Administrative fines are penalties imposed by the institutions of the state against acts of misdemeanor. In the second article of the Misdemeanor Law No. 5326, misdemeanor is defined as an injustice in which the law provides for the application of administrative sanctions in return, administrative sanctions to be applied to misdemeanors are classified as administrative fines and administrative measures.
In the general justification of the law on misdemeanors, it is explained that administrative fines are not a criminal law sanction, are not processed in the judicial register, and are not converted into a prison sentence.
“For these acts (misdemeanors), a sanction is usually prescribed of a monetary nature. But this monetary sanction is not a “judicial fine”, which is a criminal law sanction; it is an “administrative fine” as an administrative sanction.
It is worth noting, even if both sanctions seem to consist of a certain amount of money being taken from the person and sent to the state Treasury, there are significant differences between a judicial fine and an administrative fine in terms of the decision-making authority, the execution of the sanction, and the legal consequences associated with the sanction.
For example, a fine as an administrative sanction is not ruled by the court as a result of the Criminal Procedure process; this penalty is imposed by a person or board performing administrative duties. These penalties are not recorded in the judicial register, and are not converted to jail if they are not paid.
An administrative "fine" can serve as a warning, as well as the purpose of eliminating damage caused to the public. Therefore, it is possible that the administrative fine is fungible in nature.”
According to the article 25 of the Law on Human Rights and Equality of Turkey regulating administrative sanctions.
“(1) In case of violation of the Prohibition of discrimination, the impact of the severity of this violation and its consequences, the economic status of the offender and considering the aggravating effect of multiple discrimination, the public institutions which is responsible for the infringement, public professional organizations, natural persons and legal persons of private law up to about fifteen thousand Turkish Liras thousand Turkish lira administrative fines are applied.
(2) In the event that the administrative fine specified in the first paragraph is applied to public institutions and organizations and professional organizations that qualify as public institutions, the administrative fines paid are recourse to the civil servants and other public officials who caused the discriminatory action based on punishment, working in public institutions and organizations, and those working in professional organizations that have the nature of public institutions.
(3) For persons and organizations covered by the first paragraph that do not comply with the obligations provided for in Article 19 within the period specified, without justifiable reasonand despite the warning, administrative fines shall be applied from five hundred Turkish lira to two thousand Turkish lira. The provision of the second paragraph also applies to administrative fines issued in this paragraph.
(4) The Board may convert an administrative fine to a warning penalty for one time only. If the person or institution who has been given a warning penalty repeats the discriminatory act, the penalty he will receive will be increased by fifty percent. This increase cannot exceed the maximum penalty limit.
(5) administrative fines issued in accordance with this law shall be paid within one month from the notification.
(6) in cases where there is no provision in this law, the provisions of the Misdemeanor Law no: 5326 and dated 30/3/2005 apply in relation to administrative sanctions.”
The provision of the article regulated the principles of the application and payment of administrative fines, and stated that the provisions of the Law on Misdemeanors will apply for cases where there is no provision in the law.
In accordance with the Law No. 5326 on Misdemeanours; institutions who can give administrative fines; State Legal Personality, Administrative Public Institutions, Local Administrations, Economic Public Institutions, Social Public Institutions, Public Scientific Institutions, Professional Organisations With Public Institution Status, Regulatory And Supervisory Institutions.
If the authority to issue administrative fines is granted to Public entities included in the above classification of public entity, and other public entities that are not included in this classification by law, the general principles introduced by Law no 5326 must be complied with in the administrative fines to be issued by these legal entities. In addition, Law no 5326 also gave the authority to issue administrative fines to public prosecutors and courts, and the administrative fines issued by these authorities will also be processed in accordance with the statements made in this communique.
According to Article 25 of Law No. 5326, an administrative sanctions decisions shall include the following information;
Identification and address of the person who has been given an administrative sanction decision,
An act of misdemeanor requiring a decision on administrative sanctions,
All the evidence that will prove that this verb was committed,
Date of decision and identity of the public officials who made the decision,
Place and time of the action,
Penalties are communicated according to the principles set out in the notification law, and administrative sanctions decisions related to these penalties must be finalized in order to be followed up and collected. The period of appeal against an administrative fine is generally 15 days, according to the Article 27 of the law on misdemeanors No. 5326. The appeal period begins from the notification of the administrative fine to the person concerned, that is, from the receipt of the sanction decision on the fine.
