natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The ‘set-aside premium’ was in effect granted to producers undertaking not to claim the registered designations of origin (AOC) ‘Rivesaltes’ or ‘Grand Roussillon’ for five years.
Premija za praho se je dejansko dodelila proizvajalcem, ki so se obvezali, da v petih letih ne bodo zahtevali priznanja registrirane označbe porekla (AOC) „Rivesaltes“ ali „Grand Roussillon“.
This premium was also designed to compensate for the loss of revenue caused by the impact on pricing of no longer using these two designations.
Namen te premije je bil tudi nadomestiti izgubo prihodka, povezano z vplivom na ceno, ki je bil posledica dejstva, da se ti dve poimenovanji nista več uporabljali.
The premium did not imply stopping or reducing production, but merely compensating for producing without the registered designation of origin.
Premija ni vključevala zaustavitve ali zmanjšanja proizvodnje, ampak je bila izključno odškodnina za uporabo proizvodnje brez registrirane označbe porekla.
The aim was therefore to rapidly reduce the potential for marketing AOC wines.
Njen cilj je bil torej hitro zmanjšati možnosti za prodajo vin pod registrirano označbo porekla.
The premium amounted to FRF 5000 a year per hectare ‘set aside’.
Premija za praho je znašala 5000 FRF letno na hektar „v prahi“.
All plots benefiting from aid ceased to receive the premium in the year they were converted.
Vsako zemljišče, za katero je bila dodeljena pomoč, od leta svoje preusmeritve dalje ni bilo več upravičeno do premije.
The Commission was not informed of the overall amount of aid paid under this scheme.
Komisija ni prejela podatkov o skupnem znesku pomoči, izplačanih v okviru tega ukrepa.
No information was provided on the amount of revenue that the inter-branch contribution generated nor on the number of hectares for which aid was received.
Predloženi niso bili niti podatki o znesku prejemkov iz uvedenega medpanožnega prispevka niti podatki o številu hektarov, za katere je veljal ukrep.
CONVERSION AID
POMOČ ZA PREUSMERITEV
According to the French authorities, the conversion plan for the AOC Rivesaltes vineyard as adopted in 1996 covered 3250 hectares: 1250 hectares for production of ‘Muscat de Rivesaltes’; 1000 hectares for production of ‘Côtes du Roussillon’ and ‘Côtes du Roussillon Villages’ (Syrah, Mourvèdre, Roussanne, Marsanne and Vermentino) and 1000 hectares for the production of varietal ‘vins de pays’ (Chardonnay, Cabernet, Merlot…).
Po navedbah francoskih organov se je načrt za preusmeritev vinograda z registrirano označbo porekla Rivesaltes, sprejet leta 1996, nanašal na 3250 hektarov: 1250 hektarov za proizvodnjo vina „Muscat de Rivesaltes“; 1000 hektarov za proizvodnjo vin „Côtes du Roussillon“ in „Côtes du Roussillon Villages“ (sorte Syrah, Mourvèdre, Roussanne, Marsanne in Vermentino) ter 1000 hektarov za proizvodnjo lokalnih sortnih vin (sorte Chardonnay, Cabernet, Merlot …).
To support this plan, the French authorities had agreed to provide FRF 111 million in financial assistance, distributed as follows: FRF 85 million via the Office national interprofessionnel des vins [National Inter-branch Wine Office] and FRF 26 million by local authorities (Languedoc-Roussillon and the Eastern Pyrenees General Council).
Francoski organi so bili v podporo temu načrtu pripravljeni nameniti finančno pomoč v višini 111 milijonov FRF, porazdeljenih takole: 85 milijonov FRF prek nacionalnega medpanožnega urada za vina (Office national interprofessionnel des vins) in 26 milijonov FRF prek lokalnih skupnosti (Languedoc-Roussillon in generalni svet departmaja Pyrénées-Orientales).
This assistance would cover aid amounting to FRF 25000/ha for conversion to AOC Muscat de Rivesaltes, and FRF 40000/ha for conversion to AOC Côtes du Roussillon Villages and ‘vin de pays’.
