CJEU

Subscribe to CJEU via RSS

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 In the EU, the European Commission has published draft guidance on reporting serious AI incidents under the AI Act, and the European Medicines Agency has initiated a stakeholder survey to define AI priorities in medicines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

On 8 September 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) received a preliminary request from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht, the German Federal Administrative Court BVerwG, referring a series of questions seeking interpretation on the applicability of certain rules to parallel trade of medicines, including whether German language and packaging requirements are proportionate or compatible with EU law.  The request follows an order for a preliminary reference made by the BVerwG in March 2025.  Notably, the request does not disclose the identity of the parallel importer, the manufacturer of the medicinal product, or the name of the product itself.Continue Reading CJEU to Clarify Rules on Packaging Requirements in Parallel Trade of Medicines

On 4 September 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) delivered a notable judgment on what is considered pseudonymised personal data under EU data protection law. While, technically speaking, the judgment concerns the interpretation of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 (which governs the processing of personal data by the EU institutions and bodies), it fully applies to the interpretation of the concepts of personal data and pseudonymised data under Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (“GDPR”).

This question is essential for many companies operating in the EU, and in particular Life Sciences companies handling key-coded or otherwise pseudonymised patients’ personal data in the context of research and development, supply of healthcare products and related safety monitoring.Continue Reading CJEU clarifies the concept of pseudonymised data

The European Court of Justice (the “Court”) has ruled that Poland’s law prohibiting advertising by pharmacies and pharmaceutical outlets is overly restrictive and contrary to EU law.

The Polish legislation (Article 94a(1) of the Law on Medicines, as amended) which had been in force since 2012, prohibits pharmacies and pharmaceutical outlets from engaging in any form of advertising or promotional activity other than providing limited information on their location and opening hours. Any person who is found to be in breach of the provisions is liable to a fine of up to 50,000 Polish zloty (PLN) (approximately EUR 12,000).Continue Reading The European Court of Justice rules that Poland’s laws prohibiting pharmacies from advertising are overly restrictive

Do discount campaigns on prescription-only medicines (POMs) run by mail order pharmacies lure patients into consuming medicinal products? The European Court of Justice (CJEU) in the case of Apothekerkammer Nordrhein (C-517/23) has held that they do not.

Following on from the AG Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, which we provided an update on earlier in the year, this case is the latest in a stream of cases on advertising practices involving DocMorris, a Dutch mail-order pharmacy that supplies medicines to end customers in Germany. The CJEU concluded that the discount campaigns regarding unspecified POMs do not fall within the definition of “advertising of medicinal products” (Article 86(1) Directive 2001/83) as the discount is implemented at the point of purchase of the POM.  The decision of which product to prescribe has already been taken by a doctor and all the patient is left to do is choose the dispensing pharmacy. As such, the Court held that the purpose of the discount campaign is not to encourage patients to purchase medicinal products. Rather, it is simply to attract them to a specific pharmacy.

The facts of the case are set out in our previous blog available here.Continue Reading An update from the European Court of Justice on discount campaigns run by mail order pharmacies

In the last month, both the European Data Protection Board (“EDPB”) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) provided their interpretation of key data protection concepts that are crucial for ensuring compliance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (“GDPR”).

In Opinion 22/2024, the EDPB provided guidance to data controllers on how to effectively oversee the activities of their (sub-)processors in a GDPR-compliant manner. The opinion was requested by the Danish data protection authority and likely related to the enforcement actions against Danish hospitals which allegedly failed to oversee processors (see our blog – https://www.biosliceblog.com/2024/02/proposed-fine-against-danish-hospital-for-failure-to-supervise-data-processors/).

In early October, the CJEU provided an answer to a key question raised by the courts in the Netherlands – can the legitimate interests legal basis be used for processing of personal data for commercial purposes (e.g., sharing with third parties for advertising and promotion) (Case C‑621/22).Continue Reading Notable developments in the interpretation of key GDPR concepts – why should Life Sciences companies care?

The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) has provided guidance on claims permitted to be made in the labelling and advertising for biocidal products under the Biocidal Products Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 (BPR). 

