European Commission

Subscribe to European Commission via RSS

Regulatory activity in the EU and UK over the past month has focused on accelerating the alignment of digital, AI, and life sciences regulatory frameworks, alongside increasing scrutiny of data governance and market readiness for emerging technologies. At the EU level, work to simplify and streamline EU AI-related legislation has advanced, with the Council of the European Union and European Parliament having adopted their positions on the European Commission’s (EC) Digital Omnibus reforms, and now entering trilogue negotiations on the final text. In parallel, MedTech Europe published its response to the EC consultation on the simplification of the EU AI rules as part of the Digital Omnibus, calling for clearer integration between the AI Act and other sectoral legislation, as well as extended implementation timelines. Separately, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) issued a joint opinion on the proposed European Biotech Act, emphasizing the need for clearer safeguards, harmonized legal bases for processing clinical data, and strong protections when health and genetic data are used in biotech and AI contexts. In the UK, developments have focused on the role of AI-enabled innovation within the health care system. A new parliamentary inquiry into personalized medicine and AI will examine ongoing challenges and barriers to National Health Service (NHS) adoption of new technologies, including procurement, digital infrastructure limitations, and system fragmentation. At the same time, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has secured multi year funding to expand its AI Airlock Program to support the development of more ambitious AI medical devices. These initiatives signal a continued policy commitment to embedding digital and AI driven innovation into health care delivery and to strengthening the regulatory environment required to support safe deployment at scale.…

Continue Reading Virtual and Digital Health Digest – April 2026

On 5 May 2026, the European Commission published an implementing regulation setting new procedural requirements for Notified Body assessments in medical device and IVD conformity assessment procedures (the “Implementing Regulation”). The Implementing Regulation aims to give manufacturers greater certainty in their interactions with Notified Bodies during the initial conformity assessment process and in post-market modifications and re-certifications, as well as aiming to avoid inconsistent practices between Notified Bodies.

To achieve these objectives, the Implementing Regulation sets maximum timelines for Notified Body assessments, provides for standardised rules around quotes by Notified Bodies for carrying out assessments and standardises certain information and verification requirements. The Implementing Regulation also requires each Notified Body to monitor and report on the duration and costs of its assessment activities. Manufacturers will, therefore, have better oversight of the performance of each Notified Body when selecting one to carry out an assessment.

The Implementing Regulation has been developed in response to the inconsistent and divergent interpretation of the procedures for Notified Body assessments under the EU Medical Devices Regulation 2017/745 (MDR) and the In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Regulation 2017/746 (IVDR), which makes the processes unpredictable for manufacturers.

The European Commission had previously published the implementing regulation in draft form in December 2025 and opened a consultation, which closed in January 2026.

Continue Reading EU implements new rules on uniform procedural requirements for Notified Body assessments

On 16 December 2025, the European Commission published its Proposal for a Regulation establishing a framework of measures for strengthening the EU’s biotechnology and biomanufacturing sectors, particularly in the area of health (the “European Biotech Act” or the “Proposal”). The Proposal is ambitious in scope: it amends several major pieces of EU health legislation, including the Clinical Trials Regulation (“CTR”), the Veterinary Medicines Regulation, the Food Law Regulation and the Substances of Human Origin Regulation (“SoHO”), while also introducing a new framework for EU strategic projects, AI-enabled biotechnology, and biodefence.

On 10 March 2026, the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) and the European Data Protection Supervisor (“EDPS”) adopted Joint Opinion 3/2026 on the Proposal (the “Joint Opinion”). While broadly supportive of the Proposal’s objectives, the EDPB and EDPS identified a number of significant data protection concerns, and issued recommendations. Although not legally binding, the Joint Opinion carries significant weight as it reflects the views of the EU’s primary data protection authorities and will directly shape the legislative debate ahead.

In this blog we examine the key data protection implications of the Proposal and the Joint Opinion for pharma and life sciences companies.

