Reviews & Opinions
Independent and trusted. Read before buy LUX D790 Royal!

LUX D790 Royal Manual

Preview of first few manual pages (at low quality). Check before download. Click to enlarge.
Manual - 1 page  Manual - 2 page  Manual - 3 page 

Download (English)
LUX D790 Royal, size: 4.7 MB
Instruction: After click Download and complete offer, you will get access to list of direct links to websites where you can download this manual.


LUX D790 RoyalAbout LUX D790 Royal
Here you can find all about LUX D790 Royal like manual and other informations. For example: review.

LUX D790 Royal manual (user guide) is ready to download for free.

On the bottom of page users can write a review. If you own a LUX D790 Royal please write about it to help other people.
[ Report abuse or wrong photo | Share your LUX D790 Royal photo ]

Video review

Lux Royal D790, Electrolux, with Powerbrush ZE5


User reviews and opinions

Comments to date: 12. Page 1 of 1. Average Rating:
manimal 11:05pm on Monday, October 25th, 2010 
I bought a K790 last year. After 6 months of owning this phone it suddenly stopped working one day.
eureka 4:33pm on Wednesday, October 20th, 2010 
I used this cell phone for about 2 years and I am very satisfied with its general performance and its available features.
alice666-0 2:22pm on Tuesday, October 19th, 2010 
This great camera has 3.2 megapixels of resolution. Ericsson K790i is a phone that has integrated with 3. Sony Ericsson K790i produced impressive feature multimedia. The camera capacity 3,15 the MPs, 2048x1536 pixels, autofocus, xenon flash.
ptomaszb 6:47am on Sunday, September 19th, 2010 
Complete picture Latest features commonplace found in a special camera, now present for each monumentalize memories. advantages--> 1) solid build 2) good camera 3.2 PIXEL 3) xenon flash ( nice light gud pics in dark) 4) nice music ... HI to keep it short excellent camera with amazing flash. claritty of the pics are amazinggggggggg. no hanging problem.
ouioui_levrai 5:28am on Thursday, August 19th, 2010 
One of the best Sony Ericssion phones of 2008 After I lost my K750i, I HAD to get another one. On googling. Sony Ericsson K790a Phone (Unlocked) Excellent phone with lots of features. Surprised at how good the radio reception is.
diogobaeder 9:00pm on Friday, July 30th, 2010 
I purchased the Sony Ericsson K790A from the biggest telephone company in the Dominican Republic. The screen always freezes and I can never seem to get it to work properly. Sticks with Nokia, their phones are always reliable.
warman 7:59am on Friday, June 18th, 2010 
In my experiance when i used to have this phone i found it a very good phone. It has a great look to it and the 3.
Cheiron 10:02pm on Monday, May 24th, 2010 
I LOVED this phone when it first arrived, but...  Great camera features. Nice big screen, compact size Very easy to butt-dial.
bluebirdvision 6:19am on Saturday, May 22nd, 2010 
My Friend will required this phone I am happy with this phone I LOVED this phone when it first arrived, but it went downhill as soon as I put it in my pocket. It is VERY easy to "butt-dial" with this phone.
mosfet 2:24pm on Wednesday, April 21st, 2010 
I bought a K790a last year. After 6 months of owning this phone it suddenly stopped working one day. I got this phone Sony Ericsson K790a to replace my Sony Ericsson W580 and W810i and my Motorola. This is the best phone ever...
djib 7:16pm on Saturday, April 17th, 2010 
Sony Ericsson Z750A will be shooting mode is set to "macro", the aircraft still have autofocus function.
skofolo 11:49am on Thursday, March 11th, 2010 
This is my third sony ericson phone and of all the three this particular model is the worst.

Comments posted on are solely the views and opinions of the people posting them and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of us.




The Community gained a mandate in healthcare only in 1992, when the Treaty of Maastricht established the Communitys Public Health Article, Article 129 (Treaty of European Union 1992). The Article was renewed in 1997 in the Treaty of Amsterdam to include some new areas like blood safety, under the Community mandate (Treaty establishing the European Community 2002). The principle tasks of the Community are: advancement of co-operation and co-ordination of national health policies; protection and promotion of public health; and supervision of public health aspects in other Community policies. There is an increasing interest in cross-border healthcare/health services at the Community level, thanks to the internal market. The internal market has offered free movement to pharmaceuticals and medical devices, due to strict harmonisation of their production and quality and authorisation requirements. Healthcare personnel can easily be established and practise in other Member States, as their qualifications are mutually recognised. Cross-border healthcare services have followed the other healthcare related sectors in movement but in minor steps. The national Member States are responsible for organising their healthcare services, but citizens have been able to obtain services from another Member State at the cost of their national competent authority or been justly reimbursed according to certain rules. Indeed, the past ten years have opened possibilities for concrete cross-border healthcare services. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has perhaps acted as the main promoter when it has interpreted internal market legislation in individual cases where national citizens have obtained healthcare services from another Member State and required reimbursement from their national sickness funds. These preliminary rulings of single cases are significant to the whole Community as they are legally applicable and binding interpretation of the Community legislation not only to the counterparts but also to other Member States on similar occasions (European Court of Justice 2005). In addition to traditional healthcare services, development of telecommunications in the healthcare sector has made services independent of location, facilitating cross-border activities. Several interest parties, including national governments, patient and professional organisations and industries, are monitoring the development of cross-border healthcare. Thus, it is no wonder that their lobbies are established in Brussels, the centre of the European Community organisations. This study analysed some healthcare aspects in the European internal market, with a special focus on cross-border activities, delivery of health services cross-border with attention to patient and consumer safety protection. Especially, the following issues were studied: recognition of prescriptions in another Member State; import of drugs for personal use from another Member State; online pharmacies in the virtual European internal market; electronic prescriptions and possibilities for their cross-border use; and, the need for Community level legislation to ensure minimum blood donor information contents. The latter refers to cross-border health services, when the patient receives blood products in another EU member country or when blood components or products are imported from another EU member state. The materials for the sub-studies were collected in 1999-2003. The review of literature of this thesis reflects, however, beyond this time, highlighting some important policy changes, until April 2007.

