Applicant (AP1): I will address the manager issue, and in so doing, I will try to respond to some of the judges' questions on this point. The government now suggests that the applicant was the actual company's manager up until 2000. But this suggestion, with all due respect, is preposterous. In fact, the applicant has served as acting manager for less than two years, from 1993 to 1995, and as managing director for less than one year and three months, from 1995 to 6 May 1996. The government themselves acknowledge in their pleadings that the applicant resigned on 6 May 1996. That is to say, more than three years before the FOCA was approved, and more than 4 and 1 1 2 years before the striking of proceedings were initiated. Actually, in a letter to the district court of 18 November 2000, the applicant clarified that he was not the manager of the company anymore, and also that he had made efforts to wind up the company through voluntary bankruptcy proceedings in 1997. Besides, even domestic jurisdiction said that the applicant's former managerial position was not decisive in order to establish his personal liability. As a matter of fact, all the other shareholders against whom the Railway of Slovenia brought enforcement proceedings under the FOCA have been held personally liable, even if they had neither served as managers nor been actively involved in the management of the company. The case of one of these shareholders, Mr. Pogorelic, is exemplary in this respect, because Mr. Pogorelic was considered to be an active shareholder only because he owned an 11.11% share in the company. But Mr. Pogorelic was seriously injured in the car accident that occurred in 1993, which caused the death of two key members and managers of the company, so that his actual influence in the company was virtually non-existent. That notwithstanding, he was found to be an active shareholder on the basis of the very same presumption that was applied against the applicant. We have submitted the decision of the Constitutional Court in the case of Mr. Pogorelic. We have also submitted the decisions of the District and Higher Court of Maribor of 2003 and 2013 concerning the case of three former employees of a Strakhov company who received around 12% share each in order to show loyalty to the director who owned 51% of the company. All that notwithstanding, domestic courts found that these three minority shareholders were active within the meaning of the Constitutional Court decision of 2002. And once again, these findings were exclusively based on their theoretical possibility to influence the company making use of their minority rights. Clearly, these rights were useless against a single shareholder holding 51% share. Yet the higher court stated that the shareholders alone were guilty for remaining passive and rather paradoxically maintained that it was precisely their passivity that made them active shareholders under the FOCA. In conclusion, it is the government themselves who say at paragraph 76 of their observation that in order to avoid liability, the applicant could have withdrawn from the company and that case law confirmed that only persons who were company members at the time the company was struck off from the court register were liable for the obligations under the FOCA. So the only fault that can be attributed to the applicant is that he had not given up his shares before striking off. And he didn't do so precisely because he acted in good faith.