natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Moreover, a generally prudent operator would be aware that low-cost airlines such as Ryanair have always been and are known for being very responsive to market developments, both when starting up or shutting down routes and when increasing or decreasing the number of flights.
TUIFlyn ja FZG:n 1 päivänä huhtikuuta 2008 tekemän lentoasemapalvelusopimuksen osalta:
Assessment
Ryanairin ja FZG:n 22 päivänä syyskuuta 2008 ja AMS:n ja Rheinland-Pfalzin osavaltion 6 päivänä lokakuuta 2008 tekemien lentoasema- ja markkinointipalvelusopimusten osalta:
Germany asserts that FGAZ/FZG did not prepare ex ante business plans before concluding individual airport services agreements with the various airlines.
sisämarkkinoille soveltumattoman tuen määrä.
It explained that since the majority of the costs of the airport could be considered to be fixed and that an expansion of the commercial activities would not lead to significant additional costs, no such ex ante business plans were necessary.
Takaisinperittävistä summista kertyy korkoa alkaen siitä, kun tuki asetettiin tuensaajan käyttöön, niiden tosiasialliseen takaisinperintään saakka.
Nevertheless, upon request by the Commission, Germany prepared an overview of the incremental costs and revenues that could have been expected at the time the relevant agreements were concluded.
Saksan on esitettävä tarkat päivämäärät, joina valtion myöntämä tuki on annettu asianomaisten tuensaajien käyttöön.
Incremental profitability of contracts with Germanwings, TUIFly and Ryanair
4 artikla
(Contract 15 Sept.
Edellä 1 artiklassa tarkoitettu tuki on perittävä takaisin välittömästi ja tosiasiallisesti.
2006-15 Sept.
Saksan on huolehdittava siitä, että tämä päätös pannaan täytäntöön neljän kuukauden kuluessa sen tiedoksi antamisesta.
2009)
5 artikla
(Contract 30 June 2008-31 Dec.
Saksan on toimitettava komissiolle kahden kuukauden kuluessa tämän päätöksen tiedoksi antamisesta seuraavat tiedot:
2011) [101]
tuensaajien saaman tuen kokonaismäärä ja erityisesti
(Contract 22 Sept.
yksityiskohtainen kuvaus toimenpiteistä, jotka on jo toteutettu ja joita suunnitellaan tämän päätöksen noudattamiseksi;
2008-21 Sept.
asiakirjat, jotka osoittavat, että tuensaajat on määrätty maksamaan tuki takaisin.
2009) [103]
Saksan on ilmoitettava komissiolle tämän päätöksen täytäntöön panemiseksi toteutettavien kansallisten toimenpiteiden edistymisestä siihen saakka, kunnes 1 artiklassa tarkoitetun tuen takaisinperintä on saatettu loppuun.
Expected Additional Aviation Revenue
Sen on annettava myös yksityiskohtaisia tietoja tuensaajilta perityistä tukimääristä ja koroista.
Expected Additional Non-Aviation Revenue
6 artikla
Expected Additional Costs
Tämä päätös on osoitettu Saksan liittotasavallalle.
Costs Marketing Support
Tehty Brysselissä 1 päivänä lokakuuta 2014.
Expected Nominal Result
Komission puolesta
Discount Rate
Varapuheenjohtaja
Expected Discounted Result
EUVL C 216, 21.7.2012, s. 56.
In preparing Table 8, Germany took the following considerations into account:
Hiltrud Breyerin (Verts/ALE) komissiolle 2 päivänä joulukuuta 2008 esittämä kirjallinen kysymys E-6470/08 Rheinland-Pfalzin osavaltion Zweibrückenin lentoasemalle myöntämästä tuesta.
The expected passenger numbers were deduced from the envisaged number of flights per week and extrapolated for the duration of the agreement.
Komission tiedonanto – Suuntaviivat valtiontuesta lentoasemille ja lentoyhtiöille (EUVL C 99, 4.4.2014, s. 3).
The expected aviation revenues (handling and landing charges, cleaning and de-icing, etc.) were calculated over the duration of the agreement on the basis of the conditions agreed on with each airline, taking into account the relevant rebates and incentives.
