natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Direktoratet for regnskabsafslutning henviste imidlertid ikke til disse statistikker, og de blev ikke krydskontrolleret med de ikke-lovbestemte IFKS-statistikker. 
However, they were not referred to by the Clearance-of-accounts Directorate, or cross-checked against the non-regulatory IACS statistics.
Som led i sin rsplan for 2001 har Kommissionen planlagt en fuld gennemgang af kvoter og udbetalte pržmier for 1997 og de efterfżlgende ansżgningsr. c) IFKS-statistikkerne om stżtteansżgninger, administrativ kontrol og kontrol p stedet er vžsentlige redskaber i analysear-bejdet. 
A full review of the quota and premia paid for the claim years 1997 onwards is planned by the Commission as part of its annual plan for 2001; (c) IACSstatisticsrelatingtoaidapplications,administrativecon-trols and inspections are a key tool for making analyses.
Disse vigtige statistikker var ikke lovbestemte og er foreskrevet i forordningerne med virkning fra 2000 (1). 
These key statistics were provided on a non-regulatory basis only, and is a specific regulatory requirement from 2000 (1).
Medlemsstaterne er ofte lžnge om at indsende statistikkerne. 
Member States are often slow in providing the statistics.
I juni 2000 forel der f.eks. ingen eller kun ufuldstžndige data for 1998 om kontrol af kvžg i Spanien, Irland og Italien. 
For example, in June 2000 data on controls for bovine animals from Spain, Ireland and Italy for 1998 were still missing or incomplete.
Kommissionen har regelmžssigt evalueret statistikkerne om arealstżtte i kortfattede rapporter, men der er ikke udarbejdet sdanne rapporter om husdyrpržmier siden 1994. d) Det er fastsat i lovgivningen, at de attesterende organers rlige rapporter skal indeholde de oplysninger og erklžringer, som er foreskrevet i proceduren for regnskabsafslutning, men det er ikke et specifikt krav, at de skal omfatte analyser af IFKS. 
In addition, while the Commission regularly evaluated the area aid statistics in summary reports, there had been no such report on the animal premia since 1994; (d) the annual reports by the certifying bodies are required by legislation to give the information and assurances required under the clearance-of-accounts procedure, and are not specifically required to analyse IACS.
1 () Artikel 17 i Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 2801/1999 af 21.december1999(EFTL340af31.12.1999,s.29). 
Consequently the extent of informa-1 () Article 17 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2801/1999 of 21 December 1999 (OJ L 340, 31.12.1999, p.
Mžngden af oplysninger om IFKS i rapporterne varierer derfor (2), og en vigtig kilde til ledelsesinformation om gennemfżrelsen af IFKS udnyttes sledes ikke. 
29). tion in the reports about IACS varies (2), and an important potential source of management information about the implementation of IACS is lost.
I rsberetningen for 1998 (3) ppeger Retten, at de attesterende organer ikke systematisk henviser til resultaterne af IFKS-kontrollen. 
This has already been criticised sev-eraltimesbytheCourt.Inits1998AnnualReport(3),the Court pointed out that the certifying bodies do not systematically refer to the results of IACS inspections.
I sžrberetning nr. 22/2000 (4) om den reviderede procedure for regnskabsafslutning ppeger Retten, at de attesterende organer ikke fżrer tilstržkkelig kontrol med kontrolbesżgene p stedet og ikke analyserer oplysninger om fejlfrekvenser og sanktioner plagt efter IFKS-kontrol. 
In its Special Report No 22/2000 (4) on the reformed clearance-of-accounts procedure, the Court pointed out that certifying bodies did not adequately check the on-the-spot inspection process, nor analyse information on error rates and penalties applied as a result of IACS controls.
I forbindelse med revisionen konstaterede Retten, at medlemsstaternes statistikker varierer meget, hvilket gżr det vanskeligt at fortolke dem. 
The audit found that there are very wide variations in the statistics reported by Member States, which makes them difficult to interpret.