2.1.2. Health in other policies
Earlier, the Communitys impact on the healthcare sector tended to be underestimated (Hmlinen et al 2003). Today, it is evident that most if not all the Community policies have an impact on the healthcare field. The European internal market based on economic interests is a good example, with a great deal of influence on healthcare (Legemaate 2002, Hmlinen et al 2003). Free movement of people, goods, services and capital has required harmonisation of national legislations and creation and adoption of European standards. Harmonisation guarantees some level of quality and
safety standards in every part of the internal market area. Some important parts of legislation that the internal market has offered to healthcare field are those that harmonise pharmaceutical markets and establish mutual recognition and standardisation of education and qualification requirements for medical professions. Agricultural, environmental as well as industrial policies also influence the healthcare sector. Tapani Piha, MD, who worked for several years as a councellor of EU-related health issues in Finlands Permanent Representation to the EU and later on as head of a Unit of the DG SANCO of the European Commission, defined the EU health sector as the Communitys internal market policies regarding pharmaceuticals, medical devices, tobacco and recognition of medical professions. In addition, he used the term health in other policies for policies that have a less direct effect on health. These may be agricultural and environmental policies (Piha 2000). Mr. Ben Duncan, former European liaison officer of the British Medical Association and a spokesman in the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, presented EU health policymaking as direct and indirect health policy-making and unintentional policy-making (Duncan 2002). The first category includes those policies falling into the mandate of Article 152 as well as tobacco control. The second category covers such policy areas as pharmaceuticals and the third category includes common agricultural policy and the preliminary rulings of European Court of Justice applying to the healthcare sector (Duncan 2002).
2.1.3. Community policy-making and stakeholder relations
To understand how the Communitys health-related policies are formulated, one must understand policy-making, a complex issue, with several parties influencing. Policymaking progresses as follows: The European Commission holds the initiative role, the European Parliament together with the Council make decisions on policy and legislation proposals. In general, Commission officials represent the European Community, aiming to develop policies within the legislative limits of the Treaties for the benefit of the Community. The European Parliament with its Members of Parliament represents European and national citizens and political parties in the interests of these two. In the Council, national member states advocate national interests. During the various steps of the policy formulation process, a variety of stakeholders such as national governments, industrial, professional and social associations or representatives of patient organisations at the European level communicate with Community institutions. An illustrative example of stakeholder communication with the European Commission for health service related matters is Commission Consultation regarding Community action in health services in 2006, aiming to gather stakeholders views on matters for future actions (DG Sanco 2006). A Commission report on responses to this consultation was based on 276 responses from stakeholders, which were, in this case, national governments, regional authorities, international and national umbrella organisations, social security institutions, universities, industries and even individual citizens (DG Sanco 2006). Stakeholders often have representatives in

Case C-120/95, Nicholas Decker v Caisse de Maladie des Employs Privs. A Luxembourgian Mr. Deckers sickness fund refused to reimburse Mr Decker for spectacles obtained from an optician established in Belgium. A Luxembourgian regulation required prior authorisation before obtaining medical products from abroad to avoid unplanned healthcare costs. The ECJ considered that the requirement of prior authorisation formed a barrier to free movement of goods when a person who did not obtain prior authorisation was refused of being reimbursed. This was considered to guide purchases to the national country. Financial reasons alone were not regarded as justifying such restrictions. Reimbursement of the costs of spectacles was not considered to have any significant effect on the Luxembourgian social security system. Case C-158/96, Raymond Kohll v Union des Caisses de Maladie. Mr Kohll, a Luxembourgian, wanted his daughter to have orthodontic treatment in Germany and applied for prior authorisation for reimbursement. The treatment was obtained before the authorisation decision, which was negative as the treatment was regarded as urgent and was also obtainable in Luxembourg. The ECJ was asked whether the regulation for prior authorisation as a condition for reimbursement of the costs of benefits obtained abroad were in accordance with the principle of free movement of services and whether the requirement was justified as ensuring balanced medical and hospital services in the country. The ECJ determined that the treatment constituted outpatient care and thus the Community legislation on the free movement of services was applicable. In this case when the insured applied for reimbursement according to the rates of the country of insurance, prior authorisation was not necessary to maintain balanced medical and hospital care, and the requirement was thus contrary to Community law. Case C-368/98, Abdon Vanbraekel et al v Alliance Nationale des Mutualits Chrtiennes. Ms Descamps, a Belgian had undergone orthophedic surgery in France, and her sickness fund refused to reimburse her for it. She had applied for prior authorisation but had been refused as she had not received a favourable statement for treatment abroad from a national specialist as required by Belgian law. Yet she was operated on in France. Afterwards, a national specialist gave a favourable statement about the operation. The ECJ was asked about the applicable rate of reimbursement: whether it should be according to the country of operation (where the amount was smaller) or the country of residence (more expensive). The ECJ determined that reimbursement should be according to the regulations of the country of operation, but the difference between the reimbursement rates should be paid to the patient when favourable. Case C-157/99, B.S.M. Geraets-Smits v Stichting Ziekenfonds VGZ and H.T.M. Peerbooms v Stichting CZ Groep Zorgverzekeringen. Mrs Geraets-Smith, a Dutch citizen, asked her sickness fund to reimburse her for a Parkinson disease treatment in a German clinic. The sickness fund refused stating that adequate and appropriate treatment was available in the Netherlands and the treatment in a German clinic was not regarded superior. In addition, the mode of treatment was considered unconventional and was thus not eligible for reimbursement, either. Another case was that of Mr. Peerbooms, a Dutchman, who had fallen into coma after a road-traffic accident. He was first treated in a Dutch hospital and was then remitted to an Austrian hospital to receive special treatment. This treatment was experimental in the Netherlands and offered only by a few clinics to patients less than 25 years of age. Mr. Peerbooms was older. He recovered from the coma. The Dutch sickness fund was afterwards asked to bear the costs occurred from the treatment in Austria. The claim was refused as the mode of treatment was not considered as a treatment in the Netherlands and thus not eligible for reimbursement. The ECJ was asked whether prior authorisation of treatment abroad as a condition of reimbursement was in compliance with the Community freedom of services; and how