Euroopan yhteisön perustamissopimuksen 92 ja 93 artiklan ja ETA-sopimuksen 61 artiklan soveltaminen valtiontukiin ilmailualalla (EYVL C 350, 10.12.1994, s. 5).
The expected non-aviation revenues (parking charges, spending in the terminal, etc.) were also calculated over the duration of the agreement.
Yhteisön suuntaviivat lentoasemien rahoittamisesta ja alueellisilta lentoasemilta liikennöivien lentoyhtiöiden toiminnan aloittamista koskevasta valtiontuesta (EUVL C 312, 9.12.2005, s. 1).
The expected incremental costs were calculated over the duration of the agreement, taking into account depreciation of investments necessary for handling commercial aviation (the new terminal, new check-in counters, parking lots, etc.) as well as additional personnel and materials costs.
EUVL C 113, 15.4.2014, s. 30.
Only the costs caused by each individual airline were taken into account.
Asetus N:o 1, tehty 15 päivänä huhtikuuta 1958, Euroopan talousyhteisössä käytettäviä kieliä koskevista järjestelyistä (EYVL 17, 6.10.1958, s. 385/58).
On that basis, Germany argued that the costs of the new terminal and if hiring new staff were originally caused by Germanwings taking up business from Zweibrücken, so that those costs were mostly allocated to the first Germanwings contract.
Komission päätös, tehty 22 päivänä joulukuuta 1993 – K(93) 3964/6 – Konver I ja komission päätös, tehty 21 päivänä joulukuuta 1995 – K(95) 3208 – Konver II.
At the Commission's request, marketing support payments made to Ryanair under the agreement between the Land and AMS were taken into account as incremental costs of the Ryanair contract.
Rheinland-Pfalzin osalta muutoshankkeisiin kuului Zweibrückenin sotilaslentoasemaa koskeva hanke.
The discount rate was based on the discount rates of the German Bundesbank starting from 2008.
Unionin rahoitusosuus oli 9 miljoonaa euroa.
The Commission finds that the approach taken by Germany in estimating the passenger numbers, and calculating on that basis the expected incremental aviation and non-aviation revenues, is sound.
http://www.flughafen-zweibruecken.de/de/wir-ueber-uns-de/daten-und-fakten-de
The same holds true with respect to the discount rates.
Kaikki etäisyydet ovat tiekilometreinä nopeinta reittiä käyttäen.
The Commission further notes Germany's disagreement that in calculating the incremental revenue only over the duration of the agreement, long-term gains are not taken into account.
Lähde:
In response, the Commission refers to its reasoning developed in recitals 376 and 377, that it is indeed appropriate to take only the incremental costs and revenues generated over the duration of the agreement into account.
maps.google.com, viittauspäivä 25 päivänä kesäkuuta 2014.
The Commission also takes note of Germany's submission that the marketing services agreement could not be regarded as only producing costs, but should be also viewed as generating income.
Desel Consulting ja Airport Research GmbH, ”Fluggast- und Flugbewegungsprognose für den Flughafen Zweibrücken bis zum Jahr 2025”, Gutachten im Auftrag der Flughafen Zweibrücken GmbH, syyskuu 2009, s. 56.
Germany did not propose any methodology to evaluate the specific incremental revenue generated by the marketing services agreement beyond increasing traffic (and thus also non-aeronautical revenues) at the airport.
Kuuluu salassapitovelvollisuuden piiriin.
In any event, the Commission has already determined in recitals 347 et seq. that a MEO would take only the incremental revenue of the airport into account in evaluating the positive effects of the marketing services agreement.
Komission päätös 2005/842/EY, tehty 28 päivänä marraskuuta 2005, EY:n perustamissopimuksen 86 artiklan 2 kohdan määräysten soveltamisesta tietyille yleisiin taloudellisiin tarkoituksiin liittyviä palveluja tuottaville yrityksille korvauksena julkisista palveluista myönnettävään valtiontukeen (EUVL L 312, 29.11.2005, s. 67).
As regards incremental operating costs in particular, the Commission must base itself on the data provided by Germany and FGAZ/FZG as long as these appear reasonable, as it is not itself in a position to independently estimate those costs.
