natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Af de seks besżgte medlemsstater havde fire valgt den mikrożkonomiske metode. n medlemsstat (Nederlandene) sammenholdt indkomsten beregnet efter den mikrożkonomiske metode p grundlag af en undersżgelse af husholdningerne med indkomsten beregnet efter den makrożkonomiske metode p grundlag af LR. 
Of the six Member States visited, four had opted for the microeconomic approach. One Member State (Netherlands) compared the income calculated by the microeconomic approach, on the basis of a survey of households, with the income determined by the macroeconomic approach based on the EAA.
Forskellen mellem disse to vžrdier reduceres fżrst ved svel mikrożkonomiske som makrożkonomiske justeringer (definitionsforskel). 
The difference found between these two values was reduced by adjustments at both the microeconomic and macroeconomic levels (defini-tional difference).
Tallene for regnskabsrene 1997 og 1998 vises i tabel 1: 1997 1998 Panelundersżgelse af metode) indkomsterne (mikrożkonomisk Absolut vžrdi 4 131 Relativ vžrdi 36 % Absolut vžrdi 3 037 2 492 5 135 10 664 Relativ vžrdi 28% 23% 48% 100 % Definitionsforskel Statistisk forskel Nationalregnskabet (makrożkonomisk metode) Kilde: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Haag (Nederlandenes nationale statistiske kontor). 
The figures for the 1997 and 1998 financial years are shown in Table 1. Income panel survey (microeconomic approach) Definitional difference Statistical difference National accounts (macroeconomic approach) Source: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, The Hague (national statistics office of the Netherlands).
2 086 18 % 46 % 100 % 5 193 11 410 44. medlemsstaterne vžlge mellem den mikrożkonomiske og den makrożkonomiske metode til beregning af den disponible indkomst. 
1997 1998 Absolute value 4 131 2 086 5 193 Relative value 36 % 18 % 46 % 100 % Absolute value 3 037 2 492 5 135 10 664 Relative value 28 % 23 % 48 % 100 % 44. the microeconomic and macroeconomic approaches to establish disposable income is questionable.
Nr det tages i betragtning, at beregningen af den disponible indkomst efter disse to metoder i n medlemsstat resulterede i en forskel p henholdsvis 46 % og 48 % for 1997 og 1998, er der grund til at betvivle, at metoderne er žkvivalente. 
In view of the differences in disposable income calculated for one Member State using these two approaches, 46 % and 48 % for 1997 and 1998 respectively, there must be doubts about the equivalence of the two methods.
Sdanne forskelle rejser desuden tvivl om, hvorvidt det er muligt at sammenligne data fra medlemsstater, som anvender forskellige metoder. 
Differences of this kind also cast doubt on the possibility of comparing data supplied by Member States using different approaches.
Kommissionen har ikke undersżgt de mulige rsager til dette misforhold med henblik p at tage de nżdvendige metodologiske konsekvenser. 
The Commission has not examined the possible sources of this anomaly with a view to drawing appropriate methodological consequences.
Vanskeligheder ved gennemfżrelsen af projektet 45. 
Difficulties in the implementation of the project 45.
I forbindelse med beregningen af ISLH ved hjžlp af (uhar-moniserede) mikrożkonomiske data havde medlemsstaterne gentagne gange svžrt ved at opn plidelige data. n af de besżgte medlemsstater tog sledes de data, den havde brug for, fra en rlig husstandsundersżgelse, men Retten konstaterede, at der indgik s f landbrugshusholdninger i undersżgelsen, at den ikke kunne betragtes som repržsentativ. 
With regard to the calculation of the IAHS, using (unhar-monised) microeconomic data, the Member States were repeatedly confronted with the problem of obtaining reliable data.
Da det ikke var żkonomisk muligt at udvide stikprżven til at omfatte flere landbrugshusholdninger, holdt medlemsstaten op med at fremsende data til Eurostat (Tyskland). 
Faced with the impossibility, for financial reasons, of expanding the sample to include further agricultural households, the Member State concerned did not forward any more data to Eurostat (Germany).
(1) Europa-Kommissionen: ČRevenu du secteur des mnages agricolesÇ, beretning for 1999. Luxembourg, 2000, s. 