Administrative sanctions decisions are finalized in the following cases. ;
Within 15 days from the date of notification of the decision to the relevant person, if no application is made to the magistrate's Criminal Court, at the end of this period,
In the case of an application to the criminal court of peace within the legal period, if the decision of the criminal court of peace has not been objected, at the end of the 7th day following the notification of the decision to the parties, on the date of the decision of the criminal court of peace regarding administrative fines for the amounts below the amount determined by law,
In case of appeal against the decision of the Criminal Court of peace or administrative sanctions decisions issued by the courts, on the date of the decision made on appeal
Article 17/6 of the Law on Misdemeanors No. 5326 “a public official who issues an administrative fine for a misdemeanor shall immediately collect it if the person concerned consents. A person who pays an administrative fine before applying for the law, shall be charged three-quarters of it. Advance payment does not affect the person's right to seek legal action against this decision.” this provision is impeditive. According to this provision, a discount is possible by paying the official who issued the administrative fine at the time of the penalty. Although this payment must be made before applying for the objection path, it will not affect the objection. Payments must be made within the payment period. However, if the legal payment period exceeds the filing period, the advance payment discount will be applied to payments made during the filing period, and the advance payment discount shall not be applied to payments made after this period.
If the administrative fine is not paid, it is not included in our law to turn it into a prison sentence, and if the debt is not paid, only enforcement actions can be performed.
According to the twenty-seventh article of the misdemeanor Law No. 5326, an appeal against administrative fines is made to Criminal Court of Peace, but if a sanction decision is made in addition to an administrative fine, for example, if a penalty for closing a workplace is also imposed along with a fine, the copetent court is an Administrative Court, a case for cancellation must be filed.
The decision of the Council of State on the remedy to be followed in the case of the death of the interlocutor of the administrative fine is presented below:
7.4.2006 day of the thirteenth Department of the Council of State, E:2005/10067, K:2006/1660 numbered;
In the case, the plaintiffs, with the request of cancellation of the administrative fine issued to the ……. who left the inheritance, it is understood that this case was filed by his heirs upon the death of the Named Person on 1.11.2005, the principle of individuality of criminal responsibility also applies in the field of administrative fines, the said administrative fine cannot be collected from the heirs, on the other hand, the court decided to reject the case in terms of capacity in accordance with article 15/1-b of Law 2577 on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not have a capacity to sue on the grounds that they wanted to cancel the transaction related to an administrative fine related to the death only.
The plaintiffs appeal the decision and want it overturned, arguing that the transaction must be cancelled, otherwise the penalty will be finalised, while the defendant administration (Energy Market Regulatory Authority) claims that article seven of Law 6183 can be applied in the case, and that the rationale that the administrative fine does not have the ability to be collected from the heirs is illegal. ... Since it is understood that the decision made by the thirteenth Chamber of the Council of State is in accordance with the procedure and law, it was decided to reject the appeals of the parties, the thirteenth Chamber of the Council of State 7.4.2006 days, E:2005/10067, K:2006/1660 it was decided by a majority vote on the date of 31.5.2007 to uphold the no. (2006/2914 E., 2007/1316 K.)
Dissenting Vote: After the accrual of the administrative fine, the such penalty became public domain. Therefore, against this penalty, which is collectible from heirs, the plaintiffs have the right to sue. For the reason described, we are against the decision by the plaintiffs to accept the appeal and to review the merits of the work and to make a decision that the decision should be overturned. “...In law 6183, there is no regulation on whether judicial and administrative fines will be abandoned in the event of the death of a public debtor. In the seventh paragraph of the thirty-eighth article of the Constitution, the provision “criminal responsibility is personal ” is included. In accordance with this provision of the Constitution, the penalties imposed by both judicial and administrative authorities for administrative or judicial crimes committed by persons must be executed only for that person. Otherwise, ...In paragraph one of the twentieth article of the Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237, there are some provisions entitled ‘The personhood of criminal responsibility’, “(1) criminal responsibility is personal. No one can be held responsible for someone else's act.”, and an other provision in the sixty-fourth article entitled” Death of the accused or convicted“, " (1) in the event of the death of the accused, it is decided to drop the public case. ..."