Komission päätös 2012/21/EU, annettu 20 päivänä joulukuuta 2011, Euroopan unionin toiminnasta tehdyn sopimuksen 106 artiklan 2 kohdan määräysten soveltamisesta tietyille yleisiin taloudellisiin tarkoituksiin liittyviä palveluja tuottaville yrityksille korvauksena julkisista palveluista myönnettävään valtiontukeen (EUVL L 7, 11.1.2012, s. 3).
The same is, in principle, true for the incremental investment costs, as Germany and FGAZ/FZG are in a better position to estimate which investment can be directly traced back to a particular airport services agreement.
Komission tiedonanto – Julkisesta palvelusta maksettavana korvauksena myönnettävää valtiontukea koskevat Euroopan unionin puitteet (2011) (EUVL C 8, 11.1.2012, s. 15).
Having analysed the information provided by Germany, the Commission accepts the general calculation of the incremental costs as reasonable.
Komission tiedonanto viite- ja diskonttokorkojen määrittämisessä sovellettavan menetelmän tarkistamisesta, annettu 12 päivänä joulukuuta 2007 (EUVL C 14, 19.1.2008, s. 6).
Furthermore, it appears reasonable that the hiring of additional staff to handle Germanwings and initial investments in renovating the terminal can be traced back to the first agreement with Germanwings, as that agreement was the trigger to forcefully develop commercial aviation at Zweibrücken.
Komission tiedonanto EY:n perustamissopimuksen 87 ja 88 artiklan soveltamisesta valtiontukiin takauksina (EUVL C 155, 20.6.2008, s. 10).
As the expected discounted result is negative for the first Germanwings agreement as well as for the TUIFly and Ryanair agreements, the Commission finds that FGAZ/FZG did not act like a MEO in concluding those agreements.
Toimitettiin Saksan 27 päivänä tammikuuta 2011 antaman ilmoituksen liitteenä 8.
The Airport could not have expected to cover at least the incremental costs brought about by any one of those agreements.
Ryanairin ja FZG:n 22 päivänä syyskuuta 2008 tekemä lentoasemapalvelusopimus, 3 kohta.
As FGAZ/FZG thus did not behave like a MEO, its decision to conclude the agreements on those terms granted Germanwings, TUIFly and Ryanair an economic advantage.
Ryanairille laadittu Oxeran selvitys ”How should AMS agreements be treated within the profitability analysis as part of the market economy operator test?”
In contrast, the second Germanwings agreement could have been expected to lead to a positive discounted result.
(Miten AMS:n sopimuksia pitäisi käsitellä kannattavuusanalyysissä markkinataloustoimijatestin yhteydessä), 17 päivänä tammikuuta 2014.
In concluding that agreement, FGAZ/FZG therefore did not grant an economic advantage to Germanwings.
Ryanairille laadittu Oxeran selvitys ”How should AMS agreements be treated within the profitability analysis as part of the market economy operator test? – Practical application” (Miten AMS:n sopimuksia pitäisi käsitellä kannattavuusanalyysissä markkinataloustoimijatestin yhteydessä – Soveltaminen käytäntöön), 31 päivänä tammikuuta 2014.
The economic advantage identified in recitals 376 et seq. was granted on a selective basis, as only airlines operating from Zweibrücken Airport benefited from it.
Yhteisöjen tuomioistuimen tuomio 18.6.1998, komissio v. Italia, C-35/96, ECLI:EU:C:1998:303;
In this context, the argument advanced by Germany that the discounts on airport charges granted to airlines flying from Zweibrücken were not selective must be rejected.
tuomio 23.4.1991, Höfner ja Elser v. Macrotron, C-41/90, ECLI:EU:C:1991:161;
Germany argued that the discounts were open to all airlines wishing to operate from Zweibrücken, which allegedly rendered them non-selective.
Tuomio Leipzig-Halle, erityisesti 93 ja 94 kohta;
In response, the Commission first observes that the individual agreements concluded with the airlines diverge from the schedule of charges and from each other (see recitals 67 to 72), thus containing individually-negotiated conditions.
vahvistettu unionin tuomioistuimen tuomiolla 19.12.2012, Mitteldeutsche Flughafen ja Flughafen Leipzig-Halle v. komissio, C-288/11 P, ECLI:EU:C:2012:821;
The precise advantage granted would then appear to be selective as regards each individual airline.
ks. myös tuomio 12.12.2000, Aéroports de Paris v. komissio, T-128/98, ECLI:EU:T:2000:290, vahvistettu tuomiolla 24.10.2002, Aéroports de Paris v. komissio, C-82/01 P, ECLI:EU:C:2002:617, ja tuomio 12.9.2006, Ryanair v. komissio (asiassa Charleroi annettu tuomio), T-196/04, ECLI:EU:T:2008:585.