restrictions on the import of POMs for personal use from another EU Member State. The restrictions were found to be contrary to Community law on free movement of goods (Article 30, Appendix 5). The German restrictions were based on the protection of public health. Germany argued that when a patient was in another country than the prescribing doctor and the drug dispensing pharmacy, this caused a potential health risk, in addition to confusion with packet leaflets in a foreign language and to possible misuse of prescriptions. The ECJ did not agree as it regarded that these risks were avoidable. The ECJ argued that when a drug was purchased from another Member State using a prescription issued by a doctor established in that Member State, it was contrary to the Community law of free movement of goods to prohibit import of drugs for personal use to a Member State where it was also obtainable only by prescription (Case C-62/90).
2.5. Information technology and eHealth in the EU
2.5.1. European framework for online acting society and eHealth
The European Community aims at making Europe the most competitive informationbased society by the year 2010 (European Council 2000). This aim has required special legislation in order to create internal markets also in the electronic field, safeguarding the interests and rights of consumers. The telecom package was created between the late 1990s and the early 2000s, followed by eCommunication, an extensive and profound collection of special legislation. This legislation is applicable to: Services or networks that transmit communications electronically, whether it is wireless or fixed, carrying data or voice, Internet based or circuit switched, broadcasting or personal communication (European Commission, Europes Information Society website, available from: The healthcare sector is one of the targets of the information society for several reasons. The EU member states are sharing challenges in healthcare. The Europeans are ageing and thus need more healthcare services; medical science offers increasingly specialised and advanced treatments, which are also more costly; people are more aware of scientific developments and demand them. These factors result in ever-increasing costs for the healthcare sector. Utilisation of information technology has been seen as one way of controlling healthcare costs while high-quality services are maintained. What is then eHealth? Several definitions are available. One definition according to G. Eysenbach says that eHealth is an emerging field in the intersection of medical informatics, public health and business, referring to health services and information dispensed or enhanced through the Internet and related technologies. In a broader sense, the term characterizes not only a technical development, but also a state-of-mind, a way of thinking, an attitude,

Finnish study analysing problems related with both traditional handwritten and computer-assisted prescriptions, found faults in 2.6% of the studied prescriptions. Major problems with handwritten prescriptions included administrative issues such as the difficulty of reading the signature and name clarification of the doctor, issues essential for reimbursement of a prescription in Finland. Patient safety related problems occurred in 0.6% of the prescriptions, absent or erroneous strength of the product and problems associated with dosages (Ihantola-Vormisto 2001). These problems were also found with computer-assisted prescriptions, which avoid handwriting-related problems (Ihantola-Vormisto 2001). Further benefits can be obtained when ePrescription programmes are linked to decision-making programmes that take into consideration the patients other medications, drug allergies and medical histories (Armstrong and Chrischilles 2000, Ochs 2002, Higgins et al 2002, Tamblyn et al 2003). For example, they have been shown to reduce inappropriate prescriptions for the elderly (Tamblyn et al 2003). In addition, information technology can offer other assistance such as lists of available drugs, including generic products, prices and reimbursement information (Armstrong and Chrischilles 2000). Studies of ePrescriptions have, however, proposed caution about e-prescribing and emphasised the need for further studies (Bell et al 2004, Miller et al 2005). One problem is the lack of common interests among commercial software vendors, software buyers and users, which has led to a lack of standards, and, consequently, divergent software systems that are incompatible and use divergent coding of health-related data (Papshev and Peterson 2001, Hammond 2004, Miller et al 2005). As a result, the data of drug databases may be limited or out-of-date. Therefore, commercial vendors should not work separately but in co-operation with involved other parties. Software usability and accuracy is not self-evident, either. Decision-assisting programmes been criticized for alerting too readily in clinically irrelevant situations (Reichley et al 2005).
2.5.3. Online drug trade for personal use
Online selling pharmacies have been called online-, internet- and e-pharmacies. One definition by Bessel et al states that online pharmacies, (or e-pharmacies, as Bessell et al called them) are web sites selling POMs and other products including nonprescription and complementary medicines to consumers via the Internet (Bessel et al 2002). Another definition by the Royal Pharmacy Society of Great Britain separates between registered internet pharmacies and other commercial suppliers and states that an internet pharmacy is a registered pharmacy which offers to sell or supply medicines (or other pharmaceutical products) and/or provides other professional services over the internet, or makes arrangements for the supply of such products or provision of such services over internet (Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain 2006). Online pharmacies sell drugs online while traditional pharmacies websites only advertise pharmacy services and inform consumers about healthcare and medications.

