42 Amendments of Soledad CABEZÓN RUIZ related to 2016/0359(COD)
Amendment 20 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The objective of this Directive is to remove obstacles to the exercise of fundamental freedoms, such as the free movement of capital and freedom of establishment, which result from differences between national laws and procedures on preventive restructuring, insolvency and second chance. This Directive aims at removing such obstacles by ensuring that viable enterprises and individual debtors acting in good faith, consumers and users in financial difficulties have access to effective national preventive restructuring frameworks which enable them to continue operating or, as appropriate, which enable them to maintain access to fundamental public and private goods and services, such as the supply of energy, heating and water, and to maintain decent housing, with a guarantee that they can keep minimum financial means so that they are able to maintain decent levels of subsistence; that honest over indebted entrepreneurs, consumers and users have a second chance after a full discharge of debt after a reasonable period of time; and that the effectiveness of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedures is improved, in particular with a view to shortening their length.
Amendment 28 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) Restructuring should enable enterprises and consumers in financial difficulties to continue business in whole or in part, and ensure that they can maintain decent levels of subsistence, by changing the composition, conditions or structure of assets and liabilities or of their capital or property structure, including by sales of assets, property or parts of the business. Preventive restructuring frameworks should above all enable the enterprises and individual consumers to restructure at an early stage and to avoid their insolvency. Those frameworks should maximise the total value to creditors, owners and the economy as a whole and should prevent both unnecessary job losses and losses of knowledge and skills, and an increase in poverty and risk of exclusion among honest over-indebted consumers who are not entrepreneurs. They should also prevent the build-up of non- performing loans and debts. In the restructuring process the rights of all parties involved should be protected, especially those of particularly vulnerable individuals at risk of falling into poverty or social exclusion. At the same time, non- viable businesses with no prospect of survival should be liquidated as quickly as possible.
Amendment 34 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) There are differences between the Member States as regards the range of the procedures available to debtors in financial difficulties in order to restructure their business or debts, in the case of consumers who are not entrepreneurs. Some Member States have a limited range of procedures meaning that businesses are only able to restructure at a relatively late stage, in the context of insolvency procedures. In other Member States, restructuring is possible at an earlier stage but the procedures available are not as effective as they could be or are very formal, in particular limiting the use of out- of-court processes. Similarly, according to recently published studies1a, there are different models for the treatment of over- indebtedness among consumers, individuals and families across Europe. Mention might be made of three specific models1b: the Anglo-Saxon or market model, the Franco-Scandinavian or debtor rehabilitation model, and the Germanic model of debtor responsibility. Indeed, in some European Union countries such as Spain and Bulgaria these procedures are virtually non- existent in the case of natural persons who are not entrepreneurs. With regard to national rules giving entrepreneurs a second chance, in particular by granting them discharge from the debts they have incurred in the course of their business, these vary between Member States in respect of the length of the discharge period and the conditions for granting such a discharge. __________________ 1a Study on a new approach to business failure and insolvency. Published by EC DG for JUSTICE and CONSUMERS: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/insolv ency/insolvency_study_2016_final_en.pdf (24.05.2017) 1bGutiérrez-Peris, D. Viavoice (2015) Personal insolvency laws in Europe
Amendment 42 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) In many Member States it takes more than three years for bankrupt, but honest entrepreneurs or honest over- indebted consumers who are not entrepreneurs to discharge their debts and make a fresh start. Inefficient second chance frameworks result in entrepreneurs having to relocate in other jurisdictions in order to benefit from a fresh start in a reasonable period of time, or consumers who are not entrepreneurs frequently being thrown into poverty and exclusion or facing living and subsistence conditions that are a violation of human rights and the right to maintain decent living standards. This all comes at considerable additional costs to both their creditors and the debtors themselves, and for society as a whole. Long disqualification orders or eviction which often accompany a procedure leading to discharge create obstacles to the freedom to take up and pursue a self-employed, entrepreneurial activity and violate people’s dignity.
Amendment 45 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) Excessive length of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedures in several Member States, or the virtual inexistence of these procedures in some cases, is an important factor triggering low business recovery rates and, deterring investors from making business in jurisdictions where procedures risk taking too longthe countries concerned and dramatically contributing to the increase in the number of citizens at risk of poverty or social and labour exclusion, undermining the social and economic resilience of society as a whole.
Amendment 51 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) Those differences lead to uneven conditions for access to credit and to uneven recovery rates in the Member States. A higher degree of harmonisation in the field of restructuring, insolvency and second chance for entrepreneurs and for consumers who are not entrepreneurs is thus indispensable for a well-functioning single market in general and for a working Capital Markets Union in particular.