Continue Reading EDPB/EDPS Joint Opinion on the European Biotech Act Proposal: Key Data Protection Implications for Pharma and Life Sciences

On 19 November 2025, the European Commission published two legislative proposals – the Digital Omnibus on AI Regulation Proposal and the broader Digital Omnibus Regulation Proposal (“Proposals”) – as part of a wider initiative to simplify and streamline the EU’s digital regulatory framework. Together, the Proposals introduce targeted but significant amendments across a broad range of instruments, including the EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689), the GDPR (Regulation (EU) 2016/679), the ePrivacy Directive (2002/58/EC), the NIS2 Directive ((EU) 2022/2555), and the EU Data Act (Regulation (EU) 2023/2854).

Continue Reading EU Digital Omnibus: What the Proposed Reforms Mean for Pharma and MedTech

Introduction

The European Commission has published its proposals on the amendment of the Medical Devices Regulation 2017/745 (MDR) and In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation 2017/746 (IVDR) (“the proposals”). This marks a pivotal moment for the EU healthcare and MedTech landscape, following a public consultation by the Commission in early 2025 (see our blog here) and a call for evidence in September 2025 (see our blog here). The proposals respond to industry concerns over complexity, cost, and delays which have been substantially hammering the MedTech industry since the implementation of the MDR and IVDR.

The proposals aim to streamline regulatory processes, reduce administrative burden, and enhance predictability, while maintaining patient safety and public health. From adaptive pathways for breakthrough and orphan devices to leaner conformity assessments, stronger notified body (NB) governance, and changes to classification, these changes are designed to future-proof the regulatory framework and foster innovation. For manufacturers, healthcare institutions, innovators, and industry stakeholders, the proposals signal a shift toward a more proportionate, risk-based system that supports timely access to critical technologies without compromising quality.

Below, we have set out an overview of some of the key proposals.  Additionally, while not released with the proposals, the European Commission published a draft Implementing Regulation on certain uniform quality management and procedural requirements for the conformity assessment activities carried out by Notified Bodies – see our separate blog on this here.

The proposals have now been submitted to the European Parliament and Council for review. Once the Parliament and Council have adopted their own positions on the text, there will be negotiations to agree a final text which can be formally adopted by the Council and the Parliament. At this stage, it is challenging to anticipate what would be the result of the political negotiations and unclear when the new rules will start to apply.

A feedback period has been opened, running from 7 January to 5 March 2026. All feedback received will be summarised by the Commission and presented to the European Parliament and Council with the aim of feeding into the legislative debate.

Continue Reading From complexity to clarity: How the EU Commission plans to overhaul the MDR and IVDR

On 12 December 2025, the European Commission published a draft Implementing Regulation (“the Regulation”) on certain uniform quality management and procedural requirements for the conformity assessment activities carried out by Notified Bodies (“NBs”), introducing detailed requirements for NBs operating under the Medical Device Regulations (EU) 2017/745 (“MDR”) and the In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Device Regulations (EU) 2017/746 (“IVDR”).

The recitals describe serious systemic challenges that have emerged since the implementation of the MDR/IVDR and the proposals aim to set out a structured resolution to these challenges. An overview of these proposals is set out below. Overall, the Regulation aims to create a harmonised NB landscape that is predictable, transparent, and fair – supporting patient safety while easing unnecessary administrative burdens for manufacturers. Whether this goes far enough to address the challenges identified will have to be seen.

The Regulation is open for public consultation until 23 January 2026. Once feedback has been reviewed by the Commission, it will be published. The Commission  anticipates adoption of the Regulations in the first quarter of 2026, following which it will be sent to the European Parliament and Council for consideration. The timing of the formal adoption of the Regulation is not yet clear.

Continue Reading A Deep Dive into the EU’s New Implementing Regulation for Notified Bodies

On 11 December, after overnight interinstitutional negotiations between the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (“Council”) and the European Commission, the institutions reached a provisional political agreement on the reform of the European Union (“EU”) pharmaceutical legislation.

This agreement concludes months of trilogue discussions and follows a much longer legislative process that began with the European Commission’s  proposal adopted in April 2023, the European Parliament’s position adopted on 10 April 2024, and the Council’s position adopted on 4 June 2025 (see our detailed advisory on the Commission’s proposal and our BioSlice blog posts on the Parliament’s and Council’s positions here and here).