V okviru te podpore je bila predvidena pomoč v višini 25000 FRF/ha za preusmeritev v registrirano označbo porekla „Muscat de Rivesaltes“ in pomoč v višini 40000 FRF/ha za preusmeritev v registrirano označbo porekla „Côtes du Roussillon Villages“ ter v lokalna vina.
According to the French authorities, the real costs of conversion in the region could be estimated at FRF 110000/ha.
Po navedbah francoskih organov je bilo mogoče dejanske stroške preusmeritve v regiji oceniti na 110000 FRF/ha.
The French authorities confirmed that the conversion plans had mostly been implemented (2350 ha out of the 3250 ha planned).
Francoski organi so potrdili, da so bili načrti preusmeritve v veliki meri uresničeni (2350 ha od predvidenih 3250 ha).
According to the French authorities, the total cost of the conversion plan implemented came to FRF 258,5 million (EUR 39,4 million).
Skupni strošek izvedene preusmeritve je po navedbah francoskih organov znašal 258,5 milijona FRF (39,4 milijona EUR).
The public authorities contributed FRF 75,250 million (EUR 11,01 million) of the FRF 111 million (EUR 16,9 million) initially provided for.
Javni organi so prispevali 75,25 milijona FRF (11,01 milijona EUR) od prvotno predvidenih 111 milijonov FRF (16,9 milijona EUR).
According to the information provided by the French authorities, as a proportion of the total funding, 29,11 % of the conversion costs actually incurred was covered by public bodies.
Po prvih informacijah, ki so jih predložili francoski organi, so v okviru celotnega financiranja javni organi prispevali 29,11 % za kritje stroškov dejansko uresničene preusmeritve.
The French authorities pointed out that they send an annual report to the Statistical Office of the European Communities, in accordance with Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organisation of the market in wine, including a statement of the area under vines, broken down by department and by type of grape produced (wine grapes, including quality wine produced in certain regions (quality wine psr), table grapes) and a statement of grubbed-up areas and vine planting submitted in the same format with a breakdown by department and by type of grape produced.
Francoski organi so opozorili, da Statističnemu uradu Evropskih skupnosti v skladu s členom 9 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 822/87 z dne 16. marca 1987 o skupni ureditvi trga za vino vsako leto pošljejo seznam vinorodnih površin, razvrščenih po departmajih in vrsti pridelanega grozdja (vinsko grozdje za proizvodnjo kakovostnih vin na določenih pridelovalnih območjih, vinske trte za namizno grozdje), ter seznam izkrčitev in ponovnih zasaditev vinogradov, predložen na podlagi enake metode razvrstitve po departmajih in vrsti pridelanega grozdja.
The French authorities enclosed a copy of the tables sent for the 1997/98 marketing year.
Francoski organi so priložili kopijo tabel, poslanih za vinsko leto 1997/1998.
INTER-BRANCH CONTRIBUTIONS FOR PUBLICITY AND PROMOTION AND FOR OPERATING CERTAIN AOCS.
MEDPANOŽNI PRISPEVKI ZA OGLAŠEVANJE IN PROMOCIJO TER DELOVANJE NEKATERIH REGISTRIRANIH OZNAČB POREKLA
By Decision 97-3 of 29 December 1997, the CIVDN introduced an inter-branch contribution starting on 1 January 1998 to finance advertising campaigns and for operating the following AOCs: ‘Rivesaltes’, ‘Grand Roussillon’, ‘Muscat de Rivesaltes’ and ‘Banyuls’.
CIVDN je s Sklepom 97-3 z dne 29. decembra 1997 od 1. januarja 1998 dalje uvedel medpanožni prispevek za financiranje oglaševalskih in promocijskih dejavnosti ter delovanja za naslednje registrirane označbe porekla: „Rivesaltes“, „Grand Roussillon“, „Muscat de Rivesaltes“ in „Banyuls“.
The amount per hectolitre excluding tax was set as follows: ‘Banyuls and Banyuls Grand Cru’: FRF 25/hl; ‘Grand Roussillon’: FRF 30/hl; ‘Muscat de Rivesaltes’: FRF 50/hl and ‘Rivesaltes’: FRF 30/hl.
Določeni so bili naslednji zneski brez davka na hektoliter: „Banyuls“ in „Banyuls Grand Cru“, 25 FRF/hl; „Grand Roussillon“, 30 FRF/hl; „Muscat de Rivesaltes“, 50 FRF/hl; „Rivesaltes“, 30 FRF/hl.
