natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Case T-187/99 Agrana Zucker und Stärke v Commission [2001] ECR II-1587, paragraph 74; Case T-126/99 Graphischer Maschinenbau v Commission [2002] ECR II-2427, paragraphs 41-43; Case C-390/06 Nuova Agricast [2008] ECR I-2577, paragraphs 68-69.
Zadeva T-187/99, Agrana Zucker und Stärke proti Komisiji, Recueil 2001, str. II-1587, točka 74; zadeva T-126/99, Graphischer Maschinenbau proti Komisiji, Recueil 2002, str. II-2427, točke 41-43; zadeva C-390/06, Nuova Agricast, ZOdl. 2008, str. I-2577, točki 68 in 69.
Community framework for State aid for research and development and innovation, point 1.3 (OJ C 323, 30.12.2006, p. 1); Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection, point 1.3 (OJ C 82, 1.4.2008, p. 1).
Okvir skupnosti za državno pomoč za raziskave in razvoj ter inovacije, točka 1.3 (UL C 323, 30.12.2006, str. 1); Smernice Skupnosti o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja, točka 1.3 (UL C 82, 1.4.2008, str. 1).
Case T-459/93 Siemens SA v Commission [1995] ECR II-1675, paragraph 48.
Zadeva T-459/93, Siemens SA proti Komisiji, Recueil 1995, str. II-1675, točka 48.
See also Case T-396/08 Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt v Commission, 8 July 2010, not yet reported, paragraphs 46-48; Case C-156/98 Germany v Commission [2000] ECR I-6857, paragraph 30, with further references.
Glej tudi zadevi T-396/08, Freistaat Sachsen in Land Sachsen-Anhalt proti Komisiji, z dne 8. julija 2010, poročila še ni, točke 46-48; ter C-156/98, Nemčija proti Komisiji, Recueil 2000, str. I-6857, točka 30, z nadaljnjimi sklicevanji.
As already explained, the Commission considers that the feed-in tariff is clearly not a harmonised environmental tax.
Kot je že bilo pojasnjeno, je po mnenju Komisije jasno, da zagotovljena odkupna cena ni usklajeni okoljski davek.
See footnote 73.
Prim. opombo 73.
See footnote 74.
Prim. opombo 74.
See footnote 75.
Prim. opombo 75.
After a reminder had been sent, Austria submitted additional information by letter dated 22 December 2008.
Potem ko je bilo poslano opozorilo, je Avstrija z dopisom z dne 22. decembra 2008 predložila dodatne informacije.
By letter of 8 May 2009 the Commission requested further information, which Austria supplied by letters dated 9 and 19 June 2009.
Z dopisom z dne 8. maja 2009 je Komisija zahtevala še dodatne informacije, ki jih je Avstrija predložila z dopisoma z dne 9. in 19. junija 2009.
By letter of 19 August 2009 Austria requested an extension of the deadline for a reply, which the Commission accepted by letter of 9 September 2009.
Avstrija je z dopisom z dne 19. avgusta 2009 prosila za podaljšanje roka za odgovor, ki ga je Komisija odobrila z dopisom z dne 9. septembra 2009.
Austria ultimately submitted its comments on 8 October 2009.
Avstrija je svoje pripombe predložila 8. oktobra 2009.
By letters dated 21 June 2010 and 19 July 2010 the Commission requested additional information from Austria, which was provided on 13 September 2010.
Komisija je z dopisoma z dne 21. junija 2010 in 19. julija 2010 od Avstrije zahtevala dodatne informacije, ki so bile predložene 13. septembra 2010.
At Austria’s request, a meeting between the Commission and Austrian representatives took place on 9 July 2010.
Na zahtevo Avstrije so se 9. julija 2010 sestali predstavniki Komisije in Avstrije.
The Commission replied to that letter on 7 December 2010.
Komisija je na navedeni dopis odgovorila 7. decembra 2010.
A further meeting with Austrian representatives took place on 9 December 2010.
Dodatno srečanje z avstrijskimi predstavniki je potekalo 9. decembra 2010.
