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

Cookies Settings

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

Law firms don't particularly like saying no to clients. Perhaps they should get better at it
The office, which has a relatively new patent litigation team as well as a wider ‘soft’ IP offering, would remain independent if the rejection is rubberstamped
The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Peter Ling of Lenz & Staehelin in Zurich discusses trends in patent litigation, the regulation of AI and the benefits of teaching IP
Brandsmiths and Powell Gilbert will contest claims over several UK trademarks in a High Court case examining the ownership and revival of a heritage brand
Hogan Lovells Cadwalader is taking a fresh strategic approach to pricing in its AI strategy. It could amplify calls for law firms to ditch the billable hour
Charles Harding plans to build a new team around life sciences oppositions and contentious work, drawing on his three decades developing a practice from scratch at D Young & Co
The firm reveals how its litigation strategies informed the arguments that took Masimo’s judgment past $818 million
Gift this article