Replies were received from 11 officials of 11 Member States of the consulted 15. Responses were obtained from Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK. The officials were from specific medicines agencies in the Nordic countries, Ministries in the Western and Southern Europe and pharmacists associations in Belgium and in the UK (Table 2). The responses varied from extended to short ones.
Table 2. The EU Member State and the responding authority. EU Member State Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Netherlands Spain Sweden The UK Responding authority Federal Ministry of Social Security and Generations Association Pharmaceutique Belge Danish Medicines Agency National Agency for Medicines Ministry of Employment and Solidarity Federal Ministry of Health Ministry of Health and Welfare Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport Ministry of Health and Consumer Medical Products Agency Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain
5.2.1. Legislation on the dispensing of foreign European prescriptions
Dispensing of foreign European prescriptions was possible in the responding countries, except that Germany did not state its attitude in its response. Respondents in Belgium and in the Nordic countries, Denmark, Finland and Sweden stated that they had special national legislation on the dispensing of prescriptions issued from another Member State. The legislations of the Nordic countries allowed dispensing of other Nordic prescriptions with certain limitations associated with the type of the prescribed drug (e.g. narcotics would not be dispensed), the authorisation status of the drug in the country where the prescription was issued and the place where the prescription was to be dispensed. In Belgium, the law allowed dispensing of prescriptions issued by doctors established in other EU Member States. There was no special legislation in the UK, but the respondent stated that foreign prescriptions were dispensed if the prescribing doctor had a license to practise in the UK. The dispensing of foreign European prescriptions depended on prescription-related issues, such as authenticity of the prescription and type of prescribed pharmaceuticals. Narcotics or psychotropic drugs would not be dispensed; neither would unauthorised drugs or drugs for hospital use only. Prescriptions only on paper were accepted. Table 3 is a summary of the existing legislation on the dispensing of foreign prescriptions.
Table 3. Dispensing of foreign European prescriptions in detail. Country Acceptance of foreign European prescriptions: Yes/No Existence of legislations on dispensing of foreign prescriptions: Yes/No Restrictions on dispensing of foreign prescriptions 1=type of pharmaceutical 2=prescription authenticity suspicious 3=type of prescription (paper, fax, etc.) 1,2,3 n.s. 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3 n.s. 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3 1,2,3

Commission). Thus, all kinds of cross-border use of pharmaceutical services would be protected, whether taking place on the spot, by mail or online, with traditional prescriptions or ePrescriptions. The study obtained two significant findings about ePrescriptions in the EU Member States. First, ePrescriptions were used mainly for administrative purposes only. Thus, the full potential of ePrescriptions was not used in the Member States. Secondly, although standardised ePrescription forms and systems were used or going to be used in all Member States, these standards and systems varied from one country to another. US experience has proved that standardisation, including health data standardisation, and interoperability between systems was necessary for wide use of ePrescriptions across institutional and other boundaries (Hammond 2005, Miller 2005). In Europe, differences in standards complicate cross-border e-prescribing and also movement of other information linked to ePrescriptions and patient mobility. The Commission has noted the problem of diversity when studying the European health card, and proposed to put more emphasis on interoperability (in that case on systems used for electronic health cards) (European Commission 2003). EU-level co-operation is still possible as long as e-prescribing has not been introduced into a wider circle of EU Member States. Technically, a European-wide ePrescription system will not be a problem. However, differences in reimbursement policies make it difficult to agree on common reimbursement policy for drugs. This will, in practice, make cross-border dispensing a challenge for pharmacies. The EU aim of having ePrescriptions in use by 2008 does not seem to come true. Although the survey was carried out in 2001, the systems are slowly set up and require planning and piloting. Adoption rates are likely to differ owing to differences in healthcare systems, especially in systems where doctors work alone in their offices. Financing of the technical equipment of the doctor and the pharmacy will pose problems. In the USA, different jurisdictions at the federal, state or local government level, different practices of doctors and commercial vendors have resulted in varying ePrescription adoption rates (Miller et al 2005). The European Community and its Member States should examine the benefits and disadvantages of the USA two level system, state and federal, for ePrescriptions, and analyse what kind of decisions and procedures have been carried out at the federal and state level. Europes needs are certainly different, as its basic ideology for welfare is different, but it could learn from US experience.

6.2.4. Online pharmacies

The study found a few online pharmacies established within the EU area, in Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK, including Gibraltar and the Channel Islands. An Australian study from 2002, which examined 104 online pharmacies operating in the English language, found online pharmacies in Europe established in Italy, Spain, Switzerland and the UK (Bessell et al 2002). The reasons for differences between the studies could be that the latter was launched some years later: new online pharmacies

Partial Agreement is binding to those countries that have signed it, although the Council of Europe itself has no legislative mandate.
eCommerce states that the applicable instance of legislation is of the country where the service provider is legally established (Directive 2000/31). In the USA, many states require that pharmacies dispensing their residents are licensed in that same state but also in the state where they are legally established (Appelquist 1999). Some states even have special legislation on online pharmacies. This legislation varies from one state to another (Landis 1999). So far, at least the US authorities and one German Court has taken action against illegal online pharmacies. The Food and Drug Administration FDA (of the USA) has investigated illegally operating online pharmacies and sued these pharmacies, sent official warning letters, and tried to involve website managers to voluntary remove illegal sites (FDA 1999). Individual states have also acted and sued illegal online-pharmacies (Charatan 1998, Carnall 1999). In cases where an online pharmacy is established in another country, the FDA has co-operated with the authorities of that country. However, such measures are not always possible: the Australian study found that 39% of the studied online pharmacies did not give any address information, and 65% did not give owner or other relevant information (Bessell 2002). In addition, one Austrian study found that 14% of the investigated 150 online pharmacies had disappeared within 2-3 months after initial contact (Austrian Health Institute 2000). The German case of Dutch online pharmacy DocMorris was judged by the ECJ after the online pharmacy study had been carried out and published. This online pharmacy, whose popularity in Germany was based on low prices (Weber 2000), mailed an order to Germany. After being taken to the national German courts and the ECJ, it started to use couriers in an attempt to avoid violating the German regulation prohibiting mail sales of medicinal products meant to be sold only in pharmacies (Weber 2000, European Legal business 2001). The ECJ was asked about the German prohibition of sale of drugs by mail order, which the ECJ found justified in a case of a POM but not justified in a case of an OTC in the Member State concerned (OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001). Consumer education is needed to guide people in internet purchases. For example, the FDA has provided a useful check-list for safer online shopping of pharmaceuticals (available from the FDA website; and other kinds of consumer education (Online pharmacies, frequently asked questions, available from This study found that legally authorised online pharmacies use quality accreditation seals verifying their way of operation. A quality accreditation seal is a kind of code-ofconduct. The above mentioned Australian study found that only 12% of the studied 104 online pharmacies displayed quality accreditation seals (Bessell 2002), so that most online pharmacies advertising in the net seem suspicious. The Community directive on eCommerce called professional associations to set up Community level code-ofconducts to determine the types of information that can be used in eCommerce by the medical professions (Directive 2000/31/EC). At least one nationwide code-of-conduct has been established for online pharmacies in the UK, considering all aspects of online pharmacy services (British Pharmaceutical Society 2006). No European-wide code-ofconduct is yet available as online pharmacies have not reached support for true cross-