Austria refers here to the Joint paper on the revision of the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and Energy Tax Directive of 7 July 2006 [25].
Avstrija se pri tem sklicuje na Skupni dokument o reviziji smernic Skupnosti o državni pomoči za varstvo okolja in direktive o davku na energijo z dne 7. julija 2006 [25].
The joint paper made it clear that Member States needed flexibility in order to be in a position to differentiate reasonably.
V skupnem dokumentu je pojasnjeno, da države članice za smiselno diferenciacijo potrebujejo prilagodljivost.
The Commission points out, first of all, that the notified legislation contains two separate measures, both of which were considered under State aid law in the Commission’s opening decision of 22 July 2009 [28].
Komisija najprej poudarja, da priglašena zakonodaja vsebuje dva ločena ukrepa, ki sta bila obravnavana v okviru zakonodaje o državni pomoči v odločitvi o začetku postopka Komisije z dne 22. julija 2009 [28].
The Act provides for aid in the form of a feed-in tariff for the benefit of producers of green electricity.
Zakon določa pomoč v obliki zagotovljenih odkupnih cen v korist proizvajalcev električne energije iz obnovljivih virov.
Following a meeting with Austrian representatives on 11 February 2009, the Commission requested further information by letter dated 19 February 2009.
Po srečanju z avstrijskimi predstavniki 11. februarja 2009 je Komisija z dopisom z dne 19. februarja 2009 zahtevala nadaljnje informacije.
Austria provided that information in a letter dated 17 March 2009.
Avstrija je te informacije predložila v dopisu z dne 17. marca 2009.
on measure C 37/04 (ex NN 51/04), implemented by Finland for Componenta Oyj
o ukrepu C 37/04 (ex NN 51/04), ki ga je izvedla Finska za podjetje Componenta Oyj
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provision(s) cited above [1],
po pozivu vsem zainteresiranim stranem, naj predložijo svoje pripombe v skladu z navedenima določbama [1],
On 10 March 2004, the Commission received a complaint from Metalls Verkstadsklubb vid Componenta Alvesta AB in which the complainant informed the Commission of an alleged aid measure implemented by the city of Karkkila (hereinafter ‘Karkkila’) for Componenta Corporation Oyj (hereinafter ‘Componenta’).
Komisija je 10. marca 2004 od podjetja Metalls Verkstadsklubb vid Componenta Alvesta AB prejela pritožbo, v kateri jo je zadevno podjetje obvestilo o domnevnem ukrepu pomoči, ki ga je mesto Karkkila (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Karkkila) izvedlo za podjetje Componenta Corporation Oyj (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Componenta).
By letter dated 19 November 2004, the Commission informed Finland that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) in respect of the aid.
Z dopisom z dne 19. novembra 2004 je Komisija obvestila Finsko, da bo v zvezi s pomočjo začela postopek v skladu s členom 88(2) Pogodbe ES (zdaj člen 108(2) Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije).
The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [2].
Odločitev Komisije o začetku postopka je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [2].
The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measure but did not receive any such comments.
Komisija je pozvala vse zainteresirane strani, naj predložijo svoje pripombe glede ukrepa, vendar ni prejela nobenih pripomb.
On 20 October 2005, the Commission adopted a final negative decision and ordered Finland to recover the aid from Componenta (‘the 2005 Decision’).
Komisija je 20. oktobra 2005 sprejela končno negativno odločbo in Finski odredila izterjavo pomoči, dodeljene Componenti (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Odločba iz leta 2005).
The 2005 Decision closing the formal investigation procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Union [3].
Odločba iz leta 2005, s katero se je končal formalni postopek preiskave, je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [3].
Componenta launched an appeal against the Decision, which was annulled by judgment of 18 December 2008 (‘the judgment’) for failure to provide adequate grounds [4].
Componenta se je pritožila zoper navedeno odločbo, ki je bila s sodbo z dne 18. decembra 2008 (v nadaljnjem besedilu: sodba) razglašena za nično, ker niso bile predložene ustrezne obrazložitve [4].
Finland submitted observations by letters dated 5 January and 10 January 2010, which also included two studies on the valuation of the real estate concerned.
