scholarly journals EU Regulation of Nanobiocides: Challenges in Implementing the Biocidal Product Regulation (BPR)

Nanomaterials ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Brinch ◽  
Steffen Hansen ◽  
Nanna Hartmann ◽  
Anders Baun
Keyword(s):  
Eu Regulation ◽  
Product Regulation ◽  
Biocidal Product Regulation ◽  
Biocidal Product

Endocrine Disrupting Chemical Wars: the Saga Continues: The Court Found the Commission in Failure to Act (and May Need to Strike Back Later)

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 629-633
Author(s):  
Apolline J.C. Roger
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals ◽  
Risk Governance ◽  
Governance System ◽  
Endocrine Disrupting Chemical ◽  
Product Regulation ◽  
Endocrine Disrupting ◽  
Structural Weakness ◽  
Biocidal Product Regulation ◽  
Biocidal Product

Case T-521/14, Kingdom of Sweden v European Commission, Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2015, ECLI:EU:T:2015:976Case T-521/14 is a new stop on the perilous journey towards the appropriate regulation of endocrine disrupting chemicals. The Biocidal Product Regulation required the Commission to adopt criteria defining endocrine disrupting properties by 13 December 2013; the deadline was not respected. Even though the failure to act was obvious, the Court's reasoning in T-521/14 matters greatly. It exposes a structural weakness in the EU's risk governance system by reminding the Commission that strong private opposition to regulatory action does not justify tampering with the level of environmental or health protection set by the legislator. The now adopted criteria indicate that this lesson was not taken to heart.

Cross-border Distribution of Collective Investment Products in the EU

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matteo Gargantini ◽  
Carmine Di Noia ◽  
Georgios Dimitropoulos
Keyword(s):  
Home Country ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Business Rules ◽  
Investment Funds ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Section 8 ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Product Regulation ◽  
Supervisory Practices ◽  
The Eu

This chapter analyzes the current regulatory framework for cross-border distribution of investment funds and submits some proposals to improve it. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a schematic description of the legal taxonomy for collective investment schemes. Section 3 addresses the EU disclosure regimes that apply to the distribution of various types of investment funds. Sections 4 and 5 consider conduct-of-business rules and, respectively, the legal framework for the allocation of supervisory powers on product regulation when fund units are distributed in more than one country. Section 6 provides some data that help assess the performance of the current framework for cross-border distribution. It then analyzes some of the residual legal rules and supervisory practices that still make cross-border distributions of funds more burdensome than purely national distributions, whether these restrictions are set forth in the country where investors are domiciled (Section 7) or in the fund's home country (Section 8).

scholarly journals EU Regulation and open market share repurchases: new evidence

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Angeliki Drousia ◽  
Athanasios Episcopos ◽  
George N. Leledakis ◽  
Emmanouil G. Pyrgiotakis
Keyword(s):  
Market Share ◽  
Share Repurchases ◽  
Open Market ◽  
Eu Regulation ◽  
New Evidence ◽  
Open Market Share Repurchases

Supreme Site Services v. Shape (C.J.E.U.)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Salim S. Sleiman
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Regulation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Dutch Supreme ◽  
Brussels Regulation

On September 3, 2020, following a request from the Dutch Supreme Court, the First Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered its preliminary ruling in Supreme Site Services and Others v. SHAPE on the interpretation of Articles 1(1) and 24(5) of the European Union (EU) Regulation 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast Brussels Regulation).

scholarly journals Humidifier Disinfectant Consumption and Humidifier Disinfectant-Associated Lung Injury in South Korea: A Nationwide Population-Based Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (11) ◽  
pp. 6136
Author(s):  
Jeonggyo Yoon ◽  
Minsun Kang ◽  
Jaehun Jung ◽  
Min Jae Ju ◽  
Sung Hwan Jeong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Insurance ◽  
Lung Injury ◽  
National Health Insurance ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Annual Number ◽  
Population Based Study ◽  
Annual Consumption ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Water Tanks ◽  
Biocidal Product

Humidifier disinfectant (HD) is a household biocidal product used in humidifier water tanks to prevent the growth of microorganisms. In 2011, a series of lung injury cases of unknown causes emerged in children and pregnant women who had used HD in Korea. This study investigated changes in the nationwide number of cases of humidifier disinfectant-associated lung injury (HDLI) in concordance with nationwide HD consumption using data covering the entire Korean population. More than 25 kinds of HD products were sold between 1994 and 2011. The number of diagnosed HDLI, assessed by S27.3 (other injuries of lungs) of the Korea National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) data, sharply increased by 2005, subsequently decreased after 2005, and almost disappeared after 2011 in concordance with the annual number of HD sales. The number of self-reported HDLIs, assessed using data from all suspected HDLI cases registered in the Korea Ministry of Environment, changed with the annual number of HD sales, with a delay pattern, potentially induced by the late awareness of lung injury diseases. The present study suggests that changes in the nationwide annual consumption of HD products were consistent with changes in the annual number of HDLI cases in Korea.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document