Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2012)369 - Clinical trials on medicinal products for human use

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.

dossier COM(2012)369 - Clinical trials on medicinal products for human use.
source COM(2012)369 EN
date 17-07-2012
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

Clinical trials as defined in Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use i are investigations of medicines in humans where the medicines are applied outside normal clinical practice on the basis of a research protocol.

Clinical trials are performed in many different contexts. Applications for marketing authorisation and publications in medical journals are based on data generated in clinical trials. Therefore, clinical trials are an indispensable part of clinical research which, in turn, is essential to develop medicinal products and improve medical treatment. Without clinical trials, there would be no new medicines, no further development of existing medicines, and no evidence-based improvement of treatments with medicines.

In the EU/EEA, approximately 4 400 clinical trials are applied for every year.[2] Approximately 60 % of clinical trials are sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry and 40 % by other stakeholders, such as academics.

Approximately 24 % of all clinical trials applied for in the EU are multinational clinical trials, i.e. clinical trials intended to be performed in at least two Member States. While this seems a relatively small proportion, these 24 % clinical trials involve approximately 67 % of all subjects enrolled in a clinical trial. This means that, on average, a clinical trial with more than 40 subjects is conducted in more than one Member State. Mono-national clinical trials are limited to small studies with low recruitment targets.

Directive 2001/20/EC has brought about important improvements in the safety and ethical soundness of clinical trials in the EU and in the reliability of clinical trials data. However, the Clinical Trials Directive is arguably the most heavily criticised piece of EU-legislation in the area of pharmaceuticals. This criticism is voiced by all stakeholders ‑ patients, industry, and academic research.

The data available support these criticisms:

· The number of applications for clinical trials fell by 25 % from 2007 to 2011.[3]

· The costs for conducting clinical trials have increased. Compared to the situation prior to the application of the Directive 2001/20/EC, the staff needs for industry sponsors to handle the clinical trial authorisation process have doubled (107 %); with small companies facing an even sharper increase. For non-commercial sponsors, the increase in administrative requirements due to the Directive 2001/20/EC has led to a 98% increase in administrative costs. In addition, since implementation of the Directive 2001/20/EC, insurance fees have increased by 800 % for industry sponsors.

· The average delay for launching a clinical trial has increased by 90 % to 152 days.

It would be wrong to attribute the fall in clinical trial activity solely and exclusively to the Directive 2001/20/EC. However, the Directive 2001/20/EC has had many direct effects on the cost and feasibility of conducting clinical trials which, in turn, have led to a decline in clinical trial activity in the EU. Moreover, other causes (such as salary costs and the need to conduct multinational studies to reach recruitment targets) have been aggravated through regulatory requirements and consequential costs of the Directive 2001/20/EC.

Thus, the existing provisions of Directive 2001/20/EC appear to have hampered the conduct of clinical trials in Europe. It is therefore necessary for the Commission to act.

Contents

1.

RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT



In preparation of the impact assessment for this proposal, the Commission held two public consultations, the first from 9 October 2009 to 8 January 2010 and the second from 9 February to 13 May 2011.

In both public consultations, all the ‘General principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission’ were met. The Commission has published the responses, and a summary of them.

In addition, since 2009 the Commission has held several meetings with stakeholders to hear their assessment of how the Clinical Trials Directive is working and to discuss the impact of potential policy options. A large stakeholder workshop was held on 31 March 2011 to clarify various points put forward in the concept paper submitted to public consultation.

The Commission conducted an impact assessment in accordance with its impact assessment guidelines and published the results in an impact assessment report.

3.

3. LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSAL


4.

3.1. Scope (Chapters 1 and 2 of the proposed Regulation)


The scope of the proposed Regulation is essentially identical to that of Directive 2001/20/EC. The scope is limited to clinical research on medicinal products, but it is very wide in that it only excludes clinical studies that do not involve an ‘intervention’ (e.g. surveys amongst medical practitioners without additional intervention or ‘data mining’). For ‘non-interventional studies’ which are post-authorisation safety studies initiated, managed or financed by the marketing authorisation holder voluntarily or pursuant to obligations imposed by the competent authority for marketing authorisations, the rules are set out in Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use.

5.