Summary and Conclusions

Non-national European prescriptions are dispensed by pharmacies in most of the old 15 Member States even without any special legislation, at least when the authenticity of the prescription is not questionable and the desired pharmaceutical is recognised and relatively harmless. Those Member States where pharmacies did not dispense non-national European prescriptions have special legislation forbidding the dispensing of foreign prescriptions. However, a legally non-binding Community recommendation supports mutual recognition of prescriptions. Import of drugs for personal use from another Member State is restricted by national law. As a consequence, it seems that pharmaceutical purchases are steered indirectly towards national pharmacies, even when these restrictions can be explained away as being protective. Online pharmacies vary from legally operating pharmacies to suspect operators. In the EU area, both legally authorised and lifestyle pharmacies were found. Online pharmacies could fit in the European internal market with special precautions. A legal framework already exists to regulate drugs, pharmacies, protection of personal data, distance trade and eCommerce as well as pharmacists and prescribing doctors. Currently, authorities do not seem to encourage e-prescribing cross-border. There are several reasons for this. E-prescribing is still rarely used, although is spreading to many countries. The systems and ePrescription forms vary between the countries, thus complicating cross-border utilisation. Contents of blood donor information materials varied among the EU Member States. EU-level regulation establishing minimum requirements on the contents of national blood donor information materials could improve the quality of information materials in this respect. Community legislation acknowledges unique, national factors. As a consequence, the European internal markets consist of national markets with special characteristics. Cross-border healthcare, including mutual recognition of prescriptions, cross-border prescribing and import of drugs should recognise the national characteristics, and cooperation should take place when true crossborder activities are desirable. The status of healthcare, especially that of health services, in respect to the European Community mandate needs to be reconsidered. Public Health Article 152 gives the Community only limited competence to act in the national healthcare field, but other Community policies and the European Court of Justices preliminary rulings significantly influence national healthcare services. If new legislation is not to be drawn, the Communitys existing mandate should be used more effectively and other measures such as open coordination could be developed or used as complementary. The latter might be of less value as Member States differ from each other in the organisation of social security and health care as well as in financial resources.

February 2000. Also available from: fdac/features/2000/100_online.html. Henney JE, Shuren JE, Nightingale SL, McGinnis TJ. Internet purchase of prescription drugs: buyer beware. Ann Intern Med 1999;131(11):861-2. Hermans H. Cross-border health care in the European Union: recent legal implications of Decker and Kohll. J Eval Clin Pract 2000;6(4):431-9. Higgins TJ, Diener JC, Grunsfeld T and Wogen S. Aim of perfection. Evaluate e-prescribing technology using six-sigma techniques. MGMA Connex 2002;2(9):358. High level group on innovation and provision of medicines. Recommendations for action. G10 medicines report 2002. European Communities 2002. Also available from: phabiocom/docs/g10-medicines.pdf. Hmlinen R-M, Koivusalo M, Ollila E. EU Policies and Health. Themes from Finland 1/2004. National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health. Helsinki, 2004. Iakovidis I. Towards a health telematics infrastructure in the European Union. In Information technology strategies from US and the European Union: Transferring research to practise for health care improvement. IOS Press 2000, p.23-33. Ihantola-Vormisto A. Lkemryksiss edelleen virheit [Medical orders still contain faults]. Suomen Apteekkarilehti 2001;5:18-22. Jones MJ. Internet-based prescription of sildenafil: a 2104-patient series. J Med Internet Res 2001 JanMarch;3(1):E2. Kanavos P, Mossialos E. Outstanding regulatory aspects in the European pharmaceutical market. Pharmacoeconomics 1999;15(6):519-33. Kanavos P. The single market for pharmaceuticals in the European Union in the light of European Court of Justice Rulings. Pharmacoeconomics 2000;18(6):52332. Kansanelkelaitos. KV-etuusohjeet. 1998. Kleinman S and Williams A. Donor selection procedures: Is it possible to improve them? Transfus Med Rev 1998:12(4):288-302. Koponen-Piironen H, Kiiski M. Project on preliminary survey on electronic prescription. Preliminary survey on electronic prescription. Working Group Memorandum of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health 2001:27. Korcok M.Cash-for-blood companies still thriving in US. CMAJ 1998;159(9):1165-6. Kostiainen E. Lkkeiden nettikauppaa ei miellet laittomaksi [Internet sales of pharmaceuticals not regarded as illegal]. Apteekkari 2006;7:11-13. Krosnar K. Cross-border trade in medicines causes concern in the EU. Lancet 2005;365(9467):1297-8. Krkkinen Reijo. Apteekki Euroopassa [Pharmacy in Europe]. Tabu 1995;5:19-20.
European Council. Presidency Conclusions. Lisbon European Council 23 and 24 March 2000. Available from: en.htm. European Court of Justice (2005). Information note on references from national courts for a preliminary ruling. OJ C143, 11.6.2005:1-4. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. Position paper. Impact of electronic commerce on the European pharmaceutical sector. March 1999. European Legal Business. DocMorris fights back in online medicine sales challenge case. European Legal Business 1.7.2001. European Parliament. Fact sheets. 1.2.2. Rule 110. Questions to written answer, available from: Eysenbach G (2001a). Online prescriptions of pharmaceuticals: where is evidence for harm or for benefit? A call for papers and for reflection. J Med Internet Res 2001 Jan-Mar;3(1):e1. Eysenbach G (2001b). What is e-health? J Med Internet Res 2001 Apr-Jun;3(2):E20. Farrell A-M. Is the gift still good? Examining the politics and regulation of blood safety in the European Union. Med Law Rev 2006 Summer;14(2):155-79. Fiedler H. HIV seropositivity in paid blood donors. Lancet 1992;339(8792):551 Finnish Government Statute 1088/2002. Valtioneuvoston asetus 1088/2002. Lkevalmisteiden henkilkohtainen maahantuonti (Personal import of medicinal products). Folino-Gallo P, Walley T, Frolich JC, Carvajal A, Edwards IR. Availability of medicines in the European Union: results from the EURO-Medicines project. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2001;57(6-7):441-6. Fontaine P. Europe in 12 lessions. Publication by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Communication. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2006. Food and Drug Administration. Enforcement of existing laws regarding the sale of prescription pharmaceuticals over the internet. Statement by Janet Woodcock, M.D, Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, FDA, 1999. Available from: existlaws.html. Glinos I, Boffin N, Baeten R. Contracting cross-border care in Belgian hospitals: An analysis of Belgian, Dutch and English stakeholder perspectives. Observatoire social europen, 2005. Available from: Hammond W. The role of standards in electronic prescribing. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004 JanJun;Suppl Web Exclusives:W4-325-7. Available from: w4.325v1/DC1. Henkel J. Buying drugs online: Its a convenient and private, but beware of rogue sites. The article has been published in the FDA Consumer January-

