natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It requires that ‘Member States shall carry out more stringent checks on all consignments of products from the same origin.
Zahteva se, da morajo „države članice strožje pregledovati vse pošiljke proizvodov istega porekla.
In particular, the next 10 consignments from the same origin must be impounded, and a deposit lodged against inspection costs, at the border inspection post for a physical check, including the taking of samples and the laboratory tests provided for in Annex III.’
Zlasti je treba zaseči naslednjih 10 pošiljk istega porekla na mejni kontrolni točki in položiti depozit za stroške fizičnega pregleda, vključno z jemanjem vzorcev in laboratorijskimi testi, predvidenimi v Prilogi III.“
However, it was found that the procedure related to the reinforced checks is implemented differently by Member States.
Vendarje bilo ugotovljeno, da države članice različnoizvajajo postopek, povezan z okrepljenimi pregledi.
Some Member States take only the next 10 consignments from the same type of product at the same BIP where the error occurred, others take the next 10 at any BIP in their territory from the same type of product and origin or even establishment up to a maximum period of six months and others take only the next three consignments as they consider it to be not just a national but rather a European issue.
Nekatere zasežejo samo naslednjih deset pošiljk proizvodov iste vrste na mejni kontrolni točki, kjer je prišlo do napake, druge zasežejo naslednjih deset pošiljk proizvodov iste vrste in porekla ali celo iz istega obrata na kateri koli mejni kontrolni točki na svojem ozemlju v obdobju največ šest mesecev, tretje pa zasežejo le naslednje tri pošiljke, saj menijo, da to ni le nacionalni, temveč evropski problem.
As the legislation is not precise enough and is interpreted differently, there is neither a single, harmonised approach within the EU nor is it possible to monitor the process or assess the controls by DG SANCO or the FVO.
Ker zakonodaja ni dovolj natančna in se različno razlaga, znotraj EU ni enega samega usklajenega pristopa niti ni mogoče spremljati procesa ali ocenjevati nadzora, ki ga izvaja GD SANCO ali FVO.
Indeed, the FVO may well not be in a position to check that there is no systematic problem with goods from the same origin coming into the EU, especially if they enter the EU through various BIPs in several Member States.
Mogoče je celo, da se FVO sploh ne more prepričati, da ni sistematičnih napak pri blagu istega porekla, ki vstopa v EU, zlasti če vstopa prek različnih mejnih kontrolnih točk v več državah članicah.
5 Directive 2004/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Leta 2004 sta Parlamentin Svet sprejela direktivo5, s katero sta
validatingthelists of approved establishments and authorised third countries then in existence until such time as the hygieneregulationscameintoforce on 1January 2006, statingthefollowingreservation: ‘Pendingtheadoption of the necessary provisions on the basis of Regulations (EC)
potrdila veljavnost seznamov že obstoječih odobrenih obratov in tretjih držav do uveljavitve novih higienskih uredb 1.janu-arja 2006in pritem dodala naslednji pridržek: „Dosprejetja potrebnihdoločbnapodlagiuredb(ES)št.852/20046,(ES) št. 853/20047 in(ES)št. 854/20048 ali Direktive 2002/99/ES
Council of 21 April 2004 repealing certain directives concerning food hygiene and health conditions for the production and placing on the market of certain products of animal origin intended for human consumption and amending Council Directives 89/662/EEC and 92/118/EEC and Council Decision 95/408/EC (OJ L 157, 30.4.2004, p. 33, (Corrigendum OJ L 195, 2.6.2004, p. 12).
5 Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2004/41/ES z dne 21. aprila 2004 o razveljavitvi nekaterih direktiv o higieni živil in zdravstvenih pogojih za proizvodnjo in dajanje na trg nekaterih proizvodov živalskega izvora, namenjenih za prehrano ljudi, in o spremembi direktiv Sveta 89/662/EGS in 92/118/EGS in Odločbe Sveta 95/408/ES (UL L 157, 30.4.2004, str. 33) (Popravek (UL L 195, 2.6.2004, str. 12)).
6 Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstus (OJ L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 1, (Corrigendum OJ L 226, 25.6.2004, p. 3).
