Part,  Chapter, Paragraph

 1    I,     2.  7        |      issue is represented by the decision of the German Government
 2    I,     2. 10.  5    |         HTA evidence is used for decision making.~ ~ ~
 3   II,     5.  1.  2    |        At national level, health decision makers are also following
 4   II,     5.  2.  6    |     health planning and clinical decision making with correct cost-benefit
 5   II,     5.  3.  7    |     should be awaited before any decision is made for implementing
 6   II,     5.  5.Int(21)|       activities (1998 to 2002), Decision No 182/1999/EC of the European
 7   II,     5.  5.Int(21)|   covering the period 2002-2006, Decision  1513/2002/EC of the European
 8   II,     5.  8.  5    |     should be used to direct the decision process.~ ~Different studies
 9   II,     5. 14.  6    |          of these groups and the decision making process.~ ~
10   II,     5. 14.  7    |          dentistry and treatment decision making is absolutely necessary.~ ~
11   II,     6.  4.  1    |        Surveillance~ ~Commission Decision 2000/96/EC specifies the
12   II,     6.  4.  1    |      diseases was established by Decision 2119/98/EC of the European
13   II,     6.  4.  2    |          be required (Commission Decision 2000/57/EC).~ ~In order
14   II,     6.  4.  2    |          linked to the system.~ ~Decision 2119/98/EC of the European
15   II,     6.  4.  2    |          and of the Council, and Decision 2000/57/EC regulate the
16   II,     6.  4.  2    |          an important Commission decision was taken on 19 March 2002.
17   II,     6.  4.  2    |     taken on 19 March 2002. This decision 2002/253/EC lays down case
18   II,     6.  4.  5    |        of communicable diseases (Decision 2119/98/EC). Such cooperation
19   II,     8.  1.  4    |          of the testing phase, a decision will then be made (by the
20   II,     9.  2.  7    |   Parliament and Council (2002): Decision No 1786/2002/EC adopting
21   II,     9.  2.  7    |   Parliament and Council (2007): Decision No 1350/2007/EC establishing
22   II,     9.  4.  5    |          the need to ensure good decision making at the interface
23   II,     9.  5.  3    |       influence girlslong-term decision to participate in physical activity
24  III,    10.  2.  4    |        integrated into political decision making processes. The new
25  III,    10.  3.  4    |  initiative aimed to rationalise decision making for disaster preparedness,
26  III,    10.  4.  2    |       risk management phase, the decision makers need to consider
27  III,    10.  4.  2    |          specific circumstances, decision makers or risk managers,
28  III,    10.  4.  2    |       Networks set up by Council Decision 21 19/98/EC;~• the control
29  III,    10.  4.  2(29)|         agents, amending Council decision 90/424/EEC and repealing
30  III,    10.  4.  2    |         432/EEC30; and~• Council Decision 90/424/EEC31 and coordinated
31  III,    10.  4.  2    |       Networks set up by Council Decision No 2119/98/EC33. Nevertheless,
32  III,    10.  4.  2    |       last amended by Commission Decision 2004/216/EC) makes it compulsory
33  III,    10.  4.  2    |         of each week.~Commission Decision 2005/176/EC (repealing Decision
34  III,    10.  4.  2    |  Decision 2005/176/EC (repealing Decision 2000/807/EC) lays down the
35  III,    10.  4.  2(33)|                                  Decision No 2119/98/EC of the European
36  III,    10.  4.  2    |      various acute symptoms~ ~EU decision on conditions~governing
37  III,    10.  4.  2    |        third: risk managers take decision (SCPHAW).~ ~Pesticides peer
38  III,    10.  4.  2    |  risk-benefit comparison).~ ~The decision to initiate a risk-benefit
39  III,    10.  4.  2(41)|                       Commission Decision 2004/478EC concerning the
40  III,    10.  4.  2    |      European Commission (2002): Decision No. 178/2002/CE of the European
41  III,    10.  4.  2    |      European Commission (2005): Decision No. 2073/2005/CE of 15 November
42  III,    10.  4.  2    |      European Commission (1990): Decision No. 90/219/EEC of the Council
43  III,    10.  4.  2    |      European Commission (2003): Decision No. 1946/2003 of the European
44  III,    10.  4.  2    |      European Commission (2007): Decision No. 1924/2006 of the European
