Part, Chapter, Paragraph
1 -, 1 | participation of more than 60 experts from most European Member
2 -, 1 | iii) reviewed by the experts listed in Appendix 2; (iv)
3 -, 1 | the contributions of many experts who have kindly accepted
4 I, 2. 5 | low training levels; ICT experts have also shown an elevated
5 II, 5. 4. 2| countries joined diabetes experts under the aegis of WHO regional
6 II, 5. 5. 2| study, 12 international experts conducted a systematic review
7 II, 5. 5. 2| Where information is scarce, experts can make inferences using
8 II, 5. 5. 2| with a group of European experts, is expected to be finalised
9 II, 5. 5. 3| represented by a number of experts in the field of epilepsy,
10 II, 5. 5. 3| collaboration among foremost experts in Multiple Sclerosis Rehabilitation
11 II, 5. 5. 3| positives, even when made by experts (Hughes et al, 1992), a
12 II, 5. 6. 5| along with the opinion of experts from across Europe in the
13 II, 5. 10. 2| Source: EU SCOOP Report of experts participating in Task 7.
14 II, 5. 10. 7| Cooperation) (1998): Report of experts participating in EU Scientific
15 II, 6. 3. 4| been prepared by EWGLINET experts.~ ~
16 II, 6. 4. 4| systems. By working with experts throughout Europe, ECDC
17 II, 6. 4. 4| the extensive network of experts in the public health institutes
18 II, 7. 1 | Working Group of Governmental Experts on Injury Prevention and
19 II, 7. 2. 9| on injury statistics.~ ~Experts at EuroSafe (the European
20 II, 7. 4. 1| Working Group of Governmental Experts on Injury Prevention and
21 II, 7. 4. 1| Working Party of Governmental Experts on Accidents and Injury
22 II, 7. 4. 2| Working Group of Governmental Experts on Injury Prevention and
23 II, 7. 4. 3| Working Group of Governmental Experts on Injury Prevention and
24 II, 7. 4. 4| Working Group of Governmental Experts on Injury Prevention and
25 II, 7. 4. 4| Working Group of Governmental Experts on Injury Prevention and
26 II, 7. 5 | governmental and nongovernmental experts from Member States (European
27 II, 7. 5 | Working Group of Governmental Experts on Injury Prevention and
28 II, 7. 7 | Working Group of Governmental Experts on Injury Prevention and
29 II, 8. 2. 1| and economic environments. Experts endorse a life course approach
30 II, 9. 1. 1| survey in France. Medical Experts Committee. Eur J Obstet
31 II, 9. 3. 2| survey in France. Medical Experts Committee. Eur J Obstet
32 III, 10. 2. 1| economic sector. Almost all experts highlight the benefits the
33 III, 10. 2. 1| the WHO European Region, experts and policy-makers with guidance
34 III, 10. 2. 1| series of hearings with experts, promoters of school fruit
35 III, 10. 3. 2| quality checked by scientific experts and policymakers at national
36 III, 10. 3. 4| response was due to a lack of experts, limited strength of public-health
37 III, 10. 4. 1| quality checked by scientific experts and policymakers at national
38 III, 10. 4. 2| Working with a large team of experts from all Member States,
39 III, 10. 4. 2| thorugh the meetings of experts (PRAPeR expert meetings)~ ~
40 III, 10. 4. 2| the website and involving experts from both Member States
41 III, 10. 5. 3| low training levels; ICT experts have also shown an elevated
42 III, 10. 5. 3| employer may involve external experts, e.g. OSH services, or assign
43 IV, 11. 5. 4| worldwide. In the 1980s, experts began to notice what was
44 IV, 11. 5. 4| donation and support from experts in the field of communication.~
45 IV, 11. 5. 5| considered as priority by the experts:~ ~1. biomarkers to define
46 IV, 11. 5. 6| the Select Committee of Experts on the organisational aspects
47 IV, 12. 7 | established a network of experts in the Member States who
48 IV, 12. 8 | integration of representatives and experts from the candidate countries
49 IV, 12. 8 | diseases in the Community Their experts and representatives take
50 IV, 13. 7. 5| researchers, data protection experts and the national Data Protection
51 IV, 13. 8 | concrete results, inviting NGO experts and academics to present