6 Uredba Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (ES) št. 852/2004 z dne
The established procedurefor expanding thelist of establishments approved for export to the EU was that the third country authorities must certify that each new establishment satisfied therequirements ofthe hygieneregulations.
Povzpostavljenem postopkuzaširjenjeseznama odobrenih obratov za izvoz v EU so moraliorganitretjedržaveizdati spričevalo, s katerim so potrdili, da vsak nov obratizpolnjuje zahteve higienskih uredb. Vendarvčasurevizije Komisijaše ni ponovno pregledala odobritev,izdanihtretjim državamin obratom predletom 2006 – tj. predenje začel veljati higienski paket.
The purposeofthisreview wastoallow the Commissiontoverifytheequivalence ofthethirdcoun-tries'legislation and control systems with the new Community requirements.
S tem ponovnim pregledom bi Komisijalahko preverila, alisozakonodajain nadzornisistemitretjih držav enakovredni novim zahtevam Skupnosti.
Nor hadthe Commissionyetcompleteditsre-working ofthe guidelineconcerningtheinformation, which thirdcountries wereto provide onthe general organisation and performance of checks.
Komisijatudi še ni dokončala prenovitvesmernicoinformacijahosplošniorganizacijiin izvedbi pregledov, kijih morajo zagotovititretje države.
7 Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specic hygiene rules for food of animal origin (OJ L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 55, (Corrigendum OJ L 226, 25.6.2004, p. 22).
higienskih pravilih za živila živalskega izvora (UL L 139, 30.4.2004, str. 55), (Popravek (UL L 226, 25.6.2004, str. 22)).
The‘hygienepackage’ wasadoptedattheendof2004and cameintoforce on1January2006.
Higienski paket je bil sprejet konec leta 2004, veljati pa je začel 1.januarja 2006.
Atthetime oftheaudit (end of 2009)the Commission managedtorenegotiatethree ofthe11agreements previouslyexistinginthissector with the EU’s majortrading partners10.
Včasurevizije(konecleta 2009)je Komisiji uspelo na novoizpogajati tri od 11 že sklenjenih sporazumov vtemsektorju z največjimitrgovinskimi partnerji EU10.
of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specic rules for the organisation of ocial controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (OJ L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 206, (Corrigendum OJ L 226, 25.6.2004, p. 83).
8 Uredba (ES) št. 854/2004 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. aprila 2004 o določitvi posebnih predpisov za organizacijo uradnega nadzora proizvodov živalskega izvora, namenjenih za prehrano ljudi (UL L 139, 30.4.2004, str. 206), (Popravek (UL L 226, 25.6.2004, str. 83)).
Theauditexaminedfour ofthe mostimportantsuchagree-ments(with Canada, New Zealand,the USA and Switzerland), whichareshownin Table 2.
Sodiščeje medrevizijo preučilo štiri najpomembnejše spora-zume(s Kanado, Novo Zelandijo, ZDAin Švico), ki so prikazani v tabeli 2.
Thetext oftheagreements was scrutinised,theheadsofthedepartments whichhadtaken partinnegotiations wereinterviewedandinformation was obtained from the competent authorities in the Member States visited.
Temeljitoje pregledalo besedilo sporazumov, opravilo pogovore z vodji oddelkov, ki so sodelovali pri pogajanjih, in pridobiloinformacije od pristojnih organov obiskanih držav članic.
animal health rules governing the production, processing, distribution and introduction of products of animal origin for human consumption (OJ L 18, 23.1.2003, p. 11).
9 Direktiva Sveta 2002/99/ES z dne 16. decembra 2002 o predpisih v zvezi z zdravstvenim varstvom živali, ki urejajo proizvodnjo, predelavo, distribucijo in uvoz proizvodov živalskega izvora, namenjenih prehrani ljudi (UL L 18, 23.1.2003, str. 11).
Switzerland and the USA.
10Z Andoro, Kanado, Čilom, državami EGP, Ferskimi otoki, Lihtenštajnom, Mehiko, Novo Zelandijo, San Marinom, Švico in ZDA.
VETERINARY AGREEMENTS EXAMINED
PREUČENI VETERINARSKI SPORAZUMI
Date of entry into force
Datum uveljavitve
25.12.2006 (Certificates) Commission Decision 2006/855/EC of 24 August 2006 amending Decision 2003/56/EC on health certicates for the importation of live animals and animal products from New Zealand.