Landis NT. Virtual pharmacies boast easy access, privacy safeguards. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1999;56(12):1174, 1177-9. Legemaate J. Integrating health law and health policy: A European perspective. Health Policy 2002;60(2):10110. Levin-Epstein M. Regulators, Congress seek to cast tighter net over online pharmacies. Managed Care 2000;9(6):45-7, 51. Also available from: 2.washington.html. Li Bassi L, Bertele V, Garattini S. European regulatory policies on medicines and public health needs. Eur J Public Health. 2003;13(3):246-51. Lorman A. Internet pharmacies catch on with consumers; Pose problems for regulators. Health Care Advisory, 2000 February. Available from: Martikainen J, Rajaniemi S. Lkkeiden korvaaminen EU-maissa erilaisia jrjestelmi, yhteisi ongelmia [Reimbursement of pharmaceuticals in Europedivergent systems, common problems]. Suomen Lkrilehti 2002;46:4710-12. Miller RA, Gardner RM, Johnson KB, Hriocsak G. Clinical decision support and electronic prescribing systems: a time for responsible thought and action. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005;12(4):403-9. Mossialos E, McKee M, Rathwell T. Health care and single market. Eur Jour Public Health [Editorial] 1997:7(3):235-7. Mossialos E, McKee M. Health care and the European Union. BMJ 2002;324(7344):991-2. Nickless J. Smiths/Peerbooms: Clarification of Kohll and Decker? Eurohealth 2001 Autumn;7(4):7-10. Nordic Council of Ministers. Nordisk receptgiltighet. Nordic Statutes Collection 1977, p.210. Also available from: Ochs J. E-prescribing gets more enticing. Manag Care 2002;11(2):60-1. Also available from: Papshev D, Peterson AM. electronic prescribing in ambulatory practise: promises, pitfalls and potential solutions. Am J Manag Care 2001;7(7):725-36. Peterson A. A survey of selected Internet pharmacies in the United States. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash) 2001;41(2):205-12. Piha T. Euroopan Unioni ja terveys [European Union and health]. Unpublished manuscript 2000. Porteous T, Bond C, Robertson R, Hannaford P, Reiter R. Electronic transfer of prescription-related information: comparing views of patients, general practitioners, and pharmacists. Br J Gen Pract. 2003;53(488):204-9. Purasmaa R. Ammattiapteekki vai markkina-apteekki? [Professional or commercial pharmacy?] Suomen Lkrilehti 1999;36:4523-4. Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to

that of potential recipients; prospective donors who object to being so informed should be excluded from the donation process; (i) specific information on the nature of the procedures involved in the donation process and associated risks for those willing to participate in whole blood donation or in apheresis programmes. 2.2. For confidentiality (a) information on the measures taken to ensure the confidentiality of: any healthrelated information provided to the health personnel, the results of the tests on their donations, as well as any future traceability of their donation; (b) the assurance that all interviews with prospective donors are carried out in confidence; (c) the option of requesting through a confidential self-deferral procedure the blood and plasma collection establishment not to use their donation.
Source: Official Journal of the European Commuinities L 203, 21.7.1998, p. 16-17.

Appendix 7

Information requirements to be provided to the prospective donor as stated in the Commission Directive 2004/33/EC implementing Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards certain technical requirements for blood and blood components. INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS (as referred to in Articles 2 and 3) PART A Information to be provided to prospective donors of blood or blood components 1. Accurate educational materials, which are understandable for members of the general public, about the essential nature of blood, the blood donation procedure, the components derived from whole blood and apheresis donations, and the important benefits to patients. 2. For both allogeneic and autologous donations, the reasons for requiring an examination, health and medical history, and the testing of donations and the significance of informed consent. For allogeneic donations, self-deferral, and temporary and permanent deferral, and the reasons why individuals are not to donate blood or blood components if there could be a risk for the recipient. For autologous donations, the possibility of deferral and the reasons why the donation procedure would not take place in the presence of a health risk to the individual whether as donor or recipient of the autologous blood or blood components. 3. Information on the protection of personal data: no unauthorised disclosure of the identity of the donor, of information concerning the donor's health, and of the results of the tests performed. 4. The reasons why individuals are not to make donations which may be detrimental to their health. 5. Specific information on the nature of the procedures involved either in the allogeneic or autologous donation process and their respective associated risks. For autologous donations, the possibility that the autologous blood and blood components may not suffice for the intended transfusion requirements. 6. Information on the option for donors to change their mind about donating prior to proceeding further, or the possibility of withdrawing or self-deferring at any time during the donation process, without any undue embarrassment or discomfort.

