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 2025

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

Lawyers at Lavoix provide an overview of the UPC’s approach to inventive step and whether the forum is promoting its own approach rather than following the EPO
Andrew Blattman, who helped IPH gain significant ground in Asia and Canada, will leave in the second half of 2026
The court ordering a complainant to rank its arguments in order of potential success and a win for Edwards Lifesciences were among the top developments in recent weeks
Frederick Lee has rejoined Boies Schiller Flexner, bolstering the firm’s capabilities across AI, media, and entertainment
Nirav Desai and Sasha S Rao at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox explore how companies’ efforts to manage tariffs by altering corporate structures can undermine their ability to assert their patents and recover damages
Monika Żuraw, founder of Żuraw & Partners, discusses why IP should be part of the foundation of a business, and taking on projects that others walk away from
Lawyers say attention will turn to the UK government’s AI consultation after judgment fails to match pre-trial hype
Susan Keston and Rachel Fetches at HGF explain why the CoA’s decision to grant the UPC’s first permanent injunction demonstrates the court’s readiness to diverge from national court judgments
IP, M&A, life sciences and competition partners advised on deal that brings together brands such as ‘Huggies’ and ‘Kleenex’ with ‘Band-Aid’ and ‘Tylenol’
Stability AI, represented by Bird & Bird, is not liable for secondary copyright infringement, though Fieldfisher client Getty succeeds in some trademark claims
Gift this article