Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Clare Dyer The manufacturer of the sleeping pill triazolam (Halcion), banned
from sale in the United Kingdom since 1993, has failed in its attempt
to invoke European Community law to get the ban reconsidered.
The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg has held that the UK system
for challenging drug bans by judicial review proceedings in the High
Court complies with European Community law.
In judicial review cases, the court will not re-examine the evidence
which led to the decision and substitute its own findings, but will
look only at whether the decision was one which the administrative body
could reasonably have reached based on the material before it.
The manufacturer of triazolam, Upjohn, lost its original challenge
against the ban, which was imposed by the Medicines Control Agency, in
the High Court in 1993. The court refused to refer the case to the
European Court but the company appealed and the Court of Appeal agreed
to refer three questions to the Luxembourg court.
After the drug's marketing licence was suspended in the United Kingdom
in 1991, France and the Netherlands referred triazolam to the Committee
for Proprietary Medicinal Products, made up of the European Community
member states and the European Commission. The UK suspension continued
until June 1993, when the Medicines Control Agency revoked the drug's
licence. Three months later, the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal
Products decided not to recommend a ban.
The European Court held that courts in member states were not under a
duty to look at the scientific evidence and determine whether the
decisions of drug licensing authorities were correct. It was enough for
the court to verify that the authority's decision was not vitiated by
error or misuse of power. The national courts do not have to take
account of scientific evidence emerging after the original decision to
ban the drug, the court ruled. If new material came to light, the
company would be able to make a fresh application for marketing authorisation.
© BMJ 1999
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+