Germany: EMA and EU Commission offer flexibility instead of intervention

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

Germany: EMA and EU Commission offer flexibility instead of intervention

Sponsored by

maiwald-logo-cropped.PNG
European Union flag against European Parliament

The European Commission, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the relevant national authorities recently agreed on a number of measures to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 disruptions on the conduct of inspections at manufacturing sites or other sites relevant to medicinal products in the European Union. These are included in the Notice to stakeholders: Questions and answers on regulatory expectations for medicinal products for human use during the COVID-19 pandemic, https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/human-use/docs/guidance_regulatory_covid19_en.pdf.

In view of the burden which German pharmaceutical companies and their suppliers currently face under a number of new regulations and the EU-wide export ban, such measures are encouraging.

Currently, companies in the pharmaceutical and medical device industry in Germany are faced with legislation based on the considerable extension of competences of the federal government, under the bill entitled Gesetz zum Schutz der Bevölkerung bei einer epidemischen Lage von nationaler Tragweite. As a direct result of these extended competences set forth by the bill a number of regulations were enacted, authorising the Ministry of Health and authorities to intervene to a considerable extent in the production and supply chains of pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers and suppliers. Additionally, companies face export restrictions. While France, Italy and Spain, for example, have enacted similar authorisation bills, those are time-limited and expressly require reasonability or proportionality of the measures under the regulations/ordinances.

The EMA and the European Commission have recognised that current national and international security measures and travel restrictions influence or prevent regular production and organisational processes.

The measures outlined in the updated Notice to Stakeholders, developed jointly by the European Commission, EMA and the heads of the pharmaceutical agencies, partially adapt the regulatory legal framework.

For example, the validity of Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) certificates for manufacturing/importing active substances and/or finished products in the European Economic Area (EEA) is extended until the end of 2021. If necessary, remote inspections are performed to enable extensions, and on-site inspections will be conducted as soon as possible. Essentially, the same applies to Good Distribution Practices (GDP) certificates. Automatic extensions do, however, not apply to any changes in the scope of the GMP certificate.

In addition, the Notice to Stakeholders provides information about adjustments which may be applied to the work of qualified persons who are responsible for confirming that each batch of a drug is approved for sale or use in a clinical trial.

However, these measures do not change the obligation of manufacturers and importers to comply with the GMDP standards. Inspections, including remote assessments, can take place and appropriate regulatory measures will be initiated in the event of non-compliance. Obligations and responsibilities of the qualified persons remain unchanged.

Besides the extensions of certificates, the updated Notice to Stakeholders includes advice on seeking exemptions from the 'sunset clause' under Article 24(4)-(6) of Directive 2001/83/EC and Articles 14(4)-(6) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, and a mechanism to deal with prioritising with respect to Individual Case Safety Reports.

Furthermore, the commission issued guidance to mitigate clinical trial disruption in the EU (Guidance on the Management of Clinical Trials during the Covid-19 (Coronavirus) Pandemic, Version 3, 28/04/2020).

Additionally, the council and the parliament adopted Regulation 2020/561 amending Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (Medical Device Regulation) in relation to application dates of all provisions which would otherwise apply from May 26 2020, postponing the date of application for those provisions by one year.

While national authorities extensively intervene with the supply chains of pharmaceutical manufacturers, the EMA and the EU Commission have adapted the regulatory framework to mitigate the pressure on marketing authorisation holders as far as production, reporting and clinical testing is concerned. Additionally the postponement of the Medical Device Regulation eases the burden on manufacturers in the medical device industry.

Dr Gisela Grabow

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Partner Rob Jacob unveils plans to offer a beginning-to-end trademark service, how to make prosecution profitable, and why IP ‘buy-in’ from the CEO stands the firm in good stead
Sponsored by CAS
CAS provides practical pointers on how intellectual property and R&D teams can work in tandem to unlock tangible benefits and avoid wasted spend
Sponsored by CAS
CAS explores how AI is transforming intellectual property, from inventorship and copyright disputes to new demands on patent attorneys
Sponsored by That.Legal
Gillian Tan of That.Legal discusses a recent decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore and what it reveals about the evidential burden in bad-faith trademark claims
Attorneys at Di Blasi, Parente & Associados share how the protection of trade secrets strengthens innovation by bringing together legal practice, regulatory developments, and established international references
Jin Ooi, who joins as a partner today, said he is excited to offer a ‘rounded’ IP service as the firm deepens its litigation expertise in the UK and Europe
As generics celebrate, practitioners believe innovator companies should brace for an ‘uphill battle’ when trying to prove induced infringement
A team from Cooley shares how they overturned a massive damages award by emphasising that the opposing company’s trade secrets claims were time-barred
Sponsored by Licks Attorneys
Eduardo Hallak, Rafaella Oliveira, and Laís Souza of Licks Attorneys explain how the provision operates in practice, highlighting evidential hurdles and best practices for patent applicants
Sponsored by Liu, Shen & Associates
Chunyu Cui and Ziqing Wu of Liu, Shen & Associates say recent trends in China’s intellectual property courts indicate alignment with international standards and send a clear signal to the global market
Gift this article