CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 17 juin 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBA8F0733 { width:75.42pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sA98B00B8 { width:158.83pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s6CC5DCF8 { width:112.14pt; display:inline-block } .s73E9FC7D { width:453.6pt; display:inline-block } .sF9C0A319 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sEE1EDB13 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sB0389500 { width:148.13pt; display:inline-block } .s73BDF25 { width:118.15pt; display:inline-block } .sA2B16EFE { width:100.76pt; display:inline-block } .sDAB17562 { width:82.77pt; display:inline-block } .s20841D92 { width:159.5pt; display:inline-block } .s354EDC95 { width:152.8pt; display:inline-block } .s8C054120 { width:136.13pt; display:inline-block } .s8FA386DE { width:104.11pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     320   17.6.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments concerning France, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 11 Chamber judgments, of which only the friendly-settlement judgments are final. [1]   (1)     Asnar v. France (application no. 57030/00)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Excessive length of civil proceedings   The applicant, Claude Asnar, was born in 1936 and lives in Pau. He used to be a school teacher. In October 1988 he applied – unsuccessfully – to the Director of the Bordeaux Education Authority for early retirement at the age of 55 with immediate pension rights.   He complained, among other things, that the resulting proceedings had breached Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights because they were unreasonably long.   The Court noted that the proceedings in question had begun on 1 December 1988 and ended on 20 October 1999. They had therefore taken more than 10 years before two levels of jurisdiction. The Court held unanimously that there had been a breach of the “reasonable-time” requirement of Article 6 § 1. It declared the applicant’s other complaints inadmissible. Mr Asnar was awarded 17,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.) Violation Article 6 § 1 (2)     Lutz v. France (no. 49531/99)   Violation Article 13   Excessive length of civil proceedings   Yves Lutz was born in 1954 and lives in Grenoble. On 26 May 1994 he was made subject to a supervision order on mental-health grounds.   He complained, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the Convention, of the excessive length of the proceedings concerning the lawfulness of the supervision order and, under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), that there was no court to which he could submit that complaint.   The Court found that the period of three years and nine months it had taken for the Court of Cassation to deal with the case constituted a breach of the “reasonable-time” requirement, particularly as the proceedings had already lasted a year and four months before the case reached the Court of Cassation. It therefore held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It also found a violation of Article 13, as there had been no effective remedy in domestic law at the time the application was lodged that would have enabled Mr Lutz to complain of the length of proceedings. By way of just satisfaction he was awarded EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   Violation Article 6 § 1 (3)     SCI Boumois v. France (no. 55007/00)   Violation Article 13   Length of proceedings in the administrative courts and lack of domestic remedy for delays   SCI Boumois is a property company that owns land in the municipality of Saint-Martin-de-la-Place. In 1985 the local mayor issued an enforcement notice requiring the company to suspend work on a development scheme on the land. The enforcement notice was set aside by the Conseil d’État in 1991.   On 14 August 1991 SCI Boumois sent a letter before action to the mayor claiming EUR   123,000 in compensation for the loss caused by the invalid enforcement notice. Having received no reply, it brought an action in the administrative courts. The case is currently pending in the Conseil d’État .   The company complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) of the length of the proceedings in the administrative courts (11 years and 9   months to date) and, under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), of the lack of a domestic remedy for the delays.   The Court noted that the proceedings had taken 11 years and 9 months, during which period a preliminary application had been heard and the case had come before five levels of jurisdiction. Taken individually, the length of the proceedings completed in each court was not manifestly unreasonable. However, the Court noted that the case had not given rise to any particular difficulty, and the applicant company had not been responsible for any of the delays, whereas some of the delays had been attributable to the local authority. Accordingly, it found that an overall period of 11 years and 9 months to date did not satisfy the “reasonable-time” requirement set out in Article 6 § 1 and held unanimously that there had been a violation of that provision.   As to the complaint of a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, the Court noted that it had found a violation in a similar case. