glavne točke so bile:
The main items were:
Vključitev stranskih živalskih proizvodov v Uredbo.
Inclusion of animal by-products in the regulation
Razlogi proti pošiljkam odpadkov, ki so namenjeni za odstranjevanje, kot so: samozadostnost na nacionalni ravni, vmesni postopki, mešani komunalni odpadki.
Objection grounds for waste shipments destined for disposal, such as: self-sufficiency at national level, interim operations, mixed municipal waste
Razlogi proti pošiljkam odpadkov za predelavo, kot so: nižji standardi obdelave, nacionalne zmogljivosti, načelo bližine, načelo samozadostnosti, načrt za ravnanje z odpadki, kalorična vrednost, nevarne snovi, vmesni postopki, mešani komunalni odpadki, nacionalni standardi za predelavo v primeru manjkajočih evropskih standardov za predelavo.
Objection grounds for waste shipments destined for recovery, such as: lower treatments standards, national capacity, proximity principle, self-sufficiency principle, waste management plan, calorific value, hazardous substances, interim operations, mixed municipal waste, national recovery standards in case of lack of EU recovery standards
5 Prepoved pošiljk odpadkov za vmesne postopke.
5 Ban on waste shipments for interim operations
Sporazumi z obmejnimi področji.
Border area agreements
Obveščanje in preglednost.
Information and transparency
Pripombe o skupnem stališču in priporočila za drugo obravnavo
Comments on the common position and recommendations for the second reading
Od 103 predlogov sprememb, ki jih je sprejel Evropski parlament na prvi obravnavi, jih skupno stališče vključuje 41 (v celoti, delno ali načeloma, z enakim ali podobnim besedilom, ali v osnovi).
Of the 103 amendments adopted by the European Parliament at first reading, the common position incorporates 41 (totally, in part or in principle, by means of identical or similar wording, or in spirit).
Dvainšestdeset predlogov sprememb ni bilo sprejetih.
Sixty two amendments have not been accepted.
Svet meni, da skupno stališče ne spreminja pristopa in ciljev izvirnega predloga Komisije.
The Council considers that the common position does not alter the approach and aims of the original Commission proposal.
Spodaj je opisanih sedem glavnih točk prve obravnave:
The seven main items of the first reading are discussed below:
Parlament in Svet sta sprejela člen 175 (okolje) za edino pravno podlago, ker je namen te uredbe varovanje okolja in ne spodbujanje trgovine z odpadki.
Parliament and Council have accepted Article 175 (environment) as the single legal base because this regulation aims at protecting the environment and not at facilitating the trade in waste.
To je tudi v skladu z (nezavezujočim) mnenjem generalnega pravobranilca v primeru C-178/03 (Komisija proti Parlamentu in Svetu na pravni podlagi Uredbe PIC), ki sklepa, da dvojna pravna podlaga ni mogoča in, če del zakonodaje vsebuje okoljske vidike in vidike notranjega trga, mora biti pravna podlaga okolje.
This is also in line with the (non-binding) opinion of the Advocate General in Case C-178/03 (Commission versus Parliament and the Council on the legal base of the PIC-regulation) in which is concluded that a dual legal base is not possible and that if a piece of legislation has both environmental and internal market aspects, the legal base should be environment.
Svet je v celoti izključil stranske živalske proizvode iz področja uporabe te uredbe.
The Council excluded animal by-products totally from the scope of the regulation.
Ni utemeljenega razloga, zakaj bi bili stranski živalski proizvodi, ki se po opredelitvi iz člena 1 Direktive 75/442/EGS štejejo za odpadke, izvzeti iz področja uporabe Uredbe.
There is no good reason why animal by-products, which, according to the definition in Article 1 of Directive 75/442/EEC, are regarded as waste, should be kept outside the scope of the regulation.
Direktiva 75/442/EGS in ta uredba sta v skladu z različno zakonodajo v zvezi s celotnim področjem odpadkov.
Directive 75/442/EEC and this regulation are both items of cross-cutting legislation covering all waste.
Zato bi bilo čudno, da bi izvzeli nekatere vrste odpadkov.
It is, therefore, strange to exempt certain types of waste.
Uredba (ES) št. 1774/2002 velja predvsem za določbe o stranskih živalskih proizvodih in, v precej manjšem obsegu, za okoljske vidike odpadkov iz stranskih živalskih proizvodov.
Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 relates primarily to provisions on animal by-products and to a much lesser extent to the environmental aspects of animal by-product waste.
Za zagotovitev okolju neškodljive in odgovorne pošiljke morajo zadevni odpadki spadati na področje uporabe Uredbe.