Amendment 54 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) The additional risk-assessment and cross-border enforcement costs for creditors of over-indebted entrepreneurs who relocate to another Member State in order to obtain a second chance in a much shorter period of time should also be removed. The additional costs for entrepreneurs stemming from the need to relocate to another Member State in order to benefit from a second chance should also be reduced. This would likewise reduce the alarming costs for society of the spectacular rise in poverty and exclusion, as well as use of the black economy, resulting from unresolved over- indebtedness among individuals and families who daily face eviction or lack of access to basic goods and services, which generates a pocket of marginalisation that is not only unjust but also unproductive and counter-productive in terms of economic efficiency. Furthermore, the obstacles stemming from long disqualification orders linked to an entrepreneur's over- indebtedness suppresses entrepreneurshipindebtedness, or eviction and the cutting-off of supplies linked to the over-indebtedness of natural persons who are not entrepreneurs, suppresses entrepreneurship and fosters the unproductive exclusion of citizens, in a way that is not only unjust but also inefficient.
Amendment 62 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) It is necessary to lower the costs of restructuring for both debtors and creditors. Therefore the differences which hamper the early restructuring of viable enterprises and productive and able citizens in financial difficulties, and the possibility of a second chance for honest entrepreneurs and consumers who are not entrepreneurs, should be reduced. That should bring greater transparency, legal certainty and predictability in the Union. Also, it should maximise the returns to all types of creditors and investors and encourage cross-border investment, as well as greater social cohesion across the Union, which should improve the resilience of European economies. Greater coherence should also facilitate the restructuring of groups of companies irrespective of where the members of the group are located in the Union.
Amendment 65 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) Removing the barriers to effective restructuring of viable enterprises and consumers who are not entrepreneurs in financial difficulties contributes to minimising job losses, losses for creditors in the supply chain, preserves know-how and skills, and hencfosters a fairer and more egalitarian society for the benefits of the wider economy. Facilitating a second chance for entrepreneurs and for natural persons who are not entrepreneurs avoids their exclusion from the labour market and enables them to restart entrepreneurial activities,nd economic activities, also avoiding their making use of the black economy while drawing lessons from past experience. Finally, reducing the length of restructuring procedures would result in higher recovery rates for creditors as the passing of time would normally only result in a further loss of value for the enterprise. Moreover, efficient insolvency frameworks would enable a better assessment of the risks involved in lending and borrowing decisions and smooth the adjustment for over-indebted enterprises, minimizing the economic and social costs involved in their deleveraging process.
Amendment 69 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) In particular small and medium sized enterprises and consumers who are not entrepreneurs should benefit from a more coherent approach at Union level, since they do not have the necessary resources to cope with high restructuring costs and to take advantage of the more efficient restructuring procedures in some Member States. Small and medium enterprises, as well as consumers, especially when facing financial difficulties, often do not have the resources to hire professional advice, therefore early warning tools should be put in place to alert these debtors to the urgency to act. In order to help such enterprises and individuals restructure at low cost, model restructuring plans should also be developed nationally and made available online. Debtors should be able to use and adapt them to their own needs and to the specificities of their business or the nature of their indebtedness as consumers who are not entrepreneurs.
Amendment 74 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
(15) Consumer over-indebtedness is a matter of great economic and social concern and is closely related to the reduction of debt overhang. Furthermore, it is often not possible to draw a clear distinction between the consumer and business debts of an entrepreneur. A second chance regime for entrepreneurs would not be effective if the entrepreneur had to go through separate procedures, with different access conditions and discharge periods, to discharge his business personal debts and his non-business personal debts. For these reasons, although this Directive does not include binding rules on consumer over-indebtedness, Member States should be able to also apply the discharge provisions to consumers who are not entrepreneurs.
Amendment 80 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) To promote efficiency and reduce delays and costs, national preventive restructuring frameworks should include flexible procedures limiting the involvement of judicial or administrative authorities to where it is necessary and proportionate in order to safeguard the interests of creditors and other interested parties likely to be affected. To avoid unnecessary costs and reflect the early nature of the procedure, debtors should in principle be left in control of their assets or property and the day-to-day operation of their business or, as appropriate, access to minimum services and goods that guarantee that they can live a decent life. The appointment of a restructuring practitioner, whether a mediator supporting the negotiations of a restructuring plan or an insolvency practitioner supervising the actions of the debtor, should not be mandatory in every case, but made on a case-by-case basis depending on the circumstances of the case or on the debtor's specific needs. Furthermore, there should not necessarily be a court order for the opening of the restructuring process which may be informal as long as the rights of third parties are not affected. Nevertheless, a degree of supervision should be ensured when this is necessary to safeguard the legitimate interests of one or more creditors or another interested party. This may be the case, in particular, when a general stay of individual enforcement actions is granted by the judicial or administrative authority or where it appears necessary to impose a restructuring plan on dissenting classes of creditors.