In accordance with the principle of “Personality of penalties” contained in the thirty-eighth article of the Constitution, it is necessary to waive the collection of these administrative fines.”, provided that there is no separate provision in the special laws where administrative fines are regulated, whether the administrative fines will be followed from the inheritors who have not denied the inheritance in case of death of the persons subject to the penalty, (The first communique on this subject was published in the Official Gazette dated 16/12/2005 and numbered 26025 and entered into force 437 serial no.collection is a general communique, serial number 442.it was repealed with the publication of the communique.)
The decision of Court of appeal on the Competent Court is presented below:
Court of appeal tenth Law Department e. 2016/13487 K. T. 2019/37 14.1.2019
Abstract: the case relates to the cancellation of the accrual of an administrative fine and therefore the request to collect the amount paid unfairly with legal interest. Even if the Council of State, administrative and tax courts are competent courts, such cases are filed in judicial and military jurisdictions and they are rejected from the point of competence, the case may be filed in the competent court within thirty days from the day after the finalization of the decisions on this issue. The date of application to the judicial authority without competence is considered as the date of application to the State Council, administrative and tax courts.
In order for the court to decide on non-competence in terms of cancellation of the administrative fine, it is necessary to make a decision in accordance with the outcome of the administrative fine in terms of finalization at the administrative stage or in case of application to the Administrative Court by making a pending issue in terms of other demands. The establishment of provisions as a result of incomplete examination and misleading evaluation without regard to these material and legal facts is contrary to procedure and law.
The decision of the Court of Disputes is presented below:
no: 2007/4 decision no: 2007/53 decision en: 2.4.2007 (Department of law)
Abstract: due to the violation of the sixteenth article of the Law No. 4077, it was decided that the case filed with the request for the cancellation of the administrative money and interception penalty issued in accordance with the eighth paragraph of the twenty-fifth article, should be resolved in the place of administrative jurisdiction
DECİSİON
Plaintiff: Rasa Güzellik Merkezleri Gıda Tur.İth.İhr.San.Tic.Ltd.Şti.
Defendant: Ministry of Industry and trade (Tük. ve Rek. Kor. Gen. Müd.)
Ad Board 13.12.2005 date, and 123 received at the meeting and with the approval of the Ministry of industry and trade numbered in accordance with the process 2005/286 the date 23.12.2005, No. 4077 on the protection of consumers Law No. 4822 of the law to bet in opposition to said different substance since the sixteenth seventeenth and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment was given under the administrative monetary and notified the plaintiff that it would ban ads.
The attorney of the plaintiff filed an appeal at the Judicial Court on 1.3.2006 asking for the cancellation of the administrative money and suspension penalty.
ANTALYA CRIMINAL COURT OF PEACE ; At the end of the examination on the documents in the file; The decision taken at the meeting of the Advertising Board dated 13.12.2005 and numbered 123 was approved with the approval of the Ministry of Industry and Trade dated 23.12.2005 and numbered 2005/286; Administrative fines were imposed in accordance with Article 25/8 of the same law on the grounds that advertisements were made against the principles of commercial advertising, the objection made is subject to general provisions in accordance with Article 3 of the Law on Misdemeanors, the Constitutional Court decided to annul Article 3 of the Misdemeanor Law No. 5326 on the grounds that it is contrary to the Constitution with its decision No. 2016/35, and the administrative decision specified in Article 25 of the Consumer Protection Law No. 4077 There is a regulation regarding who will give the fine and the objection against this, that the Administrative Courts were assigned in accordance with Article 26 of the same Law; on the grounds that the administrative fines imposed on the basis of the Law on Consumer Protection are not among the decisions that the courts can examine, the objector is free to file a lawsuit with the Administrative Court in accordance with Article 26 / c of the Consumer Protection Law No. 4077; this decision has been finalized.
This time, the attorney of the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the administrative jurisdiction on 2.5.2006 with the same request.
