As a self-employed car mechanic, I have concerns about the regulation that requires me to undergo mandatory training and then an examination if I want to provide car air-conditioning refuelling services to customers in my workshop. On checking, I found that this particular area is regulated by the Regulation on the use of ozone-depleting substances and fluorinated greenhouse gases, which is issued on the basis of the Environmental Protection Act. In this respect, the law does not specify the minimum conditions for the qualification of persons, but this is the exclusive matter of a by-law. At this point, however, I do not wish to dispute the appropriateness of very general enforcement clauses for implementing the law. However, I question the relevance of the current regime, under which the status of authorised repairer is obtained by attending a compulsory training course (Article 25(2) of the Regulation) and passing an examination comprising a practical and a theoretical part (Article 22 of the Regulation). It is therefore not enough for a candidate to demonstrate practical and theoretical knowledge to the examination board, but he or she must also have undergone the compulsory training beforehand. In my opinion, this arrangement is burdened with administrative obligations which I do not consider to be strictly necessary. It is, of course, not insignificant that we have to pay both the training costs and the examination costs for those interested, and that we have to close the workshop for at least two days for the training and the examination. The Regulation on the use of ozone-depleting substances and fluorinated greenhouse gases (Official Journal of the Republic of Slovenia No 78/08), which was derogated from by the current Regulation, did not provide for a compulsory knowledge test, but, in accordance with Article 16, a person had only to pass a training programme, on the basis of which he was issued with a certificate of competence in a particular field. In the meantime, there have been no changes in the binding European regulations in the direction of compulsory examination. In particular, Commission Regulation (EC) No 307/2008 refers to training programmes for staff, with the training certificate being considered as proof of competence (see Article 2). The above is only a further reason to believe that the current regime is too burdensome for obliged entities and as such puts us in an unequal and non-competitive position with similar entities in other EU Member States. According to available but unverified information, the examination is not carried out in any of the neighbouring EU Member States. Given the fact that, according to Article 34 of the current Regulation, a person who has obtained a certificate in an EU Member State is considered to be an authorised repairer, it is all the more unreasonable that persons who have undergone only the prescribed training and those who, in addition, have to pass a compulsory examination, perform on an equal footing in the territory of the Republic of Slovenia. I believe that, in view of the (un)competitiveness of the Slovenian economy, we should strive to reduce unnecessary administrative burdens in all areas. Given that compulsory training has not been recognised as such by the EU and has not been made compulsory by the Member States, I see no valid reason for the Republic of Slovenia to introduce stricter standards. I would therefore ask you to justify the decision to supplement otherwise compulsory training with compulsory examinations, which I do not see as having any particular additional value over the (practical and theoretical) training already provided.