Insights & news

European Commission Publishes Guidance on Interplay between Clinical Trials Regulation and General Data Protection Regulation

  • 12/04/2019
  • Articles

The European Commission published on 10 April 2019 a Question & Answer document on the interplay between General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 (the GDPR), which entered into force on 25 May 2018, and Clinical Trials Regulation 536/2014 (the CTR), which is currently expected to enter into force in 2020.

The Q&A document provides clarifications in areas where the interplay between both sets of rules, which apply simultaneously, is complicated. It recalls that under the GDPR, it will be for data controllers to demonstrate that personal data are processed in accordance with the GDPR. Satisfying this obligation implies respecting the data protection principles, providing adequate information to clinical trial participants, appointing a Data Protection Officer (if required), maintaining records of processing activities and facilitating the exercise of individual’s rights, along with meeting other requirements.

The controller should also determine the legal basis for the various processing activities. In this task lies a common misunderstanding which the Q&A document seeks to rectify: the informed consent required under the CTR serves as an ethical standard and procedural obligation, and this should not be confused with consent as a legal basis for the processing of personal data under the GDPR.

As regards the legal basis under the GDPR, the Q&A document explains that various processing operations involving the use of clinical trial data, which include operations related to research as well as operations that are required for the protection of health, may rely on a different legal basis. Requesting consent from the participants (in addition to the consent required under the CTR) may be one option, but the Q&A document also offers alternative options, depending on the situation at hand. It will be for the controller to assess and implement the most adequate legal basis. In that regard, if clinical trial data are used for further research outside the scope of the protocol (secondary use), another legal basis may be required.

The Q&A document also assesses the impact of the entry into application of the GDPR on ongoing clinical trials which are governed by Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC. In particular, the European Commission indicates that additional information may have to be provided to the clinical trial participants. In principle, the legal basis that was valid under national data protection rules implementing Directive 2001/20/EC prior to the GDPR remains applicable. However, if the processing of clinical trial participant data relies on the participant’s consent, it must be assessed whether such consent satisfies the stricter requirements of the GDPR. If this is not the case, a renewed consent may prove necessary.

The full text of the Q&A document can be found here and is also attached.

Attachments:

Key contacts

Related practice areas

Related insights

Sign up for updates
    • 24/06/2019
    • Articles

    More Details Emerge Regarding Fine Imposed by Belgian Competition Authority on Professional Organisation of Pharmacists

    At the end of May 2019, the Belgian Competition Authority (“BCA”) imposed a fine of EUR 1 million on the professional organisation of pharmacists (“Orde der Apothekers”/ “Ordre des pharmaciens”) (the “PO”) because the PO had taken a range of exclusionary measures to thwart the development of MediCare-Market, a successful retailer of both medicines and other, less regulated health products (see, Van Bael & Bellis Life Science Newsflash of 5 June 2019). The BCA has now published the non-confidential version of its decision of 28 May 2019 (the “Decision”) which, as is customary, contains the report of the prosecutor in competition matters (“auditeur”/”auditeur”), submissions of the complainant and of the targeted entity, as well as the actual reasoning of the competition college, the decision-making body of the ABC (see, attached). The BCA found that the PO had relied on a range of techniques to hamper MediCare-Market’s development, including disciplinary proceedings and court action. Interestingly, the BCA also blamed the PO for limiting price competition, even though the scope for such competition was narrow as far as medicines are concerned. However, the BCA took issue first and foremost with attempts made by PO to stifle competition for health products other than medicines. For example, PO had taken court action against MediCare-Market on account of publicity made by that company which promised price reductions on non-pharmaceutical products. In PO’s view, this constituted unethical behavior unbecoming of a pharmacist. The ABC disagreed and added that, to the contrary, MediCare-Market’s actions had been welcome in that they made pharmacists aware of the legitimacy of price competition for products other than medicines. While the BCA is somewhat ambiguous on this, it also seemed to favour price competition for medicines in forms such as end-of-year reductions. This is illustrated by the start of the BCA’s analysis which refers to an OECD finding of 2017 that the pricing level for medicines in Belgium is too high compared to that of its neighbouring countries. Additionally, the BCA made short shrift of the PO’s public service remit. Relying in part on a 2014 judgment of the EU General Court which confirmed a European Commission decision which had found the French “Ordre national des pharmaciens” to be in breach of the competition rules (case T-90/11, Ordre national des pharmaciens and others v. European Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2014:1049), the BCA maintained that legitimate public-service obligations cannot serve as a pretext for anti-competitive behaviour. Similarly, the BCA also rejected the general interest arguments that PO was supposedly right in pursuing MediCare-Market in order to (i) protect the credibility of the pharmacist’s profession; (ii) safeguard public health; and (iii) guard against the excessive consumption of medicines. The BCA went even further by positing that the general approach followed by the PO to foreclose MediCare-Market or at least stunt its development amounted to a restriction of competition by object. Showing its anticompetitive effects was therefore not necessary (the BCA still went on to demonstrate the adverse effects on competition resulting from the PO’s conduct).