Amendment 84 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) A debtor should be able to request the judicial or administrative authority for a temporary stay of individual enforcement actions which should also suspend the obligation to file for opening of insolvency procedures where such actions may adversely affect negotiations and hamper the prospects of a restructuring of the debtor's business or, as appropriate, may affect access to minimum goods and services that are necessary to be able to live a decent life. The stay of enforcement could be general, that is to say affecting all creditors, or targeted towards individual creditors. In order to provide for a fair balance between the rights of the debtor and of creditors, the stay should be granted for a period of no more than four months. Complex restructurings may, however, require more time. Member States may decide that in such cases, extensions of this period may be granted by the judicial or administrative authority, providing there is evidence that negotiations on the restructuring plan are progressing and that creditors are not unfairly prejudiced. If further extensions are granted, the judicial or administrative authority should be satisfied that there is a strong likelihood that a restructuring plan will be adopted. Member States should ensure that any request to extend the initial duration of the stay is made within a reasonable deadline so as to allow the judiciary or administrative authorities to deliver a decision within due time. Where a judicial or administrative authority does not take a decision on the extension of a stay of enforcement before it lapses, the stay should cease to have effects on the day the stay period expires. In the interest of legal certainty, the total period of the stay should be limited to twelve months.
Amendment 90 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) Creditors to which the stay applies should also not be allowed to withhold performance, terminate, accelerate or in any other way modify executory contracts during the stay period, provided the debtor continues to comply with its existing obligations under such contracts. Early termination would endanger the ability of the business to continue operating during restructuring negotiations or that of individual consumers and users to continue to have access to minimum goods and services that are necessary to be able to live a decent life, especially when it concerns contracts for essential supplies such as gas, electricity, water, telecoms and card payment services or access to premises or their habitual home, as appropriate. However, in order to protect the legitimate interests of creditors and to ensure the least disruption to the operation of creditors in the supply chain, the stay should only apply in respect of the claims which arose before the stay was granted. In order to achieve a successful restructuring, the debtor should pay in the ordinary course of business claims of and owed to creditors unaffected by the stay and the claims of creditors affected by the stay that arise after the stay is granted.
Amendment 92 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) When a debtor enters an insolvency procedure, some suppliers may have contractual rights entitling them to terminate the supply contract solely on account of the insolvency (known as ipso facto clauses). The same may be true when a debtor applies for preventive restructuring measures. Where such clauses are invoked when the debtor is merely negotiating a restructuring plan or requesting a stay of enforcement or in connection with any event connected with the stay, early termination may have a negative impact on the debtor's business and the successful rescue of the business or on the decent living conditions to which any citizen is entitled. Therefore, when the stay is granted by a judicial or administrative authority, it is necessary that creditors to which the stay applies are not allowed to invoke ipso facto clauses which make reference to negotiations on a restructuring plan or a stay or any similar event connected to the stay.
Amendment 120 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 37
Recital 37
(37) The different second chance possibilities in the Member States, or in some cases the lack of such possibilities, may incentivise over-indebted entrepreneurs to relocate to Member States in order to benefit from shorter discharge periods or more attractive conditions for discharge, leading to additional legal uncertainty and costs for the creditors when recovering their claims. Furthermore, the effects of bankruptcy, in particular the social stigma, legal consequences such as disqualifying entrepreneurs from taking up and pursuing entrepreneurial activity, and the on-going inability to pay off debts constitute important disincentives for entrepreneurs seeking to set up a business or have a second chance, even if evidence shows that entrepreneurs who have gone bankrupt have more chance to be successful the second timelong with eviction proceedings or lack of access to basic supplies necessary for decent subsistence resulting from cases of over-indebtedness involving consumers who are not entrepreneurs, together with the on-going inability to pay off debts constitute important disincentives for entrepreneurs seeking to set up a business or consumers wishing to avoid the marginalisation and exclusion that being forced to resort to the undeclared, irregular or black economy would entail and have a second chance, even if evidence shows that entrepreneurs who have gone bankrupt have more chance to be successful the second time and that consumers freed of their debts are more likely to make regular and legal contributions to tax and social security systems and avoid being exposed to exploitation and precarious conditions. Steps should therefore be taken to reduce the negative effects of over-indebtedness and bankruptcy on entrepreneurs, in particular by allowing for a full discharge of debts after a certain period of time and by limiting the length of disqualification orders issued in connection with the debtor's over-indebtedness.
