scholarly journals European Commission opens a public consultation on improving the European system of orphan medicine designation

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-123
Author(s):  
Richard Price
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Public Consultation ◽  
European System

scholarly journals Analysis of submissions to the EU’s public consultation on tobacco traceability and security features

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Gallagher ◽  
K A Evans-Reeves ◽  
A B Gilmore ◽  
A Joshi
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Tobacco Industry ◽  
Public Consultation ◽  
Multiple Choice Questions ◽  
Consultation Process ◽  
Trade Associations ◽  
Policy Positions ◽  
Illicit Trade ◽  
Lobbying Effort ◽  
T System

Abstract Background The Illicit Trade Protocol (ITP) requires all Parties to establish a tobacco track and trace (T&T) system. In 2016, the European Commission held a public consultation on T&T implementation in which interested parties were asked to respond online to 22 multiple-choice questions and were given additional opportunities to leave comments if desired. In May 2019, the EU's T&T system became operational. This paper explores tobacco industry influence over and policy positions within the consultation process. Methods The Illicit Trade Protocol (ITP) requires all Parties to establish a tobacco track and trace (T&T) system. In 2016, the European Commission held a public consultation on T&T implementation in which interested parties were asked to respond online to 22 multiple-choice questions and were given additional opportunities to leave comments if desired. In May 2019, the EU's T&T system became operational. This paper explores tobacco industry influence over and policy positions within the consultation process. Results Of the 197 consultation responses analysed, 131 (66.4%) had financial links to the tobacco industry. 89 respondents were trade associations, 74 of which were financially linked (33 had TTC members). 29 (22.1%) of the financially-linked respondents were not transparent about their links. There was a clear divide in the policy preferences of respondents with and without a financial link. Collectively, respondents with a financial link supported an industry-operated solution. Conclusions There was an extensive lobbying effort by the tobacco industry over the EU's T&T system, with TTCs' interests being represented repeatedly through multiple trade associations. The transparency requirements regarding consultation respondents' affiliations with relevant stakeholders (such as tobacco manufacturers) should be improved for future tobacco-related consultations. Key messages There was an extensive lobbying effort on the part of the tobacco industry Several respondents with financial links to the tobacco industry did not disclose these. Collectively, respondents with a financial link to the tobacco industry supported an industry-operated solution which would not have met the requirements of the ITP.

NEW DEAL FOR CONSUMERS IN EUROPE?

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (XVIII) ◽  
pp. 111-127
Author(s):  
Anna Mokrysz-Olszyńska
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
New Deal ◽  
Public Consultation ◽  
New Order ◽  
Consumer Interest ◽  
Legislative Proposals

On 11 April 2018, the European Commission presented legislative proposals as the implementation of the project under the title “A New Deal for Consumers”. The Commission’s legislative package consists of related proposals for two directives. The first contains provisions enabling authorized entities representing the collective consumer interest to pursue claims through representative actions against infringements of Union law, in order to ensure that consumers have the tools to effectively exercise their rights and obtain compensation for the damage suffered; the second introduces changes to the four currently applicable consumer directives. Both Commission proposals are under way, taking into account broad public consultation. Do the Commission’s proposals mean a real breakthrough, as suggested by the title under which they are presented, or should they be seen only as the next step in the process of creating a new order for consumers?

scholarly journals Public consultation on strategies for improving patient safety by prevention and control of healthcare-associated infections

2006 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Collective Editorial team
Keyword(s):  
Patient Safety ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Prevention And Control ◽  
Public Consultation ◽  
Healthcare Associated Infections ◽  
Healthcare Associated ◽  
And Control

The European Commission is inviting all professionals and stakeholders concerned with prevention of healthcare-associated infections

The European Top-Level Domain ‘.eu’

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torsten Bettinger
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
European Community ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Public Consultation ◽  
The Internet ◽  
European Identity

In February 2000, as part of the eEurope Initiative, the European Commission commenced public consultation on the introduction of a new ccTLD, ‘.eu’. Its aim was to create a clearly recognizable link with the Community, thereby making the internal market more visible on the Internet-based virtual market, and allowing enterprises, organizations, and natural persons within the European Community the opportunity to register their sign or name under a top-level domain that would manifest their European identity.

Response of the CEIPI to the Public Consultation of the European Commission on the Review of the European Union Copyright Rules

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sttphanie Carre ◽  
Christophe Geiger ◽  
Jean Lapousterle ◽  
Franck Macrez ◽  
Thho Hassler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Public Consultation ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Public

Legal and regulatory update

2005 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
John Wilkinson
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Medical Device ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Public Consultation ◽  
Implantable Medical Devices ◽  
Post Market Surveillance ◽  
Post Market ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Regulatory Update

The European Commission has launched a public consultation on its proposed amendments to the Medical Devices Directive (MDD) (Dir 93/42/EEC). The aim of the European Commission's proposals is to improve the coherence, transparency and effectiveness of the legislation governing medical devices in line with the recommendations of the report produced in 2002 by the European Commission's Medical Device Experts Group. This report recommended that the requirements for clinical evaluation of medical devices be clarified, transparency be increased by amending post-market surveillance requirements and that the decision making process be improved by empowering the European Commission to make binding decisions where individual national opinions differ on whether a product falls within the definition of 'medical device'. The report also recommended that the three directives governing medical devices (the MDD, the Active Implantable Medical Devices (AIMD) Directive 90/385/EEC and the In-vitro Medical Devices (IVDD) Directive 98/79/EC) should be made more consistent with each other.

scholarly journals The Potential of Antitrust Collective Litigation in 2017

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 337-358
Author(s):  
Žygimantas Juška
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
The Other ◽  
Public Consultation ◽  
Collective Actions ◽  
Member States ◽  
American System ◽  
Collective Redress ◽  
Positive Experiences ◽  
The One ◽  
Collective Litigation

The European Commission expected to assess the implementation of the 2013 Recommendation on collective redress by 26 July 2017, yet the Commission missed the deadline. Despite this failure, the Recommendation is still on the eu agenda: a public consultation has been started with the intention to assess how the eu member states responded to the 2013 proposal. On the one hand, it should be welcomed that the Commission remains ambitious regarding an eu-wide collective redress mechanism. On the other hand, it should be highlighted that the Commission is concentrating too much on the American system, which significantly differs in terms of rationale, design, and stated goals. Indeed, utilising one or another American element does not inevitably lead to the perceived issue of “blackmail settlement”. This is further qualified by positive experiences in pro-active eu member states, which have experimented with us-oriented tools in order to facilitate collective actions in their jurisdictions. This article explores how insights from the eu countries and the us should influence the debate on eu-style collective antitrust redress, if and when the time arises to take another step in the field.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document