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   The Court awarded SCI Boumois EUR 3,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.) Violation Article 6 § 1 (4)     Seidel v. France (no. 60955/00)   Violation Article 13   Excessive length of proceedings in the administrative courts and lack of domestic remedy for delays   The applicant, Jean Seidel, is a French national who was born in 1936 and lives at Savigny en Revermont.   On 3 July 1995 he sent a letter before action to the Perray-Vaucluse Psychiatric Hospital seeking compensation for damage he had sustained as a result of its refusal to allow him to visit a patient. Having received no reply from the hospital, the applicant issued proceedings in the administrative courts. The Versailles Administrative Court found in his favour and awarded him compensation of just over EUR 7,600. That judgment was upheld by the Paris Administrative Court of Appeal on 16 October 2002.   He complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the length of those proceedings. He also complained under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the lack of an effective remedy enabling him to have his case heard within a reasonable time.   The Court noted that the proceedings, which had begun with a letter before action and ended with the judgment of the Administrative Court of Appeal, had taken seven years and nearly four months. During that period, the letter before action had been considered and the case heard by two levels of jurisdiction.   The Court found that the circumstances of the case were not such as to justify the length of the proceedings – four years and nearly five months – in the Administrative Court of Appeal. The case had not given rise to any particular difficulty. The Court found that the applicant’s case had not been heard within a reasonable time and, accordingly, held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   As to the complaint of a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, the Court noted that it had found a violation in a similar case. It accordingly held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13.   The Court awarded Mr Seidel EUR 6,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (5)     Ruianu v. Romania (no. 34647/97)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Failure to execute a final and enforceable court decision   Gheorghe Ruianu was a Romanian national who was born in 1930. Until his death in March 2002 he lived at Târgu-Jiu. His widow, Ana Ruianu, has been given leave by the Court to pursue the proceedings before it.   In 1992 Mr Ruianu’s neighbours built a workshop and cake shop partly on his land; he obtained an enforceable injunction from the Târgu-Jiu Court of First Instance suspending the building works. He also brought a successful action in the Gorj County Court against his neighbours for the restitution of the land and on 5 November 1993 obtained an order for the demolition of the part of the building that was on his land. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal and became final and enforceable on 23 November 1994.   In 1993 the Târgu-Jiu Municipal Council also brought an action against Mr Ruianu’s neighbours, as they did not have planning permission for the building works. Mr Ruianu intervened in the proceedings in support of the Municipal Council’s case. On 19 January 1995 the Timişoara Court of First Instance found in favour of the claimants and ordered the demolition of the building.   Mr Ruianu made repeated applications to the judicial authorities in an attempt to have the court orders executed. His neighbours received various notices to comply, but consistently refused to do so. On 28 July 2000 a court bailiff accompanied by, among others, police officers attended the premises in order to execute the decision of 19   January 1995. The applicant’s neighbours threatened to burn themselves to death if he attempted to do so. One of them, Nicolae Tomoială, doused himself in petrol and set fire to his clothes. He died of his injuries two days later. Thereafter, Mr Ruianu’s requests for execution of the order went unheeded.   Mr Ruianu complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the failure to execute the demolition order, which was final. He also complained that the nuisance caused by the cake shop constituted a breach of Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   The Court decided to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 from the standpoint of the “right to a court” guaranteed by that provision. It noted that the execution proceedings had been pending since November 1994 and that the case file showed that Mr   Ruianu had repeatedly sought to have the judicial decisions in his favour executed. It had not been his responsibility to provide the court bailiff with the means of securing effective execution and indeed the Romanian courts had not given him permission to carry out the demolition himself. Attempts at execution had been made when the decisions had become enforceable and at the initiative of Mr Ruianu. The court bailiff had not attended the premises with the machinery necessary to carry out the demolition until 28   July 2000. No other attempt at execution had been made since, despite Mr Ruianu’s requests.   