That waste, in order to ensure that it is shipped in an environmentally sound and responsible fashion, should come within the scope of the regulation.
Tudi Evropska komisija je proti izvzetju stranskih živalskih proizvodov iz te uredbe in meni, da je bolje predložiti pregled odnosa med to uredbo in Uredbo (EC) št. 1774/2002 o zdravstvenih predpisih v zvezi s stranskimi živalskimi proizvodi, ki niso namenjeni prehrani ljudi, da so rezultati tega pregleda znani javnosti pred začetkom veljavnosti te uredbe.
Also the European Commission is against the deletion of animal by-products from this regulation and considers it to be preferable to bring forward its review of the relationship between this Regulation and regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption, so that the results of this review are made public before the entry into force of the Regulation
Svet je sprejel le manjši del razlogov proti pošiljkam odpadkov.
The objection grounds for waste shipment were only for a small part adopted by the Council.
V prvotnem predlogu Komisije se uporabljata dva postopka:
In the original Commission proposal, two procedures apply:
· informativni postopek za nenevarne odpadke za predelavo.
· information procedure for non-hazardous waste destined for recovery.
Te pošiljke se lahko izvajajo kadar koli, ni možnosti za ugovor,
These shipments can always take place, there are no possibilities to object.
· prijavni postopek za odpadke (nevarni ali nenevarni odpadki), ki so namenjeni za odstranjevanje, in nevarne odpadke za predelavo.
· notification procedure for waste (hazardous or non-hazardous waste) destined for disposal and hazardous waste destined for recovery.
Prijavni postopek pomeni, da je potrebno obojestransko soglasje.
Notification procedure means that mutual consent is necessary.
To pomeni, da se pošiljka lahko izvede, če obe državi soglašata.
This means that in the case that both countries agree on a shipment, the shipment can take place.
Ugovor pošiljki je mogoč le iz razlogov, omenjenih v členu 11 (za odstranjevanje) in členu 12 (za predelavo).
Objection to a shipment can only be made on the grounds mentioned in Article 11 (for disposal) and article 12 (for recovery).
V predlogu Komisije ni bilo dovolj možnosti za ugovor pošiljki iz okoljskih razlogov.
In the Commission proposal there were not enough possibilities to object a shipment for environmental reasons.
To je še bolj zapleteno zaradi razprav o razlagi opredelitev predelave in odstranjevanja.
This is even more complicated due to the discussions about the interpretation of the definitions of recovery and disposal.
Veliko primerov je obravnavalo Evropsko sodišče.
Many cases have been passed through the European Court of Justice.
Doslej Evropska komisija ni zapolnila vrzeli v zakonodajah ali vsaj pojasnila opredelitve na praktičen način.
Until now the European Commission has not closed the gap in the legislations or at least clarified the definition in a practical applicable way.
Zato je Evropski parlament na prvi obravnavi sklenil, da bo državam članicam dal več možnosti za ugovor pošiljki.
For this reason the European Parliament has chosen in the first reading to give Member States more possibilities to object a shipment.
To ne pomeni, da so te pošiljke prepovedane, ker ugovarjanje ni obveznost: v tem primeru se pošiljka lahko izvede, če obe državi članici soglašata.
This does not mean that these shipments are banned, because it is not an obligation to object: in the case that both Member States agree, the shipment can simply take place.
Razen tega mora biti ugovor okoljsko upravičen, kot je predlagano v številnih predlogih sprememb členov 11 in 12.
Above that, an objection must be environmentally justified, as proposed in several amendments on article 11 and 12.
To pomeni, da se lažna predelava lahko prepreči.
This means that sham recovery can be avoided.
Svet ni sprejel prepovedi pošiljk odpadkov za tako imenovane vmesne postopke.
Council did not accept the ban on waste shipments for so-called interim operations.
Odpadki, ki jih je sprva treba shraniti za daljše obdobje, mešati ali prepakirati, povzročajo težave pri ravnanju z njimi in so dovzetni za goljufije.
Waste which must first be stored for a long period, mixed or repackaged causes handling problems and lends itself to fraud.
Vseeno bi bilo bolje, da se takšne čezmejne pošiljke odpadkov prepovejo.
However, such cross-border waste shipments should preferably not be allowed at all.
Če so dovoljene, morajo biti še naprej dovoljene pod pogojem hitre odstranitve ali predelave.
If they are allowed, rapid disposal or recovery should continue to be a condition.