Amendment 123 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 38
Recital 38
(38) A full discharge or the end of disqualification after a short period of time are not appropriate in all circumstances, for instance in cases where the debtor is dishonest or has acted in bad faith. Member States should provide clear guidance to judicial or administrative authorities on how to assess the honesty of the entrepreneur or consumer. For example, in establishing whether the debtor was dishonest, judicial or administrative authorities may take into account circumstances such as the nature and extent of the debts, the time when these were incurred, the efforts of the debtor to meet the debts and comply with legal obligations including public licensing requirements and proper bookkeeping, and actions on his or her part to frustrate recourse by creditors. Disqualification orders may last longer or indefinitely in situations where the entrepreneur exercises certain professions which are considered sensitive in the Member States or where he or she was convicted for criminal activities. In such cases it would be possible for entrepreneurs to benefit from a discharge of debt, but still be disqualified for a longer period of time or indefinitely from exercising a particular profession.
Amendment 124 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 39
Recital 39
(39) It is necessary to maintain and enhance the transparency and predictability of the procedures in delivering outcomes that are favourable for the preservation of businesses and for giving entrepreneurs a second chance or that permit the efficient liquidation of non-viable enterprisesmaintaining decent living conditions for citizens, and for giving entrepreneurs and consumers who are not entrepreneurs a second chance. It is also necessary to reduce the excessive length of insolvency procedures in many Member States, which results in legal uncertainty for creditors and investors and low recovery rates, along with serious problems of poverty and the risk of social and labour exclusion. Finally, given the enhanced cooperation mechanisms between courts and practitioners in cross- border cases set up by Regulation (EU) 2015/848, the professionalism of all actors involved needs to be brought to comparable high levels across the Union. To achieve these objectives, Member States should ensure that members of the judicial and administrative bodies are properly trained and have specialised knowledge and experience in insolvency matters in the case of both entrepreneurs and consumers who are not entrepreneurs. Such specialisation of members of the judiciary should allow making decisions with potentially significant economic and social impacts within a short period of time and should not mean that members of the judiciary have to deal exclusively with restructuring, insolvency and second chance matters. For example, the creation of specialised courts or chambers in accordance with national law governing the organisation of the judicial system could be an efficient way of achieving these objectives.
Amendment 135 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) procedures leading to a discharge of debts incurred by honest over-indebted entrepreneurs or natural persons who are not entrepreneurs (consumers who are not entrepreneurs) and allowing them to take up a new activity or to maintain decent living conditions;
Amendment 136 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point g
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point g
Amendment 137 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 1 – paragraph 3
Article 1 – paragraph 3
3. Member States may extend the application of the procedures referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1shall, in accordance with point (b) of paragraph 1, apply the procedures provided for to over indebted natural persons who are not entrepreneurs.
Amendment 140 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2
(2) 'restructuring' means changing the composition, conditions, or structure of a debtor's assets and liabilities or any other part of the debtor's capital structure, including share capital, individual property or a combination of those elements, including sales of assets or parts of the business or of the natural person’s property, with the objective of enabling the enterprise or consumer affected by debt to continue in whole or in part or to maintain decent conditions for their subsistence;
Amendment 148 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 13 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 13 a (new)
(13a) ‘over-indebted non-business consumer’ means a natural person not exercising a trade, business, craft or profession comparable to the activities of an employer, who, as a consumer or user of goods or public or private services, is temporarily or permanently unable to pay debts as they fall due;
Amendment 154 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that debtors and entrepreneurs have access to early warning tools which can detect a deteriorating business development or worsening consumer indebtedness and signal to the debtor or the entrepreneur the need to act as a matter of urgency.
Amendment 172 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that debtors accessing preventive restructuring procedures remain totally or at least partially in control of their assets and the day-to-day operation of the business. or, where applicable, non-business consumers may keep all or, at least, part of their income or assets in order that they and their immediate families may maintain decent living conditions.
Amendment 179 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that debtors who are negotiating a restructuring plan with their creditors may benefit from a stay of individual enforcement actions, such as eviction, if and to the extent such a stay is necessary to support or make sustainable the negotiations of a restructuring plan.