These contributions were allocated as follows: ‘Rivesaltes’: FRF 25/hl for advertising and FRF 5/hl for operations; ‘Grand Roussillon’: FRF 45/hl for advertising and FRF 5/hl for operations; ‘Banyuls’: FRF 20/hl for advertising and FRF 5/hl for operations.
Ti prispevki so bili namenjeni za: „Rivesaltes“, 25 FRF/hl za oglaševanje in promocijo ter 5 FRF/hl za delovanje; „Grand Roussillon“, 45 FRF/hl za oglaševanje in promocijo ter 5 FRF/hl za delovanje; „Banyuls“, 20 FRF/hl za oglaševanje in promocijo ter 5 FRF/hl za delovanje.
By Decision 98-1 of 10 July 1998, the CIVDN introduced an inter-branch contribution starting on 1 September 1998 to finance advertising campaigns and for operating the following AOCs: ‘Rivesaltes’, ‘Grand Roussillon’ and ‘Maury’.
CIVDN je s Sklepom 98-1 z dne 10. julija 1998 od 1. septembra 1998 dalje uvedel medpanožni prispevek za financiranje oglaševalskih in promocijskih dejavnosti ter delovanja za naslednje registrirane označbe porekla: „Rivesaltes“, „Grand Roussillon“ in „Maury“.
The amount of contributions per hectolitre excluding tax were set as follows: ‘Grand Roussillon’: FRF 25/hl; ‘Maury’: FRF 5/hl; ‘Rivesaltes’: FRF 35/hl.
Določeni so bili naslednji zneski prispevka brez davka na hektoliter: „Grand Roussillon“, 25 FRF/hl; „Maury“, 5 FRF/hl; „Rivesaltes“, 35 FRF/hl.
These contributions were allocated as follows: ‘Rivesaltes’: FRF 30/hl for advertising and FRF 5/hl for operations; ‘Grand Roussillon’: FRF 20/hl for advertising and FRF 5/hl for operations; ‘Maury’: FRF 5/hl for operations.
Ti prispevki so bili namenjeni za: „Rivesaltes“, 30 FRF/hl za oglaševanje in promocijo ter 5 FRF/hl za delovanje; „Grand Roussillon“, 20 FRF/hl za oglaševanje in promocijo ter 5 FRF/hl za delovanje; „Maury“, 5 FRF/hl za delovanje.
The previous two contributions were repealed by Decision 99-1 of 17 December 1999, by which the CIVDN introduced an inter-branch contribution to finance publicity and promotion initiatives and for operating the following AOCs: ‘Banyuls’, ‘Banyuls Grand Cru’, ‘Muscat de Rivesaltes’, ‘Rivesaltes’, ‘Grand Roussillon’, and ‘Maury’.
Oba predhodna prispevka sta bila odpravljena s Sklepom 99-1 z dne 17. decembra 1999, s katerim je CIVDN uvedel medpanožni prispevek za financiranje oglaševalskih in promocijskih dejavnosti ter delovanja za naslednje registrirane označbe porekla: „Banyuls“, „Banyuls Grand Cru“, „Muscat de Rivesaltes“, „Rivesaltes“, „Grand Roussillon“ in „Maury“.
The amounts per hectolitre excluding tax were set as follows: ‘Grand Roussillon’: FRF 25/hl; ‘Rivesaltes’: FRF 35/hl; ‘Banyuls’ and ‘Banyuls Grand Cru’: FRF 25/hl; ‘Muscat de Rivesaltes’: FRF 55/hl; ‘Maury’: FRF 0/hl.
Določeni so bili naslednji zneski brez davka na hektoliter: „Grand Roussillon“, 25 FRF/hl; „Rivesaltes“, 35 FRF/hl; „Banyuls“ in „Banyuls Grand Cru“, 25 FRF/hl; „Muscat de Rivesaltes“, 55 FRF/hl; „Maury“, 0 FRF/hl.