    Read more
    • 13/06/2019
    • Articles

    Pharmaceuticals - Export Manufacturing Waiver and Stockpiling Waiver Enter into Force on 1 July 2019

    Pharmaceuticals - Export Manufacturing Waiver and Stockpiling Waiver Enter into Force on 1 July 2019 On 11 June 2019, the Official Journal of the European Union published Regulation (EU) 2019/933 of 20 May 2019 amending Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate (“SPC”) for medicinal products (the “Regulation”). The modifications introduced by the Regulation encroach on the normal operation of the SPC which, broadly, extends the patent protection afforded to active substances of medicines. More precisely, they allow EU-based companies to manufacture in the EU a generic or biosimilar version of an SPC-protected medicine during the term of the SPC, for the double purpose of either exporting to non-EU countries where protection has expired or never existed (“manufacturing waiver”), or stockpiling the medicine during the final 6 months of SPC protection ahead of entry on the EU market immediately after the SPC has lapsed (EU Day-1 entry) (“stockpiling waiver”). The manufacturing and stockpiling waivers extend to related acts that are “strictly necessary” for such manufacturing or storing, even though such acts would otherwise require the consent of the SPC holder. According to the preamble to the Regulation, such related acts could include possessing, offering to supply, supplying, importing, using or synthesising an active ingredient for the purpose of making a medicinal product, or temporary storing or advertising for the exclusive purpose of exporting to third-country destinations. The Regulation requires producers of generic or biosimilar medicines to (i) notify the relevant competent authority in the EU Member State in which the manufacturing is to take place; and (ii) inform the SPC holder of their intention to manufacture a generic or biosimilar version of the protected medicine. Manufacturers will have to provide information on issues such as the markets where the new products will be exported to. For its part, the national authority will have to make that information publicly available. Further, in the case of products manufactured for the purpose of export to third countries, a specific logo will have to be affixed to the product’s outer packaging and, if feasible, to its immediate packaging. The Regulation will enter into force on 1 July 2019 and will become directly applicable in all EU Member States. However, the new rules will not apply to SPCs that have already taken effect before 1 July 2019. As regards SPCs that have not taken effect before that date, the following principles apply: • immediate application to SPCs that are applied for on or after 1 July 2019; and • application from 2 July 2022 to SPCs that have been applied for before 1 July 2019 and that take effect on or after that date. According to the Regulation’s preamble, the new rules are supposed to “strike a balance between restoring a level playing field between [producers of generic or biosimilar medicines established in the EU and those established in third countries, the former allegedly being “at a significant competitive disadvantage”] and ensuring that the essence of the exclusive rights of [SPC] holders […] is guaranteed in relation to the Union market”. However, advocates of intellectual property rights regard the manufacturing and stockpiling waivers as major victories for the generic and biosimilar industries and a dangerous step down the path of erosion of intellectual property rights (see, Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences Newsflashes of 28 May 2018, 21 January 2019 and 23 April 2019).

    Read more
    • 12/06/2019
    • Articles

    Luxembourg and The Netherlands Next in Line To Benefit From EU-US Mutual Recognition Agreement For Inspections of Manufacturing Sites For Human Medicines

    Luxembourg and The Netherlands have become the 25th and 26th EU Member State able to carry out good manufacturing practice (“GMP”) inspections at a level equivalent to that prevailing in the US. The US Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) confirmed as much on 10 June 2019. As a result, Luxembourg and The Netherlands now form part of the Mutual Recognition Agreement (“MRA”) governing GMP inspections of manufacturing sites for human medicines between the EU and the US. For their part, EU Member States have been able to rely on inspection results produced by the FDA since 1 November 2017. There are now just two more Member States left for assessment and this process is anticipated to be completed on 15 July 2019. The latest announcement of the European Medicines Agency ("EMA") on the subject can be found here: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/two-additional-countries-benefit-eu-us-mutual-recognition-agreement-inspections-1. The EMA also updated again its Questions and Answers document on the impact of the MRA: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/other/questions-answers-impact-mutual-recognition-agreement-between-european-union-united-states-10-june_en.pdf.

    Read more

Subscribe to our updates

Please select the practice areas you are interested in: *