text:
Application guidance
Pre-submission guidance Q&A: Introduction
Questions 1-20
Questions 21-39
Q&A: 1-20
This page lists questions 1 to 20 of the European Medicines Agency's questions and answers on pre-submission guidance for veterinary medicinal products.
The page is updated regularly to reflect new developments, to include guidance on further pre-authorisation procedures and to reflect the implementation of new European legislation. New and revised topics are marked as "New" or "Rev." on publication.
More information on this pre-submission Q&A.
Additional document
Pre-Submission Meeting Request Form
1. Is my veterinary medicinal product eligible for evaluation under the centralised procedure? (Rev. January 2017)
Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council lays down principles for the centralised procedure for the authorisation of medicinal products. For the centralised procedure there is a single application (to the European Medicines Agency), a single evaluation (for veterinary medicinal products by the Agency's Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use (CVMP)) and a single authorisation (by the European Commission) allowing direct access to the single market of the European Union, which means the veterinary medicinal product may be put on the market in all member states.
Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 defines the scope and eligibility of applications for evaluation under the centralised procedure through which medicinal products must ("mandatory scope") or may ("optional scope" or "Generic/Hybrid") be authorised by the Community.
Mandatory scope (Article 3(1), Annex):
For veterinary medicinal products falling within the mandatory scope of the Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, applicants are obliged to use the centralised procedure and to send their application to the European Medicines Agency.
These are veterinary medicinal products developed by means of one of the following biotechnological processes:
Recombinant DNA technology.
Controlled expression of genes coding for biologically active proteins in prokaryotes and eukaryotes including transformed mammalian cells.
Hybridoma and monoclonal antibody methods.
And in addition:
Veterinary medicinal products intended primarily for use as performance enhancers in order to promote the growth of treated animals or to increase yields from treated animals.
Any veterinary medicinal product which contains a proteinaceous constituent obtained by means of a biotechnological process falls under the mandatory scope, irrespective of whether or not the constituent is an active substance of the veterinary medicinal product. This also applies where a biotechnology manufacturing step is introduced into the manufacture of a proteinaceous product after the granting of a marketing authorisation.
Examples of new biotechnological products which would be considered mandatory for the centralised procedure are given below:
Products intended for gene therapy;
Vaccines from strains developed by means of recombinant DNA technology, including gene deletion;
Any veterinary medicinal product for which a monoclonal antibody is used at any stage in the manufacturing process;
Cell therapy products, which are the result of any biotechnological process referred to in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.
Optional scope (Article 3(2)):
For veterinary medicinal products falling under the optional scope, applications for the following categories may, at the request of the applicant, be accepted for assessment under the centralised procedure.
The following categories of medicinal products for use in animals are eligible:
(a) Medicinal products intended for use in animals, containing a new active substance which, on the day of entry of the Regulation (20 November 2005), was not authorised in the Community for use in a medicinal product intended for use in animals.
A new chemical, biological or radiopharmaceutical active substance includes:
A chemical, biological or radiopharmaceutical substance not previously authorised as a (veterinary) medicinal product in the European Union.
An isomer, mixture of isomers, a complex or derivative or salt of a chemical substance previously authorised as a (veterinary) medicinal product in the European Union but differing in properties with regard to safety and efficacy from that chemical substance previously authorised.
A biological substance previously authorised as a (veterinary) medicinal product in the European Union, but differing in molecular structure, nature of the source material or manufacturing process.
A radiopharmaceutical substance, which is a radionuclide or a ligand not previously authorised as a (veterinary) medicinal product in the European Union, or the coupling mechanism to link the molecule and the radionuclide has not been previously authorised in the European Union.
A biological active substance is considered new if:
the antigen or antiserum is contained within a product indicated against a newly emerging species of pathogen, or
a new antigen or antiserum is contained within a product indicated against a disease where existing products are proven and recognised not to alleviate suffering from the said disease in the particular target species;
the product consists of a substance which through immunological mechanisms affects the physiological function of an animal (e.g. one which causes immunocastration), either if the substance has a new efficacy claim or if a new active substance has a different mode of action;
the product consists of a substance which modulates the function of the immune system either if the substance has a new efficacy claim or if a new active substance has a different mode of action.
(b) The (veterinary) medicinal product constitutes a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation or that the granting of the authorisation in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 is in the interests of animal health at Community level.
For the purpose of determining whether "a medicinal product" (for veterinary use) constitutes a significant therapeutic, scientific or technical innovation" the Agency will consider if:
the veterinary medicinal product provides a new alternative to animals in treating, preventing or diagnosing a disease, or,
the veterinary medicinal product development is based on significant new scientific knowledge or on the application of a new scientific knowledge, or
a new technology or a new application of technology is used for the development or the manufacture of the product.
Generic/hybrid of centralised veterinary medicinal product applications (Article 3(3))
A generic or hybrid application veterinary medicinal product of a reference product veterinary medicinal product authorised via the centralised procedure has "automatic" access to the centralised procedure under Article 3(3).
Duplicate marketing authorisations, informed consent application:
Duplicate (sometimes also called "multiple") or informed consent applications from the same or different marketing authorisation holder for a specific veterinary medicinal product with the active substance(s) already authorised via the centralised procedure, have "automatic" access to the centralised procedure.
In all cases listed above the eligibility of a veterinary medicinal product for evaluation via the centralised procedure must be requested by the applicant by submitting a Pre-submission request form (selecting the indent "Centralised procedure – Eligibility request"), together with appropriate attachments to: vet.applications@ema.europa.eu (See: Question &quotHow and when should the request for eligibility to the centralised procedure be sent to the European Medicines Agency?&quot).
Regulation (EC) No 726/2004
The rules governing medicinal products in the European Union, Volume 6A, Notice to Applicants
Pre-submission request form
2. How and when should the request for eligibility for the centralised procedure be sent to the European Medicines Agency? (Rev. January 2014)
Regardless of whether the product falls into the mandatory or optional scope, an 'eligibility request' should always be submitted using the specific form (Pre-submission request form (selecting indent Eligibility request)) and accompanied by a justification of eligibility for evaluation under the centralised procedure and draft SPC. The applicant should clearly address the specific criterion fulfilled by the product to be eligible for the centralised procedure. See: Question "Is my medicinal product eligible for evaluation under the centralised procedure?"
In the case where the product falls under the mandatory scope criterion (Art. 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004), the relevant justification should be provided.
In the case where the product falls under one of the optional scope criteria (Art. 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004), the justification should consist of a concise summary document of preferably two pages stating why the product should qualify for evaluation through the centralised procedure. The applicant should clearly state in the request which criterion the appended justification concerns:
Art. 3(2) a New active substance; or
Art. 3(2) b Significant therapeutic innovation, or
Art. 3(2) b Significant scientific innovation or
Art. 3(2) b Significant technical innovation; or
Art. 3(2) b Interest of animal health at Community level.
NB: Only one criterion can be chosen and must be adequately justified; e.g. eligibility in accordance with Art 3(2)b of Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004 – Significant therapeutic innovation
In the following cases where the medicinal product applied for may have "automatic access" to the centralised procedure, this should be the basis for the justification to be submitted.
When the veterinary medicinal product applied for, is either:
a generic/hybrid (Art. 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004); or
a duplicate; or
an informed consent
to a centrally authorised medicinal product, adequate and relevant information on the already centrally authorised medicinal product should be provided as background information (such as invented name/INN/ Commission Decision date/ type of application submitted and criteria/ indent under which the medicinal product was eligible to access the centralised procedure at the time).
The applicant should send the request electronically to vet.applications@ema.europa.eu using the Pre-submission request form (selecting the indent "Centralised procedure – Eligibility request"), together with a separate Annex 1 (draft Summary of Product Characteristics) and Annex 2 (Justification for Eligibility).
The European Medicines Agency recommends providing the eligibility request at the latest, 7 months before submission of the marketing authorisation application (MAA) before the MAA is filed with the European Medicines Agency. An early submission of a request for eligibility may be in particular useful for requests that fall under the "optional scope" above, in particular under Article 3(2)(b) or if scientific or other advice is sought early in the pre-submission phase.
The request and supporting documentation should be submitted to the Agency at least 15 calendar days before the following meeting of the CVMP, to ensure its inclusion on the CVMP agenda for discussion on the eligibility of the medicinal product.
Any request received after the deadline will be considered the following month.
NB: Review of eligibility applications made under Article 3(2)(b) may take place over 2 consecutive CVMP meetings if the CVMP considers it necessary to appoint a CVMP member to assess the request.
The outcome of the CVMP discussions will be forwarded by the Agency to the applicant in the week following the CVMP meeting. If the supporting documentation is considered insufficient, further information and clarification from the applicant will be required. Upon receipt of such additional information the request will be re-discussed at the next CVMP meeting and the applicant will be informed accordingly.
Decisions on eligibility are not connected to the rapporteur/co-rapporteur assignment.
Only for eligibility requests submitted together with a "letter of intention to submit", rapporteurs will be automatically appointed following the confirmation of the eligibility to the centralised procedure provided that the planned submission date is within 7 months. (See: Question "What is the procedure for appointment of CVMP rapporteurs/co-rapporteurs and their assessment teams?")
Directive 2001/82/EC
CVMP meeting dates
3. What is the procedure for appointment of CVMP rapporteurs/co-rapporteurs and their assessment teams? (Rev. January 2014)
For any scientific evaluation of a veterinary medicinal product in respect of a procedure, a rapporteur and if relevant a co-rapporteur shall be appointed from amongst the members of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use (CVMP) and their alternates.For initial applications (full applications and generic/hybrid products) for a marketing authorisation a rapporteur and a co-rapporteur are appointed.
The appointment of the rapporteur and co-rapporteur is made on the basis of objective criteria which will allow the best use of the available expertise in the European Economic Area (EEA) on the relevant scientific area.
The role of the rapporteur is to perform the scientific evaluation and to prepare an assessment report for the CVMP, according to the timetable agreed for the evaluation procedure. The co-rapporteur shall prepare a critique of the rapporteur's report.
Intention to submit an application and appointment of CVMP rapporteur/co-rapporteur
The appointment of the rapporteur and co-rapporteur is made at the CVMP meeting 7 months prior to the intended submission date triggered by the receipt of the notification of the intention to submit an application.
Applicants shall send their notification of the intention to submit an application by sending a completed Pre-submission request form (selecting the indent "Centralised procedure - Intent to submit MA") to vet.applications@ema.europa.eu.