Secondly, however, the Commission observes that even if the schedule of charges had been applied in the same way to each airline wishing to operate from Zweibrücken, any advantage conferred thereunder would still have to be considered selective.
Tuomio 17.2.1993, Poucet v. AGF ja Camulrac sekä Pistre v. Cancava, C-159/91 ja C-160/91, ECLI:EU:C:1993:63.
As Advocate-General Mengozzi opined in the Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Flughafen Frankfurt-Hahn GmbH case, accepting Germany's argumentation would amount to ‘radically denying the possibility of classifying as State aid the conditions on which a public undertaking offers its services where those conditions are applicable to all its contracting parties without distinction’ [104].
Tuomio Leipzig-Halle, 42 ja 43 kohta.
Advocate-General Mengozzi further remarked that
Tuomio 12.7.1984, Hydrotherm, 170/83, ECLI:EU:C:1984:271, 11 kohta.
‘in my opinion, the Commission correctly observed, such an exclusion would not appear to be in line with either the case-law of the Court according to which public interventions which affect all the traders of a particular economic sector without distinction can also be selective in nature, nor with the various precedents where selective benefits arising from the provision of goods or services by public (or private) undertakings at identical rates or on identical conditions for all operators carrying on a specific activity were regarded as selective’ [105].
Ks. myös tuomio 24.10.2000, Pollmeier Malchow v. komissio, T-137/02, ECLI:EU:T:2004:304, 50 kohta.
A measure granted by a State is considered to distort or to threaten to distort competition when it is liable to improve the competitive position of the recipient compared to other undertakings with which it competes [106].
Taloudellisen toiminnan harjoittamista yhdessä arvioidaan yleensä analysoimalla yksiköiden välisiä toiminnallisia, taloudellisia ja hallinnollisia yhteyksiä.
For all practical purposes, a distortion of competition is thus assumed as soon as a State grants a financial advantage to an undertaking in a liberalised sector where there is, or could be, competition.
Ks. esim. tuomio 16.12.2010, AceaElectrabel Produzione SpA v. komissio, C-480/09 P, ECLI:EU:C:2010:787, 47–55 kohta;
The case law of the European Courts has established that any grant of aid to an undertaking exercising its activities in the internal market can be liable to affect trade between Member States [107].
tuomio 10.1.2006, Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze v. Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze SpA ym., C-222/04, ECLI:EU:C:2006:8, 112 kohta.
Since the entry into force of the third package on the liberalisation of air transport on 1 January 1993 [108], air carriers can freely operate flights on intra-European connections.
Tuomio Leipzig-Halle, 95 kohta.
As the Court of Justice has observed,
Ks. myös tuomio 11.7.2006, FENIN v. komissio, C-205/03 P, ECLI:EU:C:2006:453, 26 kohta.
‘where an undertaking operates in a sector in which … producers from various Member States compete, any aid which it may receive from the public authorities is liable to affect trade between the Member States and impair competition, inasmuch as its continuing presence on the market prevents competitors from increasing their market share and reduces their chances of increasing exports’ [109].(394) The Commission has found that FGAZ/FZG and the Land Rhineland-Palatinate granted a selective advantage to Germanwings, TUIFly and Ryanair.
Ks. FGAZ:n hallintoneuvoston 2 päivänä lokakuuta 2006 pidetyn kokouksen pöytäkirja, josta ilmenee, että lentoasemalle maksetaan korvausta palvelujen tarjoamisesta sotilaskäyttöä varten.
These airlines are active on a competitive, Union-wide market and the advantage they received was liable to improve their competitive position on that market.
Tuomio 19.1.1994, SAT Fluggesellschaft v. Eurocontrol, C-364/92, ECLI:EU:C:1994:7.
In this light, the Commission finds that the advantage granted to Germanwings, TUIFly and Ryanair is liable to distort competition and affect trade between Member States.