The provisional agreement must now be formally adopted by both the Parliament and the Council.

Continue Reading European institutions agree on the reform to the EU Regulatory Framework for Medicinal Products

The EU Commission has published its proposal for the “Digital Omnibus” aimed to simplify and streamline the EU rules governing artificial intelligence, data protection, cybersecurity, and data use more broadly. The proposal seeks to amend several cornerstone EU regulations, including Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR), Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act), Regulation (EU) 2023/2854 (Data Act), Directive 2002/58/EC (e-Privacy Directive) and Directive (EU) 2022/2555 (NIS2). The proposal also foresees the repeal of the fairly recent Regulation (EU) 2022/868 (Data Governance Act).

Below is a high-level snapshot of the proposal, ahead of a more detailed advisory we will publish.

The proposal will now moves through what is expected to be a challenging legislative procedure and policy and political discussions with the European Parliament and the Council.

Below we set out a quick overview of the most relevant elements for companies, including medical device manufacturers and other Life Sciences companies – e.g., changes to the AI Act, updates to the GDPR, reform of the EU cookie and tracking rules, data-sharing rules, and the new single-entry point for cybersecurity and data protection incidents reporting.

Continue Reading Digital Omnibus: The European Commission published its proposal to amend the GDPR, AI Act, Data Act and other related frameworks

On 23 October 2025, Advocate General (“AG”) Emiliou delivered his opinion in Case C-118/24: Laboratoires Eurogenerics and Theramex France.[1]

The AG opines on three key questions regarding the use of the decentralised procedure for generic medicinal products:

(i) The national courts of the EU Member States are allowed by EU law to judicially review the legality of a marketing authorisation (“MA”) granted via the decentralised abridged procedure where it is alleged that the medicinal product in question does not meet the criteria of a generic medicinal product. This is applies even if the judicial review is conducted by a national court in an EU Member State other that the reference Member State for the decentralised marketing authorisation procedure.

(ii) The applicant seeking such judicial review does not need to be the marketing authorisation holder for the reference medicinal product or the applicant for the generic marketing authorisation. The applicant could also be a third party with a vested interest, such as the marketing authorisation holder for a biosimilar medicinal product which will be competing with the newly authorised generic medicinal product. This conclusion by the AG remains unaffected by the fact that such applicant  may not be admissible if the action was brought at EU level to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) if the direct and individual concern of the applicant is not demonstrated. According to the AG, it is for the EU Member States in the framework of their procedural autonomy to decide whether a right to challenge an MA exists in these circumstances.

(iii) Chemically synthesised products are not precluded from meeting the criteria to be a generic of a reference biological medicinal product.

This third finding will, if followed by the CJEU, also apply to the centralised marketing authorisation procedure and arguably facilitate market access for synthetic copies of biological medicinal products. It would mean that, in practice, applicants for generics of biological medicinal products would not be required to submit additional pre-clinical and/or clinical data (as opposed to biosimilar applicants) and may potentially benefit, once authorised, from more advantageous pricing and reimbursement conditions (e.g., substitutability at pharmacy level which may not be available for biosimilar medicinal products).

Continue Reading Can a chemically synthesised medicine be authorised as a generic of a biological medicine? And who can challenge this?

Welcome to the latest installment of Arnold & Porter’s Virtual and Digital Health Digest. This digest covers key virtual and digital health regulatory and public policy developments during September and early October 2025 from the the United Kingdom, and European Union.

This month, the EU and UK have been actively processing the future of AI development and regulation in life sciences and health care through a combination of legislative initiatives, opportunities for stakeholder engagement, and investment in infrastructure. In the EU, the European Commission has published draft guidance on reporting serious AI incidents under the AI Act, and the European Medicines Agency has initiated a stakeholder survey to define AI priorities in medicines regulation. In the UK, the UK government has announced a National Commission on the Regulation of AI in Healthcare and a new AIR-SP cloud platform. These developments signal a shift from theoretical regulation to practical implementation. There have also been two important decisions from the Court of Justice of the European Union refining the legal boundaries of digital health services and data protection.

Continue Reading Virtual and Digital Health Digest – October 2025