.
This dataset contains AMR monitoring results in animals and food at the isolate level pursuant to Article 9 of Directive 2003/99/EC and to Annex, part B, of Commission implementing Decision 2013/652/EU. In addition, the dataset includes any other results from isolates than the ones mentioned in the Commission implementing Decision 2013/652/EU. The quantitative minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) data from dilution methods are included. REPORTING AUTHORITIES CONTRIBUTING TO 2019 AMR DATA COLLECTION: Icelandic Food and Veterinary Authority
This dataset contains the monitoring results of veterinary medicinal product residues and other substances measured in live animals and animal products analysed by the national competent authority of Iceland. The presence of unauthorised substances, residues of veterinary medicinal products or chemical contaminants in food may pose a risk factor for public health. For this reason and in order to ensure a high level of consumer protection, a comprehensive legislative framework has been established in the European Union (EU) which defines maximum limits permitted in food and monitoring programmes for the control of the presence of these substances in the food chain. Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 establishes maximum limits for residues of veterinary medicinal products in food-producing animals and animal products. Maximum residue levels for pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. Commission Regulation (EC) 1881/2006 lays down the maximum limits for the presence of certain contaminants in animal products. Council Directive 96/23/EC lays down measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof, mainly veterinary medicinal products, in live animals and animal products. Additionally, Commission Decision 97/747/EC lays down levels and frequencies of sampling for certain animal products. The dataset contains the results of laboratory tests from samples taken from bovines, pigs, sheep, goats, horses, poultry, rabbits, farmed game, wild game aquaculture, milk, eggs and honey. Targeted samples are taken with the aim of detecting illegal treatment or controlling compliance with the maximum levels laid down in the relevant legislation. This means that, in their national plans Member States target the groups of animals (species, gender, age) where the probability of finding residues is the highest. Suspect samples are taken as a consequence of i) non-compliant results on samples taken in accordance with the monitoring plan, ii) possession or presence of prohibited substances at any point during manufacture, storage, distribution or sale through the food and feed production chain, or iii) suspicion or evidence of illegal treatment or non-compliance with the withdrawal period for an authorised medicinal veterinary product. Residues of pharmacologically active substances mean active substances, excipients or degradation products and their metabolites, which remain in food. Unauthorised substances or products mean substances or products prohibited under European Union legislation. Non-compliant sample is a sample that has been analysed for the presence of one or more substances and failed to comply with the legal provisions for at least one substance. Thus, a sample can be non-compliant for one or more substances. REPORTING AUTHORITIES CONTRIBUTING TO EACH DATA COLLECTION: VMPR_2019 – Icelandic Food and Veterinary Authority
This thesis examines the current state of law, concerning exclusivity dealings, following the General Court’s judgment in Intel, delivered in 2014. In order to put the case into context, an overview will be given over case law, objectives of Article 102 TFEU and recent modernisation attempts. The outcome of this comparison and historical overview, made it clear that there were two different lines of thinking that had evolved throughout the years. The first one relates to settled case law, which was decided nearly 40 years ago, and relies on form rather than function of a specific conduct. The second line of thinking refers to the more effect-based approach and the Commission’s Guidance Paper, which is the backbone of the Commission’s attempt to modernise the application of Article 102 TFEU. However, the investigation in the Intel case was initiated before the publication of the Guidance Paper, but delivered after the publication. The General Court therefore applied both lines of thinking, and it can be argued that the current situation gives little or no meaningful guidance to dominant undertakings and leaves them in a limbo.