(1) European Commission, Income of the Agricultural Households Sector, 1999 Report, Luxembourg, 2000, p.
106 ff. 
106 ff.
46. Nogle medlemsstater har vanskeligheder med at indsamle de data af meget forskellig oprindelse, der er nżdvendige for at registrere indtžgtskilderne for alle de forskellige medlemmer af husholdningerne. 
Some Member States experienced difficulties in collecting the data from very disparate sources which were needed to be able to record all sources of income for the various members of the household.
Hertil kommer, at bestemmelser om fortrolighed i skatteforhold og beskyttelse af personoplysninger i nogle medlemsstater besvžrliggżr anvendelsen af dataene. 
In addition, in some Member States, the rules governing tax secrecy and the protection of personal data hamper the use of the data.
I n medlemsstat kan det statistiske kontor kun anvende indkomstdata fra selvangivelser, hvis de er anonyme. 
In one Member State, the statistics office can only use income data extracted from tax returns if they remain anony-mous.
Disse data kan derfor ikke med sikkerhed forbindes med landbrugsbedrifter (Frankrig). 
These data cannot, therefore, be linked with certainty to agricultural holdings (France).
En anden medlemsstat kan godt bruge skattedata, men eftersom der i skattesystemet ikke skelnes mellem landbrugsindkomst og indkomst fra industri eller handel, kan en vžsentlig andel af de husholdninger, der er omfattet af undersżgelsen, ikke med sikkerhed forbindes med landbrugssektoren (Nederlandene). 
Another Member State may use tax data but, as its tax system does not make any distinction between income from agriculture or from industrial or commercial activities, a significant percentage of the households covered by this survey cannot be linked with certainty to the agricultural sector (Netherlands).
En tredje medlemsstat undgr disse vanskeligheder ved blot at anvende INLB-dataene, der er baseret p bedrifterne, uden at tage hżjde for de metodologiske forskelle (Żstrig). 
Yet another Member State avoids the difficulties by simply using IAHS farm data without making any allowance for methodological differences (Austria).
Tabel 2 er en oversigt over de data, der var fremsendt pr. 12. oktober 2001. 
Table 2 shows the data forwarded as at 12 October 2001.
De lange forsinkelser, der er tale om i nogle tilfžlde, vidner om, at det er vanskeligt at gennemfżre projektet. 
The length of some delays demonstrates clearly the difficulties of implementing the project. 11 410
Det kan diskuteres, om det er hensigtsmžssigt at lade C 45/12 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende 20.2.2004 Tabel 2 Data fremsendt til beregning af indkomsten i sektoren landbrugshusholdninger Belgien Danmark Tyskland Gržkenland Spanien Frankrig Irland Italien Luxembourg Nederlandene Żstrig Portugal Finland Sverige Det Forenede Kongerige ČSnžverÇ definition 1987-1999 1989-1999 1972-1993 1982-1998 1980-1993 1990-1995 1987 1984-1995 1989 1988-1997 1985-1999 1980-1989 1987-1999 1989-1997 1980-1998 ČBredÇ definition : 1989-1999 1983 1982, 1988, 1994 1990 : 1987 : : 1988 1991-1994 : 1992 1992 : Kilde: Europa-Kommissionen (Eurostat), mżde i arbejdsgruppen ČLandbrugsregnskaberÇ under Den Stende Landbrugsstatistiske Komit, afholdt i Luxembourg den 28. og 29. november 2001, dokument ASA/EEA/513, s. 
C 45/12 EN Official Journal of the European Union 20.2.2004 Table 2 Data provided for the calculation of the Income of the Agricultural Households Sector Belgium Denmark Germany Greece Spain France Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Austria Portugal Finland Sweden United Kingdom ÔNarrowŐ definition 1987-1999 1989-1999 1972-1993 1982-1998 1980-1993 1990-1995 1987 1984-1995 1989 1988-1997 1985-1999 1980-1989 1987-1999 1989-1997 1980-1998 ÔBroadŐ definition N/A 1989-1999 1983 1982, 1988, 1994 1990 N/A 1987 N/A N/A 1988 1991-1994 N/A 1992 1992 N/A Source: European Commission (Eurostat), Meeting of the ÔEconomic Accounts for AgricultureŐ Working Party of the Agricultural Statistics Committee in Luxembourg on 28 and 29 November 2001, Doc.
