German court rules against automated dispensing of medicinal products

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

German court rules against automated dispensing of medicinal products

Sponsored by

maiwald-logo-cropped.PNG
allec-gomes-dmlidt7xzna-unsplash.jpg

Christian Meyer of Maiwald explores a recent decision which prevents the distribution of medicinal products by means of an automatic dispenser from a foreign mail-order pharmacy

The Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) recently ruled that a Dutch mail-order pharmacy is not allowed to dispense medicines via automatic dispensing machines in Germany because this would not guarantee the safety of medicines (decision of April 30 2020, docket no. I ZR 123/19).



In the opinion of the FCJ, the sale of medicinal products from abroad by means of an automatic dispenser operated in Germany does not constitute "shipment to the end consumer from a pharmacy" within the meaning of Section 73(1) no. 1 lit. a) of the Pharmaceutical Products Act.



The FCJ states that the Court of Appeal was right to hold that the restrictions on the supply of medicinal products which were not observed by the defendant, in particular the national pharmacy obligation (first sentence of Section 43(1) of the Pharmaceutical Products Act) and the modalities of a permissible shipment under Section 73(1) no. 1 lit. a) of the Pharmaceutical Products Act, which require shipment directly from the pharmacy to the customer, serve to ensure the safety of medicinal products and are justified in the interest of a high level of protection for the final consumer pursuant to Article 36 TFEU.



The Court of Appeal did not err in law by finding that the distribution model of the defendant, domiciled in the Netherlands, does not satisfy the requirements of pharmaceutical safety as stipulated in the national provisions directly aimed at protecting public health.



The non-admission complaint against the Court of Appeal’s ruling was rejected by the FCJ owing to a lack of fundamental significance, as was a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union. In the opinion of the Federal Court of Justice, this is not a case of unlawful interference with the free movement of goods (Article 34 TFEU) and, in any case, such interference would be justified in order to protect the health and life of humans.



Christian Meyer

Principal, Maiwald

E: meyer@maiwald.eu

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

As concerns around the little-known litigation tool increase, practitioners say they are educating their clients on how it can be most effective
Kilburn & Strode and Mewburn Ellis are just two firms that have invested heavily in office space – a sign that the legal industry is serious about in-person working
In major recent developments, Dyson snagged another win against Hong Kong-based competitor Dreame and a new AI-powered UPC platform was launched
Mohit and Sidhant Goel decided not to pursue an interim injunction application so that their client, Communications Components Antenna, could benefit from a fast-track trial
Anita Cade, head of Ashurst’s IP and media team in Australia, discusses why law firms that can pull together capability across different practice areas and jurisdictions stand to gain
INTA’s CEO says London-based firms have registered fewer delegates compared to past meetings in San Diego and Atlanta, and questions the 'ethics' of trying to participate without registering
Lobbies and interest groups are among the interveners in a major dispute over whether courts can set patent pool rates
Benoit Geurts and Coreena Brinck will help the firm ‘accelerate its innovation agenda’, according to its managing partner
News of a trademark row over Taylor Swift’s ‘The Life of a Showgirl’ and Nokia’s expansion of its IoT licensing programme were also among the top talking points
IP attorneys share how the Cox v Sony ruling impacts their counselling strategies, and if the case could influence how courts may assess liability for AI platforms
Gift this article