Pharmaceuticals and medical devices are governed by various pieces of legislation and regulations arising from different sources. There is no uniform body of law, although there is an increasing number of rules being set at the European Union (EU) level, which tend to harmonise – although not completely – the regime applicable across EU member states.
In France, pharmaceuticals are mainly governed by the Public Health Code, which implements and complements the EU Directive on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (Directive 2001/83/EC) and the EU Regulation on the Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (Regulation 726/2004). A new directive and regulation (collectively known as the “EU Pharmaceutical Package”) have been agreed by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament, with formal adoption and entry into force upon publication in the European Union’s Official Journal expected in 2026.
Medical devices are also governed by the Public Health Code, which implements and complements the EU regulations on medical devices (Regulations 2017/745 called “MDR” and 2017/746 called “IVDR” and, to some extent, the previous Directives). The medical device regulatory framework is also in the midst of a significant legislative reform, with the recent publication of a proposal for a regulation to simplify the MDR and IVDR.
Beyond the Public Health Code, relevant rules are also included in the Social Security Code, Environmental Code, and more generally the Civil Code, Commercial Code and Consumer Code, not forgetting codes of conduct and guidelines set by trade associations and competent regulatory authorities.
In correlation with this diversity of legislative and regulatory sources, there are also several regulatory bodies that apply and enforce these rules.
For pharmaceuticals, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety (Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé, ANSM) are the key entities. The EMA is an EU institution and the ANSM is a French public establishment under the authority of the French Ministry of Health.
With respect to medical devices, “notified bodies” are also essential as they are in charge of assessing compliance of medium- to high-risk medical devices prior to and post-market. These bodies are independent from central administration and must undergo a regulatory accreditation process.
Decisions made by the regulatory bodies are primarily administrative acts that can be challenged through the following avenues.
These challenge procedures also apply in general for administrative acts covering other regulated products (eg, food products).
There are multiple categories of pharmaceuticals and medical devices that are regulated differently. As health products, each of their characteristics affects the rules applicable to them.
For instance, pharmaceuticals may be subject to compulsory prescription. They require a doctor’s prescription to be issued. There may also be restrictions on the prescription process itself due to the level of risk of the product (eg, limited to hospital settings or requiring mandatory particulars).
Other pharmaceuticals may be subject to optional prescription. They require a doctor’s prescription only to be reimbursed by statutory health insurance (SHI). Medical devices may also be subject to optional prescription for reimbursement purposes.
In addition, there is a pharmacy monopoly on the dispensing of pharmaceuticals and certain medical devices (eg, most in vitro diagnostic medical devices). Some pharmaceuticals are offered over-the-counter, meaning that they are freely accessible by purchasers in the pharmacy, while others may only be within the pharmacist’s reach. In addition, some pharmaceuticals and medical devices may only be dispensed in hospital settings.
Pharmaceuticals are regulated differently depending on (i) their preparation (princeps, generic, hybrid or biosimilar pharmaceuticals) which determines the applicable marketing authorisation procedure and delivery conditions, (ii) their reimbursement status (which notably affects advertising requirements) and (iii) their therapeutic interest (pharmaceutical companies are required to strengthen minimum safety stock levels for products of major therapeutic interest).
Medical devices are classified according to the level of risk they present for users, which is set by law. They are also subject to various rules depending on their intended use (eg, implantable or sterile) or composition (eg, software-based).
Clinical trials of pharmaceuticals and medical devices are regulated both by EU law and domestic rules.
Clinical trials of pharmaceuticals are mainly regulated by the EU Regulation on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use (Regulation 536/2014), fully applicable since January 2025, which harmonises the process for the assessment and supervision of clinical trials throughout the EU.
Clinical trials of medical devices, called investigational studies or performance studies, are mainly regulated by the MDR and IVDR and complementing provisions of the Public Health Code.
Clinical trials must also comply with domestic and international guidelines, such as the ANSM Guidelines on Good Clinical Practices, the International Conference on Harmonization Guidelines on Good Clinical Practice or the Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects.
The procedure for securing authorisation to undertake a clinical trial of a pharmaceutical and a medical device is essentially as follows.
Pharmaceuticals
For pharmaceuticals, applications to run a clinical trial must be submitted to the ANSM via the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS), a centralised EU-wide electronic platform introduced by the CTR, and must include all information listed in EU law. CTIS has improved the performance of multinational trials by enabling sponsors to submit one online application for approval to run a clinical trial in several EU countries.
Upon submission to the ANSM, the application undergoes a validation review completed within ten days from the date of receipt. If the application is incomplete, the sponsor is granted ten additional days to provide the missing information. Upon receiving additional documents, the ANSM has five days to review updates and notify the sponsor of validation or rejection.
Once validated, the application undergoes a scientific assessment by the ANSM and ethical assessment by the competent ethics committee (CPP) in France, within 45 days. In the event of requests for additional information, the evaluation period is extended by a maximum of 31 days. A new “fast-track” national procedure provides for an accelerated pathway for certain categories of single-national clinical trials. The fast-track authorisation period can be 14 days if the promoter’s application does not raise any questions following the evaluation by the ANSM and the CPP.