Appendix 9

Questionnaire concerning ePrescriptions. 1. Are ePrescriptions used in your country? Yes/No; Explanation. 2. If no, is your country considering the use of ePrescriptions? Explanation. 3. Technology of the ePrescription. What is the technique considered for communication? Stored on a diskette/stored on a smart card/sent by unsecure email to a pharmacy/sent by secure email to a pharmacy/sent to a server which can be assessed by pharmacies/other, what? Explanation. 4. Is/will the used ePrescription form (be) according to international standards? Explanation. 5. a) Is/will the same system (be) used in the whole country? If no, why? b) Do you have several ePrescription models which are used/will be used in your country? Explanation. 6. Can the patient select the pharmacy after the physician has described? Yes/No; Once/Continuously. 7. Is the authenticity of the prescription ensured in the pharmacy be checking A) the identity of a) the patient: with an identity card/with other means, which? Explanation. b) the physician: a number code/eSignature/with ID-card/with other means, which? Explanation. B) Is there an online possibility to check the licence of healthcare professionals to write ePrescriptions (online databases/help desk/other)? Explanation. 8. Is the authenticity of the ePrescription ensured in the pharmacy by checking the integrity of the contents? Explanation. 9. Is any form of foreign ePrescription accepted in your country? Yes/No. If no, do you think it should be made possible? Explanation. 10. Do you anticipate following problems with ePrescriptions if they are A) domestic: identification of the patient/identification of the physician/data protection related problems/integrity of the prescription/storage of prescriptions/ other, what? Explanation.
Appendices B) foreign: identification of the patient/identification of the physician/data protection related problems/integrity of the prescription/storage of prescriptions/ other, what? Explanation. 11. Is the ePrescription tool linked to a certain insurance company/a certain pharmacy or network of pharmacies/a certain software vendor? Explanation. 12. Among Scandinavian countries mutual recognition of prescriptions is based on common agreements. This means that a prescription is written in one Scandinavian country can be given out, with some exceptions, in a pharmacy in another country. Do you think that the European Union should develop a model where an ePrescription written in any Member State can be delivered in any other Member State? Explanation.


B 51 912, B 06, B 07, CB 911
937, 938, CB 934 922, 923, 924, 939, 944

D2 (MAX)

4 (28)
B 9158 993, CB 950 CB 913


AVQ 2134, AVQ 2135 1SBAG (MAX) D2 (MAX) D3 (ST2) ETA2 SG1 D2 (MAX) EIO5 (MAX) ETA2 ST23 Z1 (MAX) Z6 A3 (MAX) 2 (27)
CB 917, CB 918, CB 919, CB 929, CB 952, CB 953
1600, 200, BS 1500 PS 1600 Power Shorty, PS 1200, PS 1300 BS(28) 22


TEK 120 8
Alpha, BBS 233, Maxima, Silence BMS 1000, BMS 2200 Amphibixx BMS 1000 - 1999, BMS 2100 - 2299 (Aqua Clean), original BBZ 21 AF / A, typ W, typ X 2400 - 2999, Activa 60 - 69, Alpha BBS 2000 - 2299, Alpha BBS 2400 - 2999, Aquarea BSG 2000, BBS 6000 - 6309, BBS 6310 - 6399, BBZ 52 AFEFD (typ D, E, F), BBZ 52 AFG1 (typ G), BSC 1000 - 9999, BSG 4000 - 4999, Casa 10 - 19, Compacta BBS 7000 - 7999, Formula BSG 70000 - 79999, Junior C 600, Maximo, Natura 20 - 29, Natura BSD 1000 - 9999, Optima BBS 5000 - 5999, Perfecta BBS 8000 - 8999, Solida BBS 1000 - 1199, Sphera BSA 1000 - 9999, Terossa BSC 41800, Ultra BSF 1000 - 9999, original BBZ 6 AF (typ P, H) (30) 21 (31)


1260, 1400, 2000, BS 1230, VC 1600 BS 1600 el BS 1200, EUP BS 1204, VC 1300 VC 1400 BS 1010 ECM, BS 1260, BS 1360 BS (28) 8 (29) 24 (32) 26


Alfa 500 E 2 (27)


Rabit 2200, Rabit 2202, Rabit 2214, Rabit 2217, Rasputin SF 2204, Rasputin SF 2214, SF-2201, SF-2211, SF-2213 Galaxy 2212 D2 (MAX) ETA(28) 8
6601 ETA10 (MAX) D2 (MAX) ETA2 EIO5 (MAX) ETA8 (MAX) ST(30)
B 4121, B 4151 4109, B (28) 8


2000, Aqua FAM 2000, Bulldog, Classic, Delta Es, Hobby 11, Hobby 22, Hobby 24, Industrial 22, Inox 20, Max 7, Multi Pro, Multipro Shop Vac, Multisystem 22/1200/2000, Omega 100, Plus 1000, Power VAC, Pro 100, Pro 200, Pro 2000, Pro 210, Pro 240, Pro 250, Pro 70, Safari, Super 22, Synchro 22, Trionic, White Knight 1000 Plus, 7402 B


AQ1 (MAX) 3 (27) Topline 1300, Topline (29)