We advise applicants to notify the EMA of their intention to submit 7 months prior to the intended submission date.The request and supporting documentation (i.e. the draft Summary of Product Characteristics) should be submitted to the Agency at least 15 calendar days before the following meeting of the CVMP, to ensure its inclusion on the CVMP agenda.
If the intended application is deemed to be admissible, and upon appointment by the CVMP of the rapporteur and co-rapporteur, the European Medicines Agency will notify the applicant after the CVMP meeting of the names of the rapporteur/co-rapporteur appointed.
Intended submission dates must be as realistic as possible. Such information is crucial to the Agency and to the rapporteur/co-rapporteur and their assessment teams for planning purposes. Any anticipated change to the submission date must be notified as soon as possible to the European Medicines Agency/CVMP. Applicants should be aware that a re-appointment of the rapporteur or co-rapporteur may become necessary due to other on-going or planned assessments.
Please note that any applicant's proposals/preferences are not considered for the appointment of the rapporteur and co-rapporteur.
The rapporteur and co-rapporteur choose amongst the experts included in the European expert list available at the Agency those who will form their assessment team(s).
The experts, on whom the CVMP can rely when it needs specific expertise or assessors for the evaluation of applications, are those who have been put at the disposal of the European Medicines Agency by the member states or who have been appointed directly by the Agency, in accordance with Article 62(2) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. A list of all experts involved in European Medicines Agency/CVMP activities (meeting attendance, scientific evaluation, inspections, guidance development, etc.) is available on the Agency website.
The Agency takes care to ensure that its scientific experts, staff and Management Board do not have any financial or other interests in the pharmaceutical industry that could affect their impartiality. It publishes information on the interests of its management staff, experts and Management Board members online.
CVMP rules of procedure
Procedure for appointment and responsibilities of rapporteur and co-rapporteur
Handling conflicts of interest
4. What will be the legal basis for my application? (Rev. January 2014)
The applicant should clearly indicate the legal basis for the submission of the application in the EU Application form, i.e. select one of the following articles of Directive 2001/82/EC:
Article 12 (3) - Full application
Article 13 – Generic, hybrid or similar biological application
Article 13a - Well established veterinary use
Article 13b - Fixed combination (of known active substances)
Article 13c - Informed consent application
The legal basis for a marketing authorisation application determines the data requirements.
Article 12 (3) - Full application:
For full applications according to Article 12(3) of Directive 2001/82/EC, the results of pharmaceutical tests (physico-chemical, biological or microbiological), safety and residue tests, pre-clinical and clinical trials and tests assessing the potential risks posed for the environment need to be submitted. Detailed data requirements are set-out in Annex I to Directive 2001/82/EC, as amended by Commission Directive 2009/9/EC.
Any deviations from these requirements, in particular, absence of a study/test report, requires a justification as to why the results are not provided and whether the requirements as set out in the Annex I to Directive 2001/82/EC, are considered fulfilled.
Article 13(1) - Generic application:
According to Article 13(1) of Directive 2001/82/EC, the applicant is not required to provide the results of pre-clinical tests and clinical trials if he can demonstrate that the medicinal product is a generic medicinal product of a reference medicinal product which is or has been authorised under Article 5 of Directive 2001/82/EC for not less than 8 years in a member state or in the Community.
A generic medicinal product is defined as a medicinal product that has:
the same qualitative and quantitative composition in active substances as the reference product,
the same pharmaceutical form as the reference medicinal product,
and whose bioequivalence with the reference medicinal product has been demonstrated by appropriate bioavailability studies.
This type of application refers to information that is contained in the dossier of the authorisation of the reference medicinal product, for which a marketing authorisation has been granted in the Community on the basis of a complete dossier in accordance with Article 12(3), 13a, 13b or 13c of Directive 2001/82/EC.
It should be noted that the period of 8 years from initial authorisation of the reference medicinal product, providing a period of so-called "data exclusivity", only applies to those reference medicinal products for which the initial application for authorisation was submitted through the centralised procedure after 20 November 2005.
Article 13(3) - "Hybrid" application:
Hybrid applications under Article 13(3) of Directive 2001/82/EC differ from generic applications in that the results of appropriate safety and residue tests and pre-clinical tests or clinical trials will be necessary in the following three circumstances:
where the strict definition of a 'generic medicinal product' is not met;
where the bioavailability studies cannot be used to demonstrate bioequivalence;
where there are changes in the active substance(s), therapeutic indications, strength, pharmaceutical form or route of administration of the generic product compared to the reference medicinal product.
In such cases the results of tests and trials must be consistent with the data content standards required in Annex I to Directive 2001/82/EC.
These applications will thus rely in part on the results of safety and residue tests and pre-clinical tests or clinical trials for a reference product and in part on new data. Some guidance on the appropriate additional studies required is indicated in Annex IV of the Chapter 1 of the Notice to Applicants (Volume 6A).
Article 13(4) - Similar biological application:
In Article 13(4) of Directive 2001/82/EC it is stated that where a biological medicinal product which is similar to a reference biological product does not meet the conditions in the definition of generic medicinal products, owing to, in particular, differences relating to raw materials or differences in manufacturing processes of the similar biological medicinal product and the reference biological medicinal product, the results of appropriate pre-clinical tests or clinical trials relating to these conditions must be provided. The type and quantity of supplementary data to be provided must comply with the relevant criteria stated in Annex I to Directive 2001/82/EC and the related detailed guidelines. The results of other tests and trials from the reference medicinal product's dossier shall not be provided.
The chosen reference medicinal product must be a medicinal product authorised in the Community, on the basis of a complete dossier in accordance with the provisions of Article 12(3) of Directive 2001/82/EC.
Article 13a - Well established veterinary use application:
According to Article 13a of Directive 2001/82/EC it is possible to replace results of safety and residue tests or of pre-clinical tests or clinical trials by detailed references to published scientific literature (information available in the public domain) if it can be demonstrated that the active substances of a medicinal product have been in well-established veterinary use within the Community for at least 10 years, with recognised efficacy and an acceptable level of safety. In this regard, the provisions of Annex I to Directive 2001/82/EC shall apply.
Article 13b - Fixed combination application:
According to Article 13b of Directive 2001/82/EC, in the case of medicinal products containing active substances used in the composition of (EEA) authorised veterinary medicinal products but not hitherto used in combination for therapeutic purposes, the results of safety and residue tests, if necessary, and new pre-clinical tests or new clinical trials relating to that combination shall be provided in accordance with Article 12(3)(j) of the same Directive, but it shall not be necessary to provide scientific references relating to each individual active substance.
The combination of active substances within a single pharmaceutical form of administration according to this provision is a so-called 'fixed combination'.
Applications for fixed combination veterinary medicinal products can be accepted and validated under Article 13b on condition that all the individual substances have been authorised as a medicinal product in the EEA via a Community or national procedure. Where a substance contained in the fixed combination product has not been the subject of a marketing authorisation before, the product may be considered for the centralised route of authorisation as a new veterinary medicinal product. See: Question "Is my medicinal product eligible for evaluation under the centralised procedure?"
It follows from the wording of Article 13b as well as from Annex I to the Directive 2001/82/EC that a full dossier, comprising parts 1, 2, 3 and 4, has to be provided in relation to the fixed combination. Any absence of specific fixed combination data should be duly justified.
Although there is no requirement for the inclusion of data on the individual active substances, it is possible to include information on the individual substances (literature or actual data), especially in order to justify the absence of certain specific data on the combination.
Article 13c - Informed consent application:
According to Article 13c of Directive 2001/82/EC, following the granting of a marketing authorisation, the authorisation holder may allow use to be made of the pharmaceutical, safety and residues, pre-clinical and clinical documentation contained in the dossier for the veterinary medicinal product for the purpose of examining a subsequent application for a veterinary medicinal product having the same qualitative and quantitative composition in in terms of active substances and the same pharmaceutical form.
It is a prerequisite for the use of Article 13c as the legal basis that consent has been obtained from the marketing authorisation holder of the reference product for all parts of the dossier containing the pharmaceutical, safety and residues, pre-clinical and clinical data, and the applicant of the informed consent application should have access permanently to this documentation or should be in possession of the information.
For such informed consent applications, only a complete Part 1 should be submitted, including the Application Form with relevant Annexes (e.g. copy of correspondence with the European Commission for multiple applications, if applicable, and the letter of consent from the MAH of the authorised medicinal product allowing access to Parts 1C, 2, 3 and 4 of the initial dossier and any subsequent documentation submitted).
If the dossier of the authorised medicinal product includes an ASMF, a new letter of access from the ASMF holder should be included in Part 1 of the informed consent application.
5. How shall I compose the complete name of my veterinary medicinal product? (Rev. January 2014)
In accordance with Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, "each application for the authorisation of a medicinal product for veterinary use […], otherwise than in exceptional cases relating to the application of the law on trademarks, shall include the use of a single name for the medicinal product." The centralised procedure therefore requires one single name for the medicinal product to be authorised.
According to Article 1(22) of Directive 2001/82/EC the name of the veterinary medicinal product may be "either an invented name not liable to confusion with the common name, or a common name or scientific name accompanied by a trademark or the name of the marketing authorisation holder." According to Article 1(23) of the same Directive"The common name is the international non-proprietary name recommended by the World Health Organisation, or, if one does not exist, the usual common name."
A veterinary medicinal product authorised under the centralised procedure must have the same name in all EU member states. Although it is not mandatory under Community legislation, in practice many companies submitting marketing authorisation applications under the centralised procedure wish to use invented names for their medicinal products.
If the name of the product is invented, it should be followed by the strength (if applicable) and the pharmaceutical form and, if necessary, the target species, in order to avoid any confusion over different presentations of the veterinary medicinal product (e.g. same active substance and invented name) in different formulations for different target species.
EMA procedure for checking proposed (invented) names
The EMA operates a procedure to ensure that objections raised by National Competent Authorities (NCAs) against the (invented) name of a medicinal product, due to potential safety risks or other criteria as defined in the CVMP guideline on acceptability of invented names, are identified at an early stage.
Provided that the medicinal product is eligible for evaluation under the centralised procedure, the applicant should inform the Agency of the proposed invented name(s) for their medicinal product at the earliest 7 months, and prior to the planned submission date of the marketing authorisation application.
To allow for review of proposed invented names, the applicant(s)/marketing authorisation holder(s) are requested to send to the Agency (VMPname@ema.europa.eu) their proposed invented name(s) and the draft summary of product characteristics (SPC) or product profile and any information justifying the acceptability of the name(s). The 'Proposed Invented Name Request form' and further details of timing and content of an invented name application are available on the Agency website.