The BPR aims to improve the free movement of biocidal products (substances intended to destroy, deter, render harmless, prevent the action of or otherwise control harmful organisms) while ensuring a high level of protection for human and animal health and the environment.Continue Reading CJEU rules on biocidal product advertising

The Neurim CJEU decision of July 2012 has arguably caused an equal amount of excitement and controversy.  On the one hand, it seemed to open the door to supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) for second or further medical uses.  On the other, it seemed to go against a number of previous decisions.  On a strict literal interpretation of Article 3(d)[1] of the SPC Regulation[2], it should not be possible to obtain an SPC for new applications of old active ingredients that had already been the subject of a marketing authorisation.  In Neurim, based on a teleological interpretation to the SPC Regulation, the CJEU held that such an SPC could be validly granted.

A recent Opinion from Advocate General M. Giovanni Pitruzzella in the Santen SPC preliminary reference[3] urges the CJEU to expressly reject the Neurim decision, considering that the mere limitation of its application or marginalisation would not be a satisfactory option.

The facts in Santen

On 3 June 2015, Santen filed an SPC application relying on European Patent No. 057959306 as the basic patent in force (the “basic patent”) and on an EMA marketing authorisation granted on 19 March 2015 for the drug Ikervis (an eye drop emulsion containing the active ingredient ciclosporin used to treat severe keratisis).  The French National Institute of Industrial Property (“INPI”) rejected the application on the ground that a marketing authorisation had been previously issued for the same active ingredient for a medication called Sandimmun (an oral solution with several therapeutic indications including the eye disease uveitis, an inflammation of some or all of the uvea (the middle part of the eye)).

INPI held that the conditions in Neurim had not been satisfied for two reasons:

  • the basic patent was not limited to the severe keratisis indication – the claims included product only claims and claims to numerous other eye diseases; and
  • Santen had not demonstrated that the marketing authorisation constituted a ‘new therapeutic indication’ within the meaning of Neurim (for example, where the mode of action of the active ingredient differs or where the medical field differs).

Santen appealed the decision to the Paris Court of Appeal and it, in turn, decided to stay proceedings referring two preliminary questions to the CJEU.  The first question has asked the CJEU to consider how the concept of “different application” of an old active substance as understood in Neurim should be interpreted and the question provides a range of possible options from strict to broad interpretations.  The second question asks whether, in the context of determining whether the “[SPC application is] within the limits of the protection conferred by the basic patent” as understood in Neurim, the scope of the basic patent should be the same as the marking authorisation relied upon (i.e. it should be limited to the new medical use corresponding to the therapeutic indication of that marketing authorisation).

Less than six months after the preliminary reference was made by the Paris Court of Appeal, the CJEU had the opportunity to consider the scope and relevance of the Neurim decision in the Abraxis SPC case[4].  In that case the CJEU did not openly criticise the Neurim decision and, instead, limited its ramifications by referring to it as an “exception to the narrow interpretation of Article 3(d)” which “does not, in any event, refer to cases of new formulations of the product at issue”.Continue Reading Santen SPC case: Advocate General Pitruzzella urges CJEU to reject Neurim

Opinion of the CJEU Advocate-General in Case C-581/18 RB v TÜV Rheinland LGA Products GmbH, Allianz IAED SA: application of the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality in a medical device case.

Background

The effects of the Poly Implant Prothèse SA (PIP) defective breast implant scandal continue to be felt almost ten years since it first came to light that PIP had fraudulently used cheaper, industrial grade silicone in the implants that it manufactured. Due to PIP’s insolvency, those affected have attempted to obtain compensation from other sources, including the relevant notified body, TÜV Rheinland,[1] on the basis that this body had negligently certified PIP’s products and the French regulatory authorities.Continue Reading Medical Devices and Compulsory Insurance in the EU

On 14 February 2019, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) delivered its judgment in Case C-423/17 Netherlands v Warner-Lambert Company, finding in line with the opinion of Advocate General Kokott issued on 4 October 2018, that “carving-out” indications or dosage forms covered by the patent right of a third party, leading to a skinny label for the product, is a request to limit the marketing authorisation for the generic medicinal product. In practice, this prevents the competent authorities from publishing a complete SmPC, showing all indications associated with the innovator product, on their website.

Today’s judgment will be welcomed by innovative companies seeking to ensure the effectiveness of their second medical use patents.Continue Reading CJEU decision on scope of skinny labels