25.12.2006 (spričevala) Odločba Komisije 2006/855/ESz dne 24. avgusta 2006 o spremembi odločbe 2003/56/ES o zdravstvenih spričevalih za uvoz živih živali in proizvodov živalskega izvora iz Nove Zelandije ο
11Article 46(1) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004:‘Such ocial controls shall have particular regard to: … (g) the extent and operation of ocial controls on imports of animals, plants and their products’.
11Člen 46(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 882/2004:„Takšen uradni nadzor se zlasti nanaša na: … (g) obseg in delovanje uradnega nadzora uvoza živali, rastlin in njihovih proizvodov“.
Naturally,thesuccessofnegotiationsalsodependsonthe other party.
Sevedaje uspešnost pogajanj odvisnatudi od drugestrani.
Nonetheless, owing to thelength of the negotiations — whichthus postponedtheapplicationtoimports of thesame‘hygienepackage’ rulesthat werecompulsoryfor EU producers — the auditfound that the reviewed agreement with New Zealand did not take effect until eight months after the packageenteredintoforce, despite the fact that the EU acceptedto maintainarelativelylimitedlevel ofchecks(for whichnoacceptablereason was given in the Commission's records).
Vendar je Sodišče medrevizijougotovilo,dajezaradidol-žine pogajanj,karje odložilo uporaboistih pravil o uvozuiz higienskega paketa,kiso bilaže obveznaza proizvajalce EU, prenovljeni sporazum z Novo Zelandijo začel veljati šele osem mesecev po uveljavitvi paketa,in to kljub temu, daje EU sprejela ohranitev razmeroma omejene ravni pregledov(za katero v evidencah Komisije ni nobenegasprejemljivegarazloga).
DG SANCO has no data onthe physical pre-export checks(la-boratory analyses) that were madein Canada and New Zealand on products bound for the EU.
GDSANCO nima podatkov ofizičnih pregledih predizvozom (laboratorijskih analizah), opravljenih v Kanadiin na Novi Zelandiji, za izdelke, namenjene v EU.
Moreover,thereportsavail-ablefrom the Food and Veterinary Office(FVO) do not usually includean evaluation ofthe extentand operation of official controlsbythirdcountriesontheirownimportsofanimal products11.
Poleg tega v poročilih FVO običajno nista ovrednotena obsegin delovanje uradnega nadzora, ki gaizvajajotretje države nad svojim uvozom proizvodov živalskegaizvora11.
However, the Eurostat figures for 2008showthatthe United Kingdomimported 111 930tonnes ofsheep meat,including 82898tonnesfrom New Zealand(around77 %) which were redistributedtothe other Member States.
Vendarjeiz podatkov Eurostata za leto 2008razvidno, daje Združeno kraljestvo uvozilo 111 930 ton ovčjega mesa, od tega 82 898 ton z Nove Zelandije (približno 77 %), kije bilo kasneje preposlanov druge državečlanice.
Despitethescale oftheseimportstothe EU,thecompetentauthoritiesinthe United Kingdominformed the Court’s auditors that,in contravention of the general rule thatidentity checks are to be made inallcases,some BIPschecked only 2 % ofconsignments — the same rate as for physical checks.
Kljub obsegutega uvoza v EU so pristojni organi Združenega kraljestva revizorje Sodišča obvestili, dasov nasprotjussplošnim pravilom, dase identifikacijske preglede izvede v vseh primerih, nekatere mejne kontrolne točke pregledalele 2 % pošiljk, karje enak delež kot prifizičnih pregledih.
This practice wasjustified by thefact that the agreement with New Zealandincludes no definition ofidentity checks.
To praksoso utemeljiliz dejstvom, da v sporazumu, sklenjenem z Novo Zelandijo,identifikacijski pregledi niso opredeljeni.
Where evaluations werein favour of maintaining equivalence, they wereperformed withoutfirstdefiningqualitativeor quantitativeindicators.
Kadarsobilavrednotenjavpridohranitvienakovrednosti, sobilaizvedenabrezvnaprejopredeljenihkvalitativnihali kvantitativnihkazalnikov.