ANKARA 10. ADMINISTRATIVE COURT;
On 16.5.2006 and with the number of E: 2006/1254, K: 2006/1420, Article 2 of the Administrative Jurisdiction Law number 2577, the administrative acts and actions of the administrative judiciary and the administrative contracts made for the execution of one of the general services. It is limited to the cases arising from disputes, the petitions of the case will be examined in terms of duty and authority in the clause 3 / a of the 14th article, and the 15th article will be applied at every stage of the case if the above points are determined after the first examination in the paragraph b, In the subparagraph 1 / a of Article 15, it is stipulated that the rejection of the lawsuits filed with the jurisdiction of the judicial and military judiciary will be decided; In order to protect the social order, general morality, general health, environment and economic order; In Article 2 of the Misdemeanor Law No. 5326, which was put into effect in order to determine the general principles regarding misdemeanors, the types and consequences of administrative sanctions that can be applied in case of misdemeanors, the decision-making process due to misdemeanors, the legal remedies against decisions regarding administrative sanctions and the execution of administrative sanction decisions; "Injustice for which the law provides for imposing administrative sanctions" was defined as Misdemeanor. In Article 3; The general provisions of this Law will be applied to the misdemeanors in other laws, In article 16; It was stated that the administrative sanctions to be applied in case of misdemeanors consist of administrative fines and administrative measures; In article 27 of the above-mentioned Law titled "Application Path"; It is possible to apply to the criminal court of peace within fifteen days at the latest from the date of notification or declaration of the decision against administrative fines and administrative sanction decisions regarding the transfer of property to the public, Provisional Article 2 also states that as of the date the provisions of this Law came into effect, it was stipulated that a lawsuit was filed in administrative courts and that the administrative sanction decisions requested to be aned were not applied, and that the aforementioned Law No.5326 entered into force on 1.6.2005; In accordance with the stated legal regulations; As of 1.6.2005, it is possible to file a lawsuit before the Criminal Courts of Peace, except for the exceptional cases listed in Article 19 of the Law, against administrative fines and administrative sanctions enumerated in the Law No.5326 and administrative sanctions included in other laws; In this case, the lawsuit was filed after the date of 1.6.2005, when the aforementioned Law came into effect, and the administrative court gave a decision of non-jurisdiction on the grounds that it could not be examined; this decision was finalized without appeal.
REVIEW AND JUSTICE:
I-FIRST EXAMINATION: According to the examination made on the file pursuant to Article 27 of Law No. 2247;
In the Resolution of the General Assembly of the Court of Disputes dated 11.7.1988, numbered E: 1988/1, K: 1988/1, it is stated that “The Law on the Establishment and Functioning of the Court of Disputes numbered 2247 has been fully reviewed and evaluated in the second paragraph of Article 2 of this Law. From the phrase 'criminal disputes', it is concluded that, in cases where the conviction or acquittal of the defendant can be ruled at the end of the trial, which started with the request of the prosecutor or the individual plaintiff, it is necessary to understand the duty and provision disputes between the military and judicial criminal courts. and it is concluded that all other duty disputes should be considered as "legal disputes". Since the penalties whose implementation is left to administrative bodies are not of a judicial nature, the objections made or lawsuits against them cannot be considered as "criminal cases". It has been clearly stated that, due to their administrative nature, disputes regarding duty and provision of these cases should be examined and resolved in the Civil Chamber of the Dispute Court… ”. Considering this situation, it is undoubted that the duty dispute subject to the application written in the incident section should be examined in the Civil Chamber. There is a negative duty dispute between judicial and administrative jurisdictions as foreseen in Article 14 of the Law; Since it is understood that the administrative jurisdiction file was sent to the Dispute Court by the Administrative Court upon the request of the plaintiff's attorney in accordance with the method specified in Article 15 and it is understood that there are no procedural deficiencies, the merits of the dispute of duty should be examined.