Variationerne er for store til, at de kan forklares med, at procentsatsen for fejlbehžftede stżtteansżgninger varierer fra medlemsstat til medlemsstat. 
The extent of the variations is too great to be explained by different rates of inaccurate aid applications in the different Member States.
For eksempel indeholder 1998-rapporterne fra de attesterende organer i Frankrig vžsentlige oplysninger om, hvordan de relaterede systemer fungerer, hvorimod rapporterne fra Det Forenede Kongerige indeholder forholdsvis f IFKS-relevante oplysninger. rsberetning for regnskabsret 1998, punkt 2.92 (EFT C 349 af 3.12.1999). Sžrberetning nr. 
(2) For example, the 1998 reports by certifying bodies from France give significant information on the operation of the systems relating to IACS, while the reports from the United Kingdom give relatively little.
22/2000 om evaluering af den reviderede procedure for regnskabsafslutning (EFT C 69 af 2.3.2001). I denne forbindelse defineres en alvorlig fejl som en anmeldelse, der er over 20 % for hżj, og den medfżrer, at hele det anmeldte areal ude-lukkesfrastżtte. 
(3) Annual Report concerning the financial year 1998, paragraph 2.92 4 (OJ C 349, 3.12.1999). () Special Report No 22/2000 on evaluation of the reformed clearance-5 of-accounts procedure (OJ C 69, 2.3.2001). () In this context a serious error is defined as an overdeclaration by more than 20 %, which has the effect of excluding the entire area claimed from aid.
31.7.2001 DA De Europžiske Fžllesskabers Tidende C 214/21 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0% Kilde: Basisdata fra Kommissionen Ń Generaldirektoratet for Landbrug (IFKS-statistikker for 1998). 
31.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 214/21 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0% Illustration 7 Percentage of inspections finding errors in 1998 Area aid Special beef Suckler cow Source: Basic data obtained from Commission DG AGRI (IACS statistics for 1998).
Figur 7 Procentafkontrolbesżgi1998,hvorderkonstateredesfejl Arealstżtte Sžrlig oksekżdspržmie Ammekopržmie 45 % 40 % 35 % 30 % 25 % 20 % 15 % 10 % 5% 0% Arealstżtte Sžrlig oksekżdspržmie Ammekopržmie Figur 8 Fejl konstateret ved administrativ kontrol i 1998 NB: Kilde: Żstrig og Sverige har ikke indsendt alle oplysninger vedrżrende henholdsvis arealstżtte-og ammekopržmieansżgninger. 
45 % 40 % 35 % 30 % 25 % 20 % 15 % 10 % 5% 0% Area aid Special beef Suckler cow Illustration 8 Errors found by administrative controls in 1998 NB: Austria and Sweden did not provide all information for area aid and suckler cow applications, respectively.
Basisdata fra Kommissionen Ń Generaldirektoratet for Landbrug (IFKS-statistikker for 1998). 
Source: Basic data obtained from Commission DG AGRI (IACS statistics for 1998).
Belgien Danmark Finland Sverige Tyskland Gržkenland Det Forenede Kongerige EU-15 Spanien Frankrig Irland Italien Luxembourg Nederlandene Żstrig Portugal Belgien Danmark Finland Sverige Det Forenede Kongerige EU-15 Tyskland Gržkenland Spanien Frankrig Irland Italien Luxembourg Nederlandene Żstrig Portugal Procent af ansżgningerne 
Belgium Denmark Finland Sweden Germany Greece United Kingdom EU-15 Spain France Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Austria Portugal Belgium Denmark Finland Sweden Germany Greece United Kingdom EU-15 Spain France Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Austria Portugal Percentage of aid applications
C 214/22 DA De Europžiske Fžllesskabers Tidende 31.7.2001 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0% Figur 9 Fejltyper konstateret under kontrolbesżg vedrżrende arealstżtte i 1998 20 % og derover Mellem3%og20% Optil3% Kilde: Basisdata fra Kommissionen Ń Generaldirektoratet for Landbrug (IFKS-statistikker for 1998). 