Finska je z dopisoma z dne 5. januarja in 10. januarja 2010 predložila pripombe, ki so vključevale tudi dve študiji o oceni vrednosti zadevnih nepremičnin.
Componenta is a metal manufacturing company based in Karkkila, Finland.
Componenta je podjetje s sedežem v Karkkili na Finskem, ki se ukvarja s proizvodnjo kovin.
Most of the company’s EUR 316 million turnover in 2004 was generated in the Nordic countries and central Europe.
Skupni prihodki od prodaje podjetja v letu 2004 so znašali 316 milijonov EUR, od česar je bila večina ustvarjena v nordijskih državah in srednji Evropi.
The group employed some 2200 people in 2004.
Skupina je leta 2004 zaposlovala približno 2200 ljudi.
The transaction under assessment concerns the real estate company, Karkkilan Keskustakiinteistöt Oy (hereinafter ‘KK’), which owned real estate in Karkkila, located some 65 km north west of Helsinki.
Transakcija, ki je predmet ocene, zadeva nepremičninsko podjetje Karkkilan Keskustakiinteistöt Oy (v nadaljnjem besedilu: KK), ki je imelo v lasti nepremičnine v Karkkili, približno 65 km severozahodno od Helsinkov.
KK was jointly owned (50/50) by Componenta and Karkkila.
KK je bil v skupni lasti (50/50) Componente in mesta Karkkile.
In 1996 each joint venture partner had granted KK an interest-free shareholder loan of EUR 1670184.
Leta 1996 je vsak partner v skupnem podjetju KK odobril brezobrestno posojilo delničarjev v višini 1670184 EUR.
Componenta received EUR 713092,50 as payment for the 50 % of shares sold to Karkkila,
Componenta je prejela 713092,50 EUR kot plačilo za 50 % delnic, prodanih Karkkili,
This resulted in a change of creditor from Componenta to the city of Karkkila.
To je pomenilo, da se je spremenil upnik, ki ni bil več Componenta, temveč mesto Karkkila.
Karkkila therefore mobilised the sum of EUR 2383276,50 for the above transaction: EUR 713092,50 as payment for KK’s shares and EUR 1670184 as an interest-free loan granted to KK.
Karkkila je tako za navedeno transakcijo zagotovila sredstva v višini 2383276,50 EUR, in sicer 713092,50 EUR kot plačilo za delnice KK in 1670184 EUR kot brezobrestno posojilo, odobreno KK.
The purchase price for the shares was calculated by reference to the standard prices at which Karkkila sold real estate in 2003.
Nakupna cena za delnice je bila izračunana glede na standardne cene, po katerih je Karkkila prodajala nepremičnine v letu 2003.
Sales prices per m2 for the plots sold by KK
Prodajne cene na m2 za parcele, ki jih je prodal KK
Zone 1
Cona 1
Detached houses
Samostojne hiše
Terraced houses
Vrstne hiše
Tower blocks
Stanovanjski bloki
Zone 2
Cona 2
Raw land outside town planning
Nezazidana zemljišča, ki niso zajeta v urbanističnem načrtovanju
Land earmarked for public parks
Zemljišča, namenjena za javne parke
These standard prices were applied to the real estate in KK’s land portfolio at the time of the transaction and divided by two, which resulted in the share purchase price of EUR 713092,50.
Te standardne cene so se uporabile za nepremičnine v portfelju zemljišč KK v času transakcije in delile z dve, na podlagi česar je bila izračunana nakupna cena delnic v višini 713092,50 EUR.
The sales contract between Karkkila and Componenta furthermore stated the following:
V kupoprodajni pogodbi med Karkkilo in Componento je bilo navedeno:
the seller agrees to invest in the extension of Componenta Karkkila Oy’s production facilities in the city of Karkkila as specified in Annex 1 to this contract.
Prodajalec soglaša, da bo investiral v širitev proizvodnih zmogljivosti podjetja Componenta Karkkila Oy v mestu Karkkila, kakor je določeno v prilogi 1 k tej pogodbi.