Further details on the criteria and the procedure are available in the Guideline on acceptability of names of veterinary medicinal products processed through the centralised procedure.
Guideline on the acceptability of names for veterinary medicinal products processed through the centralised procedure
European Pharmacopoeia (Ph. Eur.) standard terms
Product information requirements (Quality review of documents – QRD)
Proposed invented name request form
6. What legal status can I obtain for my veterinary medicinal product? (Rev. January 2014)
In accordance with Article 34(4)c and 35 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the CVMP opinion and subsequent Commission Decision on the marketing authorisation must include details of any conditions or restrictions which could be imposed on the supply or the use of the medicinal product concerned, including the conditions under which the medicinal product may be made available to users, in accordance with the criteria laid down in Article 67 of Directive 2001/82/EC and Directive 2006/130/EC.
The expression of the legal status in the label text (Annex IIIA of the CVMP opinion) is limited to the main classification, which is common to all member states:
subject to medical prescription, or
not subject to medical prescription.
As regards mock-ups and specimens, the use of any subcategory at national level (e.g. renewable/non-renewable) and the information required to express this should be addressed in the "Blue Box". A member state may ask for additional information to appear on the outer packaging (in a "Blue Box" concerning identification and authenticity of the product, the legal category for supply, etc.
Once the veterinary medicinal product has received a marketing authorisation, it is possible for the MAH to apply to change the legal status by means of a variation, subject to the necessary data being presented.
Directive 2006/130/EC
7. In which cases is my veterinary medicinal product eligible for an accelerated review? (Rev. January 2017)
According to Articles 31(3) and 32d of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 the maximum timeframe for the evaluation of a marketing authorisation application under the centralised procedure is 210 active days, which exclude clock stops, when additional written or oral information is to be provided by the applicant in response to questions asked by the CVMP.
In accordance with Article 39(8) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, when an application is submitted for a veterinary medicinal product of major interest, particularly from the point of view of animal health and from the viewpoint of therapeutic innovation, an accelerated assessment may be requested.
The request for an accelerated assessment must be duly substantiated.
Any request for accelerated review needs to be sent to the European Medicines Agency accompanied by the appropriate justification and presented in accordance with the Guideline on the procedure for accelerated assessment pursuant to Article 39(8) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. Such a request should be sent at the latest one month before the anticipated date of submission of the application, and preferably at the time of notification of the intention to submit an application.
Applicants shall send their accelerated assessment request by sending a completed Pre-submission request form (selecting the indent "Centralised procedure - Accelerated review of MAA") and applicant's justification to vet.applications@ema.europa.eu.
Upon receipt of a request for accelerated review, the CVMP will consider whether the product meets the criteria and take a decision at their next meeting.
If the CVMP supports the request, the time limit of 210 days to give an opinion will be reduced to 150 days.
The applicant will be informed after the CVMP meeting.
Guideline on the procedure for accelerated assessment pursuant to Article 39(8) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004
8. What are the requirements if I intend to submit duplicate applications for the same veterinary medicinal product? (Rev. April 2017)
The European Medicines Agency is regularly approached by applicants wishing to obtain, either simultaneously or successively, more than one marketing authorisation for the "same" product, under different (invented) names. The applicants' motivation may be based on business agreements governing joint research efforts and investment (e.g. co-development, co-marketing, co-licensing).
In the framework of Article 82(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, a specific procedure has been agreed between the Agency and the European Commission. Under this procedure applicants should, approximately four months prior to the anticipated date of submission, notify the Commission of their motives for submitting duplicate applications and provide the necessary explanation and justification addressing Article 82(1) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 criteria, with a copy to the Agency, addressing either public health reasons or co-marketing reasons.
Such notification should be sent to the following address:
DG Health and Food Safety
B5: Medicines: policy, authorisation and monitoring
B232 Building
Rue Breydel 4
SANTE-PHARMACEUTICALS-B5@ec.europa.eu
The Commission will consider the situation, liaise with the applicant(s) where appropriate, and inform the applicant(s) as to whether it would have specific objections to the granting of duplicate marketing authorisations or not. The applicant always needs to include this Commission response as an annex to the application form, otherwise the Agency cannot validate such applications.
Procedural aspects
Duplicate applications for a specific medicinal product already under assessment via the centralised procedure have automatic access to the centralised procedure. Nevertheless, in all cases the eligibility of a medicinal product for evaluation via the centralised procedure needs to be requested by the applicant by submitting an eligibility request to the European Medicines Agency.
For the assessment procedure, the objective is to ensure the adoption of a CVMP opinion for a duplicate application at the same time as the CVMP opinion for the initial application. Therefore, for practical reasons, the Agency strongly recommends the following time points for submission of any duplicate application(s):
in parallel with the initial application submission (day 0);
before the adoption of the list of questions (before day 120) for the initial application;
at the time of the responses to the list of questions (day 121) for the initial application.
It should be noted that duplicate applications are subject to a full validation as they are stand-alone applications. Therefore, the validation outcome may differ from that for the original application. If the above timeframes have been duly observed by the applicant, following the positive outcome of the validation, the evaluation of the duplicate applications will be aligned with that of the ongoing initial application. The submission of any duplicate applications should therefore be made in advance, to allow sufficient time for their validation to be completed by day 120 or day 121 of the ongoing initial application.
Duplicate applications can also be submitted after the Commission Decision on the initial application, but in this case as stand-alone applications or informed consent applications. The same requirements for eligibility and rapporteur assignment remain. However, as a rule, an abridged timetable for their assessment will be adopted in line with a 60 day procedure. Submission of such application(s) should therefore be made in advance to allow the completion of their validation before the intended start date of the procedure.
Applicants are reminded that duplicate applications of the same marketing authorisation holder will be covered by the notion of the "global marketing authorisation".
Guidance on fees payable to the European Medicines Agency
Handling of duplicate applications (information from the European Commission; updated October 2011)
9. What fee do I have to pay and how is it calculated? (Rev. January 2014)
Fees for obtaining and maintaining a centralised authorisation to market medicinal products for veterinary use in the European Union are levied in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 297/95.
The Agency will issue an invoice to the applicant following the notification of the administrative validation and fees will be payable in Euro within 45 calendar days of the date of the said notification. The invoice is sent to the billing address indicated by the applicant, and will contain clear details of the product and procedures involved, the type of fee, the amount of the fee, the bank account to where the fee should be paid and the due date for payment.
If the application cannot be validated, the Agency will issue an invoice to the applicant for an administrative charge following the notification of the administrative non-validation to cover administrative costs.
For applicants, who have been registered as micro, small and medium-sized enterprise (SME), fee payment may be deferred by up to 45 days after the date of notification of the centralised marketing authorisation, or, in the event of withdrawal of the application, within 45 days of the date of notification of withdrawal. In the event of a negative outcome, where scientific advice has previously been sought from the EMA and taken it into account in the development of the medicinal product, the fee for the application for marketing authorisation will be fully waived by the Agency.
Further details on application fees and how they are calculated can be obtained in the "Explanatory Note on fees payable to the European Medicines Agency".
Where an applicant disagrees with the classification by the Agency of an application under one of the fee categories described in the "Fee Regulation", the following procedure may apply:
Any disagreement should be sent to the Executive Director accompanied by the appropriate justification, at the latest two weeks after receipt of the invoice indicating the fees payable to the European Medicines Agency.
The Executive Director will take a decision following consultation with the CVMP.
The contact point for queries on fees for veterinary medicinal products is vet.applications@ema.europa.eu.
Fees payable to the European Medicines Agency
10. What definition of strength is used for the calculation of fees? (Rev. January 2014)
The guideline on the categorisation of new applications versus variation applications describes the agreement reached as to the use of the same definition of strength for applications submitted through the centralised procedure or the mutual recognition/decentralised procedure.
This definition will be taken into account for the calculation of fees, as well as for the allocation of EU numbers for presentations used by both the European Medicines Agency and the Commission (see "Explanatory Note on fees payable to the European Medicines Agency").
The following definitions apply:
For single-dose preparations, total use, the strength is defined as the amount of active substance per unit dose.
For single-dose preparations, partial use, the strength is defined as the concentration expressed as the amount of active substance per ml, per puff, per drop, per kg, per m2, or in percentage, as appropriate.
For multi-dose preparations, the strength is defined as the concentration expressed as the amount of active substance per ml, per puff, per drop, per kg, or per m2, as appropriate.
For powders for reconstitution (powders for oral solution or suspension, powders for solution for injection, etc.) the strength is defined as the concentration after dissolution or suspension (reconstitution) to the volume specified, with the liquid recommended.
For concentrates for solution (for injection or for infusion) the strength is defined as the concentration of the concentrate before dilution.
Guideline on the categorisation of new applications (NA) versus variations applications, Volume 6C, Notice to Applicants
11. What is the fee for a GMP / GCP / pharmacovigilance inspection? (Rev. January 2014)
For all inspections requested by the CVMP in respect of an application under the centralised procedure fees are payable by the applicant in accordance with Regulation (EC) 297/95, as amended, on fees payable to the European Medicines Agency.
Invoices are issued within 20 days of the confirmation of the inspection dates by the relevant inspectors and are sent by registered post to the applicant. Applicants for marketing authorisations under the centralised procedure are required to pay the total fee charged within 45 days from the date on which the inspection is carried out. (Important: The invoice reference number must be mentioned with each payment).
For inspections outside the EEA/European Union the applicant is also required to pay the travel and accommodation expenses of the inspector(s) and any experts or rapporteur involved in carrying out the inspection(s). These expenses are to be paid directly by the applicant to the inspector's authority.
In the case of multiple applications for the same medicinal product, the applicants may agree between themselves that one of them will be regarded as the "lead" applicant for the purpose of inspections. The identity of the "lead" applicant must be notified in writing to the Agency at the pre-submission stage. In such a case, the multiple applications will be treated as a single one and the total fee(s) will be charged to the "lead" applicant.
Where an inspection that has been formally notified to the applicant (and an invoice has been issued) is cancelled due to the withdrawal of or change to an application at any stage in the processing of the application, the applicant will be liable for 50% payment of inspection fee(s) as follows:
Applicant decides to withdraw the application.
In the context of GMP inspection, change to manufacturing arrangements by the manufacturer necessitating cancellation of the inspection, agreed at any time before the inspection is carried out.