No objectivecomparison was made betweenthelevel of sanitary protection(ALOP) conferred by thenewhygieneregulations,thelevelthatexistedbefore thepackageadoptionandthelevelofprotectionachieved by meansofthecontrolsystemsimplementedbythethird countriesthat were partyto an agreement.
Ustreznaravenzdravstvenegavar-stva(ALOP),kijo določajo novi higienski predpisi,raven,ki jeveljala predsprejetjem higienskega paketa,inraven,kijo z nadzornimi sistemi dosegajo tretje države s sklenjenimi sporazumi, niso bile nepristransko primerjane.
12The group was set up to assess the degree of equivalence of third country legislation.
12Skupina je bila ustanovljena za ocenjevanje ravni enakovrednosti zakonodaje tretje države.
It is composed as decided by the Council (note 10225/08 AGRILEG 91) and comprises representatives from the Council and the Commission and experts from a limited number of Member States chosen with regard to the third country concerned.
Njeno sestavo je določil Svet (dopis 10225/08 AGRILEG 91), sestavljajo pa jo predstavniki Sveta in Komisije ter strokovnjaki iz omejenega števila držav članic, ki se izberejo glede na zadevno tretjo državo.
For example, New Zealand'slegislation wasreviewed against the hygiene regulations by a technical working group compris-ingrepresentativesfrom DGSANCO,expertsfrom New Zealand and the Potsdam Group12 (members from the Commission, Greece, Finland and the United Kingdom).
Skladnostnovozelandskezakonodajoznovimihigienskimi predpisijena primer pregledalatehnična delovnaskupina, sestavljenaiz predstavnikov GD SANCO, strokovnjakov z Nove Zelandijeiniz Potsdamskeskupine12(članis Komisije,iz Gr-čije,s Finskeiniz Združenega kraljestva).
The evaluation concludedthat New Zealand'slegislation wassuchthatthe ‘hygiene package’ objectives could be met.
Ocenaje pokazala, daje novozelandskazakonodajatakšna, da bi bililahkocilji higienskega paketa doseženi.
The annexes to the agreement werethen amended accordingly, and equivalence was maintained.
Priloge k sporazumu so bile potem ustrezno spremenjenein enakovrednostje bila ohranjena.
13‘Yes-1’ means that equivalence has been recognised and a
Vendar ni bilo podrobne dokumentacije,ki bi potrdila, daso zaključki delovnein Potsdamske skupine temeljili na dokazih, ki bi omogočili ohranitevstopnje enakovrednosti „da-1“13.
Lastly,the auditfoundthatthere was nocommon procedure forrevision based on quantitative and qualitativeindicators, andthatthere was norecordthatthe observations made by the FVO in the course ofitscontrols had beentakenintoac-count during negotiations.
Kotzadnje, medrevizijoje bilo ugotovljeno, da niskupnega postopkazaprenovitev,kibitemeljilanakvantitativnihin kvalitativnihkazalnikih,terdanievidence,dasobila med pogajanji upoštevana opažanja, do katerihje prišel FVO med svojimi kontrolami.
simplied certicate may be used; ‘Yes-2’means that equivalence is recognised subject to a number of production and/or control conditions; ‘Yes-3’ means that equivalence is recognised in principle and subject to certain specic conditions, with certication similar to that required from other third countries with which there is no agreement.
13„Da-1“ pomeni, da je bila enakovrednost priznana in da se lahko uporablja poenostavljeno spričevalo;„da-2“ pomeni, da je enakovrednost priznana ob upoštevanju vrste proizvodnih in/ali nadzornih pogojev; „da-3“ pomeni, da je enakovrednost načeloma priznana, vendar so nanjo vezani nekateri specični pogoji, spričevala pa morajo biti podobna tistim, ki se zahtevajo od tretjih držav, ki nimajo sklenjenih sporazumov.
BOX2
OKVIR2
MAIN DIFFICULTIES FOR REVIEWING THE SPS AGREEMENTS
GLAVNE TEŽAVE PRI PRENAVLJANJU SPORAZUMOV O SANITARNIH IN FITOSANITARNIH UKREPIH
USA: legal difficultiesfor the application of the ‘hygiene package’, for the harmonisation of auditfre-quency and for agreeing on the methodology for the verification of the equivalence.