II-INVESTIGATION OF THE BASIS: After reading the report of the Rapporteur-Judge Taşkın ÇELİK stating that the administrative judiciary is responsible for the resolution of the case and the documents in the file; After hearing the written and verbal statements of the Supreme Court Public Prosecutor Ayla SONGÖR and the Council of State Prosecutor Gülen AYDINOĞLU, who were assigned by the relevant Chief Prosecutors, that the administrative judiciary was in charge in the case, the REQUIREMENTS WERE DISCUSSED:
The lawsuit was filed with the claim that there was a violation of Article 16 of the Law No. 4077, with the request for the annulment of the defendant's administrative action regarding the imposition of administrative fines and penalties for suspending advertisements in accordance with the eighth paragraphs of Article 17 and 25 of the same Law. In Article 1 titled "Purpose" of the Law on the Protection of Consumers dated 23.2.1995 and numbered 4077, "The purpose of this Law is to protect, enlighten, educate, compensate the damages, protect the health and safety and economic interests of the consumer in accordance with the public interest. It is to take precautions and to encourage consumers' self-protective initiatives and to regulate issues related to encouraging voluntary organizations in the formulation of policies on this issue ”; In Article 16 amended by Law No. 4822 of 6.3.2003; It has been stated that it is essential that commercial advertisements and advertisements are in accordance with the laws, the principles determined by the Advertising Board, general morality, public order, personality rights, honest and correct, It has been stated that advertisements and advertisements that deceive, mislead the consumer or exploit their lack of experience and knowledge, endanger the safety of life and property of the consumer, encourage acts of violence and commit crimes, disrupt the public health, exploit the patients, the elderly, children and the disabled, and implicit advertisements cannot be made, and comparative advertisements of competing goods and services that meet the same needs or for the same purpose; It has been stated that the advertiser is obliged to prove the concrete claims in the commercial advertisement or advertisement, that the advertisers, advertisers and media organizations are obliged to comply with the provisions of this article; Article 17 includes the regulation on the Advertising Board; It is stipulated in the 8th paragraph of the 25th article that the cautionary suspension and / or suspension and / or correction and / or the fines of 3.500.000.000 TL will be imposed on those who violate the article 16; It is stipulated that the Advertisements Board can impose these penalties together or separately depending on the nature of the violation, if the violation of article 16 is realized through written, oral, visual and other means broadcasting at the country level, the fine will be applied ten times more, In the second paragraph of Article 26, amended by Law No. 4822 dated 6.3.2003, it is stipulated that all kinds of fines regulated in this Law are of administrative nature, and that these penalties can be appealed to the competent administrative court within seven days from the date of notification.
It should be accepted that the administrative jurisdictions will be responsible for the resolution and resolution of the objections to be made against the fines against the regulation in article 26 of the Law numbered 4077.
As a result of the examination of the effect of the said Law on administrative sanctions regulated in other laws and the duty provisions regarding the objections to be made against them, by the Legal Department of the Court of Disputes upon the entry into force of the Misdemeanor Law No. 5326 on 1.6.2005: Considering the purpose of the law which is the basis of the administrative sanction regulated in other laws; In case of fulfilling the conditions specified in Articles 1, 2, 16 and 19 of the Law on Misdemeanors, if there are administrative sanctions specified in paragraph (1) of Article 27, administrative fines and those related to the transfer of property to the public will be applied after 1.6.2005. it was decided that the criminal courts of peace were assigned general duty in the objections, and that the judicial jurisdiction was assigned in case of disputes arising from this reason. Later, Article 3 of the Misdemeanor Law No.5326, titled "The nature of the general law" was aned by the Constitutional Court's decision numbered E: 2005/108, K: 2006/35 and the reasoned decision was canceled on 22.7.2006. and it was published in the Official Gazette numbered 26236, and the annulment clause was decided to enter into force six months after the decision was published in the Official Gazette. In the process of not making a legal regulation in line with the annulment provision by the legislature, the decision continued to be taken in the same direction, considering that the provision of the mentioned article was in force. If a legal regulation is made by the legislative body in line with the annulment provision within the six-month period given by the Constitutional Court, it has been stated that the indicated jurisdiction will be in charge as of the date of the new regulation.
Finally, in Article 31 of Law No. 5560 of 6.12.2006, which amends Article 3 of the Misdemeanor Law No. 5326 dated 30.3.2005, "(1) This Law;
a) Provisions on legal remedies against administrative sanction decisions, in the absence of contrary provisions in other laws,
b) Other general provisions apply to all acts requiring administrative fines or sanctions for the transfer of property to the public.
According to this regulation, which entered into force on 19.12.2006, the provisions of the Law of Misdemeanors regarding the legal remedy against administrative sanction decisions will be applied if there is no contrary provision in other laws; It is understood that if the court in charge of other laws is shown, it will not be applied.
Since the rules of duty are related to the public order, there will be no acquired right for the parties regarding the task; Therefore, it is a known general law principle that the rules of duty adopted by a new law will be effective in the past.