Despite their obligations as the officials responsible for the enforcement of court orders, the Romanian authorities had not imposed any penalty on Mr Ruianu’s neighbours for their failure to comply with final judicial decisions. The Court considered that there could be no justification for the first proper attempt at execution not being made until July 2000 – six years after the relevant court order was made – and found that the delay was made all the more regrettable by the fact that the Romanian authorities should have intervened as a matter of urgency after the interlocutory injunction had been issued in 1992, when the building was still being built.   By failing for more than eight years to take the measures necessary to have a final and enforceable court order executed, the Romanian authorities had deprived Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of effect. Accordingly, the Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of that provision. It also held unanimously that it was unnecessary to examine the complaints of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. By six votes to one the Court awarded the applicant just satisfaction of EUR   10,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1 000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (6)     Beňačková v. Slovakia (no. 53376/99)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Excessive length of civil proceedings   Anna Beňačková, a Slovakian national, was born in 1947 and lives in Bratislava. On 3   May 1991 she applied to the District Court for compensation for a work-related accident. The proceedings are still pending before that court.   Ms Beňačková complained, under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time), that the proceedings had lasted too long and, under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), that she had no effective remedy by which to pursue that complaint.   The Court noted that the proceedings had been continuing for over 11 years and held unanimously that there had accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1. However, since a new remedy for accelerating proceedings had been available in Slovakia since 1 January 2002, it held that it was not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 13. The Court awarded Ms Beňačková EUR   4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   300 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   (7)     Pescador Valero v. Spain (no. 62435/00)   Violation Article 6 § 1   Impartiality of a judge having professional connections with one of the parties   The applicant, Sixto José Pescador Valero, is a Spanish national who was born in 1941 and lives in Albacete. He obtained a law degree from Castilla-la-Mancha University and works in the administrative division there.   In 1996 the chief education officer at the University removed him as head of the administrative staff ( gerente ) on the Albacete university campus, a post he had held since 1985. Mr Pescador Valero sought judicial review of that decision in the High Court of Justice. The case was assigned to a section of the Court presided over by Judge J.B.L., who made various interlocutory orders.   On learning that Judge J.B.L. was a visiting professor at the University of Castilla-La Mancha, Mr Pescador Valero sought an order requiring him to stand down. A plenary session of the court dismissed that application on the ground that Mr Pescador Valero should have been aware of the judge’s professional links with the University and made his application earlier. In a judgment of 10 May 1999 the High Court of Justice, presided over by Judge   J.B.L., found that Mr Pescador Valero’s removal from his post as head of the administrative staff on the university campus had been lawful. The Constitutional Court dismissed an amparo appeal by him.   Mr Pescador Valero complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to an independent and impartial tribunal) of the Judge J.B.L.’s involvement in the proceedings, on the ground that he had professional and financial links with the university.   The Court found that there was no evidence to suggest that Judge J.B.L. had been guilty of prejudice or bias.   It considered that Mr Pescador Valero was entitled to consider that the case was one in which, under the Institutional Law on the Judiciary, the judge was required to stand down, as he was directly or indirectly connected to the litigation. In that regard, it noted that under Spanish law a judge coming within the statutory grounds for withdrawal or challenge was required not to take part in the case. Mr Pescador Valero had challenged Judge J.B.L., but his application had been dismissed by the domestic courts on the ground that he should have been aware of the judge’s professional links with the University. However, in so reasoning, both the domestic courts and the Spanish Government had relied on the presumption that Mr   Pescador Valero had been aware of the position, when there was no concrete evidence that he had been.   As to Mr Pescador Valero’s doubts regarding the objective impartiality of Judge J.B.L., the Court noted that the judge had had regular, close professional connections with Mr Pescador Valero’s opponents in the proceedings and been in receipt of a not unsubstantial periodic salary (of EUR 7,200 a year, according to the Government). That situation could legitimately give rise to fears on the part of the applicant that the judge might not be impartial. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded him EUR 2,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (8)     Raf v. Spain (no. 53652/00)   No violation Article 5   Lawfulness of detention pending extradition   The applicant, Roland Raf, is a Yugoslav national who was born in 1949. He is currently in prison in France.   