For multinational trials, the scientific assessment is a joint decision among the health authorities of the involved EU member states.
The final decision is notified to the sponsor via CTIS within a maximum of five days following the later date between the scientific assessment report and the ethical assessment report.
Medical Devices
For medical devices, clinical trials are not systematically required. They are mandatory for Class III and implantable devices (unless exempt).
Applications must be submitted electronically to the ANSM, together with the documents referred to in EU law. The new application procedure under the MDR, which mandates submission via the European Database on Medical Devices (EUDAMED) using the Clinical Investigations and Performance Studies Module, is not yet fully applicable. Until its full implementation, national procedures remain in effect. The first four EUDAMED modules are now operational, and their use will be mandatory as of May 2026. From this date onwards, new medical devices will have to be registered in EUDAMED before being placed on the market. Medical devices already commercialised before this date benefit from an extra delay to be registered in EUDAMED.
Upon submission, the application undergoes a validation review co-ordinated by the ANSM, completed within ten days from the date of receipt. If the application is incomplete, the sponsor is granted ten additional days to provide the missing information. Upon receiving additional documents, the ANSM and the ethics committee have five days to review updates and notify the sponsor of validation or rejection.
Once validated, the application undergoes a scientific assessment by the ANSM and ethical assessment by the ethics committee, within 30 to 65 days, depending on the category of clinical trial (which is determined primarily based on the purpose and status of the medical device). The final decision is notified to the sponsor.
Pharmaceuticals
Since January 2025, all clinical trials on pharmaceuticals must be registered in the CTIS. Sponsors are required to submit trial results within one year of completion, after which the data is published on CTIS. Clinical trial information was previously available in the EU Clinical Trials Register.
Medical Devices
There is currently no publicly accessible database for clinical trials on medical devices. However, the first four modules of EUDAMED have become operational and a transition period is currently underway until May 2026, prior to the mandatory registration of new medical devices. An extra delay for the mandatory registration in EUDAMED has been granted to medical devices which have already been commercialised.
The use of online tools to support clinical trials (eg, for recruiting or monitoring purposes) is not fully regulated in France, although there are guidelines at the EU level. Restrictions however apply on the processing of patient data (see 2.5 Use of Data From Clinical Trials and 2.6 Personal or Sensitive Data).
Data resulting from clinical trials usually relate to both participants and investigating personnel, thereby qualifying as personal data under Article 4 of the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR). More specifically, data relating to clinical trial participants often reveals details about their health status and generally falls within the category of “data concerning health” (GDPR, Article 4(15)), which is part of the broader classification of sensitive data.
Even when pseudonymised, such data remains classified as personal data, as pseudonymisation does not irreversibly prevent the re-identification of individuals, unlike anonymisation, which is the determining factor for data to be considered non-personal.
The transfer of health data to affiliates or third parties may occur under the established GDPR framework, provided that participants are informed and that the processing is based on one of the exemptions outlined in Article 9 of the GDPR, which serves as the legal basis for processing sensitive health data. In the context of clinical trials, such processing generally relies either on consent or on public interest, as defined under Article 9 of the GDPR and Article 44, 3° of the French Data Protection Act (Loi No 78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l’informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, or LIL).
Where processing is grounded on consent, the transfer of data is permissible only if explicitly addressed in the consent form signed by the participants. Where the processing is based on public interest, the data controller must obtain prior authorisation from the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL) or adhere to a reference methodology. In addition, such authorisation or reference methodology must identify the third party or the affiliate as an authorised recipient.
When the recipient is located outside the European Union, additional requirements come into play. The data controller must ensure that the transfer is subject to an adequacy decision by the European Commission or, failing that, is governed by standard contractual clauses or binding corporate rules. Furthermore, the data controller may need to conduct an impact assessment to evaluate the adequacy of the third country’s legal framework in safeguarding the rights of data subjects.
In addition to the usual conditions for processing of sensitive data under the GDPR and French law (see 2.5 Use of Data From Clinical Trials), databases containing personal or sensitive data can be subject to the requirements applicable to Health Data Warehouses. The CNIL considers that databases designed for facilitating secondary use of health data (eg, research, studies and in some cases, AI training), named “Health Data Warehouses”, qualify as autonomous health data processing and should be grounded on one of the exemptions of Article 9 of the GDPR. In practice, the legal grounds for such Health Data Warehouses are either the explicit consent from data subject or a CNIL authorisation. A standard CNIL authorisation can be granted for organisations which comply with the framework on Health Data Warehouses – however, this framework is designed for Health Data Warehouses justified by a public interest mission.