3.2 Authorisation procedure and Authorisation dossier (submission, assessment, decision; chapters 2, 3, 14 and 15 of the proposed Regulation)


The proposal introduces a new authorisation procedure for clinical trials based on the following concepts:

· A harmonised authorisation dossier, partly codifying the existing Commission guidance contained in EudraLex, Volume 10;

· A ‘single portal’ to submit an application for conducting a clinical trial linked to an EU database. This portal is managed by the European Commission and is free of charge for sponsors;

· A flexible and swift assessment procedure without establishing a new, central bureaucracy. This assessment is largely controlled by Member States. All Member States in which the sponsor intends to conduct the clinical trial are involved in the assessment;

· A clear mechanism to appoint a ‘reporting Member State’;

· Clear timelines with a concept of tacit approval in order to ensure compliance;

· A coordination and advisory forum to address issues which may arise in the authorisation procedure. This forum is managed and chaired by the Commission;

· A clear distinction between aspects where Member States cooperate in the assessment and aspects of an intrinsic ethical or national/local nature where the assessment is made by each Member State individually;

· The option, in certain well-defined cases, for a Member State to opt-out of the conclusions of an assessment of an application for conducting a clinical trial ('qualified opt-out');

· It is left to each Member State to define the organisational setup and internal competences for assessing clinical trial authorisations, provided that international guidelines on the independence of the assessors are observed;

· A swift procedure to ‘extend’ a clinical trial to additional Member States;

· Where a clinical trial is modified after it has been authorised, this modification is subject to authorisation if, and only if, the modification has a substantial impact on the safety or rights of the subjects or on the reliability and robustness of the data generated in the clinical trial.

A crucial element of the rules for authorisation of a clinical trial is the clear distinction between aspects where Member States shall cooperate in the assessment of the application for authorisation of a clinical trial (Article 6 of the proposed Regulation) and those aspects where Member States conduct their assessment individually (Article 7 of the proposed Regulation). The latter includes aspects which are of an intrinsically national (for example, liability), ethical (for example, informed consent), or local (for example suitability of the clinical trial site) nature.

However, this distinction is without any prejudice as to the body which, in a Member State, performs the assessment. The proposal does not interfere with the Member State's internal organisation of the bodies involved in authorising (or not) a clinical trial. It is left to Member States to define the organisational set-up to comply with the authorisation procedure of this Regulation.

As a consequence, the proposed Regulation does not, unlike Directive 2001/20/EC, establish which body or bodies within a Member State approves (or not) a clinical trial. The proposed Regulation does hence not regulate or harmonise the precise functioning of Ethics Committees, impose a systematic cooperation at an operational level between Ethics Committees in the EU, or limit the Ethics Committee's scope of the assessment to genuinely-ethical issue (science and ethics cannot be separated).

Rather, the proposal leaves it up to Member States to organise, internally, the attribution of tasks to different bodies. Indeed, what matters is that Member States ensure an independent, high-quality assessment within the timelines as set out in the legislation. Moreover, it is critical to ensure clarity as to what issues are addressed in cooperation between Member States, and the issues which are addressed individually by each Member States because of their intrinsically national, local or ethical character.

In pursuing this approach, however, the proposed Regulation maintains that any application of a clinical trial will have to be assessed jointly by a reasonable number of persons who are independent, who have collectively the necessary qualifications and experience in all relevant fields, including the view of lay persons. The proposal thus stays in tune with international guidance and ensures a thorough, independent, and high quality of the assessment of an application for a clinical trial throughout the EU, without trespassing on Member States' competencies to organise their internal decision-making on an application for authorisation of a clinical trial.

3.3. Interface with scientific advice

Independently of the regulation of clinical trials, regulators may be involved in the preparatory phase of a trial in the context of protocol assistance, the paediatric investigation plan, scientific advice[7], and post-authorisation safety/efficacy studies[8] (hereinafter referred to as scientific advice).

The proposed Regulation does not mix the aspect of scientific advice with that of a clinical trial authorisation for two reasons:

· The involvement of the regulator in the context of scientific advice is conceptually an entirely different matter than the authorisation of a clinical trial: while the former establishes which clinical data are desirable in order to possibly grant or uphold a marketing authorisation at a later stage, the latter establishes if a clinical trial is acceptable in view of patient rights and safety, as well as data reliability and robustness. Indeed, it is perfectly conceivable (and has occasionally happened in the past) that these two approaches come to conflicting results: while, from the point of view of a future successful marketing authorisation, it may be desirable to obtain certain clinical data on the basis of experiments on humans, those clinical trials may not be acceptable from the point of view of subject protection.