37 ff. 
37 ff.
48. terne de vanskeligheder, der hindrede dem i at indsamle plidelige data. 
48. difficulties affecting the collection of reliable data.
I den forbindelse meddelte fire medlemsstater, at de ikke var interesserede i projektet, fem andre anfżrte vžsentlige tekniske problemer, og seks anfżrte żkonomiske problemer. 
On this occasion, four Member States stated that they were not interested in the project, five others mentioned major technical problems and six reported financial difficulties.
Eurostat bekržftede derfor, at ISLH-projektet ikke var en prioritet, og de to eksperter, som var beskžftiget ved projektet indtil 2002, fik ikke forlžnget deres kontrakter. 
Eurostat therefore acknowledged that the IAHS project had no priority and the contracts of the two experts who had been assigned to it until 2002 were not extended.
Omkostningerne ved INLB, LR og ISLH 49. 
The cost of the FADN, the EAA and the IAHS 49.
Retten anmodede de overordnede revisionsorganer i medlemsstaterne om at fremsende oplysninger, som kunne gżre det muligt at mle omkostningerne ved INLB, LR og ISLH og vurdere de fordele, der opns ved anvendelsen af disse datakilder. 
The Court asked the Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) of the Member States to forward information to the Court which would allow the cost of the FADN, the EEA and the IAHS and the benefits of using these sources of data to be evaluated.
De indsamlede oplysninger om omkostningerne vises i tabel 3. 
The information collected on the cost is shown in Table 3.
De fleste af de overordnede revisionsorganer har understreget bestemte fordele, men da de modtagne oplysninger er meget forskellige, er det ikke muligt at drage en generel konklusion. 
The majority of SAIs emphasised certain advantages but the disparate nature of the information received allows no general conclusions.
I 2002 undersżgte Eurostat sammen med medlemssta- 
In 2002, Eurostat and the Member States examined the
20.2.2004 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende C 45/13 1 Regnskabsret 2000 Belgien Danmark Tyskland Gržkenland Spanien Frankrig Irland Italien Luxembourg Nederlandene Żstrig Portugal Finland Sverige Det Forenede Kongerige I Alt 2 (1) Omkostninger ved INLB euro 1 300 000 3 455 000 2 370 993 3 800 000 4 094 000 3 900 000 1 461 080 687 685 888 000 3 (2) 4 (3) Antal Omkostninger pr. landbrugsbedrifter Bedrift euro 1 000 2 000 650 5 300 5 500 10 100 235 6 100 623 1 300 18 000 300 1 500 2729 5 (4) INLB-godtgżrelse euro 154 800 280 704 341 850 322 500 1 106 562 924 543 149 124 2 010 078 46 440 96 750 263 418 311 535 119 583 129 000 371 391 6628278 6 (5) Saldo euro 1 019 296 1 264 431 2 875 457 3 997 250 3 636 582 1 149 545 568 102 759 000 7 (6) Omkostninger ved LR euro 250 600 9 000 286 051 39 212 75 000 8 (7) Omkostninger ved ISLH euro 3 000 9 000 12 325 50 000 Tabel 3 Omkostningerne ved INLB, LR og ISLH 2 000 1 3 000 1 300 1 000 2 500 60900 950 487 529 888 (1) I kolonne 2 vises omkostningerne ved INLB som oplyst til Retten af de overordnede revisionsorganer i EUŐs medlemsstater. 
20.2.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 45/13 1 Financial year 2000 Belgium Denmark Germany Greece Spain France Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Austria Portugal Finland Sweden United Kingdom Total 2 (1) Cost of the FADN euro 1 300 000 3 455 000 2 370 993 3 800 000 4 094 000 3 900 000 1 461 080 687 685 888 000 3 (2) Number of agricultural holdings 1 000 2 000 5 300 5 500 10 100 6 100 1 300 18 000 300 1 500 2 000 3 000 1 300 1 000 2 500 60 900 4 (3) Cost per holding euro 650 235 623 2 729 5 (4) FADN reimbursements euro 154 800 280 704 341 850 322 500 1 106 562 924 543 149 124 2 010 078 46 440 96 750 263 418 311 535 119 583 129 000 371 391 6 628 278 6 (5) Balance euro 1 019 296 1 264 431 2 875 457 3 997 250 3 636 582 1 149 545 568 102 759 000 7 (6) Cost of the EAA euro 250 600 9 000 286 051 39 212 75 000 8 (7) Cost of the IAHS euro 3 000 9 000 12 325 50 000 Table 3 Cost of the FADN, the EAA and the IAHS 1 950 487 529 888 (1) Column 2 shows the cost of the FADN as notified to the Court by the SAIs of the Member States of the EU.