In the context of GCP inspection, change to the scope of the application or submitted data, or access to, ownership of, or location of facilities or data necessitating cancellation of the inspection, agreed at any time before the inspection is carried out.
Where the cancelled inspection was to take place outside the EEA/European Union, the applicant will be liable for any travel expenses already incurred by the inspectors at the date of cancellation for which they are not able to obtain reimbursement.
12. When could a fee waiver/fee reduction be granted? (Rev. January 2017)
Applicants may benefit from fee incentives if at the time of the administrative validation the application or the applicant itself meets the criteria for a fee reduction or deferral. Any changes which may take place after validation would not retrospectively affect the levied fee.
MUMS/limited markets
Article 79 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 requires the Agency to introduce measures to assist applicants at the time of submitting applications for products for limited markets. The Agency developed a policy on Minor Use and Minor Species (MUMS)/limited market, which came into effect in September 2009. The measures made available range from administrative assistance, through to fee reductions and cover all aspects of applications from scientific advice, through maximum residue limits (MRLs), to marketing authorisation applications.
It should be noted that fee reductions can only be considered once a decision on the MUMS/limited market designation has been granted, and the product has been considered eligible for fee incentives.
Applicants which meet the definition of a micro, small or medium-sized enterprise (SME) as set out in Regulation (EC) 2049/2005, are eligible for certain fee reductions from the Agency. This includes fee reductions for scientific advice, pre- and post-authorisation inspections, scientific services and MRL applications, and a full fee waiver for administrative services (with the exception of parallel distribution).
SMEs may also request deferral of the fee payable for the application for marketing authorisation and/or related inspection.
It should be noted that fee reductions and deferrals can only be considered once the applicant has been assigned SME status by the Agency. SME applicants wishing to receive written confirmation of fee reduction and/or deferral should address an email to the Agency's SME Office (sme@ema.europa.eu). See: Question "Do I qualify as a small or medium-sized enterprise (SME)?"
Further information on the level of fee reductions/deferrals available to SME applicants and how to request them is available on the designated SME website.
Requests for fee reductions may be granted by the Executive Director in exceptional circumstances and for imperative reasons of public or animal health under the terms of paragraph 1 of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 297/95 on fees payable to the European Medicines Agency. Duly substantiated requests should be submitted by the applicant. A formal request for fee reduction addressed to the Executive Director citing Article 9 paragraph 1 is required, providing details of the product, procedure type and applicable fee, and the reason(s) for the request that justify exceptional circumstances and imperative reasons of public or animal health. Applicants should address their enquiry to vet.applications@ema.europa.eu.
It is strongly recommended that a request be sent at least 3 months before the date of submission of the relevant application. Fee waivers or fee reductions are granted after consultation of the CVMP on the basis of the above criteria and only when funds are available.
(Revised) Policy for classification and incentives for veterinary medicinal products indicated for minor use minor species (MUMS)/limited market
Guidance for companies requesting classification as MUMS/limited markets
Supporting SMEs
Regulation (EC) No 2049/2005, Volume 1, Notice to Applicants
13. When is a maximum residue limit (MRL) required? (Rev. November 2018)
Directive 2001/82/EC requires that all pharmacologically active substances contained in a veterinary medicinal product for food producing species need to be included in Table 1 of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 37/2010. Article 6 of Directive 2001/82/EC, as amended, states that:
"A member state shall not authorise the placing on the market of a veterinary medicinal product intended for administration to food producing animals whose flesh or products are intended for human consumption unless:
the active substance or substances capable of pharmacological action is/are mentioned in Annex I, II or III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90."
This applies for the active substances as well as other pharmacologically active substances contained in the product, e.g. excipients or adjuvants.
Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 was repealed by Regulation (EC) No 470/2009 and the substances previously included in Annex I, II or III of the Regulation are now listed in alphabetical order in table 1 of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010.
Prior to initiating a procedure for a marketing authorisation for a veterinary medicinal product, applicants should establish whether the product in question, if intended for use in food producing animals, complies with Article 6 of the aforementioned Directive, i.e. has an MRL been established for the relevant ingredients of the product.
Useful information on the establishment of MRLs can also be obtained from the European Medicines Agency website on Maximum Residue Limits.
Many excipients and adjuvants have been included in Table 1 of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 37/2010 with a "No MRL required" status, and others have been entered into the list of Substances not falling within the scope of the Regulation (EC) No 470/2009, with regard to residues of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin, often called the "out-of-scope" list.
An excipient for a new product that is not listed in either Table 1 of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 37/2010 or the out-of-scope list can only be used if it has been demonstrated that the substance is not expected to show pharmacological activity or, after an evaluation for the establishment of MRLs, is included in Table 1 of the Annex to Regulation (EU) No 37/2010.
Guidance on the information required for inclusion of an excipient in the out-of-scope list is provided in the Guideline on the data to be provided in support of a request to include a substance in the list of substances considered as not falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 470/2009.
Regulation (EC) No. 470/2009
Annex to Commission Regulation (EU) No. 37/2010
Maximum residue limits (MRL)
Guideline on the data to be provided in support of a request to include a substance in the list of substances considered as not falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 470/2009
14. What is the procedure for establishment of maximum residue limits (MRLs)? (Rev. November 2018)
Where the product in question is intended for food producing species and relevant MRLs have not been established, the following procedure should be followed:
Applicants should notify the European Medicines Agency of the intention to submit an MRL application. A letter of intent indicating the name of the substance, intended use, target species and intended submission date should be submitted to the Agency at least 6 months before the intended submission of the application for the establishment of MRLs. If the applicant has a valid micro, small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) status or a minor-use-minor-species and limited-markets classification, this information should also be included. The MRL application should be made at least 6 months before the application for the marketing authorisation application procedure.
Once the applicant has notified his intention to submit an application, the CVMP appoints a rapporteur and, if appropriate, a co-rapporteur. The applicant is notified of the appointment of the rapporteur (and co-rapporteur if appropriate), as well as the preferred submission date (closest to the submission date identified by the applicant). For applications for extensions or modifications of MRLs, usually no co-rapporteur is appointed.
For an MRL application for a new substance a full dossier should be submitted respecting the requirements of Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/12 and following the methodological principles outlined in Commission Regulation 2018/782. Applicants need to submit their application through the eSubmission Gateway / Web Client portal and should follow the Guideline on eSubmissions for a veterinary medicinal products.
For enquiries in respect of a product for which an MRL is required, applicants are invited to seek the advice of the Agency.
Applicants should address their enquiry or request for a pre-submission meeting regarding an intended MRL application to vet.applications@ema.europa.eu.
Questions and answers on maximum residue limits
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/12
Guideline on the specifications for provision of an electronic submission (e-submission) for a veterinary medicinal product
15. When shall I submit mock-ups and/or specimens? (Rev. November 2018)
The EU legislation requires the application for a marketing authorisation to be accompanied by one or more specimens or mock-ups of the sales presentation of the medicinal product.
A "mock-up" is a copy of the flat artwork design in full colour, presented so that, following cutting and folding where necessary, it provides a replica of both the outer and immediate packaging so that the three dimensional presentation of the label text is clear. It is generally referred to as a "paper copy" or "computer generated version". Mock-ups should be submitted in full size hard copy and in colour or electronically.
A "specimen" is a sample of the actual printed outer and inner packaging materials without any contents ("empty immediate packaging") and the "real" package leaflet.
At submission of the Initial marketing authorisation application:
For validation purpose the Agency requests that all applications for a Marketing Authorisation should include the labelling texts in English, together with one English mock-up and one multi-lingual mock-up ('worst case') of the outer and small immediate packaging for each pharmaceutical form in the smallest pack size.
Mock-ups must be included in Part 1 of the application dossier.
The proposed outer and immediate labelling and package leaflet should be in compliance with the requirements outlined in Directive 2001/82/EC. Detailed reviews of the content of the labelling and package leaflet proposals and their translations, i.e. Annexes I and III, will take place during the scientific assessment and linguistic review of the application.
MAHs are responsible for the correct implementation of the agreed product information texts in their printed packaging materials, in line with the Commission Decision and relevant EU legislation;
The Agency can, at any time, request specific specimens from the applicant / MAH for review (e.g. further to a safety-related or product defect issue).
When required by the Agency, mock-ups or specimens should be submitted using the "Mock-Ups/Specimens Submission Form" (Annex 2 of the Revised checking process of mock-ups and specimens of outer/immediate labelling and package leaflets in the centralised procedure for veterinary medicinal products).
In some cases, the rapporteurs or the agency may ask for a sample to be submitted as an aid in better understanding e.g. the shape of a novel type of container or applicator, or in order to get a clearer understanding of space limitations in regard to labelling issues.
Revised checking process of mock-ups and specimens of outer/immediate labelling and package leaflets in the centralised procedure for veterinary medicinal products (updated March 2014)
Commission "Guideline on the Packaging Informationof Veterinary Medicinal Products authorised by the Community", Volume 6C, Notice to Applicants
Product information linguistic review process for new applications in the centralised procedure
16. Do I have to submit samples together with my application? (Rev. January 2014)
Samples (i.e. the finished veterinary medicinal product) for testing the proposed medicinal product are not required to be submitted with an application.
The CVMP may however request the testing of samples of the medicinal product and/or its ingredients during the assessment of the application in accordance with the provisions of Article 32(1)b of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.
In this case the rapporteur and/or co-rapporteur will specify a test protocol (type of samples, number of samples, number of batches, testing to be performed and methods and specifications to be used) and agree with the Agency which Official Medicines Control Laboratory (OMCL) will carry out the required testing.
Sampling and testing will be co-ordinated by the Agency in collaboration with the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines and Healthcare (EDQM).
The results of the tests are reported to the rapporteur and co-rapporteur and the CVMP for consideration in finalising the CVMP Assessment Report.
17. Am I, as the applicant, duly established in the EEA? (Rev. January 2014)
The marketing authorisation holder (MAH) is the person who holds the authorisation to place a medicinal product on the market and is legally responsible for marketing the medicinal product. The granting of a marketing authorisation by a competent authority does not discharge the holder from civil and criminal liability as provided for by the European Union law.
The MAH may be a natural or legal person.
The MAH of a centralised marketing authorisation must be established within the European Economic Area (EEA: member states of the European Union, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein).