C 214/22 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 31.7.2001 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0% Illustration 9 Types of errors found by area aid field inspections in 1998 20 % and greater Between3%and20% Up to 3 % Source: Basic data obtained from Commission DG AGRI (IACS statistics for 1998).
Figur 10 Fejltyper konstateret under kontrolbesżg vedrżrende oksekżdspržmier i 1998 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0% NB: Italien har ikke indsendt oplysninger om udelukkede ansżgninger. 
Illustration 10 Types of errors found by field inspections of bovine animals in 1998 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0% NB: Italy did not provide information for applications excluded.
Ingen betaling i to r Ingen betaling for ret Delvis sanktion Belgien Danmark Portugal Finland Tyskland Gržkenland Sverige Det Forenede Kongerige Spanien Frankrig Irland Italien Luxembourg Nederlandene Żstrig Portugal Belgien Danmark Tyskland Finland Sverige Det Forenede Kongerige EU-15 Gržkenland Spanien Frankrig Irland Italien Luxembourg Nederlandene Żstrig EU-15 
No payment for two years No payment for the year Partially sanctioned Belgium Denmark Portugal Finland Germany Greece Sweden United Kingdom Spain France Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Austria Portugal Belgium Denmark Germany Finland Sweden United Kingdom EU-15 Greece Spain France Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Austria EU-15
31.7.2001 DA De Europžiske Fžllesskabers Tidende C 214/23 57. 
31.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 214/23 57.
I 1999 blev der i syv medlemsstater konstateret uoverensstemmelser i under 1 % af de kontrollerede arealer (jf. figur 11). 
In 1999, seven Member States had discrepancies of less than 1 % of the areas inspected (see Illustration 11).
Den gennemsnitlige fore-21 % 20 % 19 % 18 % 17 % 16 % 15 % 14 % 13 % 12 % 11 % 10 % 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% komst af uoverensstemmelser konstateret under kontrolbesżg var, nr bortses fra Italien, 1,3 % i 1998 og 1999. Med hensyn til kontrol af kvžg er statistikkerne ufuldstžndige og for nogle medlemsstaters vedkommende usammenhžn-gede. 
The average discrepancy rate 21 % 20 % 19 % 18 % 17 % 16 % 15 % 14 % 13 % 12 % 11 % 10 % 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% found on inspection, excluding Italy, was 1,3 % in 1998 and 1999; regarding inspections of bovine animals the statistics are incomplete and for some Member States incoherent. In most MemberStateswhoreporteddatathediscrepancyrateis higher than 5 %.
Nogle medlemsstater har rapporteret om forekomster p over 100 %, hvilket illustrerer, at dataene ikke er plidelige (jf. figur 12 og 13). 
Some Member States have reported rates above 100 % Ń which underlines the inconsistency of the data (see Illustrations 12 and 13).
Udviklingen i uoverensstemmelser konstateret under kontrolbesżg vedrżrende arealstżtte (%) Figur 11 b) 1997 1998 1999 NB: Kilde: Gržkenland havde ikke indsendt statistikker for 1999 (pr. 1.2.2001). 
Evolution of discrepancies in areas found with field inspections (%) Illustration 11 1997 1998 1999 NB: Greece had not provided statistics for 1999 (by 1.2.2001).
Revisionsretten Ń gennemgang af Kommissionens IFKS-statistikker. 
Source: Court of Auditors review of the CommissionŐs IACS statistics.
Arealer med uoverensstemmelser i % af samtlige kontrollerede arealer Belgien Danmark Tyskland Gržkenland Spanien Frankrig Irland Italien Luxembourg Nederlandene Żstrig Portugal Finland Sverige Det Forenede Kongerige EU-15 
Percentage of area inspected with discrepancies Belgium Denmark Germany Greece Spain France Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Austria Portugal Finland Sweden United Kingdom EU-15
C 214/24 120 % 110 % 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0% DA De Europžiske Fžllesskabers Tidende Figur 12 Udviklingen i uoverensstemmelser konstateret under kontrolbesżg vedrżrende den sžrlige oksekżdspržmie (%) 31.7.2001 1997 1998 1999 Gržkenland har ikke indsendt statistikker for 1997, og Italien ikke for 1999. 