These contributions were allocated as follows: ‘Rivesaltes’: FRF 30/hl for advertising and FRF 5/hl for operations; ‘Grand Roussillon’: FRF 20/hl for advertising and FRF 5/hl for operations; ‘Muscat de Rivesaltes’: FRF 50/hl for advertising and FRF 5/hl for operations; ‘Banyuls and Banyuls Grand Cru’: FRF 20/hl for advertising and FRF 5/hl for operations.
Ti prispevki so se namenili za: „Rivesaltes“, 30 FRF/hl za promocijo in oglaševanje ter 5 FRF/hl za delovanje; „Grand Roussillon“, 20 FRF/hl za promocijo in oglaševanje ter 5 FRF/hl za delovanje; „Muscat de Rivesaltes“, 50 FRF/hl za promocijo in oglaševanje ter 5 FRF/hl za delovanje; „Banyuls“ in „Banyuls Grand Cru“, 20 FRF/hl za promocijo in oglaševanje ter 5 FRF/hl za delovanje.
This contribution was continued, with slight modifications, by Decision 00-1.
Ta prispevek se je z manjšimi odstopanji podaljšal s Sklepom 00-1.
At the time the examination procedure was initiated, the Commission did not have any information on the duration of this scheme or as to whether it would be continued.
Komisija ob sprožitvi postopka preiskave ni imela na voljo podatkov o trajanju te sheme ali njenem morebitnem podaljšanju.
POINTS RAISED BY THE COMMISSION IN THE CONTEXT OF INITIATING AN EXAMINATION PROCEDURE
TRDITVE, KI JIH JE KOMISIJA NAVEDLA V OKVIRU SPROŽITVE POSTOPKA PREISKAVE
Dealing first with the nature of the contributions in this case, the Commission noted that they were directly approved by the French Government under the procedure provided for in Law 200 of 2 April 1943 creating an inter-branch committee for natural sweet wines and liqueur wines with registered designations.
Komisija je najprej v zvezi z naravo prispevkov v obravnavanem primeru navedla, da jih je odobrila neposredno francoska vlada, in sicer v skladu s postopkom, določenim v Zakonu št. 200 z dne 2. aprila 1943 o ustanovitvi medstrokovnega odbora za naravna sladka vina in desertna vina z registriranimi označbami.
The Government's approval is thus a precondition for such contributions to be adopted.
Odobritev vlade je tako predhodni pogoj za sprejetje takih prispevkov.
Law No 200 stipulates, in particular, that contributions are to be compulsory for all members of the branches concerned as soon as they have been approved by the Government or, in the case in point, its Commissioner.
Zakon št. 200 zlasti določa, da prispevki postanejo obvezni za vse akterje iz zadevnih poklicev, čim prejmejo potrditev vlade ali kot v obravnavanem primeru njenega komisarja.
It follows that this type of contribution requires an official act in order to take full effect.
Iz navedenega izhaja, da je za polni učinek tovrstnih prispevkov nujno potreben akt javnega organa.
Consequently, the Commission considered at this stage of the examination procedure that this was a case of parafiscal charges, i.e. public resources.
Zato je Komisija v fazi postopka preiskave menila, da gre v obravnavanem primeru za davkom podobne dajatve, torej za javna sredstva.
With regard to the ‘set-aside premium’ provided for in the French aid scheme, no provision was made for such premiums under the common market organisation (CMO) and, more specifically, Council Regulation (EEC) No 456/80 of 18 February 1980 on the granting of temporary and permanent abandonment premiums in respect of certain areas under vines and of premiums for the renunciation of replanting.
Kar zadeva „premijo za praho“, določeno v francoskem instrumentu pomoči, takih premij ni določala skupna ureditev trga niti konkretneje Uredba Sveta (EGS) št. 456/80 z dne 18. februarja 1980 o dodelitvi premij za začasno in dokončno opustitev vinogradništva na nekaterih vinorodnih površinah ter premij za odpoved ponovni zasaditvi.
That Regulation provided only for a premium for temporary or permanent cessation of production, payable when a producer decided to contribute to reducing the Community's wine-growing potential by, in particular, grubbing up vines.
Ta uredba je določala izključno premijo za začasno in trajno opustitev proizvodnje, ki se je izplačala, kadar se je proizvajalec odločil prispevati k zmanjšanju obsega vinogradniških površin v Skupnosti, in sicer zlasti s krčenjem vinogradov.
