scholarly journals Initial European Commission response to possible vCJD transmission by blood

2003 ◽  
Vol 7 (51) ◽  
Author(s):  

Following the information made available yesterday by the UK Secretary of State for Health about the possibility of transmission of variant Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease

The Lancet ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 346 (8983) ◽  
pp. 1155-1156 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Bateman ◽  
D. Hilton ◽  
S. Love ◽  
M. Zeidler ◽  
J. Beck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (33) ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
◽  

Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) has been confirmed in a resident of Saskatchewan, Canada (1). The patient, a man under the age of 50, was first notified to the Canadian national CJD surveillance system at Health Canada in April 2002 when his clinical presentation, age, and history of residence in the United Kingdom (UK) led Canadian doctors to suspect vCJD. Post-mortem examination of brain tissues by experts in Canada and the UK has now confirmed the diagnosis of vCJD. Since 1998, when the national CJD surveillance system was launched, all suspect cases of CJD are reported to Health Canada through a national network of specialist physicians. Incidence data are also shared with European and other allied countries as part of the Collaborative Study Group of CJD (EUROCJD, http://www.eurocjd.ed.ac.uk/euroindex.htm). This patient is the first case of vCJD reported in Canada, which together with 6 cases reported in France and one each in the Republic of Ireland, Italy and USA, brings the total number of cases with onset outside the UK to 10 (personal communication National CJD Surveillance Unit, Edinburgh).


2003 ◽  
Vol 7 (18) ◽  
Author(s):  
N J Andrews

Five new cases of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) were diagnosed in the United Kingdom (UK) in the first quarter of 2003, bringing the total number of confirmed or probable cases to 134 (1). Five deaths occurred in the first quarter, bringing the total number of deaths to 126. The total number of onsets and deaths by year are shown in the table.


10.5912/jcb92 ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Zechendorf

For more than 20 years, all major European governments have put biotechnology as a priority on their innovation policy agendas. How did each of the three big countries – France, the UK and Germany – manage their biotechnology policy, and what results have they achieved? A project funded by the European Commission tried to find out by assessing, over the period 1994–2001, the development of the knowledge base, patent activities, technology transfer measures, regulatory policy, industry promotion measure and public opinion. By adding data from other sources, the author presents a dynamic picture of each country's policy and development up to 2003.


2003 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 235-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Cousens ◽  
Dawn Everington ◽  
Hester JT Ward ◽  
Jerome Huillard ◽  
Robert G Will ◽  
...  

Significance However, there has been a notable change in the EU’s tone. In July, the European Commission unexpectedly paused legal action against the United Kingdom for an alleged breach of the NIP, and when London announced on September 6 that it was suspending key elements indefinitely, the EU’s response was muted. Impacts France is so deeply aggrieved over AUKUS that any further UK breaches of the Withdrawal Agreement could prompt a bad-tempered response. The possibility of an early assembly election in Northern Ireland would complicate EU-UK attempts to resolve the NIP issue. The exclusion of high profile, pro-EU politicians in the UK cabinet reshuffle shows how important the Brexit agenda remains for London.


F v. Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal, Case C-473/16, Third Chamber, Judgment, 25 January 2018 Maximilian Schrems v. Facebook Ireland Limited, Case C-498/16, Third Chamber, Judgment, 25 January 2018 European Commission v. Republic of Poland, Case C-336/16, Third Chamber, Judgment, 22 February 2018 Western Sahara Campaign UK v. Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,...


2021 ◽  
pp. 753-806
Author(s):  
Richard Whish ◽  
David Bailey

This chapter considers abusive pricing practices under Article 102 TFEU and the Chapter II prohibition in the Competition Act 1998. It first discusses various cost concepts used in determining whether a price is abusive. It then deals in turn with excessive pricing; conditional rebates; bundling; predatory pricing; margin squeeze; price discrimination; and practices that are harmful to the single market. This taxonomy is over-schematic, in that the categories overlap with one another: for example price discrimination may be both exploitative and exclusionary, and an excessively high price may in reality be a way of preventing parallel imports or of excluding a competitor from the market; nevertheless this division may provide helpful insights into the way in which the law is applied in practice. In each section the application of Article 102 by the European Commission and by the EU Courts will be considered first, followed by cases in the UK. Reference will be made where appropriate to the Commission’s Guidance on the Commission’s Enforcement Priorities in Applying Article [102 TFEU] to Abusive Exclusionary Conduct by Dominant Undertakings.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document