C 214/24 120 % 110 % 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0% EN Official Journal of the European Communities Illustration 12 Special Beef premium Ń Evolution of discrepancies found during field inspections (%) 31.7.2001 1997 1998 1999 NB: Greece did not provide statistics for 1997 nor Italy for 1999.
Danmark har ikke indsendt fuldstžndige statistikker for de tre r, og Frankrig ikke for 1997. 
Denmark did not provide complete statistics for the three years nor France for 1997.
Tallene for Finland for 1997 er ikke plidelige, da de viser en forekomst af uoverensstemmelser p over 100 %. 
Figures for Finland in 1997 are inconsistent as they show a percentage of discrepancy higher than 100 %.
NB: Kilde: Revisionsretten Ń gennemgang af Kommissionens IFKS-statistikker. 
Source: Court of Auditors review of the CommissionŐs IACS statistics.
160 % 150 % 140 % 130 % 120 % 110 % 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0% Figur 13 Udviklingen i uoverensstemmelser konstateret under kontrolbesżg vedrżrende ammekopržmien (%) 1997 1998 1999 Gržkenland har ikke indsendt statistikker for 1997, og Italien ikke for 1999. 
160 % 150 % 140 % 130 % 120 % 110 % 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10 % 0% Illustration 13 Suckler cow premium Ń Evolution of discrepancies found during field inspections (%) 1997 1998 1999 NB: Greece did not provide statistics for 1997 nor Italy for 1999.
Danmark har ikke indsendt fuldstžndige statistikker for 1998. 
Denmark did not provide complete statistics for 1998.
Tallene for Danmark for 1999 og Finland for 1997 er ikke plidelige, da de viser forekomster af uoverensstemmelser p over 100 %. 
Figures for Denmark in 1999 and for Finland in 1997 are inconsistent as they show a percentage of discrepancy higher than 100 %.
Kilde: Revisionsretten Ń gennemgang af Kommissionens IFKS-statistikker. 
Source: Court of Auditors review of the CommissionŐs IACS statistics.
NB: Belgien Danmark Finland Sverige Tyskland Gržkenland Det Forenede Kongerige EU-15 Spanien Frankrig Irland Italien Luxembourg Nederlandene Żstrig Portugal Belgien Danmark Finland Sverige Det Forenede Kongerige EU-15 Tyskland Gržkenland Spanien Frankrig Irland Italien Luxembourg Nederlandene Żstrig Portugal Dyr med uoverensstemmelser i % af samtlige dyr Dyr med uoverensstemmelser i % af samtlige dyr 
Belgium Denmark Finland Sweden Germany Greece United Kingdom EU-15 Spain France Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Austria Portugal Belgium Denmark Finland Sweden United Kingdom EU-15 Germany Greece Spain France Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Austria Portugal Percentage of animals with discrepancies Percentage of animals with discrepancles
31.7.2001 DA De Europžiske Fžllesskabers Tidende C 214/25 58. 
31.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 214/25 58.
Materialet tyder alts p, at administrativ kontrol og kontrol p stedet udfżres forskelligt i de enkelte medlemsstater, og at resultaterne rapporteres forskelligt. 
In conclusion, the evidence suggests that administrative controls and field inspections are being applied and reported differently in each Member State.
Hertil kommer, at nogle af de oplysninger, Kommissionen anmoder medlemsstaterne om, ikke er tilpasset ordningernes specifikke krav. 
Furthermore, some of the information sought by the Commission from the Member States is not adapted to the specific requirements of the schemes.
For eksempel omfatter IFKS-statistikkerne ikke muligheden for udbetaling af den sžrlige oksekżdspržmie for handyr mod fremlžggelse af slagteattester. 
For example, IACS statistics do not include the slaughter option for the special beef premium scheme.