It is estimated that the investment will create 50–70 new full-time jobs in Karkkila in 2004 (in 2003 the number of jobs was 130);
Ocenjuje se, da bo naložba v letu 2004 v Karkkili ustvarila 50–70 novih delovnih mest s polnim delovnim časom (v letu 2003 je bilo 130 delovnih mest).
if the extension of the seller’s facilities is not commenced in 2004 as specified in the above paragraph, the buyer has the right to cancel the transaction at its own discretion.
Če se širitev zmogljivosti prodajalca ne začne izvajati v letu 2004, kakor je navedeno v zgornjem odstavku, ima kupec pravico transakcijo preklicati po svoji presoji.
Annex 1 to the sales contract stated that Componenta would merge the operations of two of the Group’s production sites, namely the Alvesta (located in Sweden) and Karkkila foundries, and that the decision on the future location of the foundry would depend on the outcome of an analysis.
V Prilogi 1 h kupoprodajni pogodbi je navedeno, da bo Componenta združila poslovanje dveh proizvodnih obratov skupine, in sicer livarno Alvesta na Švedskem in livarno Karkkila, in da bo odločitev glede prihodnje lokacije livarne odvisna od izsledkov analize.
In 2005, the Alvesta foundry was closed and production was transferred to Karkkila.
Livarna Alvesta je bila zaprta leta 2005, proizvodnja pa se je preselila v Karkkilo.
After having taken over Componenta’s shares in KK, Karkkila decided to terminate KK’s activities and transfer the land to the city.
Po prevzemu delnic Componente v KK se je Karkkila odločila zapreti KK, zemljišče pa prenesti v last mesta.
KK’s assets
Sredstva KK
Karkkila is located some 65 kilometres north-west of Helsinki along highway No 2, in the north-eastern part of Uusimaa Province.
Karkkila leži približno 65 kilometrov severozahodno od Helsinkov ob avtocesti št. 2 v severovzhodnem delu province Uusimaa.
Karkkila had some 8500 inhabitants in 2003.
Leta 2003 je imela približno 8500 prebivalcev.
The real estate owned by KK covered 730000 m2 of land in Karkkila and its immediate surroundings, no more than 2,5 km from the town centre.
Nepremičnine v lasti KK so zajemale 730000 m2 zemljišč v Karkkili in neposredni okolici, ki je največ 2,5 km oddaljena od središča mesta.
In December 2003, the situation was as follows:
Decembra 2003 je bilo stanje naslednje:
the highest value land is located in the Asemanranta area (zone 1) and earmarked for tower blocks.
Zemljišča z največjo vrednostjo so v območju Asemanranta (cona 1) in so namenjena za stanovanjske bloke.
This area accounts for roughly half the value of KK’s portfolio,
To območje zajema približno polovico vrednosti portfelja KK.
most of the land is located in the Haapala/Uusitalo area (zone 2).
Večina zemljišč je v območju Haapala/Uusitalo (cona 2).
It is earmarked for detached family houses and represents about a quarter of the total value of the portfolio,
Namenjena so za samostojne družinske hiše in zajemajo približno četrtino skupne vrednosti portfelja.
the portfolio also contains a few plots for detached houses in other residential areas, some land earmarked for tower blocks in the Takko I area and a few terraced houses,
Portfelj zajema tudi nekaj zemljišč za samostojne hiše v drugih stanovanjskih območjih, nekaj zemljišč, namenjenih za stanovanjske bloke v območju Takko I, in nekaj zemljišč za vrstne hiše.
part of the land is earmarked for public park areas,
Del zemljišč je namenjen za javne parke.
the portfolio also includes some raw land outside town planning.
Portfelj vključuje tudi nekaj nepozidanih zemljišč, ki niso zajeta v urbanističnih načrtih.
In total, the real estate comprises about 160 plots of land.
Nepremičnine skupaj zajemajo približno 160 parcel.
Karkkila intended, however, to reshape some of the land and subdivide it into smaller plots.
Vendar je Karkkila nameravala preoblikovati nekaj zemljišč in jih razdeliti na manjše parcele.
KK was by far the biggest real estate owner in Karkkila at the time of the transaction.