Tuomio 16.6.1987, komissio v. Italia, C-118/85, ECLI:EU:C:1987:283, 7 ja 8 kohta, ja tuomio 4.5.1988, Bodson v. Pompes funèbres des régions libérées, C-30/87, ECLI:EU:C:1988:225, 18 kohta.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that Germanwings, TUIFly, and Ryanair have received State aid, amounting to approximately EUR 1054985, EUR 232781, and EUR 464879, respectively.
Komission päätös N 309/02, tehty 19 päivänä maaliskuuta 2003.
The Commission notes that Germany has not advanced any arguments to show that the aid granted to TUIFly, Germanwings and Ryanair is compatible with the internal market.
Ks. erityisesti tuomio 19.1.1994, SAT Fluggesellschaft v. Eurocontrol, C-364/92, ECLI:EU:C:1994:7, 30 kohta, ja tuomio 26.3.2009, Selex Sistemi Integrati v. komissio, C-113/07 P, ECLI:EU:C:2009:191, 71 kohta.
Following the case law of the Court of Justice [110], the Commission recalls that it is Germany's responsibility to indicate the legal basis on which a State aid measure could be found compatible with the internal market and to demonstrate that all required conditions are met.
Ks. muun muassa tuomio 3.3.2005, Wolfgang Heiser v. Finanzamt Innsbruck, C-172/03, ECLI:EU:C:2005:130, 36 kohta oikeuskäytäntöviittauksineen.
In the opening decision the Commission requested Germany to provide information on whether compatibility could be established pursuant to the 2005 Aviation Guidelines.
Komission päätös, annettu 20 päivänä helmikuuta 2014, valtiontukiasiassa SA.35847 (2012/N) – Tšekki – Ostravan lentoasema, ei vielä julkaistu EUVL:ssä, johdanto-osan 16 kappale.
Germany, however, did not make any submissions with a view to showing that the relevant conditions for compatible start-up aid under the 2005 Aviation Guidelines were met.
Zweibrückeniä ei ole mainittu Saksan sotilasilmailutietoja koskevassa julkaisussa (MIL AIP Germany), jossa on luettelo kaikista Saksan sotilaslentoasemista.
Nor did the interested parties who submitted comments put forward any arguments demonstrating the compatibility of the State aid measure with the internal market.
Tuomio 16.5.2002, Ranska v. komissio (Stardust Marine), C-482/99, ECLI:EU:C:2002:294.
The Commission nevertheless finds it useful to briefly consider whether the State aid in question could be considered compatible start-up aid.
Tuomio 12.5.2011, Nord-Pas-de-Calais, T-267/08 ja T-279/08, ECLI:EU:T:2011:209, 108 kohta.
Applicable legal framework
Tuomio 11.7.1996, Syndicat français de l'Express international (SFEI) ym. v. La Poste ym., C-39/94, ECLI:EU:C:1996:285, 60 kohta, ja tuomio 29.4.1999, Espanjan kuningaskunta v. Euroopan yhteisöjen komissio, C-342/96, ECLI:EU:C:1999:210, 41 kohta.
As regards start-up aid, the 2014 Aviation Guidelines state that:
Tuomio 2.7.1974, Italian tasavalta v. Euroopan yhteisöjen komissio, 173/73, ECLI:EU:C:1974:71, 13 kohta.
‘the Commission will apply the principles set out in these guidelines to all notified start-up aid measure in respect of which it is called upon to take a decision from 4 April 2014, even where the measures were notified prior that date.
Tuomio 16.5.2002, Ranska v. komissio (Stardust Marine), C-482/99, ECLI:EU:C:2002:294, 69 kohta.
In accordance with the Commission notice on the determination of the applicable rules for the assessment of unlawful State aid, the Commission will apply to unlawful start-up aid to airlines the rules in force at the time when the aid was granted.
Tuomio 10.7.1986, Belgia v. komissio, C-40/85, ECLI:EU:C:1986:305.
Accordingly, it will not apply the principles set out in these guidelines in the case of unlawful start-up aid to airlines granted before 4 April 2014’ [111].
Tuomio Stardust Marine, 71 kohta.
The 2005 Aviation Guidelines, in turn, stipulate that:
Tuomio 5.6.2012, Euroopan komissio v. Électricité de France (EDF), C-124/10 P, C-124/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:318, 85 kohta.