(2) I kolonne 3 vises antallet af bedrifter i stikprżven i overensstemmelse med bestemmelserne i bilag I til Kommissionens forordning (EŻF) nr. 1859/82 af 12. juli 1982. 
(2) Column 3 contains the number of holdings covered by the sample, in accordance with the provisions of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1859/82 of 12 July 1982.
(3) Vžrdierne i kolonne 4 fremkommer ved at dividere vžrdierne i kolonne 2 med vžrdierne i kolonne 3. 
(3) The amounts in column 4 are the result of dividing the figures in column 2 by those in column 3.
(4) I kolonne 5 vises Kommissionens betalinger til medlemsstaterne i 2001. 
(4) Column 5 includes payments made by the Commission to the Member States in 2001.
(5) Vžrdierne i kolonne 6 er lig med differencen mellem vžrdierne i kolonne 2 og vžrdierne i kolonne 5. 
(5) The amounts in column 6 are equal to the difference between the amounts in column 2 and those in column 5.
(6) I kolonne 7 vises omkostningerne ved LR som oplyst til Retten af de overordnede revisionsorganer i EUŐs medlemsstater. 
(6) Column 7 shows the cost of the EAA as notified to the Court by the SAIs of the Member States of the EU.
(7) I kolonne 8 vises omkostningerne ved ISLH som oplyst til Retten af de overordnede revisionsorganer i EUŐs medlemsstater. 
(7) Column 8 shows the cost of the IAHS as notified to the Court by the SAIs of the Member States of the EU.
Kilde: Oplysninger fremsendt af de overordnede revisionsorganer i medlemsstaterne; Kommissionens dokumenter vedrżrende INLB-godtgżrelse; undersżgelser foretaget af Den Europžiske Revisionsret; bilag I til den konsoliderede udgave af Kommissionens forordning (EŻF) nr. 1859/82 af 12. juli 1982 om udvžlgelse af regnskabsfżrende bedrifter med henblik p at konstatere indkomstforhold i landbrugsbedrifter (EFT L 205 af 13.7.1982, s. 
Source: Information forwarded by the SAIs of the Member States; Commission documents on reimbursements made under the FADN; investigations carried out by the European Court of Auditors; Annex I to the consolidated version of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1859/82 of 12 July 1982 concerning the selection of returning holdings for the purposes of determining the income of agricultural holdings (OJ L 205, 13.7.1982, p. 5).
For s vidt angr omkostningerne, foreligger der kun nżjagtige og sammenlignelige oplysninger for INLB, og p grundlag heraf konstaterer Retten fżlgende: a) For de fleste medlemsstater džkker Kommissionens godtgżrelse kun en forholdsvis lille del (mellem 10 og 20 %) af de samlede omkostninger ved INLB. 
With regard to the costs, sufficiently accurate and comparable information is only available for the FADN and gives rise to the following conclusions: (a) for most of the Member States, the CommissionŐs reimbursements only represent a fraction of the total cost of the FADN (between 10 % and 20 %).
En enkelt medlemsstat har dog en ganske hżj udgiftsdžkning p ca. 50 % (Spanien), mens en anden har en meget lav džkning p ca. 2 % (Nederlandene). b) De gennemsnitlige omkostninger pr. bedrift ved indsamlingen af INLB-data varierer meget fra medlemsstat til medlemsstat, fra ca. 
However, one Member State receives a rather high rate of cover for its expenditure, amounting to approximately 50 % (Spain) and another a very low rate of approximately 2 % (Netherlands); (b) the average cost, per agricultural holding, of acquiring the FADN data varies considerably from Member State to Member State, ranging from approximately 230 euro (Spain) to more than 2 700 euro (Netherlands).