The data protection requirements imposed by GDPR can be supplemented by health law requirements, mainly from the French Public Health Code (FPHC), if the databases contain medical data. Organisations hosting personal health data collected in the course of preventive, diagnostic, care or medico-social monitoring activities (“HDS data”) on behalf of a data controller must hold a specific Hébergeurs de données de santé or HDS certification (Article L.1111-8 of the FPHC). Processing of medical information is also frequently subject to a strong duty of confidentiality (“medical secrecy”) under Article L.1110-4 of the FPHC.
The classification of a product as either a pharmaceutical or a medical device is determined by its intended purpose and mode of action, in accordance with EU law. In essence, classifications are as follows.
Some products may have characteristics of both pharmaceuticals and medical devices, known as “borderline”, “hybrid” or even “combination” products. In such cases, the ANSM may assess the product on a case-by-case basis to determine the applicable regulatory framework. This assessment considers the product’s intended purpose, its mode of action and the claims made by the manufacturer.
French law does not provide for specific marketing authorisation procedures for biologic medicinal products (apart from the difference in supporting scientific data).
Marketing authorisations are granted for five years for pharmaceuticals.
The ANSM may, in exceptional circumstances, grant a derogation from this rule:
Marketing authorisations may also be suspended or revoked if legal requirements for the authorisations are not met or are no longer met. This includes, in particular, the following reasons:
Medical devices are subject to pre-market certification (CE marking), which is valid for five years. CE markings can be renewed following a mandatory surveillance audit. Every medical device must bear the CE-marking following a conformity assessment with the general safety and performance requirements set out by EU law. Lower-risk devices may be self-certified but medium to high-risk devices must obtain a CE certificate from a notified body to bear the CE-marking and be placed on the French market.
The notified body may narrow the scope, suspend or withdraw a certificate if the conditions for its issuance are not fulfilled or are no longer maintained.
The procedure for obtaining a marketing authorisation for pharmaceuticals and medical devices is essentially as follows.
Pharmaceuticals
For pharmaceuticals, a marketing authorisation may be obtained through the following procedures:
To initiate one of these procedures, the applicant must submit an application to the competent authority (ie, the ANSM or the EMA), together with a dossier containing the information required by EU law.
The procedures for variations to the terms and conditions of a marketing authorisation are laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1234/2008. These procedures differ according to the type of variation requested (variation types IA, IB and II).
The transfer of a national marketing authorisation from one holder to another is possible and subject to the approval of the ANSM. In the case of a merger or a partial transfer of assets, the companies involved may submit an application for the transfer of marketing authorisations before the merger or transfer is finally completed. In support of their request, they must submit the letter of intent or agreement on the merger or contribution.
Medical Devices
For medical devices, these are classified into risk groups based on the risk during use, and their placing on the market requires the CE marking to be affixed to the device after the manufacturer has conducted a conformity assessment with all applicable general safety and performance requirements set out by EU law.
Manufacturers of Class I medical devices and class A in vitro diagnostic medical devices (the lowest risk class) can self-certify that their devices meet all applicable requirements. For all other Classes (and Class I medical devices that are supplied sterile, have a measuring function or are reusable surgical instruments), the involvement of a notified body is required to conduct the conformity assessment and issue the corresponding certificate of conformity.
In general, any variations to the approved device require a new approval by the notified body that issued the certificate of conformity, if they may affect the safety and performance of the device or the conditions of use prescribed for that device.
EU regulations do not provide for the transfer of the CE marking. The new manufacturer of the medical device must fulfil all the necessary requirements to obtain certification for the device under their own name.
The supply to patients of pharmaceuticals and medical devices that are not subject to a marketing authorisation is generally not permitted, unless they are a candidate in a clinical trial. However, derogations apply.
Pharmaceuticals
For pharmaceuticals, there are two main derogatory pathways:
Medical Devices
For medical devices, the ANSM may authorise, by way of exception, the placing on the French market of a device which does not bear the CE marking, but whose use is in the interest of public health or in the interest of patient safety or health. Some derogatory pathways exist to facilitate access by patients to innovative devices (eg, Forfait Innovation).
Marketing authorisation (or CE-marking) holders are bound by strict post-market surveillance obligations.
Pharmaceuticals
For pharmaceuticals, marketing authorisation holders must conduct pharmacovigilance by recording suspected adverse reactions in detail and reporting those classified as serious with the highest degree of urgency. This information must be collected and submitted to competent authorities in the form of periodic safety update reports.
The holder is also required to implement a pharmacovigilance system and, in particular, to:
The ANSM may also require the MA holder to conduct:
More generally, the holder must contribute to the product’s proper use, in particular by ensuring that it is prescribed in accordance with its MA. In the event of prescriptions that do not comply with proper use, it must take all appropriate measures to inform health professionals and immediately inform the ANSM.
The holder is further required to inform the ANSM immediately of any prohibition or restriction imposed by the competent authority of any country in which the product is marketed and of any other new information that may influence the evaluation of the benefits and risks.
Lastly, the holder must immediately inform, specifying the reasons, the ANSM of any action taken in France or in another EU member state to suspend or terminate the marketing of the medicinal product, to request the withdrawal of the authorisation or not to apply for the renewal of the authorisation for the medicinal product.