He was arrested in Spain on 11 April 1997 and charged with being a member of a gang specialised in forging false identity papers, and with safe-breaking. The same day an order was made for his detention pending trial, coupled with his re-arrest under an international arrest warrant and detention pending extradition.   The Malaga Audiencia Provincial made an order on 13 April 1999 for the applicant’s release, as the statutory maximum period for holding prisoners on remand had been reached. However, Mr Raf remained in detention pursuant to a request for his extradition made by France in May 1997 on charges of aggravated rape, torture and kidnapping.   In a judgment of 19 May 1999 the Malaga Audiencia Provincial convicted the applicant of theft, forgery and possessing an offensive weapon and sentenced him to eight-years' imprisonment. In February 2001 the applicant was handed over to the French authorities following a decision by the Spanish Cabinet on 19 February 1999 to grant extradition and a decision of the Audiencia Nacional on 16 January 2001 authorising a temporary hand over.   The applicant complained under Article 5 (right to liberty and security) that he had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty pending his extradition.   As regards the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention, the Court noted that between 11 April 1997 and 13 April 1999 he had been detained not only for extradition purposes but also on suspicion of various offences for which he was awaiting trial in the Spanish courts, in accordance with Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention. From 13 April 1999 until his conviction on 19 May 1999 he had been held solely with a view to extradition, in accordance with Article 5 §   1 (f) of the Convention. Following his conviction, he was held in accordance with the provisions of Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Lastly, from the date on which the Audiencia Nacional ruled that he should be handed over to the French authorities (16   January 2001) the applicant was held with a view to extradition, in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, until the date he was handed over to the French authorities.   The Court thus noted that the applicant had at all times been detained in accordance with the exceptions set out in Article 5 § 1 and found that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, his detention had been in accordance with the requirements of the Convention.   As to the length of his detention pending extradition, the Court noted that the applicant had been detained solely for extradition purposes for two periods: the first had lasted a month and six days and the second 28 days. It considered that that could not be regarded as unreasonable and that the authorities had shown the necessary diligence in the conduct of the case taken as a whole. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article   5 of the Convention. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (9)     Dilek v. Turkey (no. 31845/96)   Friendly settlement   Destruction of house and contents   Kemal Dilek, a Turkish national, was born in 1930 and lives in Marl-Haim, Germany. He used to own a house in the Bingöl province in south-east Turkey. On 14 December 1995, after being alerted by a relative, he found that the house and its contents had been burned. He requested the public prosecutor to carry out an investigation.   He complained, under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment); Article 5 (right to liberty and security); Article 6 (right to a fair hearing); Article 8 (right to respect for family life); Article 13 (right to an effective remedy); Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination); and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) about the destruction of his house by security forces.   The case has been struck out following a friendly settlement in which Mr Dilek is to be paid EUR   25,000 for the damage sustained and for legal expenses. The Turkish Government have made the following declaration:   “The Government regret the occurrence, as in the present case, of individual cases of destruction of home, property and possessions resulting from the acts of agents of the State in south-east Turkey, obliging civilians to leave their villages, and of failure by the authorities to carry out effective investigations into the circumstances surrounding such events, notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to prevent such acts and to remedy such failures. It is accepted that such acts and failures constitute a violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and, given the circumstances of the destruction and the emotional suffering entailed, of Article 3 of the Convention. The Government undertake to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures to ensure that the individual rights guaranteed by these Articles - including the obligation to carry out effective investigations - are respected in the future. It is noted in this connection that new legal and administrative measures have been adopted which have resulted in a reduction in the occurrence of destruction of property in circumstances similar to those of the instant application and in more effective investigations being carried out.   