Pro 1 19

AT 4201, AT 4202, AT 7310, AT 7312, AT 7313 1300, MAT 401, 502 Mousy AT 7407, AT (28) 8 (29) 9

R11 R14 (MAX)

Oznaen sku ETA8 (MAX) S16

10 (30) 22

AT 7308 AT 4211, 4212


ZN 6016 ETA2 Z6
1000, 101, 111, 1200, 121, 1800, 2001, 21, 2100, 221, 222, 223, 2300, 2301, 2500, 6130, A 0492, Clasic, Powa 4000, Powa 4001, Powa 4100, Powa 5000, Powa 5150, Powa 6130, Rapide 5000, Rapide 5100, Rapide 5110, Rapide 5120, Rapide Plus 5130, Rapide Plus 5140, Rapide Plus 5150, Rapide Plus 6130, Rapide Plus 6131, Rapide Plus 6151, V 1050, V 1100, V 1200

D8 VAX1 MAX 32 26

Minimax, New Minimax EIO3 7


340.825, 703.023, 840.585, 841.008 EIO3 1SBAG (MAX) A3 (MAX) A4 D3 (ST2) E1 (MAX) E2 E3 E6 ETA4 V1 V2 V3 MAX D2 (MAX) ETA2 ST23 ETA2 LG1 D3 (ST2) D3 (ST2) S16 ST23 ETA2 E6 ETA2 SC1 (CP4, PH17) ST23 Z1 (MAX) 7
Bolido 4500 - 4595 405, 412, 414, Compact , Diamant, Ecotec, Equisit 200, Parketto, Power, Red Zac electronic, V 31 F Roety Series Dolphin Plus U 5002, Dolphin Plus U 5003 Bolido E 49, Elyps, Harmony, Quatro, U 1110 - U 1136, V 27 Aqualine U 810 - 890, P 80, V 25 F srie ROLFY 1015, 1020, 1021, 1030, 1035 U 240, U 241, V (27) 2 (27) 5 (29) 6 9


Kobold VK 130, VK 131 Kobold VK 118, VK 119, VK 120, VK 121, VK 122 Kobold VK 24 32


1490, 1491, 1510 1400, 1401, 1410, L, (28) 9 23


Laser 2000 9

AEC - 5 S 15

1202 E, 1400 E, AT 1200 5
VCH 4601, VCH 4801 BBS 13 Trend 23


969 E, BS 960 9


ZAN 2240, ZAN 2245, ZAN 2250, ZAN 3430, ZAN 3435 6
200 Duo 01D011 XS 1010 - 1199, Admiral, Compact 1010, 1020, 1030, 1057, Eco, Meteor Allergo Z - 1032.5, Meteor Super Z 1112.5, 1112.0, Meteor Z 1112.5, 1112.0 Aeromaster, Aeroplus, Aerosystem, Cobra 2000, 2010, Delfn 890.0.S, Furio, Marly Gigant, Plus, Super, Wodnik Duo Multi 619, Vodnk 519 Elf Bonus, 322.0, 322.5, 322.6, Elf, 321.0, 321.5, 322.5, 322.6, Flip 321.0, Flip 321.5, Flip 321.6, Flip 322.0, Flip 322.5, Furio 400.0, 405.0, Meteor II 400.0, 405.0 Orion 1500, 2500, Orion Max 2500, Syrius 1600, Twist 1500.5, Twister 1500.5, Twister Max 800.0, 800.5, 830, Compact 800, Compact 830, Compact 850, Oceanic 1200, Oceanic 1230, Super 800 , Super AS Magnat 3000, Jupiter 4000, Maxim 3000, Solaris 5000, original 49.24 (32)



DX4800 4-18 XT CDX-535RF Navigon 12 4-20XT WS-48511 CF-430 FWM377 12 Hkts 18 ROC 340 Cobra 37ST 6015I KP-FX532m91 24-inch Individual Proceed PAV FO 3150 K2-100 506 Bass AT935A--a935-ar-cz-d-dk-e-f-gr-h-i-n-nl-p-pl-ru-s-sf-tr-UK HS650 WA840GP Review SA-AK22 Nokia 30 GXW400X MCD 550M IVB-5H Majesty-2007 KX-TDA600 KX-TG5621S NW-E307 NVT 200 Sansa Fuze GS-4024 Officejet 6310 DEH-P88rsii Asko 1485 RX560 Movie Cube Modeler Lide 60 32LF2500 Electro-voice DX38 VB-99 PS110 FC8601 EB-W7 CDE-9827R Omnibook XE3 2001F-W Mouse P4P-800-VM GS-140 IC-736-738 FA1201 DVD 536 PAB-3600 Playtouch ZI10 CS 2156 Kodak V603 LE46A786r2F ECM-DS30P 21GR2350 P4RD1-MX NS-200 LE37C535f1W Abuw606LTA0 PS42A451 DI8009 Stone SRU7040-10 Kxtg8521E KV-28LS35E WD-8013C Digital C-3000 Zoom ZWQ5100 SCH-R210 KX 250F GH198 MD-009 Fitzroyfreestanding MC-7826M GZ-MG27E Edition 9 2 DCC-E345 Navigon 1210 NS-300 TXL37S20E MD 8833 System Hunter 2005 CLX-3175 SEE LN40A450c1 HL-1030 TL-WR642G Factor HP1631 Powershot S90


manuel d'instructions, Guide de l'utilisateur | Manual de instrucciones, Instrucciones de uso | Bedienungsanleitung, Bedienungsanleitung | Manual de Instruções, guia do usuário | инструкция | návod na použitie, Užívateľská príručka, návod k použití | bruksanvisningen | instrukcja, podręcznik użytkownika | kullanım kılavuzu, Kullanım | kézikönyv, használati útmutató | manuale di istruzioni, istruzioni d'uso | handleiding, gebruikershandleiding



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101