In order to fulfil this requirement the MAH must have a permanent legal structure which is formed in accordance with the law of an EEA member state and which allows the concerned holder to assume the duties and responsibilities as well as to perform the tasks laid down by European Union law.
Companies or firms formed in accordance with the law of a member state and having their registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the EEA shall be treated in the same way as natural persons who are nationals of member states. An applicant should demonstrate that they are duly established in the EEA. A proof of establishment from the applicant company is required by the Agency in order for an application to be validated (e.g. in the United Kingdom, a certificate of incorporation issued by the Registrar of Companies, and in France an extrait du registre du commerce et des sociétés). This proof of establishment should be included in Annex 5.3 of the application form.
It should be emphasised that while the MAH may delegate certain activities to third parties, the MAH remains responsible for assuring all the obligations imposed on MAHs by the European legislation and by national law, as applicable.
18. What level of detail do I need to include in the Detailed Description of the Pharmacovigilance System (DDPS)? (Rev. January 2014)
In Volume 9B of The Rules Governing Medicinal Products in the European Union – Guidelines on Pharmacovigilance for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use published by the European Commission, clarification is given in a number of places on the level of detail expected in the DDPS.
The detailed description of the pharmacovigilance system (DDPS) should comprise an overview of the pharmacovigilance system providing information on the key elements of that system.
The DDPS should explain how the pharmacovigilance system described applies to the proposed marketing authorisation holder (MAH), particularly if the pharmacovigilance system spans a number of differently named subsidiaries and their parent company, and any one of those companies may be the MAH for a particular marketing authorisation application (MAA). MAHs should provide a brief description of the organisation of the companies/subsidiaries/affiliates that may fulfil the role of MAH and are directed by the pharmacovigilance system described. It should be clear that the MAH named in the MAA is governed by the pharmacovigilance system. The description should be written so that it can be applied to any MAA, whatever the authorisation procedure or whichever of multiple MAHs is the MAH for a particular MAA.
Where aspects of the system such as the organisational arrangements are particular to the product rather than the main system of the MAH/company this should be indicated in a product specific addendum. The DDPS should be supported by documentation maintained by the company. However, written procedures, such as standard operating procedures, for example, should not be included in the DDPS.
It is important that applicants take account of this in order to avoid providing an unnecessary level of detail, with the consequences this has in relation to future variations when such detail changes. Further information is available in the pre-submission instruction for MAHs listed below. In addition the checklist on elements to be provided by MAHs in their DDPSs for competent authorities' assessment (link below) may also be useful for potential MAHs.
Pre-submission instruction on the detailed description of the pharmacovigilance system of a marketing authorisation holder; to be submitted with a marketing authorisation application for a veterinary medicinal product
Checklist on information/elements that should be provided by marketing authorisation holders in their detailed descriptions of the pharmacovigilance system for competent authorities' assessment
Volume 9B of The Rules Governing Medicinal Products in the European Union – Guidelines on Pharmacovigilance for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use
19. What information relating to the manufacture and batch release should be provided as part of my application? (Rev. January 2014)
The Agency requires the applicant to provide background information in support of the application relating to the manufacture (including packaging), batch testing and final batch release by the qualified person in the EEA. This should be sent to the Agency along with the application dossier. The EEA includes European Union (EU) member states plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Switzerland is not part of the EEA.
Once validated, it is normally not permitted to add a new site or to change the steps of manufacture/ batch release described under Part 1A of the application during the 210-day review period. Any additional site or change in the manufacturing or batch release arrangements should be submitted as a variation after the granting of the marketing authorisation.
The information on manufacturing and batch-release sites submitted in Part 1A of the application must be consistent with Part 2. All the manufacturing and batch-release sites mentioned in Part 2 must be listed in Part 1A and the activities carried out at each site must be described in part 1A consistently with the information provided in Part 2.
Manufacturing sites:
All sites involved in the production of both the active substance(s) and the finished medicinal product must be described (name and detailed address, including building reference) in Part 1A of the application for a marketing authorisation together with a description of the steps performed. This should include:
active substance manufacture and packaging
any contract laboratories used for testing the active substance (incl. ongoing stability monitoring)
bulk medicinal product manufacture
diluent/solvent manufacture (if any)
manufacture of any other associated medicinal product (if any)
finished product manufacture and packaging
batch release
any contract manufacturing sites
any contract laboratories used for testing the finished product
Official Medicines Control Laboratory (OMCL) for vaccines if 'official batch release' is a requirement for the product in question.
For third country manufacturers, information about any previous EU/EEA inspection in the last 2-3 years (with, if possible, a copy of the inspection report) and any planned EU/EEA inspections should be provided. This should include details of the inspection dates, product categories inspected and the name of the inspecting competent authority.
Documents to be attached to Part 1A of the application:
The following documents should be attached to Part 1A of the application:
Copies of the manufacturing authorisation authorising the sites involved in the manufacture, importation, control and testing and qualified-person release of batches of the medicinal product for all sites in the EEA, other than active substance manufacturers. Alternatively, a reference can be made to the appropriate entry in the EudraGMP database.
For sites in the EEA, good-manufacturing-practice (GMP) certificates are not an acceptable alternative to a manufacturing authorisation. However, GMP certificates can be useful additional information. Also, particular attention should be paid that the scope of the manufacturing authorisation for a given manufacturer covers the activities proposed as part of the marketing authorisation application.
A mutual-recognition-agreement (MRA) certificate for all sites other than active substance manufacturers located in third countries where an MRA or other relevant agreement is in place. This certificate must not be older than three years, and must come from the local competent authority that carried out the inspection. Alternatively, a GMP certificate from the EEA inspecting competent authority should be provided if the site has been inspected by an EEA competent authority in the last two or three years. Where the MRA partner has placed the certificate in EudraGMDP, a reference to the entry will suffice. For a list of the countries which have operational MRAs with the EU, please consult the website on MRAs.
For all sites other than active substance manufacturers located in third countries with no MRA with the EU, a GMP certificate from the EEA inspecting competent authority if the site has been inspected by an EEA competent authority in the last two or three years. Alternatively, a reference can be made to the appropriate entry in the EudraGMDP database.
In addition to the above, a copy of the registration or other document analogous to a manufacturing authorisation from the local competent authority demonstrating that the site is authorised for manufacture of the product or pharmaceutical form and details of any inspections performed other than by EEA authorities (e.g. GMP certificates or similar statements from the competent authority that carried out the inspection).
A flowchart describing all the main steps involved in the manufacture of the active substance and finished product.
For each active substance, a declaration from the qualified persons of all the finished product manufacturers located in the EEA listed in Part 1A where the active substance is used as a starting material and from the qualified persons of the batch release sites in the EEA stating that the active substance manufacturers listed in Part 1A operate in compliance with the detailed guidelines on GMP.
Contact person in the EU/EEA for product defects/recalls:
A proposed contact point/person in the EEA for quality problems and defective batches of product must also be provided in Part 1A of the application (name, full address, 24 hour emergency phone and fax numbers, e-mail address and mobile phone number, if available).
Inspections website
MRAs website
20. What batch release arrangements in the EEA are required for my veterinary medicinal product? (Rev. January 2014)
Importing site / supervisory authority
According to Article 55(1)(b) of Directive 2001/82/EC, each batch of a veterinary medicinal product must be certified by a qualified person prior to release onto the market in the EEA.
In the case of products imported from a third country, and for the purpose of Article 55(1)(b) of Directive 2001/82/EC, the site where the certification of batches by the qualified person occurs is considered to be the importing site in the EEA, and not necessarily the site through which the batch first physically enters the EEA. The EEA includes EU member states plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Switzerland is not part of the EEA.
In accordance with the provisions of Article 43 of Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004, the supervisory authority is the competent authority of the member state that granted the manufacturing authorisation provided for in Article 44(1) of Directive 2001/82/EC in respect of the manufacture of the medicinal product concerned. In the case of products imported from third countries, the supervisory authority is the competent authority of the member state that granted the manufacturing authorisation provided in 44(3) of Directive 2001/82/EC to the importer, unless a mutual recognition agreement (MRA) covering GMP for the product under consideration is operating with the country where the medicinal product is manufactured.
In the exceptional circumstances where a valid manufacturing authorisation is not in place at the time of the marketing authorisation submission for any finished product manufacturer, importer or batch-release site located in the EEA, the Agency will consult the supervisory authority and a request for inspection may be triggered. The marketing authorisation procedure will require the inspection outcome before opinion and, in particular, confirmation of the granting of the manufacturing authorisation.
For any finished product manufacturer located in third countries with no MRA that is not in possession of a GMP certificate at the time of the marketing authorisation submission, a request for inspection will normally be triggered. The marketing authorisation procedure will require the inspection outcome before opinion.
Batch testing upon importation:
For medicinal products imported from third countries, retesting of each batch within the EEA upon importation is required unless a mutual recognition agreement (MRA) or other relevant agreement covering GMP for the product under consideration is operating with the country where the medicinal product is manufactured. If such an MRA is in operation, batch controls and tests carried out in the country where the product is manufactured are acceptable.
It should be noted that MRAs cover batch control and testing and do not cover batch release. Batch release must take place in the EEA territory for every production batch released to market in the EEA, regardless of whether an MRA with the exporting country is in place or not.
For the countries that have operational MRAs with the EU, see website on MRAs. Batch release of an imported medicinal product from a third country without retesting is a serious failure of a Qualified Person's legal obligations. According to Article 56 of Directive 2001/82/EC, it is expected that member states' supervisory authorities launch appropriate administrative measures and may withdraw the product concerned from the market (Article 84(1)(e) of Directive 2001/82/EC).
Contracting out of certain controls:
The provisions of Article 24(b) of Directive 2001/82/EC allows certain of the controls required under the provisions of Article 55 of Directive 2001/82/EC to be contracted out to third parties, if justified, and provided that the laboratories have been verified by the relevant competent authorities. Laboratories used for contract testing upon importation of medicinal products manufactured in third countries may be located in any EEA country.
The qualified person of the manufacturing authorisation holder named in the application is however responsible for ensuring that any contract laboratory used carries out the controls in accordance with GMP, as applicable and with the requirements of the marketing authorisation, once granted.
Regulation No 726/2004
View all 3 ratings