‘the Commission will assess the compatibility of … start-up aid granted without its authorisation and which therefore infringes Article 88(3) of the Treaty [now Article 108(3) of the Treaty], on the basis of these guidelines if payment of the aid started after the guidelines were published in the Official Journal of the European Union.’
Ks. alaviite 22.
As the agreements with Germanwings, TUIFly, and Ryanair were concluded after the publication of the 2005 Aviation Guidelines in the Official Journal on 9 December 2005, those guidelines constitute the applicable legal basis for the assessment of their compatibility with the internal market.
Tuomio 30.4.1998, Het Vlaamse Gewest v. komissio, T-214/95, ECLI:EU:T:1998:77.
Compatibility assessment pursuant to 2005 Aviation Guidelines
Tuomio 14.1.2004, Fleuren Compost v. komissio, T-109/01, ECLI:EU:T:2004:4.
Given that the compatibility conditions for start-up aid enshrined in point 79 of the 2005 Aviation Guidelines are cumulative, the Commission considers that it is only necessary to demonstrate that one of those conditions is not fulfilled in order to find that the aid to the airlines is not compatible.
EYVL C 119, 22.5.2002, s. 22.
The Commission starts its analysis with the condition set out in point 79(d) of the 2005 Aviation Guidelines.
Vuoden 2014 ilmailusuuntaviivojen 173 kohta.
Point 79(d) of the 2005 Aviation Guidelines requires, inter alia, that the amount of aid granted in any one year does not exceed 50 % of total eligible costs for that year and total aid does not exceed an average of 30 % of eligible costs.
Vuoden 2014 ilmailusuuntaviivojen 172 kohta.
Eligible costs are defined as the ‘additional start-up costs incurred in launching the new route or frequency … which the air operator will not have to bear once it is up and running’ [112].
Vuoden 2014 ilmailusuuntaviivojen 25 kohdan 22 alakohta.
In the opening decision the Commission observed that the agreements with Germanwings, TUIFly and Ryanair did not provide for any connection between the aid granted and the eligible costs.
Tulos ennen korkoja, veroja, poistoja ja kuoletuksia, jäljempänä ’käyttökate’.
Germany was therefore asked to provide details on the relationship between the aid and the eligible costs.
Komission päätös, annettu 1 päivänä lokakuuta 2014, valtiontukiasiassa SA.26190 – Saksa – Saarbrückenin lentoasema, ei vielä julkaistu EUVL:ssä.
Neither Germany nor the third parties commenting on the opening decision provided any such information.
Komissio huomauttaa, että TUIFlyn mukaan syynä sen päätökseen siirtyä Saarbrückenistä Zweibrückeniin olivat Saarbrückenin kiitotiehen liittyvät turvallisuusnäkökohdat.
In this light, and considering that the agreements with the airlines in question make no reference to the costs of the airlines, let alone the eligible costs, the Commission finds that the compatibility condition enshrined in point 79(d) of the 2005 Aviation Guidelines is not fulfilled.
Toisaalta Saksa on vahvistanut asiaa SA.26190 koskevassa muodollisessa tutkintamenettelyssä, että lentoyhtiöt eivät koskaan perustelleet päätöksiään siirtyä pois Saarbrückenistä kyseisen lentoaseman infrastruktuuriin liittyvillä syillä.
In conclusion, the aid to the airlines cannot be found to constitute compatible start-up aid, as at least one of the compatibility conditions is not fulfilled.
Komissio ei pysty arvioimaan täsmällisiä syitä, joiden takia TUIFly siirtyi Saarbrückenistä Zweibrückeniin.
The State aid granted to Germanwings, TUIFly and Ryanair therefore constitutes unlawful and incompatible State aid that has to be recovered.
Leipzig-Hallen lentoasema esimerkiksi kilpaili Vatryn (Ranska) lentoaseman kanssa DHL:n Euroopan keskuksen perustamisesta.
RECOVERY
Ks. tuomio Leipzig-Halle, 93 kohta.
In accordance with the Treaty and the Court of Justice's established case-law, the Commission is competent to decide that the Member State concerned must abolish or alter aid [113] when it has found that it is incompatible with the internal market.
Liegen lentoaseman vastaus vuoden 2014 ilmailusuuntaviivoja koskevaan julkiseen kuulemiseen.