Suchergebnisse

State responsibility — Claims — In general — Agreement between Israel and Federal Republic of Germany of September 10, 1952, for settlement of claims — Waiver by Government of Israel of further claims on behalf of nationals — Payment of compensation to individuals by Government of Israel — The law of Israel.

Previous meetings were held in different regions of Europe with relatively small groups of officials and experts from the Reference Centre. This was the firstannual meetingtargeting all EU Member States. In total, 81 delegates from 21 MS participated. Sixty-four of them were Member State officials. Furthermore, the meeting was attended by 3 delegates from DG SANTE, 4 staff members of the other 2 EU Reference Centres, and almost the full team of EURCAW-Pigs.

The requirements for pre-qualifying a site for CO2 storage are well developed. Less attention has been paid to rehearsing and preparing for the transfer of responsibility of the storage site from the operator to a governmental authority following closure of the site at the end of the injection period. This is not surprising because the industry is in its infancy and most effort has been focussed on working towards the early stages of the various projects. A procedure for complying to the regulatory requirements for the transport of responsibility in the CCS Directive has been proposed, which consists of a chart with Site Closure Milestones and a traffic light system for treating irregularities in observed behaviour of the storage site, and accompanying criteria. The procedure was successfully tested on the K12-B CO2 injection pilot. Conclusions have been drawn on the basis of several dry runs for reporting the requirements for transfer of responsibility including feedback from operators and regulators.

Obtaining approval for a multinational vaccine trial from an ethics committee and the national competent authority of different Member States of the European Union (EU) is challenging under clinical trial Directive 2001/20/EC because of the differences in the implementation of the directive in national laws of Member States. In this review the national differences in requirements for ethical and competent authority approval are illustrated. The national ethical and competent authority review procedures in Finland, Hungary, The Netherlands, Norway and Slovenia are described under the EU trial directive after discussing the provisions of the trial directive related to both review procedures. The review illustrates the differences between the countries in the documents that have to be submitted for the review procedures, the submission procedures and the language requirements of the documents, the organization of the ethics committees and the role of the competent authority in the approval procedure.

Obtaining approval for a multinational vaccine trial from an ethics committee and the national competent authority of different Member States of the European Union (EU) is challenging under clinical trial Directive 2001/20/EC because of the differences in the implementation of the directive in national laws of Member States. In this review the national differences in requirements for ethical and competent authority approval are illustrated. The national ethical and competent authority review procedures in Finland, Hungary, The Netherlands, Norway and Slovenia are described under the EU trial directive after discussing the provisions of the trial directive related to both review procedures. The review illustrates the differences between the countries in the documents that have to be submitted for the review procedures, the submission procedures and the language requirements of the documents, the organization of the ethics committees and the role of the competent authority in the approval procedure.

Obtaining approval for a multinational vaccine trial from an ethics committee and the national competent authority of different Member States of the European Union (EU) is challenging under clinical trial Directive 2001/20/EC because of the differences in the implementation of the directive in national laws of Member States. In this review the national differences in requirements for ethical and competent authority approval are illustrated. The national ethical and competent authority review procedures in Finland, Hungary, The Netherlands, Norway and Slovenia are described under the EU trial directive after discussing the provisions of the trial directive related to both review procedures. The review illustrates the differences between the countries in the documents that have to be submitted for the review procedures, the submission procedures and the language requirements of the documents, the organization of the ethics committees and the role of the competent authority in the approval procedure.

Transboundary water pollution management is a challenge for China at this moment in time. By introducing relevant legal arrangements, we mainly discuss the competent authorities, the legal instruments and dispute settlement procedures concerning this issue in China. The experiences from international, EU and Dutch water law gives us a comparative perspective. As a conclusion, we agree that China has set up a basic legal system to solve the problem, but a greater effort can still be made, for instance including more public opinion, clearly defining the competent authorities, and enacting more legislation. At the same time, the Chinese experience, such as a new model for a monitoring system and a target responsibility system, also provides the rest of the world with a new approach.

Transboundary water pollution management is a challenge for China at this moment in time. By introducing relevant legal arrangements, we mainly discuss the competent authorities, the legal instruments and dispute settlement procedures concerning this issue in China. The experiences from international, EU and Dutch water law gives us a comparative perspective. As a conclusion, we agree that China has set up a basic legal system to solve the problem, but a greater effort can still be made, for instance including more public opinion, clearly defining the competent authorities, and enacting more legislation. At the same time, the Chinese experience, such as a new model for a monitoring system and a target responsibility system, also provides the rest of the world with a new approach.

For most bills in American legislatures, the issue of turf?or which committee has jurisdiction over a bill?can make all the difference. Turf governs the flow and fate of all legislation. In this innovative study, David C. King explains how jurisdictional areas for committees are created and changed in Congress. Political scientists have long maintained that jurisdictions are relatively static, changing only at times of dramatic reforms. Not so, says King. Combining quantitative evidence with interviews and case studies, he shows how on-going turf wars make jurisdictions fluid. According to Kin.

The allocation of powers between the European Union and its Member States is a classic theme in European studies. The question of to how to limit the expansion of Union's competences whilst safeguarding the dynamics of the process of European integration is now being raised. This book is a theoretical and practical inquiry into this question.