ZDA: pravne težave pri uporabi higienskega paketa, uskladitvi pogostosti revizij in dogovarjanju o metodologiji za potrjevanje enakovrednosti.
Switzerland: most of the EU hygiene provisions have been transposed into the Swiss legislation.
Švica: večina higienskih določb EU je bila prenesena v švicarsko zakonodajo.
However, since it is not yet a member of the RASFF (Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed), Switzerland has to use other communication procedures(through DG SANCO or via the CIRCA system).
Vendar Švica še ni članica sistema RASFF (sistem hitrega obveščanja za živila in krmo), zato mora uporabljati druge komunikacijske postopke (prek GD SANCO ali sistema CIRCA).
Forthcoming negotiations should overcome this situation.
Bližajoča se pogajanja bi morala rešiti ta problem.
New Zealand: the updated agreement did not comeintoforce until eight months after the ‘hygiene package’.
Nova Zelandija: posodobljeni sporazum je začel veljati šele osem mesecev po higienskem paketu.
Moreover, the agreement providesfor a verylowlevel of controls which has not, however, been based on a documented risk analysis.
Poleg tega ta sporazum določa zelo nizko raven kontrol, ki ne temelji na dokumentirani analizi tveganja.
Canada: the delayin updating the agreement annexesinline with the ‘hygiene package’ was caused by difficulties in establishing equivalence, the need to make amendments to the Canadian legal texts and publication delays.
Kanada: zamudo pri posodabljanju prilog k sporazumu v skladu s higienskim paketom so povzročile težave pri ugotavljanju enakovrednosti, potreba po spremembah v kanadskih pravnih besedilih in zamude pri objavljanju.
The key Community rules, whichincludetheprovisionsof
Ključna pravila Skupnosti, ki zajemajo določbe Uredbe(ES) št. 136/200414 in Direktive 97/78/ES15, odveterinarjevzahte-
Regulation(EC) No136/200414 and Directive97/78/EC15,re- laying down procedures for veterinary checks at Community border inspection posts on products imported from third countries (OJ L 21, 28.1.2004, p. 11).
14Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 136/2004 z dne 22. januarja 2004 o postopkih za veterinarske preglede proizvodov, uvoženih iz tretjih držav, na mejnih kontrolnih točkah Skupnosti (UL L 21, 28.1.2004, str. 11).
15Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the quire veterinary officials to carry out systematic documentary andidentity checks.
15Direktiva Sveta 97/78/ES z dne 18. decembra 1997 o določitvi vajoizvajanje sistematičnih dokumentacijskihinidentifikacij-skih pregledov.
These shall be supplemented by physical checks of animal products at entryinto the territory of the EU.
Dopolnjujejojihfizični pregledi proizvodov živalskegaizvora ob vstopu na ozemlje EU.
Inthecaseof meatimportsfrom Canadaand New Zealand, thefrequencyof physicalcheckshas beenreducedto10 % and 2 %respectively.
Pri uvozu mesaiz Kanadein Nove Zelandije je bila pogostost fizičnih pregledov zmanjšana na 10 % oziroma 2 %.
However, where nospecific decision or equivalence agreement exists the rateis 20 % (fresh pork, beef and veal,sheep and horse meat) or 50 %(poultry).
Vendar mora pogostost pregledovv primerih,ko ni posebne odločbealisporazuma oenakovrednosti,znašati20 %(svežasvinjina, govedinain teletina, ovčjein konjsko meso) ali 50 %(perutninsko meso).
principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 9).
načel, ki urejajo organizacijo veterinarskih pregledov proizvodov, ki vstopajo v Skupnost iz tretjih držav (UL L 24, 30.1.1998, str. 9).
APPLICATION OF REDUCED PHYSICALINSPECTION RATES
UPORABA ZNIŽANE RAVNI FIZIČNIH PREGLEDOV
Where reduced physical inspection rates are applied, the consignment selection method varies from one Member State to another.
Kjer se uporablja znižana raven fizičnih pregledov, se metode za izbor pošiljk v državah članicah razlikujejo.