45  III,    10.  4.  2    |     European Commission. (1989): Decision No. 89/662/EEC of 11 December
46  III,    10.  4.  2    |      European Commission (2004): Decision No. 852/2004 of the European
47  III,    10.  4.  2    |       European Commission (2004) Decision No. 853/2004 of the European
48  III,    10.  4.  2    |      European Commission (1995): Decision No. 95/69/EC of 22 December
49  III,    10.  4.  5    |         avoid long delays.~ ~The decision to adopt epidemiological
50  III,    10.  4.  5    |          Regardless of the final decision on the appropriateness of
51  III,    10.  5.  3    |   professions and policy fields.~Decision makers and advisers in the
52  III,    10.  5.  3    |          SME) and to migrants.~ ~Decision makers and advisers in the
53   IV,    11.  5.  4    |   rational decision-making, each decision also depends upon the recipient’
54   IV,    11.  6.  4    |     assessing outcomes. However, Decision no. 1350/2007 of 23/10/2007,
55   IV,    12.  4        |       policy (2007-2013)~Council Decision of 26 June 1990 on expenditure
56   IV,    12.  5        |  European Parliament and Council Decision creating the Second Programme
57   IV,    12.  5        | reconfirmed by the parliamentary decision (34/2001/EC, adopted by
58   IV,    12.  5        |        on 31.July 2001). In this decision the European Union defines
59   IV,    12. 10        |          for informed individual decision making. This applies in
60   IV,    12. 10        |           The Common Ministerial Decision 266 is in compliance with
61   IV,    12. 10        |      nutrition~High~ Ministerial Decision 30528/ (23.3.2005) concerning
62   IV,    12. 10        |  Nutrition Policy.~ ~Ministerial Decision 93828 / 2006, concerning
63   IV,    12. 10        |         Also, according the same Decision, the trans lipids of foods
64   IV,    12. 10        |          61~o Common Ministerial Decision 37411/1829/E 103 defining
65   IV,    12. 10        |          of ozone.~o Ministerial Decision 21475/4707 (published in
66   IV,    12. 10        |      Works, with its Ministerial decision number 1064 03 approves
67   IV,    12. 10        |         61.~o Common Ministerial Decision 29407/3508/2002 in compliance
68   IV,    12. 10        |         E.U~o Common Ministerial Decision 50910/2727/2003Measures
69   IV,    12. 10        |        High~o Common Ministerial Decision 8668/2007Acceptance of
70   IV,    12. 10        |  Hazardous Waste”,~o Ministerial Decision 13588/725/2006Measures,
71   IV,    12. 10        |  approved the Common Ministerial Decision 37591/2031/2003.~In compliance
72   IV,    12. 10        |        compliance with the above Decision, hospitals have to be obtained
73   IV,    12. 10        |       EFET)~o Common Ministerial Decision 487 (published in 2000)
74   IV,    12. 10        |       HACCP~o Common Ministerial Decision 588 (published in 2000)
75   IV,    12. 10        |         99.~o Common Ministerial Decision 245090/11.1.2006 for determining
76   IV,    12. 10        |        Ministry of Public Health Decision 1438/11/2006 to approve
77   IV,    12. 10        |        and substance abuse~ High~Decision 1654/11/2006 for approval
78   IV,    12. 10        |          regions, according with Decision 96/62/EC on air quality.~
79   IV,    12. 10        |          stressors~ intermediate~Decision 1830/11/2007 Noise maps~
80   IV,    12. 10        |          events and health~ high~Decision 1877/12/2005 National plan
81   IV,    12. 10        |         Poverty~ high~Government decision 1217/09/2006 for the setting-up
82   IV,    12. 10        |         health determinants~ Low~Decision 374/04/2006 on Strategy
83   IV,    13.  3        |  limitation facing public health decision makers. More research is
84   IV,    13.  7.  3    |  European Parliament and Council Decision , FP7 will be organised
85   IV,    13.  7.  5    |      enable solid evidence-based decision making. It is necessary
86   IV,    13.  7.  5    |     either by national law or by decision of the supervisory authority.~ ~
87   IV,    13.  8        |      2001)~ ~Participating in EU decision making processes~ ~The European
88   IV,    13.  8        |          credible policy advice. Decision makers give priority not
89   IV,    13.  8        |       NGO can participate in the decision making process at EU level.~