If the court, which was competent according to the rules at the time the case was filed, became incompetent with a new law, the court (which was competent at the time the case was opened but became incompetent according to the new law) would have to give a decision of non-jurisdiction; However, it is clear that the court cannot give a decision of non-jurisdiction if there are provisions regarding the application of the jurisdiction rule in the new law in cases filed after the change comes into force.
On the other hand, if the case is filed in a court without jurisdiction, and the court without jurisdiction has become jurisdictional for that case with a law amendment made at that time, the court can no longer give a decision of non-jurisdiction (since it has become jurisdictional according to the new law), it must continue to look at the case.
In the dispute examined, the rule of law determining the court in charge of administrative fines was changed and the new regulation entered into force as of 19.12.2006; It is doubtless that the administrative jurisdiction is responsible for the resolution and resolution of the objection made against the administrative fine imposed according to the 25th article of the 4077 numbered Law, against the general legal principle that the duty rule will be effective in the past.
As for the part of the action subject to the penalty for suspension of advertisements; In the absence of a clear provision stating that the judicial jurisdiction is in charge of the objections to the suspension penalties in the law, the suspension penalty, which is applied by the organs of the administration and has the nature of administrative action; According to the clause "a" of the first clause of the 2nd article of the Administrative Trial Procedure Law numbered 2577; They are within the scope of annulment cases brought by those whose interests are violated due to one of the aspects of authority, form, reason, subject and purpose regarding administrative transactions and administrative jurisdictions are assigned for their settlement.
For the reasons explained, the decision of non-jurisdiction given by the Administrative Court had to be revoked.
CONCLUSION: UNANIMOUSLY declared that the ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTIONS was responsible for the settlement of the case, therefore, on the day of 02.04.2007, on the day of 02.04.2007, it With regard to the suspension penalty, Serap AKSOYLU's VOTE AGAINST AND WITHOUT VOTE OF VOTE, it was decided.
NEGATIVE VOTE
The case is in violation of the provisions of Article 16 of the Law No. 4077 on Consumer Protection. It was opened with the request for the cancellation of the administrative fines and suspension penalties imposed in accordance with the article.
In the first paragraph of Article 23 of the Law No. 4077, "All kinds of disputes related to the implementation of this Law are dealt with in consumer courts. The jurisdiction of the consumer courts is determined by the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors. " provision is included.
In article 25 of the Law titled "Penal Provisions", the types and amounts of penalties to be applied to acts contrary to the provisions of the Law are determined; In the 8th clause, “for those who violate the 16th article, a cautionary suspension and / or suspension and / or correction and / or a fine of 3.500.000.000 TL will be imposed for up to three months. The Advertising Board may impose these penalties together or separately, depending on the nature of the violation. If the violation of Article 16 is realized through written, oral, visual and other means broadcasting at the country level, the fine will be applied ten times.
In Article 26 of the aforementioned Law titled "Authority in Penalties, Objection and Prescription" The penalties in the first, four, seven, eight, nine and tenth paragraphs of Article 25 shall be imposed by the Ministry, and the penalties in the other paragraphs shall be imposed by the civilian authority of that place, all kinds of fines regulated in this Law shall be of an administrative nature, It is stipulated that an appeal can be made to the competent administrative court within seven days at the latest.
Since the subject of duty in the judicial procedure is related to the public order, the regulations regarding the duty should be clear and not cause any confusion.
In the event, the cancellation of the suspension penalty imposed pursuant to the eighth paragraph of Article 25 of the Law No. 4077 is requested.
Considering the above provisions together, it is stated in Article 23 of Law No. 4077 that any disputes that may arise in relation to the implementation of this Law will be dealt with in Consumer Courts, and that the Consumer Courts are assigned general duties in terms of the implementation of the Law, and with Article 26, Administrative Courts are solely responsible for administrative fines. It is concluded that the Administrative Courts are assigned limited with administrative fines in terms of the implementation of Law No. 4077, and that all disputes other than this will be resolved by the Consumer Courts.
In accordance with Law No. 4077; I do not agree with the decision that the part of the case filed with the request for the annulment of the suspension penalty given to the plaintiff Company should be resolved by the Consumer Court within the scope of the task given by Article 23 of the same Law, and that the administrative judiciary is responsible for the resolution of the dispute.