Nogle medlemsstater betaler faktisk revisionsfirmaer for at udfžrdige rsregnskaber for de bedrifter, der indgr i INLB-stikprżven, eller indsamler af nationale hensyn mange flere INLB-data end strengt nżdvendigt, for eksempel oplysninger om anvendelsen af gżdning og pesticider. 
Some Member States in fact commission accounting firms to draw up the annual accounts of the holdings in the FADN sample or, within the FADN framework, collect many more data than are required for the FADN itself, such as, for example, information concerning the use of fertilisers and pesticides.
C 45/14 DA Den Europžiske Unions Tidende 20.2.2004 RELEVANSEN AF DE STATISTISKE REDSKABER, KOMMISSIONEN ANVENDER 51. De redskaber, der anvendes til landbrugsstatistik, skal gżre det muligt at overvge udviklingen i resultaterne af den fžlles landbrugspolitik i forhold til traktatens mlsžtninger. 
C 45/14 EN Official Journal of the European Union 20.2.2004 THE PERTINENCE OF THE STATISTICAL TOOLS USED BY THE COMMISSION 51. The statistical tools applied to the agricultural sector are intended to monitor changes in the results achieved by the CAP in the context of the objectives of the Treaty.
I overensstemmelse med det ml, der er fastsat i EF-traktatens artikel 33, anvendes de ogs til at kontrollere, om landbrugsbefolkningen har en rimelig levestandard. 
They are also applied to examine whether the agricultural community is achieving a fair standard of living in accordance with the objective laid down in Article 33 of the EC Treaty.
Hvis disse redskaber faktisk leverer brugbare data til disse forml, kan de betegnes som ČrelevanteÇ, hvilket vil sige, at de overholder de revisionskriterier, der gžlder p det statistiske omrde (jf. punkt 6). 
If these instruments actually do provide suitable data for this purpose, thay may be considered Ôper-tinentŐ, i.e. as satisfying the audit criteria applicable to statistics (see paragraph 6).
Begreberne ČlandbrugsbefolkningenÇ og Čen rimelig levestandardÇ, som er anvendt i EF-traktatens artikel 33, m imidlertid pržciseres, fżr det kan vurderes, om de statistiske indikatorer, der vedrżrer disse begreber, er ČrelevanteÇ. 
The concepts Ôagricultural communityŐ and Ôfair standard of livingŐ contained in Article 33 of the EC Treaty nevertheless require precise definition before any evaluation of the ÔpertinenceŐ of the statistical indicators relating to them can be carried out.
Til det forml undersżgte Retten, hvad der var blevet skrevet for at forklare indholdet i EF-traktatens artikel 33 i forbindelse med vžsentlige begivenheder i udviklingen af den fžlles landbrugspolitik. 
For this purpose, the Court examined what had been said at the major points in the development of the CAP to clarify the content of Article 33 of the EC Treaty.
Desuden anmodede Retten en landbrugsekspert om hjžlp til at formulere en arbejdsdefinition af begreberne ČlandbrugsbefolkningenÇ og Čen rimelig levestandardÇ. 
In addition, the Court asked an agricultural expert to help develop a working interpretation of the concepts Ôagricultural communityŐ and Ôfair standard of livingŐ.
Omrder, der skal džkkes af statistikkerne om landbrugsindkomsten Udviklingen i den fžlles landbrugspolitiks sociożkonomiske kontekst Den fžlles landbrugspolitiks fżrste tid 53. 
The field to be covered by the statistics on agricultural income Changes in the socioeconomic context of the CAP The early days of the common agricultural policy 53.
I den fżrste tid var den fžlles landbrugspolitik kendetegnet ved forsżget p at komme ud af efterkrigstidens vanskelige situation og blive selvforsynende. 
The early days of the CAP were characterised by the effort to emerge from the difficult situation of the post-war period and achieve self-sufficiency.
Disse to ml skulle ns ved at forżge landbrugsbedrifternes produktivitet (1). 
These two objectives were to be achieved by increasing the productivity of farms (1).
P Stresa-konferencen i 1958 besluttede landbrugsministrene og Kommissionen at żge produktiviteten ved at give stżtte til priserne p landbrugsprodukter (2). 