text:
A cyberattack happens once every 39 seconds across the globe. One study revealed that 1 in 3 Americans were affected on a yearly basis due to cyberattacks.
The current COVID-19 crisis has materially increased the total number and sophistication of attacks.
In a time where we are all working from home, protecting our key digital assets with the right cybersecurity solutions is critical.
Cybersecurity continues to be a compelling investment theme for Eventide because of four key drivers:
The Proliferation of Data
The Complexity of Digital Footprints
Increase of Cyberattacks
Anant Goel
Portfolio Manager, Senior Research Analyst
Anant Goel serves as a Portfolio Manager for Eventide's strategic growth, technology, and large cap strategies, as well as Senior Research Analyst on other Eventide investments.
Mr. Goel has a diverse background having grown up and lived in India, Hong Kong, UK, USA and China, which combined with his academic and professional interests, allow him to incorporate a diverse set of perspectives in his investment decision process. He has been passionate about responsible investing from early in his career. He has served as a Research Analyst at Eventide since 2016, leading its technology focused research. In 2015, during his M.B.A. program, he worked at Adage Capital Management, a long/short hedge fund. From 2011-2014, he served as an Analyst for NewQuest Capital Partners, a Private Equity firm in Hong Kong, where he was responsible for evaluating new investment opportunities for funds across Asia. From 2008-2011, he lived and worked in Beijing, China where he studied Mandarin and worked on start-up companies and other investment projects.
Mr. Goel holds an M.B.A. from the MIT Sloan School of Management where he was selected as a Teaching Assistant (TA) for finance courses for both Executive M.B.A. and M.B.A. students. He also holds a Bachelors of Science (HONS) from the University of Warwick, UK in Economics.
https://eng.umd.edu/news/story/study-hackers-attack-every-39-seconds
https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2020/04/14/working-from-home-cybersecurity.cnn- business/video/playlists/business-career/
Information contained herein has been obtained from third-party sources believed to be reliable.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Q: Javascript Date can't be stored I'm having a strange issue with javascript : when stocking a new Date().getTime() in a certain variable, it goes to 0.
    console.log(new Date().getTime()); // Shows the timestamp
    p.channels[p.chann].startTime = new Date().getTime();
    console.log(p.channels[p.chann].startTime); // Shows 0

