Judge (Boštjan Zalar): Thank you, Mr. President. I would have two questions for both parties and one question just for the government. And the first question concerns the so-called irregularities or respect or disrespect of the principle of good corporate governance. And this is a disputed issue between the parties since the applicant says in his observations of 15 December that the applicant did avoid committing any irregularity under the company law and that he also behaved with the diligence required to a private individual who is a minority shareholder of a limited liability company. In paragraph 197 of the observations, the applicant even says that not even the government claimed that the applicant actually committed any irregularity in the management of the company. But on the other side, the government in its observations of 15 December denies that by saying that it has drawn attention to how the applicant should have and could have acted. Separately from the element of active membership, which is, in my opinion, a relevant element for the assessment of proportionality, eventual irregularities or serious professional misconduct are relevant, too, for the assessment of proportionality of interference in the light of the Institute of Lifting the Corporate Whale. For example, the chamber's judgment in this respect in paragraphs 125 and 126 mentions rather very broad elements, such as inadequate capitalization, failure to observe the law and good business practices, prolonged state of insolvency, inactivity of the part of the company's management, and in much more concrete terms, the chamber's judgment mentioned the failure to institute bankruptcy proceedings. So my question is, what were the concrete specific, although the most important, irregularities or serious professional misconduct caused by the management of the company before the strike-off proceedings were initiated? And my second question, which is related to the first one, is, what could the applicant do in order to avoid liability for the debt of the company? Apart from bankruptcy, missed opportunity for the bankruptcy proceedings, is it correct to say that the applicant could simply have withdrawn from the company? And by doing so, he would have avoided liability, as this is claimed by the government in its observations from 15 December under paragraph 76. In this respect, in the paragraph 76 on page 30 of the government's observation, the government relies on a decision of Ljubljana High Court mentioned in the footnote 86. But this decision relates to a legal situation under the law which was enforced in 2009, while the applicant's company was strike-off in 2001. So my second question is, what could the applicant do to avoid being liable for a company's debt? And this is relevant, in my opinion, from the standpoint of the standard of excessive burden, as this being part of the proportionality test. And finally, I have a very short question only for the government. Was there any particular reason that legislator did not introduced the model of somehow limited liability of the members of the company? Because it seems that the law introduced unlimited liability of the members of the company.