Since potential was not reduced and no abandonment initiatives were financed by the premium, the scheme did not appear, at the time the examination procedure was initiated, to fall within the scope of the former common organisation of the market in wine under Regulation (EEC) No 822/87.
Ker ni prišlo do nikakršnega zmanjšanja obsega in ker se s premijo ni financiral noben ukrep opustitve, se je v fazi sprožitve postopka preiskave štelo, da ukrep ne spada na področje uporabe nekdanje skupne ureditve trga za vino, določene v Uredbi (EGS) št. 822/87.
The purpose of the aid would appear to have been to give financial support to producers who, as business operators, had freely decided to undertake a purely commercial venture, for charges which seem to be expenditure connected with the exercise of economic activity.
Cilj pomoči naj bi bil finančno podpreti proizvajalce, ki naj bi se kot podjetniki svobodno odločali za povsem poslovni ukrep, katerega stroški se zdijo kot izdatki, povezani z izvajanjem gospodarske dejavnosti.
According to the consistent practice of the Commission and according to the case law of the European Court of Justice, operating aid is aid intended to relieve an undertaking of the expenses which it would itself normally have had to bear in its day-to-day management or its usual activities.
V skladu z ustaljeno prakso Komisije in sodno prakso Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti pomoči za tekoče poslovanje spadajo med pomoči, katerih namen je, da se podjetje razbremeni stroškov, ki bi jih običajno moralo nositi v okviru tekočega poslovanja ali običajnih dejavnosti.
This concept is reiterated in point 3.5 of the Community guidelines on State aid in the agriculture sector (hereinafter ‘agriculture guidelines’), according to which such aids, by their very nature, are likely to interfere with CMO mechanisms.
Ta ugotovitev je povzeta v točki 3.5 Smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči v kmetijskem sektorju (v nadaljnjem besedilu „kmetijske smernice“), v skladu s katero je lahko taka pomoč že zaradi svoje narave v navzkrižju z mehanizmi skupne ureditve trga.
The Commission noted here that the aid was granted per hectare and per year, and is therefore closely connected with the quantity of wine produced.
Komisija je v zvezi s tem ugotovila, da se je pomoč dodelila letno na hektar in je torej tesno povezana s količino proizvedenega vina.
The Commission explained that under no circumstances can it approve aid which would be incompatible with the rules governing a CMO or which would disturb the smooth operation of the market organisation concerned.
Komisija je opozorila, da v nobenem primeru ne more odobriti pomoči, ki bi bila nezdružljiva z določbami o skupni ureditvi trga ali bi ovirala dobro delovanje zadevne skupne ureditve trga.
When the examination procedure was initiated, it considered that the ‘set-aside premium’ seemed to constitute operating aid likely to interfere with the mechanisms of the wine CMO and that it could therefore be incompatible with the applicable market and competition rules.
V fazi sprožitve postopka preiskave je menila, da „premija za praho“ pomeni pomoč za tekoče poslovanje, ki bi bila lahko v navzkrižju z mehanizmi skupne ureditve trga za vino ter bi bila zato lahko nezdružljiva z veljavnimi tržnimi predpisi in pravili o konkurenci.
Regarding the conversion costs, Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 stipulated that all national aid for planting vineyards would be prohibited from 1 September 1988, except where such planting met criteria relating, in particular, to reducing production or improving quality without resulting in an increase in production.
Člen 14 Uredbe (EGS) št. 822/87 je v zvezi s stroški preusmeritve določal, da bo po 1. septembru 1988 prepovedana vsaka državna pomoč za zasaditev vinogradov, razen pomoči, ki ustreza merilom, na podlagi katerih bo zlasti mogoče doseči cilj zmanjšanja proizvedene količine ali kvalitativnega izboljšanja brez povečanja proizvodnje.
Accordingly, only varieties that would bring about an improvement in quality and that did not have high productivity in the wine-growing area concerned would be allowed.
Zato naj bi bile dovoljene samo izboljševalne sorte vinske trte, ki na zadevnem območju nimajo visoke produktivnosti.