The variable p.channels[p.chann].startTime totally exists (and would otherwise show an error anyway...)
Does anyone know where this problem could come from ? Oo

A: The problem was that, my variable being an Audio element, I could create the startTime value in it, but it was set to 0 and couldn't be set to anything else.

A: I have a created a JS Fiddle to show that this works.
p = {};
p.channels = [];
p.chann = 0;
p.channels[p.chann] = {};

p.channels[p.chann].startTime = new Date().getTime();

document.write(p.channels[p.chann].startTime);

The likely reasons for this failing would be that p.chann has been changed between setting and extracting the value, or p.channels[p.chann] hasn't been set as an object (you can test this by commenting out the line where p.channels[p.chann] = {};.

A: Since this code works, the only issue could be the existance of p.channels[p.chann].startTime while you're retrieving the value, or maybe in your real code you're reading a different value (maybe p.chann changes meanwhile because you're in a loop or you created a closure... it's hard to tell)
var p = {
    chann    : 0,
    channels : [
       { startTime : 0 }
    ]
};

p.channels[p.chann].startTime = new Date().getTime();
console.log(p.channels[p.chann].startTime); // Shows the value

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Home Sports News Ronaldo left off FIFA 14-player award list led by Messi, Mbappé
Ronaldo left off FIFA 14-player award list led by Messi, Mbappé
BusinessMirror
ZURICH—Cristiano Ronaldo was left off the 14-player shortlist for the annual Best FIFA Men's Player award for the first time with Lionel Messi and Kylian Mbappé among those selected.
Ronaldo, who was released by Manchester United and benched by Portugal during the World Cup, won the FIFA award the first two times it was handed out—in 2016 and 2017—and was among the three finalists the following three years. This was the first time he was not even selected as a contender by a FIFA-appointed expert panel.
The award was rebranded in 2016 following a six-year period where the former FIFA World Player of the Year Award had merged with the annual Ballon d'Or.
Ronaldo finished seventh in the voting last year, when Robert Lewandowski won for the second time in a row ahead of Messi and Mohamed Salah. The 37-year-old Portuguese star joined Saudi Arabian club Al Nassr last month, seemingly marking the end of his European club career.
Aside from Messi, the only member of Argentina's World Cup-winning team to make the list of nominees is forward Julián Álvarez.
Lewandowski is also on the list, which includes just four players who did not play at the World Cup.
Karim Benzema, the 2022 Ballon d'Or winner, and Sadio Mané were injured ahead of the tournament in Qatar, while Erling Haaland and Salah were not there because their countries, Norway and Egypt, respectively, did not qualify.
The other players nominated are Jude Bellingham, Kevin De Bruyne, Achraf Hakimi, Luka Modrić, Neymar and Vinícius Junior.
Ballon d'Or winner Alexia Putellas is among 14 nominees for the Best FIFA Women's Player prize. The list also includes Beth Mead, Keira Walsh and Leah Williamson from European champion England. Putella, the Spain playmaker, missed the tournament in England because of an injury.
Alex Morgan is the only player nominated from the United States team which will defend its World Cup title this year.
Argentina coach Lionel Scaloni is among five nominees for the men's coaching award, a list that also includes Walid Regragui after Morocco became the first team from Africa to reach the World Cup semifinals.
The other coaches nominated are Real Madrid's Carlo Ancelotti, France's Didier Deschamps and Manchester City's Pep Guardiola.
England coach Sarina Wiegman, who is from the Netherlands, is among six nominees for the coaching award in women's soccer.
The 11 goals competing for the Puskas Award include two scored at the World Cup–Mbappé's volleyed second goal against Argentina in the final and Richarlison's bicycle kick for Brazil against Serbia.
Supporters from Argentina and Japan are among three nominees for the fan award.
FIFA cited Argentina fans' fervor in Qatar and the passion shown when welcoming the winning team at home, and lauded Japanese fans for their World Cup tradition of staying back after games to clean the stadium.
Voting is done by national team captains and coaches worldwide along with selected journalists, and there is an online vote by fans which runs through February 3.
The winners are announced at a February 27 ceremony in Paris. AP
Read full article on BusinessMirror
Previous articleZamboanga: Two houses razed to the ground in a fire incident in Barangay Mangusu
Next articleFor whom will fireworks in Bocaue be for: Gin Kings or Dragons?


We are dedicated to delivering absolute support for our clients during go live and beyond.
Once your solution is ready we hold a training session to guide you through your CMS. This will allow you to be proactive in the marketplace and quickly update your content on a regular basis without the need for a development resource.
Even the most innovative ecommerce tools are meaningless without a team of experts behind them in the event that something goes wrong. That's why we provide Absolute Support that moves beyond standard troubleshooting and break-fixing.
Our test team is made up of extremely skilled ecommerce testers with a vast amount of industry experience. We complete a comprehensive test checklist before your solution goes live, which ensures your customer experience is seamless post-launch.
The success of your business is our business, which is why we make every effort to ensure that your ecommerce website functions smoothly, no matter how busy or complicated things get. Our support team is here to help you whenever you may need us, whether that is with website amendments, help with your CMS or a hosting query.
At PureNet we provide unlimited support from the beginning of the project and during the lifetime of your solution. Our post-implementation support services help our clients achieve a healthy, measurable return on investment. We will maintain your solution for as long as you wish, monitoring your website and hosting environment.
Our support team is made up of highly experienced and qualified Support Analysts, dedicated Support Developers and Infrastructure experts. As a client you can enjoy the reassurance provided by our dedicated team who will manage all aspects of a business-critical ecommerce solution to enable 24/7 trading.
We are here to ensure your website is operating smoothly at all times, our dedicated support team will manage your entire solution.
Talk to us about your hosting & support requirements.


SAN FRANCISCO – Mayor Ed Lee, and eight members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors signed off today a ballot initiative to support more playgrounds, walking trails, and playfields for the City.
The eight supervisors including, Board President David Chiu, London Breed, Malia Cohen, Mark Farrell, Eric Mar, Katy Tang, Scott Wiener, and Norman Yee, have been adamant supporters of Recreation and Parks' efforts to increase use of city sports and recreation facilities as a means to get more kids outside playing and exercising.
The goal of the ballot measure is to ensure that park projects doubling use of certain types of facilities are allowed to proceed once they are vetted and approved by the appropriate government agencies. San Francisco park projects have a history of being held up by as few as one individual unhappy about a single component of a project. This results in costly financial delays and deprives San Franciscans of their ability to enjoy these facilities.
Specifically, the ballot initiative would allow improvement to the City's children's playgrounds, walking trails and athletic fields which have been the subject of a certified Environment Impact Report, and which have been approved by the California Coastal Commission, which could significantly increase the usage of these sites. The Beach Chalet Athletic Fields renovation would meet the criteria.
Since 2000, San Francisco voters have approved three general obligation bonds to repair, renovate and restore nearly 100 local parks, playgrounds, walking trails and sports facilities. These projects have proven to be extremely successful and have increased use at each renovated facility.
Despite this progress, the City still does not have sufficient playgrounds for children, public trails for walking and hiking, or fields for sports and other youth and adult athletics to satisfy the needs of its residents and visitors. Some of San Francisco's older playgrounds remain in poor condition while the restored playgrounds are overwhelmed with use. Many of San Francisco's walking trails are hidden by overgrowth or eroded by decades of use. The city still doesn't have enough athletic fields to meet demand and kids continue to be turned away due to a lack of space to play. In fact, a 2004 study found San Francisco would need to add 35 soccer fields and 30 playfields just to meet demand.
In 2006, the City Fields Foundation and the City of San Francisco established the Playfields Initiative, a public-private partnership to remedy the city's ongoing athletic field deficit through synthetic turf renovations and light installations. The partnership has renovated fourteen underused and neglected athletic fields in seven parks throughout the City with high-quality synthetic turf, field lights, new fencing and other park amenities. The Playfields Initiative has added more than 76,000 hours of new annual playtime in the park system, allowing for 2,400 more kids to play each year on 200 new teams throughout the city.
Each of the Playfields Initiative field renovations have been supported by the community and approved by regulatory agencies. The Beach Chalet Athletic Fields renovation has been in a multi-year design, review, approval and appeal process featuring seven votes in front of the five different government bodies, including the California Coastal Commission, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, SF Planning Commission, SF Recreation and Park Commission, and the Board of Permit Appeals. Each of these regulatory bodies has voted in favor of the project.
The City's partnership with City Fields Foundation helps to provide high quality playfields throughout our City. Each full-sized synthetic turf field dramatically increases playtime at the facility and helps the environment by saving approximately 1,500,000 gallons of water each year and eliminating the need for herbicides.


ZA Blog on March 29th, 2019.
Watch videos while you're offline.
Whether you're on an airplane, in the subway, or in the wilderness—or you've just got a slow connection—keep watching by downloading the videos to your phone or tablet.
The MasterLectures app gives you the option to keep the audio going even when you close the app. It's perfect for listening to lectures on your commute.
Start a video on your desktop and finish on your tablet. Everything stays in sync, so you can pick up right where you left off—on any device.
Save 10% on your MasterLectures subscription!
To get your discount, enter code NEWAPPS when you create your account. But hurry—this special price ends 11:59pm ET on Thursday, April 4!