Medical Devices
For medical devices, economic operators and in particular manufacturers are required to submit vigilance reports to the ANSM for all the incidents of which they have become aware in France involving their devices.
Manufacturers must also take appropriate safety action when required and communicate on all the corrective actions that have been undertaken to avoid or reduce the risks associated with the use of a medical device.
In addition, manufacturers of medical devices are subject to a number of obligations under the EU legislation, such as keeping the technical documentation of the device up to date, appointing a person responsible for regulatory compliance and complying with vigilance reporting obligations.
Third parties may access certain pieces of information about pending applications for marketing authorisations for pharmaceuticals and medical devices.
Pharmaceuticals
At the EU level, the EMA issues every month a list of “pharmaceuticals under evaluation” by the CHMP.
At the national level, pending applications for marketing authorisation are not made publicly available. Third parties only have access to information on pharmaceuticals published by the ANSM on the database Répertoire des spécialités pharmaceutiques and the relevant documents (ie, the summary of product characteristics and the patient information leaflet). Otherwise, the ANSM publishes the summary report of the assessment carried out for each new medicinal product as well as the decisions to grant, suspend or withdraw marketing authorisation. The ANSM also publishes the agendas and minutes, with details and explanations of votes (including minority opinions), of the meetings of its commissions, committees and expert collegial bodies, excluding any information covered by business or medical secrecy.
Medical Devices
For medical devices, information may be publicly accessed via EUDAMED, which is currently being deployed by gradual roll-out. Once fully functional, EUDAMED will ultimately be composed of six modules:
The European Commission has declared that the first four EUDAMED modules are now functional and comply with the specifications laid down by Regulation (EU) 2017/745 on medical devices. The other two will be put into service at a later date.
The French regulatory framework does not specifically foresee fast-track registration routes for pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Only pharmaceuticals subject to the centralised procedure (at EU level) may benefit from accelerated assessment, namely those of major public health interest, particularly from the point of view of therapeutic innovation or those addressing diseases with an unmet medical need. Pharmaceuticals can also be granted a conditional marketing authorisation under specific criteria, which corresponds to a fast-track approval procedure. This procedure implies that the marketing authorisation holder must fulfil specific obligations within defined timelines to confirm that the medicine’s benefits outweigh its risks.
France has not exactly embraced the notion of regulatory reliance.
Nevertheless, the ANSM is participating in pilot programmes of mutual regulatory reliance managed by the EMA designed to assess the impact of using the results of regulatory inspections carried out by the regulatory authorities of third countries that are members of the Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme and by the United States Food and Drug Administration.
Moreover, the EU has entered into a number of mutual recognition agreements with non-EU countries that define the conditions under which the EU member states will accept conformity assessment results (such as testing or certification) performed by conformity assessment bodies designated by another non-EU member state and vice versa.
Manufacturing plants of pharmaceuticals are subject to an authorisation, while plants manufacturing medical devices are generally not.
Pharmaceuticals
Manufacturing plants of pharmaceuticals must be licensed as pharmaceutical establishments (établissement pharmaceutique) by the ANSM. Any company that includes at least one pharmaceutical establishment must be owned by a pharmacist or a company in which a pharmacist participates in the management or general direction.
Medical Devices
Manufacturing plants of medical devices are generally not subject to prior authorisation, but they are required to register themselves on EUDAMED. However, pending the full operability of EUDAMED, manufacturers can use a national form provided by the ANSM. In this case, national declarations are only valid in France. Manufacturers of custom-made medical devices must also declare their activity to the ANSM before making such devices available on the national market. This declaration must include details of the type of activity performed and the devices concerned.
The establishments engaged in wholesale of pharmaceuticals are subject to an authorisation, while those engaged in wholesale of medical devices are generally not.
Pharmaceutical Wholesalers
Pharmaceuticals wholesalers (including acquisition, storage, supply or export, but excluding direct sales to the public) must be licensed as pharmaceutical establishments by the ANSM.
The license process follows the same steps as for manufacturers (see 5.1 Requirement for Authorisation for Manufacturing Plants). The applicant must submit a detailed application describing its distribution activities and demonstrating compliance with Good Distribution Practice (GDP), which is then reviewed by the ANSM and followed by an on-site inspection.
However, unlike for manufacturers, the absence of a decision from the ANSM within 90 days of receiving the application results in tacit approval, meaning that the authorisation is considered granted.
Medical Devices Wholesalers
Medical devices wholesalers generally do not require prior authorisation or specific registration. Distributors making medical devices available on the French market, excluding direct sales to the public, must however declare their activity to the ANSM.
See 1.3 Categories of Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices.
Importation and exportation of pharmaceuticals are mainly regulated by dedicated provisions of the Public Health Code.
Importation and exportation of medical devices are mainly regulated by EU law (MDR and IVDR) and dedicated provisions of the Public Health Code.