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2741/89 of 11 September 1989 laying down criteria to apply under Article 14 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 on national aid for the planting of wine-growing areas laid down the criteria for examining draft national aid schemes for the planting of wine-growing areas permitted under Articles 87, 88 and 89 of the Treaty.
Uredba Komisije (EGS) št. 2741/89 z dne 11. septembra 1989 o merilih, ki jih je treba uporabiti v okviru člena 14 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 822/87, kar zadeva državno pomoč za zasaditev vinogradniških površin, določa merila, na podlagi katerih se preučijo načrti državnih pomoči za zasaditev vinogradniških površin, ki so dopustni na podlagi členov 87, 88 in 89 Pogodbe.
Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2741/89 stipulates that draft national aid must satisfactorily demonstrate compliance with the objective of reducing production quantity or improving quality without leading to increased production.
Člen 2 Uredbe (EGS) št. 2741/89 določa, da je treba v načrtih državnih pomoči zadovoljivo dokazati upoštevanje cilja zmanjšanja proizvedene količine ali kvalitativnega izboljšanja brez povečanja proizvodnje.
Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 2741/89 stipulates that the amount of aid granted per hectare of vineyard planted may not exceed 30 % of the actual cost of grubbing-up and planting.
Člen 5 Uredbe (EGS) št. 2741/89 je določal, da znesek pomoči, dodeljene na hektar zasajenega vinograda, ne sme preseči 30 % dejanskih stroškov krčenja in zasaditve.
The French authorities conclude that, since the total cost of the conversion carried out amounted to FRF 258500000 and the public authorities contributed FRF 75250000, taking all financing together, the public authorities contributed 29,11 % of the costs of the conversion scheme actually carried out.
Kot navajajo francoski organi, iz dejstva, da naj bi skupni strošek izvedene preusmeritve znašal 258500000 FRF in da naj bi javni organi prispevali 75250000 FRF, sklepajo, da naj bi javni organi v okviru celotnega financiranja prispevali 29,11 % za stroške dejansko izvedene preusmeritve.
But Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 2741/89 stipulated that the relevant factor for calculating the conversion costs was the aid actually granted per hectare of vines planted.
Vendar je člen 5 Uredbe (EGS) št. 2741/89 določal, da je pomemben element za izračun stroškov preusmeritve dejansko dodeljena pomoč na hektar zasajenega vinograda.
At the stage of the examination procedure, this logic seemed to exclude overall calculations relating to the conversion exercise as a whole and, consequently, calculations based on the average per hectare of the total costs.
V fazi postopka preiskave se je zdelo, da tako pojmovanje izključuje skupne izračune na ravni izvajanja preusmeritve kot celote in zato tudi izračune, ki temeljijo na povprečni vrednosti skupnih stroškov na hektar.
Moreover, the French authorities calculated this average in relation to differentiated conversion schemes.
Poleg tega so francoski organi to povprečje izračunali glede na ločene ukrepe preusmeritve.
The Commission considered at that stage that in view of the costs per hectare put forward by the French authorities (FRF 110000/ha), the aid granted in this case should have been capped at FRF 33000/ha and 30 % of the real costs incurred by the individual producers.
Komisija je v fazi postopka preiskave menila, da bi bilo treba ob upoštevanju stroškov na hektar, ki so jih navedli francoski organi (110000 FRF/ha), dodeljeno pomoč v obravnavanem primeru omejiti na 33000 FRF/ha in 30 % dejanskih stroškov proizvajalcev na individualni ravni.
It follows that any aid granted in excess of that ceiling or of 30 % of the real costs incurred by individual producers might be incompatible with the applicable rules.
Iz navedenega izhaja, da bi lahko vsaka prekoračitev te zgornje meje ali vsaka prekoračitev 30 % dejanskih stroškov na individualni ravni pomenila pomoč, ki je nezdružljiva z veljavnimi pravili.
By virtue of the powers conferred on it under Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, the Commission asked the French authorities to send it all the necessary information on the two conversion measures carried out.
Komisija je v skladu s pooblastili, ki jih ima na podlagi člena 10 Uredbe (ES) št. 659/1999 z dne 22. marca 1999 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo člena 93 Pogodbe ES, od francoskih organov zahtevala, naj ji pošljejo vse potrebne informacije v zvezi z obema izvedenima preusmeritvama.