Spodbude za slabo vmesno obdelavo – npr. za razvrščanje ali drugo obdelavo, kjer ni lahko preveriti, ali so bili postopki ustrezno izvedeni – je treba umakniti, kolikor je to mogoče.
Incentives for interim processing of little value - e.g. for sorting or other treatment where it is not easy to check that it has been done properly - should be removed as far as possible.
Ob tem je nepredstavljivo, da se onemogoči shranjevanje, prepakiranje in mešanje odpadkov države članice v tej državi članici (to bi bilo v nasprotju z načelom samozadostnosti).
Furthermore, it is inconceivable that storage, repackaging and mixing of a Member State's waste should not be possible in that Member State (that would conflict with the principle of self-sufficiency).
Odpadke je mogoče naknadno odpremiti, če so namenjeni dokončnemu odstranjevanju.
It can subsequently be shipped if it is intended for final disposal.
Predlog Parlamenta o sporazumih z obmejnimi območji je Svet sprejel.
The proposal of the Parliament on border area agreements is accepted by the Council.
Predloge sprememb Parlamenta o obveščanju in preglednosti Svet ni sprejel, zato morajo biti ponovno vloženi.
Amendments from the Parliament on information and transparency were not accepted by the Council and should therefore be re-tabled.
Na drugi obravnavi se predlogi sprememb običajno ne vlagajo ponovno, potrebne so le majhne spremembe zaradi večje jasnosti in skladnosti z drugimi deli te uredbe.
Although in a second reading, normally, no new amendments are tabled, some small changes are necessary for clarification and for being consistent with other parts of this regulation.
Tudi za izvajanje je treba vložiti dodaten predlog.
Also, for enforcement an additional proposal is needed.
Projekt IMPEL–SEAPORT kaže, kako koristna sta redno preverjanje pošiljk na kraju samem in nenapovedano pregledovanje zabojnikov v pristanišču za krepitev izvajanja.
The IMPEL–SEAPORT project shows the usefulness of regular spot-checking actions/raids on containers in ports on shipments to strengthen enforcement.
Skupno stališče Sveta je iz več vidikov izboljšanje v primerjavi s prvotnim predlogom Komisije.
In many aspects the common position of the Council is an improvement in comparison to the original Commission proposal.
Izbira okolja za edino pravno podlago kaže, da je varovanje okolja glavni cilj Sveta.
The choice of environment as the single legal base, shows that the main aim of the Council is the protection of the environment.
To je bil tudi glavni cilj na prvi obravnavi Evropskega parlamenta.
This was also the main aim of the European Parliament in the first reading.
Izboljšanje na področju okolja se lahko zagotovi s prepovedjo neupravičenih pošiljk, z ugovarjanjem pošiljkam, ki okolju ne prinašajo dodatne vrednosti, s preprečevanjem lažne predelave in z boljšim izvajanjem te uredbe.
More improvements for the environment can be made by banning unjustified shipments, objecting to shipments which have no environmental added value, avoiding sham recovery and having a better enforcement of this regulation.
Komisija ima pomembno nalogo pri predložitvi predlogov v zvezi z Okvirno direktivo o odpadkih ter strategijo za preprečevanje nastajanja odpadkov in recikliranje.
The Commission has the important task to come forward with proposals on the Waste Framework Directive and the strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling.
Ti predlogi so zelo pomembni za to uredbo, ker pojasnjujejo opredelitve odstranjevanja in predelave.
These proposals are very important for this regulation in order to give clarity on definitions of disposal and recovery.
Cilj tega je preprečiti nadaljnje pošiljke odpadkov za lažno predelavo.
The aim of this is to avoid waste shipment for sham recovery in the future.
Skupno stališče Sveta za sprejetje Uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o pošiljkah odpadkov
Council common position for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on shipments of waste
člen 251(2) ES in 175(1) ES
Article 251(2) EC and 175(1) EC
o Zeleni knjigi o javnih naročilih za obrambo
on the Green Paper on defence procurement
Angelika Beer , Pododbor za varnost in obrambo
Angelika Beer , Committee on Foreign Affairs
MNENJE ODBORA ZA ZUNANJE ZADEVE(*) ....................................................................12
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS (*) ................................................12
MNENJE Odbora za industrijo, raziskave in energetiko .............................16
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, RESEARCH AND ENERGY....................16
(*) Okrepljeno sodelovanje med odbori - člen 47 Poslovnika
(*) Enhanced cooperation between committees – Rule 47
– ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o ustanovitvi Evropske skupnosti, zlasti členov 95 in 296 Pogodbe,
– having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 95 and 296 thereof,
– ob upoštevanju Direktive 2004/18/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 31. marca 2004 o usklajevanju postopkov za oddajo javnih naročil za gradnje, blago in storitev
– having regard to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts
UL L 134, 30.4.2004, str.
OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p.
114. , zlasti člena 10 te direktive,
114. , and in particular Article 10 thereof,
ob upoštevanju sodne prakse Evropskega sodišča
– having regard to the case law of the European Court of Justice
Zlasti sodb v zadevi Johnston, C-222/84, in v zadevi C-414/97, Komisija proti Španiji. ,
In particular the judgment in the Johnston case, C-222/84, and the judgment in Case C-414/97, Commission v Spain. ,
– ob upoštevanju poročila Odbora za notranji trg in zaščito potrošnikov in mnenj Odbora za zunanje zadeve ter Odbora za industrijo, raziskave in energetiko ( A6‑0288/2005 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy ( A6‑0288/2005 ),
A. ker člen 296 Pogodbe ES predvideva odstopanje za zaščito bistvenih interesov nacionalne varnosti v zvezi s proizvodnjo orožja, streliva in vojaških sredstev; ker je ta člen pogosto zlorabljen, čeprav določa, da ukrepi sprejeti v skladu z odstopanjem ne smejo negativno vplivati na pogoje konkurence na skupnem trgu v zvezi s proizvodi, ki niso izrecno predvideni v vojaške namene,
A. whereas Article 296 of the Treaty provides a derogation to protect the essential interests of national security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material, and, although that article also provides that measures taken pursuant to that derogation must not adversely affect the conditions of competition in the common market regarding products which are not intended for specifically military purposes, it is often abused,
B. ker člen 10 Direktive 2004/18/ES določa, da se ob upoštevanju člena 296 Pogodbe ta direktiva uporablja za oddajanje javnih naročil na področju obrambe,
B. whereas Article 10 of Directive 2004/18/EC provides that, subject to Article 296, that Directive applies to contracts awarded in the field of defence,
C. ker Sodišče meni, da člen 296 ne predstavlja splošnega in samodejnega odstopanja, da mora biti njegova uporaba obrazložena od primera do primera, da je poseganje po tem členu upravičeno le, če je potrebno za doseganje cilja zaščite interesov varnosti in da mora dokazno breme nositi zadevna država članica,
C. whereas the Court of Justice has held that Article 296 does not amount to a general, automatic derogation, that its use must be justified on a case-by-case basis, that recourse to it is justified only if it is necessary for achieving the objective of safeguarding the relevant security interests involved and that the burden of proof must be discharged by the Member State concerned,
D. ob upoštevanju gospodarskega pomena javnih naročil za obrambo na evropskem notranjem trgu, proračunskih težav držav članic, omejitve proračunske porabe, ki jo morajo države članice uvesti, in precejšnje obremenitve davkoplačevalcev zaradi obrambnih izdatkov,
D. taking account of the economic importance of defence procurement within the European internal market, the tight budgetary position in the Member States, the restriction in terms of budgetary expenditure imposed on the Member States and the considerable burden which defence expenditure places on taxpayers,
E. ob upoštevanju posebnosti obrambnih trgov, zlasti odločilne vloge držav, pomena varnosti pri javnih naročilih za obrambno opremo in posebnosti nepopolnih tržnih struktur, na primer omejenega števila ponudnikov in povpraševanj ter celo monopolov,
E. conscious of the specific features of defence markets, in particular with regard to the dominant role of the state, the importance of armaments procurement in terms of security and the special nature of fragmented market structures, e.g. the very limited number of suppliers and demand and even monopolies;
F. ker je razdeljenost obrambnega trga v Evropi tudi razlog za šibkost evropskih vojaških zmogljivosti,
F. whereas the fragmented nature of the armaments market in Europe is one of the causes of weakness in terms of Europe's military capabilities,
G. ker je popolna razdrobljenost obrambnih trgov tudi razlog za pomanjkljivo standardizacijo, ki je povzročila nepovezljivost sistemov v Evropi in s tem otežila sodelovanje pri mednarodnih operacijah,
G. whereas the complete fragmentation of armaments markets is also the cause of a lack of standardisation, which has led to a lack of interoperability between systems in Europe, making cooperation in international operations more difficult,
H. ker veljavnost 25 različnih sklopov predpisov o javnih naročilih predstavlja oviro za uresničitev evropskega akcijskega načrta o zmogljivostih,
H. whereas the fact that 25 different sets of rules on procurement are in force constitutes an obstacle to implementation of the European Capabilities Action Plan,