Generally speaking, checks should take due account of the results of statistical sampling and relevant risk factors16; often planning is left to the discretion of inspectors at BIPs.
Na splošno bi bilo treba pri pregledih primerno upoštevati rezultate statističnega vzorčenja in ustrezne dejavnike tveganja16, načrtovanje paje pogosto prepuščeno presoji kontrolorjev na mejnih kontrolnih točkah.
In France, the central veterinary authority has drawn up a selection grid which shows how consignments should normally be prioritised for verification.
V Franciji je osrednji veterinarski organ sestavil dokument, v katerem je prikazano, kako bi bilo treba pošiljke običajno prednostno razvrstiti za preverjanje.
The advantage of this procedure is that it guarantees that selection will be random and unpredictable.
Prednost tega postopka je, da zagotavlja naključnostin nepredvidljivost izbire.
According to the French authorities this procedure was not followed by the Roissy BIP, which is the busiest in terms of number of consignments.
Po podatkih francoskih organov ga mejna kontrolna točka v Roissyju, ki je po številu pošiljk najbolj zaposlena, ni upoštevala.
In the Netherlands, by contrast, sampling is done randomly and electronically at the moment a pre-notification is entered.
Na Nizozemskem pa se vzorčenje izvaja naključno in elektronsko v trenutku vnosa predhodnega obvestila.
To improve the effectiveness of checks, the Dutch electronic selection system factors in a range of subpopulations, such as ‘product type’ and ‘third country of origin’.
Za izboljšanje uspešnosti pregledov nizozemski elektronski izbirni sistem upošteva vrsto podpopulacij, na primer vrsto proizvoda in tretjo državo porekla.
In Spain, thefrequency of physical checks exceeded the statutory reduced rates by 20 % to 30 %, yet the percentage of consignments found to be non-compliant was not necessarily higher17.
V Španijije pogostostfizičnih pregledov za 20 % do 30 % presegla predpisane znižane ravni, vendar odstotek pošiljk, ki niso bile skladne s predpisi, ni bil nujno večji17.
Similarly, in Romania around 36 % (compared with the standard rate of 20 % in third countries, 10 % in Canada and 2 % in New Zealand) of red meat consignments were checked physically in 2008.
Podobnoje bilo v Romunijileta 2008fizično pregledanih 36 % pošiljk rdečega mesa(v primerjavi s standardno ravnijo 20 % v tretjih državah, 10 % v Kanadiin 2 % v Novi Zelandiji).
There was also no central verification procedure to ensure that thresholds were reached, and the selection procedure offered no guarantees that the consignments to be inspected were selected at random.
Prav tako ni bilo osrednjega postopka preverjanja, ki bi zagotovil, da so pragovi doseženi,izbirni postopek pa ni zagotavljal, da so bile pošiljke za pregled izbrane naključno.
16Relevant risk factors include the risk to human health from the product or its packaging, the probability of non-compliance with the stated requirements, the target consumer group, the extent and nature of any further processing of the product, the exporting country's inspection and certication arrangements, and the compliance record of the third country producers and importers.
16Ustrezni dejavniki tveganja obsegajo tveganje za zdravje ljudi, ki izhaja iz proizvoda ali njegove embalaže, verjetnost neskladnosti z navedenimi zahtevami, ciljno skupino potrošnikov, obseg in vrsto kakršne koli nadaljnje predelave proizvoda, inšpekcijsko ureditev in ureditev izdajanja spričeval države izvoznice ter evidenco skladnosti proizvajalcev in uvoznikov tretje države.
17In 2008, for example, three consignments (meat and milk) out of a total of 4 694, or 0,06 %, were refused following a physical check.
17Leta 2008 na primer so bile od skupno 4 694 pošiljk (meso in mleko) po fizičnem pregledu zavrnjene tri oz. 0,06 %.
The overall figure for consignments refused was 0,63 % (EU average: 0,88 % in 2006).
Skupni delež zavrnjenih pošiljk je bil 0,63 % (povprečje v EU: 0,88 % v letu 2006).
(EU) of December 2008.
(EU) (Nacionalno poročilo Nove Zelandije o kemijskih ostankih in onesnaževalih (EU)), december 2008.