There are different ways of joining the club, it depends on if you have shot before or not.
If you are completely new to the sport and you are not sure if you will like it or not. Then you need to look into our Taster Sessions. These are for people who just want to come down, pick a bow up and just give it a try, you can be an individual and just come down, or you can come with your family or even as a group. For more details then please go to out Tasters Session page.
If you have been to our Taster Sessions, or you know you want to give archery a go, then our beginners courses are for you. These are courses to properly train you to be safe and understand the basics of shooting. These courses run for a few hours a day once a week for either 4 or 6 weeks (depending on the day). If you have never shot, this is the way that you can join our club. For more details, please go an see our beginners course page.
Upon completing the beginners course you will be told on how you can join, but if you wish to ask more questions then please use our form on the Contact Us page.
If you have been shooting for a while at another club and wish to join then please use the form on the Contact Us page and we can setup a date and time that you can come down to be assessed (we do this for every shooter for insurance purposes), upon successful assessment then you will be told the next step to join.
What things can I join in on when I join?
We have a huge selection of both indoor, outdoor and social events throughout the year that you can join, as well as badge schemes to challenge yourself. Upon joining you will be given access to the members section on the site which will have all the details you need and if you want more details then you can always ask people or the committee at the club.
If you are looking for a shooting session for bigger groups and businesses that want to organise group events or team building days, then our Have-A-Go sessions are what you are looking for. These are for up to 20 people to come down and shoot all together and make it a great team building night. For more details on this, please go to our Have-A-Go page.
For any other queries, please use the form on our Contact Us page.
© All Content produced with permission of respective owners.


Removable Pool Fencing Tags : Pool Fence Material Small Dog Fence Ideas. Mesh Privacy Fence.
By Chevy Vannier. Fence. Published at Tuesday, March 06th, 2018 12:43:15 PM.
By Chevy Vannier. Fence. Published at Thursday, February 28th, 2019 04:41:40 AM.
By Chevy Vannier. Fence. Published at Thursday, February 28th, 2019 04:36:05 AM.
By Chevy Vannier. Fence. Published at Thursday, February 28th, 2019 04:42:16 AM.
By Chevy Vannier. Fence. Published at Thursday, February 28th, 2019 04:32:58 AM.
By Chevy Vannier. Fence. Published at Thursday, February 28th, 2019 04:37:30 AM.
By Chevy Vannier. Fence. Published at Thursday, February 28th, 2019 04:37:32 AM.
By Chevy Vannier. Fence. Published at Thursday, February 28th, 2019 04:28:31 AM.


text:
By Joshua Schneider-Weiler
Meet Heath Pearce, the US footballer who turned $1,400 into 35 international caps
It was the end of the summer and a young 21-year-old American, Heath Pearce, was stranded in Scotland living with an agent. By day he was running on the streets and training with Greenock Morton, a club in the Scottish Third Division; by night he was waiting on a response from a complete stranger who had claimed he could get him a deal at Rangers, one of the heavyweights of the Scottish game. Every day the agent would come home and bring Peace a six-pack of Scotland's drink of choice, Irn-Bru, to keep up his spirits.
"I was just kind of lost in this world but it was the risk that I was willing to take," Pearce remembers. "And after about a week there I was just like, 'I have got to get out of here.' I had about a week left until I needed to get back to college for the season."
Yet within five years Pearce was battling for a starting spot in the United States national team at the 2009 Confederations Cup, where the Americans upset Spain to reach the final. It was quite the journey.
The future US international was raised in Modesto, California, a blue-collar, agricultural town 90 miles east of San Francisco. Modesto has a large immigrant population, so Pearce grew up around lots of football-loving Portuguese, Middle Eastern and Mexican families. He played the game himself, showing enough quality as a teenager to receive an invitation to attend the IMG Academy in Florida, an elite institution which would one day count Landon Donovan and DaMarcus Beasley among its alumni.
After two and a half years at IMG, Peace broke his leg and was cut from the academy. To his surprise, he received more offers to become a kicker for college American Football teams than he did to play soccer. In the end he relied on a favour from former IMG coach John Hellinger, who recommended Pearce to the University of Portland.
Hellinger told the youngster he needed to change positions from defensive midfielder to left-back. "He basically said to me at one point, 'if you want to make it, this is what your commitment has to be, you need to become a left-back. Left-back is your spot'," Pearce says.
The coach at the University of Portland was Clive Charles. who had helped to produce the likes of Kasey Keller and Steve Cherundolo. Pearce, in his own words, was "light years" behind his peers when he first arrived, and initially found it difficult to adapt to a new position.
"I then went on a crash course very quickly and started studying the position… and then eventually you know blew past all of them, whether through dedication or whether through natural talent. Then I started to think, 'wow I think I can make a career of this.'"
Pearce was desperate to turn professional in the months before his senior season, but MLS didn't feel he was ready. He earned $700 that summer by scraping stucco off windows and dressing up as a frog mascot, visiting schools to warn youngsters about the dangerous of flooding. After his parents agreed to match his wages, Pearce set off for Europe to pursue trials with professional clubs. He drafted a template email and sent it to every agent he could find on FIFA's website.
"I got two responses," he says. "One of those was a real agent and one of those wasn't a real agent, and I ended up going with the one who wasn't a real agent – not that I knew that at the time."
That's how Pearce ended up in Scotland, drinking Irn-Bru while waiting for his break. With only a week to go before the start of his college team's pre-season, Pearce – running short on money as well as time – decided to send out the email one more time. It was a good decision: he received a response from an agent in Denmark and soon found himself on trial at top-tier club FC Nordsjaelland.
After "a blinder of a week", Pearce received an offer. It wasn't as much as his scholarship at the University of Portland, though, so he decided to turn it down and return to college, but when the club improved their terms after one semester, he signed the contract and moved to Denmark.
"Game two [for Nordsjaelland] was at home and I absolutely murdered a guy for 90 minutes on the left," Pearce says. "I got moved to left-midfield for that match and I absolutely crushed this guy, to the point that I was like 'I am a thousand times better than this person who's playing against me right now.' And the downside of that is I took that confidence to the next game and got subbed at half-time – but it was the first moment to me where I was like 'oh man.' It was almost like I got out of my body, where I saw how good I could be or what my potential was."
Pearce went on to become a regular at left-back, with his performances impressive enough to earn him a call-up to the senior US squad for a 2005 friendly against Scotland in Glasgow – the same city in which he was sleeping in a stranger's house little more than a year prior.
"It was incredible," he says. "These were all players that I was starstruck by just a few months prior. And here I was, a first-year professional getting a chance to train next to them and then play next to them. It was probably a moment that I can replay in my head over and over again and never get tired of."
After three seasons in Denmark Pearce was ready for a new challenge, so he moved to Hansa Rostock in the Bundesliga. But from the very beginning the defender could tell it wasn't a good fit.
"The club itself had a very old-school East German mentality of discipline, where it's 'what we say goes and what we say is absolute.' And I came from a background within my family that was to question everything you know. Not question everything in a disrespectful way, but ask questions and know you can be an active part of the conversation."
"I don't think that [questioning coaches] really helps ever," he continues. "Most people don't like to be questioned. I remember one time Bob Bradley pulled me aside at Soldier Field and basically told me to stop being so damn insecure. And there was some truth to that. I mean, sometimes questioning comes from a point of insecurity; other times it comes from wanting to know more and do better."
After a poor campaign in the Bundesliga, Hansa Rostock were relegated. Pearce stayed put for two and a half seasons in total, but he featured in just 34 games in that time. Eventually forced to look for a new club, he returned to his native country with FC Dallas after a move to Bursaspor fell through.
Despite his struggles in Germany, Pearce's international career was far from finished. He featured regularly under Bradley throughout qualification for the 2010 World Cup, racking up 18 caps in two years. That was enough for him to make the squad for the 2009 Confederations Cup, in which the US lost narrowly to Brazil in the final. A year later he was included in the 30-man preliminary squad for the World Cup but ultimately didn't make the cut; the following summer, though, Pearce played against high-profile opponents in England, Spain and Argentina.
"It was just a really unique experience to hit three of those teams in like a three-week period," he says. "I was going player to player asking to trade jerseys with them. I ended up getting David Silva's, which is fantastic, but before that I went after Sergio Ramos I went after Marcos Senna, I went after Xavi. Every single one of them told me the same thing: that they promised their grandmother the shirt."
Pearce played five more seasons in MLS with Chivas USA, New York Red Bulls and Montrael Impact, before a brief stint in Sweden with IFK Göteborg. However, long before his playing career was finished he was preparing for life after football, building the skill set required for his current job as a Lead Creative at Copa90. The brainchild of Pearce's former team-mate, Jimmy Conrad, Copa90 tells stories about football around the world, with a particular focus on global fan culture.
"When I was younger I could never write a story because my mind would take me on a journey that my hands couldn't keep up with, or my fingers couldn't keep up with," Pearce says. "So when it came to creative writing I would speak into something that could record me, or I would have somebody help me write.
"When I came out of college I was pretty poor at interviews – I said 'am' and 'like', and I was very slow. As I started to try to develop that as a skill, people started to take notice and say, 'you know what, I like interviewing that person, because he gives me more than a soundbite.
"When I got to my early 30s I realised that my national team career was probably behind me. And playing the game sort of felt more like a job because of injuries and what not. So it kind of felt like the natural transition where I thought, 'I can continue playing for another five years or I can put those five years into something new, and be five years ahead of that same kid who's going to be leaving the game and have zero experience in media.'"
Pearce now spend his time interviewing the likes of Franck Ribery and travelling to places such as Marseille. If his broadcasting journey is anything like his playing career, it will follow a non-traditional path and feature plenty of twists and turns along the way.
Vox in the Box: Gavin Hamilton, former World Soccer editor
Nicklas Bendtner: The Danish striker on Arsenal, gambling and missed opportunities