At the Stresa conference in 1958, the Agriculture Ministers and the Commission decided to encourage productivity by supporting the prices of agricultural products (2).
Det Europžiske Fžllesskab skabte et retsgrundlag for denne politik i form af markedsordninger for de vigtigste landbrugsprodukter. 
The European Community gave this policy a legal framework by creating market organisations for the most important agricultural products.
Prisstżtten skulle ikke alene żge produktiviteten, men ogs give landbrugsbefolkningen en hżjere indkomst. Ved hjžlp af prisstżtten żnskede Kommissionen at sikre en rimelig indkomst for personer, som igennem flere r havde arbejdet p fuld tid p velfungerende og żkonomisk bžredygtige landbrugsbedrifter. Med (1) Dette forklarer ogs henvisningen i EF-traktatens artikel 33, stk. 
Price support was meant not only to stimulate productivity, but also to result in an increase in the earnings of the agricultural community. By supporting prices, the Commission intended to ensure a fair income for people who had worked full-time over the years in well-managed and economically viable agricultural (1) This also explains the reference in Article 33(1)(b) of the EC Treaty (ÔthusŐ) to the increase in productivity (Article 33(1)(a) of the EC Treaty).
1, litra b), (ČherigennemÇ) til forżgelsen af produktiviteten (EF-traktatens artikel 33, stk. 1, litra a)). (2) (Samling af dokumenter fra EŻF-medlemsstaternes landbrugskonference i Stresa 3.-12. juli 1958, s. 
(2) Collection of documents from the agricultural conference of the Member States of the European Economic Community held at Stresa from 3 to 12 July 1958, pp. 215 and 222. holdings Ń in other words by no means in all agricultural holdings, nor even in average holdings (3).
P Stresa-konferencen havde medlemsstaternes landbrugsministre gjort opmžrksom p de forholdsvis ugunstige indkomstforhold i landbruget (4). 
Already at the Stresa Conference, the Agriculture Ministers of the Member States had drawn attention to the relatively unfavourable situation of farm incomes (4).
Det blev imidlertid ikke pržciseret, hvad der skulle forsts ved Čen rimelig indkomstÇ eller Čet indkomstniveau, der kan sammenlignes med industriarbejdernesÇ. 
However, it was not specified what was to be understood by a Ôfair incomeŐ or by an Ôincome level comparable with that of industrial workersŐ.
Det var stadig et bent spżrgsml, hvilken indkomst der skulle mles, og hvad den skulle sammenlignes med. 
The question of knowing which income should be measured and what comparison should be carried out remained open.
Begrebet ČlandbrugsbedriftÇ blev heller ikke forklaret nžrmere p det tidspunkt. 
Similarly, the expression Ôagricultural holdingŐ was not clarified at the time.
I Spaak-rapporten fra 1956, som var for-lżberen for Rom-traktaten (5), blev familiebedriften stadig anset som den grundlžggende form for landbrugsvirksomhed i Det Europžiske Fžllesskab bde i fortid og fremtid (6). 
In 1956, the Spaak report, which heralded the Treaty of Rome (5), still regarded the family holding as the fundamental form of agricultural activity in the European Community, both past and future (6).
Men allerede i 1960 beskrev Kommissionen landbrugsbedrifterne i bredere vendinger og talte om en landbrugsstruktur, hvor bedrifter af forskellige typer og stżrrelser kompletterer hinanden, og hvor en bedrift med lżnnet arbejdskraft Ń en bedrift, der er sociożkonomisk sund Ń vil have sin plads (7). 
In 1960, however, the Commission was already describing an agricultural holding more broadly as Ôan agricultural structure in which farms of various types and sizes complement each other, and in which the farm operating with paid labour Ń a farm that is sound from the socioeconomic point of view Ń will have its placeŐ (7).
Det Europžiske Fžllesskab har sledes ikke pržciseret, hvad der skal forsts ved ČlandbrugsbefolkningenÇ og Čen rimelig levestandardÇ. 
In short, the European Community has never specified what is meant to be understood by either Ôthe agricultural communityŐ or a Ôfair standard of livingŐ.
Hverken Rdet eller Kommissionen har defineret disse begreber p en mde, der er bindende for dem (8). 
Neither the Council nor the Commission have given these concepts any meaning that is binding for them (8).