KK je bil v času transakcije daleč največji lastnik nepremičnin v Karkkili.
After acquiring full ownership, Karkkila intended to lease out some of the land to cover operating expenses.
Karkkila je nameravala po pridobitvi popolnega lastništva dati v najem nekaj zemljišč, da bi pokrila stroške poslovanja.
KK’s operating expenses (salary, rent, interests on loans) in 2000-2003 were at most EUR 40000.
Stroški poslovanja KK (plače, najemnine, obresti za posojila) v obdobju 2000–2003 so znašali največ 40000 EUR.
Further relevant information
Dodatne pomembne informacije
Karkkila is located within commuting distance of Helsinki.
Razdalja med Karkkilo in Helsinki omogoča dnevno migracijo.
Real estate in Helsinki and the surrounding areas has become very expensive and prices are still rising.
Nepremičnine v Helsinkih in okoliških območjih so postale zelo drage, cene pa še naraščajo.
This price pressure has led people to settle in municipalities surrounding the capital, which has had a knock-on effect on real estate prices there.
Ta cenovni pritisk je povzročil, da so se ljudje naselili v občinah v bližini glavnega mesta, kar je imelo posledični učinek na cene nepremičnin v teh občinah.
Karkkila can be considered a possible alternative location, together with three other towns: Vihti, Lohja and Hyvinkää.
Kot možne alternativne lokacije se lahko štejejo Karkkila in tri druga mesta: Vihti, Lohja in Hyvinkää.
Distances from Helsinki are as follows:
Spodaj so prikazane razdalje od Helsinkov:
Distances from Helsinki
Razdalje od Helsinkov
38 min
38 minut
45 min
45 minut
42 min
42 minut
50 min
50 minut
These municipalities have attracted considerable numbers of new residents.
Te občine so privabile veliko število novih prebivalcev.
As a consequence, real estate prices rose significantly before (and after) the transaction, with prices doubling in Karkkila, and in some instances increasing sixfold.
Posledično so se cene nepremičnin znatno zvišale pred transakcijo (in po njej), in sicer so se v Karkkili podvojile, v nekaterih primerih pa zvišale kar za šestkrat.
According to official forecasts published in 2000, the population of Karkkila was expected to rise to 9600 inhabitants by 2025, which would mean housing needs of 600 new homes.
Po uradnih napovedih, objavljenih leta 2000, naj bi se prebivalstvo Karkkile do leta 2025 povečalo na 9600, kar bi pomenilo potrebo po 600 novih stanovanjih.
These forecasts were soon seen to lag far behind the actual population increase.
Kmalu se je izkazalo, da te napovedi krepko zaostajajo za dejanskim naraščanjem prebivalstva.
Three years later, at the time of the transaction, Karkkila’s expected housing needs were about 70 new homes per year, which was confirmed in a study by the Uusimaa Regional Council shortly afterwards, covering the period up to 2025. (In practice, 63 new homes were built in 2005, 137 in 2006 and 95 in 2007).
Tri leta pozneje, tj. v času transakcije, so v Karkkili po pričakovanjih potrebovali približno 70 novih stanovanj na leto, kar je potrdila študija, ki jo je kmalu zatem opravil regionalni svet Uusimae in je zajemala obdobje do leta 2025 (dejansko je bilo leta 2005 zgrajenih 63, leta 2006 137 in leta 2007 95 novih stanovanj).
During the five years preceding the transaction, real estate prices in Karkkila had increased on average by 30 %.
V petih letih pred transakcijo so se cene nepremičnin v Karkkili zvišale za povprečno 30 %.
Finland submitted three ex-post expert studies on valuing the land.
Finska je predložila tri naknadne izvedenske študije o oceni vrednosti zemljišč.
They concluded that the price paid corresponded to the market price.
V njih je ugotovljeno, da je cena, ki je bila plačana, ustrezala tržni ceni.
The first of these (Study B) contains only a general statement that the valuation of the land was correct without entering into details.
Prva (v nadaljnjem besedilu: študija B) vsebuje le splošno izjavo, da je bilo vrednotenje zemljišč pravilno, vendar ne navaja podrobnosti.
