Synthon escitalopram memantine legal consequences of the rms cms position
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 11

Synthon, Escitalopram & Memantine: legal consequences of the RMS/CMS-position PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 56 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Synthon, Escitalopram & Memantine: legal consequences of the RMS/CMS-position. Court Cases about Procedures with NL as RMS/CMS. Synthon case.

Download Presentation

Synthon, Escitalopram & Memantine: legal consequences of the RMS/CMS-position

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Synthon escitalopram memantine legal consequences of the rms cms position

Synthon, Escitalopram & Memantine: legal consequences of the RMS/CMS-position

Court Cases about Procedures with NL as RMS/CMS

head of Policy and Legal Affairs


Synthon case

Synthon case

  • ECJ 2008: Is it possible to refuse application for mutual recognition on the ground that the medicinal product in question is not essentially similar to the reference product referred to in that marketing authorisation?

  • The existence of a risk to public health constitutes the only ground that a Member State is entitled to rely on to object to the recognition of a marketing authorisation granted by another Member State.


Lessons

Lessons

  • Member States cannot call into question, on grounds other than those relating to the risk to public health, the assessments carried out by the reference Member State.

  • Recognition subject to a second assessment of all or part of the application for authorisation would deprive the mutual recognition procedure of all meaning and seriously compromise the objectives of community law such as the free movement of medicinal products.


Escitalopram

Escitalopram

  • The Court of Haarlem considered that the MEB should have investigated, whether Lexapro should have been considered as New Active Substance (NAS). Moreover, the Marketing Authorisation should have been withdrawn and not suspended.

  • The court ruled that the MEB was never able to judge, whether Lexapro could be considered as a NAS, nor did itself investigate it.


Relevant facts

Relevant facts

  • In Annex 3 of the Notice to Applicants is stipulated that a single enantiomer could be considered as a new active substance if it differs in properties with regard to safety and/or efficacy.

  • The MEB deemed in its decision of 25 February 2010 that the data, which was submitted for Lexapro, that the differences between the products Cipramil and Lexapro were not clinically relevant.


Lessons to be learned

Lessons to be learned?

  • In Annex 3 of the notice to applicants is stipulated that a single enantiomer could be considered as a new active substance if it differs in properties with regard to safety and/or efficacy.

  • The MEB deemed in its decision of 25 February 2010 that the data, which was submitted for Lexapro, that the differences between the products Ciprimil and Lexapro were not clinically relevant.


Memantine

Memantine

  • The court ruled that article 28, paragraph 5 Directive 2001/83/EC nor the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, does not rule out that the Reference Member State can revise its Assessment Report on the basis of new information.

  • The court ruled that the reference member state should make a judgement on the legality of the MA and that its judgement can be based on information provided by the competent authority.


Lessons to be learned1

Lessons to be learned?

This case contains two important elements:

  • The MEB is allowed to revise its assessment report after finalisation of the DCP.

  • A MA not granted according to the provisions of Directive 65/65/EC or Directive 2001/83/EC can not be used as a reference product.


Conclusion

Conclusion

We have to trust each other as competent authorities, unless we have information we are not allowed to do so


Thanks for your attention

Thanks for your attention!

[email protected]


  • Login