The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled on Thursday (14 July) that the challenged decision to move the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to Amsterdam instead of Milan cannot be annulled.
The ECJ concluded that there were no irregularities in the procedure that led to the decision of member states’ EU ambassadors to choose the city of Amsterdam as the new seat of the EU’s medicines agency.
Being one of the EU agencies located in London, Brexit meant that the EMA had to be relocated to a different country.
After a process during which many EU countries sent in their bids, EU member states decided in November 2017 that the new location for the EMA would be Amsterdam rather than Milan, which was also in the final running.
The decision was taken after a coin toss, as the three rounds of voting ended with an equal number of votes for both Amsterdam and Milan.
The member states’ decision back in 2017 was opposed by Italy, with the municipality of Milan deciding to challenge the decision by bringing it to the ECJ in January 2018.
The Italian appeal was based on the grounds that the facility promised by the Dutch authorities would not be ready when the move into when the EMA was supposed to relocate out of the UK and that their bid to get the EMA to the Netherlands had therefore been misleading.
Italy cries foul over temporary accommodation of EU Medicines Agency
Dutch officials and the head of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) sought yesterday (29 January) to allay any jitters among the agency’s 900 London-based staff who are being asked to move to Amsterdam because of Britain’s departure from the EU.
However, on Thursday the Luxembourg-based court put an end to the controversy by rejecting the arguments of the Italian plaintiff.
The basis of the court’s decision is that, according to the EU treaty article 263, political decisions made by the member states cannot be annulled.
“The decisions of the representatives of the Member States designating the new seat of the EMA and the seat of the ELA [European Labour Authority] are political acts without any binding legal effects, with the result that they cannot be the subject of an action for annulment”, the ruling stated, thereby rejecting Italy and Milan’s request.
The EU judges also pointed out that the decision could have been objected to by the European Parliament, which did not happen.
Contested decision
When the Dutch health ministry said that the EMA would move into a temporary building in 2019, after which the permanent building would be ready in 2020, the former director of the EMA Guido Rasi said that the arrangement was “not optimal”.
“But, let us be clear, we are working against extremely tight deadlines. On 1 January 2019, we need a fully operational building in order to move our staff gradually from London to Amsterdam before 30 March 2019, when the UK withdraws from the EU. That means that even if these temporary premises are not ideal, they are the best option under the current time restrictions,” Rasi said.
After the Italian court appeal, Massimo Scaccabarozzi, president of the national association of pharmaceutical companies (Farmindustria), commented that “if the Commission made its evaluations based on a misleading report, there is room for revisiting the choices that were made.”
The Dutch, however, did not see a problem, as a senior Dutch government official in the EU told EURACTIV that the relocation process was on schedule and in accordance with the submitted bid.
“Everything is in our bid book. Since 20 November, the Netherlands and EMA have been working together closely to ensure a seamless transition on 29 March 2019. With that in view, EMA has chosen the temporary building to continue its activities before moving to the permanent building in autumn 2019,” the Dutch official said on 31 January 2018.
Dutch official: The EU drug agency transition has been 'by the book'
The preparations for relocating the European Medicines Agency to the Netherlands next year are underway and on schedule, a senior Dutch government official in the EU told EURACTIV.com on Wednesday (31 January), after recent media reports suggested that Italy wants to appeal to the EU Court.
Source: euractiv.com