The ANSM is responsible for applying and enforcing regulations on the import and export of pharmaceuticals and medical devices.
Companies or organisations licensed as pharmaceutical establishments by the ANSM may act as importers of record of pharmaceuticals (see 5.1 Requirement for Authorisation for Manufacturing Plants).
With respect to medical devices, any natural or legal person can act as an importer of record. EU law assigns specific regulatory obligations to importers, particularly when the manufacturer is located outside the EU and has not appointed an authorised EU representative.
The importation of pharmaceuticals and medical devices is subject to prior authorisations.
Pharmaceuticals
The importation of pharmaceuticals into France, including from another EEA country, requires prior authorisation from the ANSM, which may be granted for:
Import authorisation requests must be submitted via an online platform (Impexweb). If the ANSM does not respond within 45 days, the request is considered rejected. The ANSM may suspend or revoke an authorisation at any time. Except in urgent cases, such decisions can only be taken after allowing the authorisation holder to submit observations.
However, there are exemptions from the prior authorisation requirement, namely for:
Medical Devices
The importation of medical devices from non-EEA countries into France does not require prior governmental authorisation. However, imported devices must fully comply with EU regulatory requirements, including a valid CE marking and an EU Declaration of Conformity, which confirm compliance with essential safety and performance standards and enable free circulation within the EU.
If the manufacturer is based outside the EEA and has not appointed an authorised representative, the importer assumes regulatory responsibility for ensuring the device’s conformity, traceability and compliance with post-market obligations.
The import of products into the EU is governed by a standardised classification system that categorises products based on their tariff codes (Harmonised System, Union Combined Nomenclature and Community Customs Tariff). This classification helps to identify and regulate products that are being imported, ensuring that duties, taxes and restrictions are properly applied. Additionally, the applicable non-tariff regulations depend on whether an imported product meets the statutory product definition (medical devices or pharmaceuticals).
The types of products subject to import regulations in the EU are outlined in various laws and regulations such as EU Regulation No 952/2013 laying down the Union Customs Code or Regulation No 952/2013 laying down the Union Customs Code.
France, as a member of the EU, participates in the EU’s free trade agreements and applies the principle of free movement of goods and services within the EU single market.
Prices for pharmaceuticals and medical devices are strictly controlled in France if such products are reimbursed by SHI.
The rules governing price setting are mainly outlined in the French Social Security Code and Framework Agreements entered into between the governmental body in charge of fixing prices (Comité économique des produits de santé or CEPS) and industry trade associations.
Pharmaceuticals
The price of products used in hospitals is negotiated between the pharmaceutical company and the hospital, within the framework of the Public Procurement Code. France has implemented and activity-based tariff system for hospitals.
However, the price of (i) expensive and innovative pharmaceuticals included in the list of pharmaceuticals chargeable in addition to hospital stays (liste en sus), for which payments are made in addition to the hospitalisation price, and (ii) pharmaceuticals available in pharmacy hospitals for direct sale to outpatients, included in the list of pharmaceuticals prescribed on a retrocession basis (liste de restrocession), is negotiated between the CEPS and the pharmaceutical company. The ministers responsible for Health and Social Security may set a maximum sale price for pharmaceuticals with a risk of unjustified spending or for pharmaceuticals that are particularly costly for institutions.
The price of reimbursed pharmaceuticals prescribed to outpatients is determined through negotiations between the pharmaceutical company and the CEPS, based on various factors, including:
If no agreement is reached between the CEPS and the pharmaceutical company, the CEPS has the authority to unilaterally set the price. The Ministers of Health, Social Security and the Economy may oppose this decision within 15 days.
When generic or biosimilar pharmaceuticals enter the market, specific discount rates are applied by the CEPS to determine their price, and the prices of the reference pharmaceuticals are reduced accordingly.
The Ministers of Economy and Health may also control the margins of reimbursed pharmaceuticals. Discounts, rebates and any other commercial and financial benefits, including service fees, on reimbursed pharmaceuticals, granted by a supplier to pharmacists, cannot exceed, per calendar year and per product line for each pharmacy, 2.5% of the manufacturer price excluding tax. For generic pharmaceuticals, this is capped at 40% of the manufacturer’s price.
Medical Devices
Rules applicable to medical devices used in hospitals are the same as for pharmaceuticals used in hospitals or healthcare institutions.
For medical devices prescribed to outpatients, the maximum price that the public can be charged and the tariff on which SHI reimbursement is based are determined through negotiations between the pharmaceutical company and the CEPS. The determination of the tariff primarily takes into account:
If no agreement is reached between the CEPS and the pharmaceutical company, the CEPS has the authority to unilaterally set the price. The pricing of reimbursed medical devices may be reviewed at the initiative of the CEPS.
The Ministers of Economy and Health may set the margins of reimbursed medical devices. Discounts, rebates and any other commercial and financial benefits, including service fees, granted by any supplier to retailers of reimbursed MDs, may soon be capped under French law. A ministerial order is expected to limit such discounts, rebates and benefits, per calendar year and per product line, to a percentage of the product price (excluding tax) for each retailer, not to exceed 50% of the operator (exploitant) price. The implementing act for this provision is expected to be issued by the end of the year.