The Government consider that the supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of the execution of Court judgments concerning Turkey in this and similar cases is an appropriate mechanism for ensuring that improvements will continue to be made in this context. To this end, necessary co-operation in this process will continue to take place.” (The judgment is available only in English.)   (10)     Merinç v. Turkey (no. 28504/95)   Friendly settlement   Alleged torture and ill-treatment in police custody   Kutay Merinç is a Turkish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Ankara.   He was arrested on 2 May 1989 on suspicion of having links with an illegal organisation, Dev-Yol , and held in police custody until 22 May 1989. On the latter date he was examined by a doctor. No traces of injuries were found. Medical reports drawn up on 24 and 26 May 1989 found Mr Merinç to be suffering from fractures to both arms.   Pursuant to Article 243 of the Turkish Criminal Code, which makes it an offence to use torture to extract confessions from suspects, the public prosecutor brought criminal proceedings two police officers who had interrogated Mr Merinç. On 18 December 1990 the police officers were sentenced by the assize court to 4 years and 2 months’ imprisonment and suspended from duty for 2 months and 15 days.   On an appeal by the police officers, the Court of Cassation found that there had been a factual error in the determination of sentence, quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the assize court. It is currently pending in the Supreme Administrative Court, having in the meantime been referred to the administrative committee of the governor’s office in Ankara by the assize court.   The applicant complained under Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of ill-treatment while in police custody. He also alleged a breach of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) on account of the ineffective manner in which those responsible had been prosecuted.   The case was struck out of the list following a friendly settlement under the terms of which the applicant is to receive EUR 23,000 for the damage sustained and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. The Turkish Government made the following declaration:   “The Government of the Republic of Turkey regret the occurrence of the incidents complained of by Mr Kutay Merinç in his application no. 28504/95, notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to prevent such actions. It is accepted that the recourse to torture of detainees and the resulting reluctance to investigate the case diligently and within a reasonable time constitute inter alia a violation of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Government undertake to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures to ensure that the prohibition of ill-treatment is complied with in the future. The Government refer in this connection to the commitments which they undertook in the Declaration agreed on in Application no.   34382/97 and reiterate their resolve to give effect to those commitments. They note also that the legal and administrative measures that were recently adopted have resulted in a reduction in the occurrence of ill-treatment in circumstances similar to those of the instant application.   The Government consider that the supervision by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of the execution of Court judgments concerning Turkey in this and similar cases is an appropriate mechanism for ensuring that improvements will continue to be made in the context of human rights. To this end, necessary co-operation in this process will continue to take place.” (The judgment is available only in French.)   (11)     Nuray Şen v. Turkey (no. 41478/98)   Violation Article 5 § 3   Length of detention in police custody   Nuray Şen, a Turkish national, was born in 1951 and lives in Paris. On 10 November 1995 she was arrested on suspicion of being a member of a terrorist organisation, the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), and taken to the Gendarme Intelligence and Anti-terrorism Headquarters in Diyarbakir. She was brought before the prosecutor at the Diyarbakir State Security Court on 21 November 1995.   She complained, under Article 5 § 3 (right to be brought promptly before a judge) of the Convention, that she had been held in police custody for 11 days before being brought before a judge. The Turkish Government maintained that 11 days’ detention was justified on account of the scale of PKK violence in south-east Turkey at the time and relied on a notice of derogation from certain rights protected by the Convention which it had sent to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on 6 August 1990. That derogation was revoked on 29   January 2001.   The Court noted that the Government had not given any reasons why the situation in south-east Turkey had been such as to make it impossible to bring the applicant before a judge earlier. Consequently, notwithstanding the difficulties of investigating terrorist offences, it considered that the crisis in the region could not justify the period of detention in question. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 and awarded EUR 3,600 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Joanna Reynell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] .     Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.