Indfżres sdanne oplysninger i de konsoliderede statistikker, vil analysen give et forkert resultat. 
In consequence, incorporating such figures leads to an incorrect analysis of the consolidated statistics.
Velfungerende systemer til identifikation og registrering af kvžg er en forudsžtning for, at oksekżdspržmier kan kontrolleres, og for at dyr og oksekżd kan spores. 
Sound bovine identification and registration systems are needed for the control of bovine aid premiums and to trace animals and beef.
I juni 2000 havde Kommissionen imidlertid endnu ikke modtaget rapporter fra Tyskland, Gržkenland, Irland, Luxembourg, Żstrig og Sverige om kontrolbesżg vedrżrende identifikation og registrering af kvžg i 1998, der var det fżrste r, hvor systemet skulle vžre operationelt. 
However by June 2000, no reports on inspections relating to bovine identification and registration for 1998, i.e. the first year of operation, had been received from Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Austria and Sweden.
Indholdet af de modtagne rapporter varierer meget fra medlemsstat til medlemsstat, hvilket gżr det svžrt at analysere, hvor langt man er kommet med gennemfżrelsen (1) (jf. ogs punkt 42 om svagheder i forbindelse med identifikation og registrering af kvžg). 
Belgium sent the proposed structure of a report only. The content of the reports received varies greatly between Member States, making analysis of the state of implementation difficult (1) (see also paragraph 42 for weaknesses related to bovine identification and registration).
Evaluering af IFKS og tilsynet med gennemfżrelsen 61. 
Evaluation of IACS and enforcing implementation 61.
De indhentede oplysninger er ofte enten ukorrekte, indsendt for sent eller usammenlignelige, hvilket gżr det vanskeligt at foretage evalueringer (jf. punkt 54-59). 
The information which is collected is often either inaccurate, late, or non-comparable, which complicates such evaluations (see paragraphs 54 to 59).
22/2000 (2) ppeger Retten, at Kommissionen ikke forlanger, at betalingsorganerne skal kvantificere de plagte sanktioner, hvilket betyder, at den faktiske vžrdi af de fejl, der konstateres ved hjžlp af IFKS, ikke bliver beregnet. 
In its Special Report No 22/2000 (2), the Court pointed out that the Commission did not require pay-ingagenciestoquantifysanctionsapplied,sothatthevalueof errors detected through IACS was not calculated.
(1) Kommissionens Generaldirektorat for Sundhed og Forbrugerbeskyttelse var i juli 2000 ved at forberede en forordning, som skal indeholde detaljeret vejledning til medlemsstaterne om, hvordan denne 2 rlige rapport skal struktureres. () Sžrberetning nr. 22/2000 om evaluering af den reviderede procedure for regnskabsafslutning (EFT C 69 af 2.3.2001). 
(1) The CommissionŐs Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General was preparing, in July 2000, a Regulation to provide detailed 2 guidance for Member States on the structure of this annual report. () Special Report No 22/2000 on the evaluation of the reformed clearance-of-accounts procedure (OJ C 69, 2.3.2001).
De oplysninger, som er tilgžngelige, bliver ikke systematisk anvendt til en sdan evaluering. 
The information available was not systematically exploited in such an evaluation.
Desuden rapporterer Kommissionen ikke rutinemžssigt om selve gennemfżrelsen af IFKS. 
Moreover, the implementation of IACS as such is not routinely reported on by the Commission.
Sidste gang, Kommissionen udarbejdede en generel evaluering af gennemfżrelsen af IFKS, var i juli 1998, da den rapporterede til Parlamentet i forbindelse med dechargeproceduren for regnskabsret 1996 (3). 
The last time the Commission produced a document evaluating the overall implementation of IACS was in July 1998, when it reported to Parliament in the context of the 1996 discharge procedure (3).
I de rapporter, Kommissionen udarbejder efter den kontrol, den foretager i medlemsstaterne af ordningerne for arealstżtte og husdyrpržmier som et led i proceduren for regnskabsafslutning, rapporteres der ikke systematisk om gennemfżrelsen af alle dele af IFKS, selvom der ppeges en ržkke vžsentlige svagheder og żvrige svagheder i kontrollen. 