When setting and reviewing the price of reimbursed pharmaceuticals and the tariff of reimbursed medical devices, the CEPS may take into consideration the existence of lower prices or tariffs in Germany, Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom.
The Framework Agreement between the trade association representing the pharmaceutical industry and the CEPS establishes the possibility of benefiting from a pre-tax list price that cannot be lower than one of the prices applied in Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy and Spain for a pharmaceutical providing an ASMR I, II or III (see 8.4 Cost-Benefit Analyses) and whose main manufacturing stages (active ingredient, finished product, packaging) are carried out in France.
The costs of pharmaceuticals and medical devices may be reimbursed from public funds at a variety of levels and under different pathways.
Pharmaceuticals
Pharmaceuticals used in hospitals are primarily financed through hospital stays. However, expensive and innovative pharmaceuticals, for which payments are made in addition to the hospitalisation price, are included in the list of pharmaceuticals chargeable in addition to hospital stays (liste en sus) and are reimbursed by the SHI based on invoices issued by hospitals.
Pharmaceuticals used in ambulatory settings are reimbursed subject to registration on a positive list (liste des spécialités pharmaceutiques remboursables). Access to reimbursement and reimbursement rate defined by the National Union of Sickness Insurance Funds (Union nationale des caisses d’assurance maladie) are based on the therapeutic value of the pharmaceutical (service médical rendu) assessed by the HAS (see 8.4 Cost-Benefit Analyses). The final decision on reimbursement is taken by the Minister of Health by legal order.
Medical Devices
Medical devices for individual use in hospitals are primarily financed through hospital stays. Expensive and innovative medical devices are financed separately, in addition to the hospitalisation price. In such cases, they are included in the list of products and services chargeable in addition to hospital stays (liste en sus) and are reimbursed based on an invoice issued by hospitals.
Medical devices for individuals used in ambulatory settings may be reimbursed subject to registration on a specific list called “List of Reimbursable Products and Services” (Liste des Produits et Prestations Remboursables or LPPR). Access to reimbursement is based on the therapeutic value of the medical devices assessed by the HAS (see 8.4 Cost-Benefit Analyses).
In France, cost-benefit analyses play a significant role in determining both the price and the reimbursement status of pharmaceuticals and medical devices.
The HAS (Transparency Committee for the pharmaceuticals and The National Committee for the Evaluation of Medical Devices and Health Technologies for medical devices) is responsible for conducting such health technology assessment.
After reviewing the dossier submitted by the company and the other available scientific data, the HAS publishes a scientific opinion evaluating the actual clinical benefit and the clinical added value of the product.
Reimbursement decisions are based on the rating and, while the rating is not the only factor, it is the primary criterion which supports the pricing by the CEPS (see 8.1 Price Control for Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices).
Regulation (EU) 2021/2282 on Health Technology Assessment establishes an EU-level framework for assessing the added value, effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health care interventions, including medicines, medical devices and procedures. While the Regulation is not yet fully applicable, since January 2025, new oncology medicines and advanced therapy medicinal products have been assessed at EU level.
To ensure cost efficiency in pharmaceutical prescribing and dispensing:
23 rue de l’Université
75007
Paris
France
+33 01 81 69 15 00
+33 01 81 69 15 15
etrombe@mwe.com www.mwe.com
When originator pharmaceutical companies develop a new medicinal product and successfully navigate all the scientific and regulatory steps required for its approval, they benefit from a period of patent protection during which they enjoy market exclusivity, designed to reward their research and development (R&D) efforts. Once this period expires, generic or biosimilar companies are free to enter the market with competing products.
As patent expiry approaches, originator companies typically seek to anticipate the loss of exclusivity and the entry of generic or biosimilar competitors, and to plan their commercial strategy accordingly. In doing so, they must bear in mind that, as a result of the exclusivity they have enjoyed, they will frequently hold a “dominant position” within the meaning of competition law. All the more so since the emergence of generic/biosimilar competition may lead to the definition of a narrow, molecule-level relevant market limited to medicines containing the same active ingredient.
Such a position comes with a “special responsibility” not to abuse it: originator companies can legitimately prepare for the arrival of competitors, provided that they refrain from conduct that does not constitute competition “on the merits” and that could impede or delay the entry of generic or biosimilar products, thereby amounting to an abuse under antitrust law and potentially resulting in the imposition of a substantial financial penalty.
When they design an action plan to prepare for generic or biosimilar entry, originator companies must therefore factor the “umbrella effect” of competition law into every aspect of their strategy.
Drawing on recent French decisions that have, in some instances, inspired European cases, this article aims to highlight key competition concerns that originator companies need to be aware of and to set out practical safeguards applicable both to strategies implemented before patent expiry and to conduct adopted after expiry.