Amendment 181 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that a stay of individual enforcement actions may be ordered in respect of all types of creditors, including secured and preferential creditors, particularly in the case of individual non-business debtors facing eviction from their habitual home or being deprived of utilities essential for maintaining a decent life, such as water, electricity and heating. The stay may be general, covering all creditors, or limited, covering one or more individual creditors, in accordance with national law.
Amendment 185 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 4
Article 6 – paragraph 4
4. Member States shall limit the duration of the stay of individual enforcement actions to a maximum period of no more than four months; this deadline may be extended on a seasonal, temporary or indefinite basis in the case of non- business debtors in circumstances jeopardising decent living conditions for them or their immediate family, such as lack of a fixed abode or loss of access to essential utilities such as water, gas or electricity.
Amendment 186 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
Article 6 – paragraph 5 – introductory part
5. Member States may nevertheless, in any event, enable judicial or administrative authorities to extend the initial duration of the stay of individual enforcement actions or to grant a new stay of individual enforcement actions, upon request of the debtor or of creditors. Such extension or new period of stay of individual enforcement actions shall be granted only if there is evidence that:
Amendment 189 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 5 – point b a (new)
Article 6 – paragraph 5 – point b a (new)
(ba) there are circumstances jeopardising decent living conditions for the individual or their immediate family, such as lack of a fixed abode or loss of access to essential utilities such as water, gas or electricity.
Amendment 190 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 6
Article 6 – paragraph 6
6. Any further extensions shall be given only if the conditions referred to in points (a), (b) and (ba) of paragraph 5 are met and the circumstances of the case show a strong likelihood that a restructuring plan will be adopted or, for non-business consumers, in the event of a serious deterioration in decent living conditions.
Amendment 191 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 7
Article 6 – paragraph 7
7. The total duration of the stay of individual enforcement actions, including extensions and renewals, shall not exceed twelve months, for business debtors.
Amendment 192 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 8 – point a
Article 6 – paragraph 8 – point a
(a) if – for business debtors only – it becomes apparent that a proportion of creditors who under national law could block the adoption of the restructuring plan does not support the continuation of the negotiations; o
Amendment 194 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 9
Article 6 – paragraph 9
9. Member States shall ensure that, where an individual creditor or a single class of creditors is or would be unfairly prejudiced by a stay of individual enforcement actions, the judicial or administrative authority may decide not grant the stay of individual enforcement actions or may lift a stay of individual enforcement actions already granted in respect of that creditor or class of creditors, at the request of the creditors concerned, provided that – in respect of non-business debtors – such a decision does not jeopardise decent living conditions.
Amendment 213 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall make a model for restructuring plans available online. That model shall contain at least the information required under national law and shall provide general but practical information on how the model is to be used. The model shall be made available in the co-official language or languages of the Member State. Member States shall endeavour to make the model available in other languages, in particular in languages used in international business. It shall be designed in such a way that it can be adapted to the needs and circumstances of every case.
Amendment 273 #
Proposal for a directive
Title 3
Title 3
SECOND CHANCE FOR ENTREPRENEURS AND CONSUMERS
Amendment 275 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 1
Article 19 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that over-indebted entrepreneurs and non- business consumers may be fully discharged of their debts in accordance with this Directive.
Amendment 277 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 19 – paragraph 2
Article 19 – paragraph 2
2. Member States in which a full discharge of debt is conditional on a partial repayment of debt by the entrepreneur or non-business consumer shall ensure that the related repayment obligation is based on the individual situation of the entrepreneur or consumer and is notably proportionate to his or her disposable income over the discharge period. and is not likely to deprive them of the financial means and/or access to goods and services needed to ensure a decent living for them and their immediate family.
Amendment 279 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The period of time after which over-indebted entrepreneurs and non- business consumers may be fully discharged from their debts shall be no longer than three years starting from:
Amendment 282 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 20 – paragraph 2
Article 20 – paragraph 2
2. Member States shall ensure that on expiry of the discharge period, over- indebted entrepreneurs and non-business consumers are discharged of their debts without the need to re-apply to a judicial or administrative authority.
Amendment 284 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. By way of derogation from Articles 19, 20, 21 and 21(a), Member States may maintain or introduce provisions restricting access to discharge or laying down longer periods for obtaining a full discharge or longer disqualification periods in certain well-defined circumstances and where such limitations are justified by a general interest, in particular where:
Amendment 287 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 23 – paragraph 1
Article 23 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that, whereboth for an over-indebted entrepreneur has professional debts incurred in the course of his or her trade, business, craft or profession as well as personal debts incurred outside those activities, and for an over-indebted non-business consumer, all debts are treated in a single procedure for the purposes of obtaining a discharge.