The reports produced following the CommissionŐs missions to Member States for area aid and animal premium schemes as part of the clearance-of-accounts procedure do not systematically report on the implementation of all the elements of IACS, although key and ancillary control weaknesses are identified.
Tabel 4 er en oversigt over de svagheder, som Kommissionen har konstateret i medlemsstaterne. 
Table 4 summarises these weaknesses identified by the Commission in the Member States.
Nogle af rapporterne omfatter dog en generel vurdering af gennemfżrelsen af IFKS, og i den sammenhžng konkluderer Kommissionens tjenester, at IFKS ikke er blevet gennemfżrt i Gržkenland, mens det er blevet gennemfżrt i Żstrig, Frankrig, Tyskland, Irland, Italien, Spanien og Det Forenede Kongerige. 
Some reports may nevertheless include a general assessment of the state of implementation of IACS, and in this context the CommissionŐs services have concluded that IACS has not been implemented in Greece, while it has been implemented in Austria, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
Ikke desto mindre er der stadig svagheder i alle medlemsstater, jf. tabel 4. 
Nevertheless, weaknesses still exist in all Member States as can be seen from Table 4.
Rettens revisionsresultater bekržfter delvis resultaterne af Kommissionens kontrolbesżg i medlemsstaterne (jf. tabel 5 og punkt 69-70). 
The CourtŐs findings confirm, in part, those obtained by the Commission during its audits in the Member States (see Table 5 and paragraphs 69 to 70).
Det gžlder dog ikke p alle punkter, og de vžsentligste rsager hertil er fżlgende: a) b) Rettens ml for kontrollen i de besżgte medlemsstater og regioner var ikke de samme som Kommissionens. 
However, this is not always the case for various reasons, of which the main ones are: (a) the objectives of the checks in the Member States or regions visited were not the same.
Kommissionen lagde i 1998 hovedvžgten p kontrollen p stedet og sanktionerne, mens Retten analyserede systemet i dets helhed. 
In 1998, the Commission concentrated mainly on the on-the-spot checks and the application of penalties, while the Court analysed the system in its entirety; (b) in Member States with decentralised databases, (in particular, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom) some regions are only visited, every three or four years.
66. kes, at Kommissionen besluttede ikke at foretage en detaljeret undersżgelse af arealstżtte i den selvstyrende region Catalonien i 1998 og 1999. 
66. With regard to the latter point, the Commission decided not to undertake a detailed inspection of area aid in the Autonomous Community of Catalonia in 1998 and 1999.
Retten konstaterede under sin revision i oktober 1999 blandt andet, at den selvstyrende region Catalonien indtil 1999 ikke udfżrte automatiseret administrativ kontrol af arealerne, hvilket er en vžsentlig svaghed i kontrollen (jf. punkt 70.b)). 
The CourtŐs audit of October 1999 found, inter alia, that the Autonomous Community of Catalonia did not carry out any automated administrative controls for surface areas up to 1999, which is a key control weakness (see paragraph 70(b)).
Kommissionen har omgende taget forholdsregler med henblik p at forhindre, at EUGFL lider tab, da Kommissionens frist for at foresl korrektioner under den reviderede procedure for regnskabsafslutning kun er 24 mneder. 
The Commission has taken immedi-ateactiontoavoidlosstotheEAGGF,asunderthereformed clearance-of-accounts procedure, the Commission has a time limit of only 24 months to propose corrections.
Det skżnnes, at mindst 1 million euro kan tilbagesżges for 1997. 
At least 1 million euro isestimatedtoberecoverablefor1997.
3 ( ) ČReport on the status of implementation of the Integrated Administration and Control System in the Member StatesÇ (DOC VI/6467/ 98 af 6. juli 1998). 
3 ( ) Report on the status of implementation of the integrated administration and control system in the Member States, Doc. VI/6467/98 of 6 July 1998.