Before Patent Expiry: Originator Companies’ Options Constrained by Competition Law
A few months before a patent expires, an originator company may consider several courses of action. While some – such as initiating a new R&D programme to develop a medicine addressing a different therapeutic need – may not raise particular concerns, most must be implemented with caution so as not to hinder competitors’ entry into the market.
Competition concerns may, for example, relate to the originator company’s conduct in relation to intellectual property rights and in its interactions with the health authorities.
Limited exercise of intellectual property rights
Divisional patents – innovation, yes; artificial extension of exclusivity, no
Originator companies are entitled to file divisional patent applications to protect their inventions.
However, there is a risk that divisional patents, although lawful under patent rules, may be perceived as serving primarily to artificially extend the exclusivity period for an originator product rather than to protect an innovation.
Such conduct may amount to an abuse of a dominant position under Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) where strategic patenting hinders or delays generic entry – for example, by increasing litigation costs, securing injunctions or prolonging legal uncertainty for competitors. This concern was central to the recent Teva Copaxone case, in which the European Commission imposed a fine of EUR462.6 million on Teva for abuse of a dominant position in relation to its multiple sclerosis medicine Copaxone by misusing divisional patents and other practices to delay competition (EU Commission, 31 October 2024, Teva Copaxone, AT.40588).
Key competition law takeaways – before filing divisional patent applications, originator companies should ensure that:
Settlement to resolve a patent validity dispute, yes; settlement to delay competitors’ market entry, no
A generic company may challenge the validity of an originator’s parent patent or its secondary patent(s) before they expire, and the two companies may ultimately reach an agreement to settle the dispute. Such agreements can produce pro‑competitive effects by bringing legal disputes to an end, thereby helping to eliminate invalid intellectual property rights or, conversely, to preserve valid ones.
However, they may also raise competition law concerns where they result in so-called pay for delay agreements. Settlement agreements between originator and generic companies may indeed be anti-competitive where the generic agrees to delay or restrict its market entry in return for a value transfer from the originator – whether through direct payments or other advantages – and this leads to consumers paying higher prices than they would have in the absence of the agreement. Such “pay for delay” agreements have given rise to well-established case law based on Article 101 TFEU, including very recent decisions of the Court of Justice (CJEU, 27 June 2024, Servier, 9 decisions; CJEU, 23 October 2025, Teva/Cephalon, C-2/24 P).
Key competition law takeaways – before entering into any settlement that involves a value transfer between an originator and a generic/biosimilar company, the parties should:
Limited contact with health authorities regarding competing products
Pharmaceutical companies may communicate with health authorities in the context of their statutory and regulatory obligations, provided they comply with the applicable rules.
However, the situation is different for an originator company that approaches a health authority before the expiry of its patent to draw attention to a competing generic product.
Under EU and French law, a generic product is defined as one whose key characteristics – safety, efficacy, and bioequivalence with the reference (originator) medicine – have been recognised by the competent health authorities.
This assessment by the health authorities cannot, in principle, be challenged by originator companies, and competition authorities have treated any “unjustified” interference with it as abusive conduct.
For example, the European Commission reiterated in the recent Teva Copaxone decision that there is “no room for scientific debate” on generic products properties (case AT.40588, pt 1531). An originator company would therefore not be entitled to challenge a generic product, and any scientific debate concerning a generic product could emerge (i) only if “new relevant evidence” were available and (ii) on condition that this evidence is brought to the authorities that are competent to modify the generic product’s marketing authorisation through the “appropriate procedures” (pt 1531) (the Commission also specifies that if Teva had genuine doubts about the generic products, it should have used the appropriate procedures “for pharmacovigilance”, see pt 1620).
The French competition authority (FCA) Durogesic decision also addressed this issue, but from a different angle, as the originator company had actually raised its concerns with the health authority. In this decision, the FCA sanctioned Janssen-Cilag and Johnson & Johnson for abusing their dominant position, first by intervening in a “legally unfounded” manner with the health authority, and subsequently by disparaging generic products to healthcare professionals. As regards the first objection, the originator company allegedly presented to the health authority arguments that could prompt it to take a decision inconsistent with the legal framework to which it is subject – ie, to persuade it to refuse to grant generic status to products competing with Durogesic, despite lacking the competence to do so (FCA, decision 17-D-25 of 20 December 2017).
A closer look at the details of this case shows that it was Janssen-Cilag’s “head pharmacist” (pharmacien responsable) who contacted the health authority to raise public health concerns relating to fentanyl (the active substance in Durogesic, which is 100 times stronger than morphine), in particular in light of differences in the pharmaceutical forms of the originator and generic products that could affect how the fentanyl is dispensed, and thus pose a risk to patients. The FCA did not dispute this scientific evidence and did not reproach the company for having presented to the health authority false or misleading information regarding competing products, but rather for putting forward arguments which it considered to be “without legal basis”. It thus concluded that the company “unduly interfered in the health authority’s decision making process” and had put forward “arguments likely to induce it to adopt a decision contrary to the legal framework binding upon it” (pt 435). The case is pending before the European Court of Human Rights, which is called upon to assess whether aspects of the sanction for this conduct are compatible with the freedom of expression protected by the Convention.