The second study, the KP & P report, (Study C) analyses the real estate situation in Karkkila and the surrounding municipalities in more detail.
Druga študija, ki je poročilo KP & P (v nadaljnjem besedilu: študija C), pa podrobneje analizira stanje nepremičnin v Karkkili in okoliških občinah.
Finland argues that Karkkila acquired full ownership of the shares because it was a medium- to long-term, low-risk investment.
Finska trdi, da je Karkkila pridobila popolno lastništvo nad delnicami, ker je bila to srednje- do dolgoročna naložba z majhnim tveganjem.
Considering the constant rise in real estate prices in the neighbouring municipalities, Karkkila’s forecast population increase, saturation of existing neighbourhoods and the need for expansion, Karkkila City Council considered that purchasing full ownership of KK would be profitable.
Glede na nenehno rast cen nepremičnin v sosednjih občinah, napovedi o povečanju števila prebivalcev v Karkkili, zasičenost sedanjih sosesk in potrebo po širjenju je mestni svet Karkkile menil, da bi bil nakup popolnega lastništva nad KK donosen.
Finland also explained that the possibility of speeding up procedures was another practical reason for obtaining sole ownership.
Poleg tega je Finska razložila, da je bila možnost pospešitve postopkov še en praktičen razlog za pridobitev popolnega lastništva.
Finland hinted on several occasions that cooperation between Karkkila and Componenta was not ideal because of their diverging commercial interests.
Finska je večkrat namignila, da sodelovanje med Karkkilo in Componento ni bilo idealno zaradi njunih različnih poslovnih interesov.
Both partners agreed to terminate the joint venture in order to avoid deadlock on many decisions.
Partnerja sta se dogovorila zapreti skupno podjetje, da bi se izognila nestrinjanju glede številnih odločitev.
In particular, a large number of decisions had to be taken in the Haapala/Uusitalo area on re-splitting plots to facilitate development of the area.
Zlasti veliko odločitev je bilo treba sprejeti v območju Haapala/Uusitalo glede ponovne razdelitve parcel, da se omogoči njegov razvoj.
Since real estate activities were not Componenta’s core business, it was in its interests to cease this branch of activity, whereas it was in Karkkila’s interests to be able to steer land development completely independently.
Ker nepremičninske dejavnosti niso bile osnovna dejavnost Componente, je bilo v njenem interesu, da opusti te dejavnosti, v interesu Karkkile pa je bilo, da lahko popolnoma neodvisno vodi prostorski razvoj.
Finland explained why a comparison with Vihti, Lohja and Hyvinkää was pertinent.
Finska je razložila, zakaj je primerjava z mesti Vihti, Lohja in Hyvinkää ustrezna.
Finland underlined, inter alia, that there was no passenger rail link to Vihti and Lohja, which would allow commuters to travel easily between these municipalities and Helsinki.
Med drugim je poudarila, da ni železniške potniške povezave z mestoma Vihti in Lohja, ki bi dnevnim migrantom omogočila preprosto potovanje med tema občinama in Helsinki.
Finland contends that the Commission’s calculation of the amount of aid in the 2005 decision was distorted because the shareholder loan was taken into account twice.
Finska trdi, da je Komisijin izračun zneska pomoči v Odločbi iz leta 2005 izkrivljen, ker je bilo dvakrat upoštevano posojilo delničarjev.
The loan was deducted from the value of the company for the calculation of the value of 50 % of the shares and taken into account as repayment to Componenta.
Posojilo je bilo odšteto od vrednosti podjetja za izračun vrednosti 50 % delnic in se je upoštevalo kot odplačilo Componenti.
Finland therefore argues that the price of the shares (EUR 713092,50) already includes the loan because that amount was calculated on the basis of KK’s net worth.
Finska zato trdi, da cena delnic (713092,50 EUR) že vključuje posojilo, ker je bil ta znesek izračunan na podlagi neto vrednosti KK.
According to Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through state resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods is, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, incompatible with the common market.
V skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe ES je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva s skupnim trgom, kolikor negativno vpliva trgovino med državami članicami.