Key competition law takeaways – in light of recent case law, originator companies should not criticise the safety, efficacity or bioequivalence of competing generic or biosimilar products that have complied with the regulatory process and obtained the necessary approvals.
If a company nevertheless considers that there is a genuine public health issue with one of these products, it may raise this only with the competent health authorities, taking great care to:
After Patent Expiry: Competition Law Continues to Constrain the Conduct of Originator Companies
After patent expiry, an originator company may retain a dominant position for a significant period and must therefore ensure that all aspects of its conduct remain within the boundaries of competition on the merits.
Competition concerns frequently arise in relation to the design of commercial strategy towards hospitals and the messages conveyed to healthcare professionals.
Pricing strategy at patent expiry must not hinder market entry
Pharmaceutical companies are, in principle, free to determine the prices at which they supply hospitals. During the period of market exclusivity, they may set prices at their discretion, and once patent protection has ended and generic or biosimilar competitors enter, they are entitled to adjust their commercial strategy, including by lowering prices.
However, where an originator company holds a dominant position, EU and French competition law impose specific constraints on how such price adjustments may be implemented.
Key competition law takeaways – dominant pharmaceutical companies cannot simply mirror competitors’ prices at patent expiry without further analysis. They must in particular avoid:
When determining their commercial strategy, originator companies must ensure that any price reductions accompanying the loss of exclusivity do not impede the entry of generics or biosimilars and that the underlying pricing methodology is clearly documented in their internal documentation, objective and defensible from an economic and legal standpoint.
No disparaging communication with healthcare professionals
Pharmaceutical companies are free to share information and promote their products to healthcare professionals (doctors, pharmacists etc), provided they comply with the applicable regulatory framework, in particular the rules on advertising.
However, they must ensure that the information communicated to healthcare professionals cannot be regarded as a disparaging practice intended to hinder the entry of generic or biosimilar products into the market.
Competition authorities indeed adopt a relatively strict stance when an originator company criticises a generic product in its communications with healthcare professionals, given the “influence” it has over them. They have made clear that, even where it has legitimate health concerns about the safety or efficacy of competing generic or biosimilar products, it is not for the originator to “alert” healthcare professionals. The responsibility for reporting such risks lies solely with the holder of the marketing authorisation.
The FCA was the first to take up concerns about disparagement by originator companies and to treat such practices as a form of abuse within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU (see decisions 13-D-21, 13-D-11, 17-D-25). This enforcement trend has now been echoed by the European Commission, which has recently examined similar denigration-type conduct in the Teva Copaxone (AT.40588) and Vifor (AT.40577) cases. Across these cases, competition authorities typically criticise the following features of disparagement practices by dominant originator companies:
Some originator companies have argued that their conduct is justified by the exercise of their freedom of expression protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). While this argument is, in principle, admissible, recent case law indicates that a specific methodology must be applied to balance competition law and fundamental rights
The French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) has very recently provided further clarification in this respect in the Lucentis Avastin case.
In short, Novartis, Roche and Genentech were fined more than EUR444 million by the FCA for collectively abusing their dominant position. The FCA considered that they had, first, disseminated disparaging messages that “overstated” the risks associated with the off-label use of Avastin to treat age-related macular degeneration (AMD), compared with Lucentis, which holds a marketing authorisation for that indication, and, second, conveyed alarmist/misleading information to the health authorities about Avastin’s off-label use to block or delay public initiatives aimed at facilitating and securing that off-label use (decision 20-D-11 of 9 September 2020).
The Paris Court of Appeal fully annulled this decision in February 2023. Relying on the case law of the Cour de cassation, it held that the companies’ conduct fell within the scope of their freedom of expression protected by Article 10 ECHR, since the companies’ communications related to a debate of general interest, relied on a sufficient factual basis and were measured in their tone. It therefore found that there could be no abuse within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU (Paris Court of Appeal, 16 February 2023, No 20/14632).
However, the Cour de cassation quashed that judgement because of the methodology applied by the Court of Appeal. According to the Cour de cassation, where competition rules and the fundamental freedom of expression are both at stake, the first step is to assess whether there is a potential abuse within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU by examining whether the conduct falls within competition on the merits, whether it has exclusionary effects and whether there are any objective justifications. It is only in the light of such an assessment that, where a breach of Article 10 ECHR is alleged, the proportionality of the restriction on freedom of expression resulting from that sanction can subsequently be assessed (Cass. Com., 25 June 2025, No 23-13.391). The case is pending before the Court of Appeal on remittal.
Key competition law takeaways – when communicating with healthcare professionals, originator companies must ensure that:
7 rue Royale
75008
Paris
France
+33 1 47 23 78 80
contact@freget-glaser.fr www.freget-glaser.fr/