· Clinical trial legislation in the EU addresses clinical trials in the abstract, i.e. independently from whether the results are intended to be used in a future marketing authorisation application, or for any other purpose (e.g. improvement of treatment strategies, comparing treatment with different medicines, etc.). This difference is usually discussed under the pattern commercial vs. academic clinical trials. The latter form approximately 40% of clinical trials applied for in the EU. Therefore, the concept of mixing scientific advice and the clinical trials authorisation would not be workable for more than one third of all clinical trials. It is in particular these academic clinical trials, however, which the proposal wants to stimulate.

6.

3.4. Protection of subjects and informed consent (chapter 5 of the proposed Regulation)


In line with Article 3(2)a of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU any intervention in the field of medicine and biology can not be performed without free and informed consent of the person concerned. The EU law has to comply with this principle. The rules on the protection of subjects and on free and informed consent had been discussed extensively in the legislative process leading to Directive 2001/20/EC. The proposed Regulation does not, with the exception of the issue of clinical trials in emergency situations (see paragraph below), change the substance of these rules. However, in terms of drafting, for the sake of clarity some provisions are re-arranged and, where possible, shortened. For example, provisions related to the authorisation procedure have been moved to chapters 2 and 3 of the proposed Regulation, and provisions related to damage compensation have been moved to Chapter 12 of the proposed Regulation.

Regarding clinical trials in emergency situations, Directive 2001/20/EC does so far not address the specific situation where, because of the urgency of the situation, it is impossible to obtain free and informed consent from the subject or the legal representative (‘clinical trials in emergency situations’). To address this, specific provisions on clinical trials in emergency situations have been added in line with existing international guidance documents on this issue.

Moreover as regards the protection of personal data, provisions of Directive 95/46/EC[9] and Regulation (EC) No 45/2001[10] apply.

No personal data of data subjects participating in a trial will be collected in the EU database.

It is important that personal data of investigators, which may be collected in the EU database, are kept in accordance with the exception foreseen in Article 17 i (b) of the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation). In case of detection of cases of misconduct in a clinical trial it would be important, for example, to trace all the clinical trials in which the same investigators were involved, even several years after these clinical trials have ended.

7.

3.5. Safety reporting (Chapter 7 of the proposed Regulation)


The rules on safety reporting follow the principles of the applicable international guidance documents. Compared to Directive 2001/20/EC, the rules have been streamlined, simplified and modernised as follows:

· The option to exclude reporting by the investigator to the sponsor of adverse events, if this is provided for in the protocol;

· Direct reporting of suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions by the sponsor to the European database EudraVigilance;

· Simplified submission of the annual safety report by the sponsor. Moreover, the annual safety report is not submitted for authorised investigational medicinal products that are used within their authorised indication. For these products, the normal pharmacovigilance rules apply.

Details of the rules on safety reporting, which codify in parts existing Commission guidance[11] are contained in an annex to the proposed Regulation. This will facilitate updating the existing rules, by way of delegated acts, in view of technical progress or global regulatory alignment.

Regarding the European database EudraVigilance, this database exists already for the purposes of pharmacovigilance activities in accordance with Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and is maintained and managed by the European Medicines Agency. Directive 2001/20/EC had already referred to this database and to the European Medicines Agency's role in administering it. The proposed Regulation does not introduce any changes in this respect.

8.

3.6. Conduct of the trial (Chapter 8 of the proposed Regulation)


Directive 2001/20/EC contains relatively few rules on the actual conduct of trials. These rules are partly contained in Commission Directive 2005/28/EC of 8 April 2005 laying down principles and detailed guidelines for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal products for human use, as well as the requirements for authorisation of the manufacturing or importation of such products[12], and partly contained in Commission guidance documents. The proposed Regulation brings together these rules.

9.

3.7. Investigational and auxiliary medicinal products, manufacturing, labelling (Chapters 9 to 10 of the proposed Regulation)


Medicinal products intended for research and development trials are excluded from the scope of Directive 2001/83/EC, including the rules on manufacturing, importation and labelling. The rules are contained in Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2005/28/EC and in Commission guidelines.

The proposed Regulation brings together these rules. The new rules continue to build on the concept of ‘investigational medicinal product’. However, the proposed new rules reflect more clearly the fact that investigational medicinal products may be authorised, i.e. they have already been placed on the market in accordance with Directive 2001/83/EC.

Moreover, experience with the application of Directive 2001/20/EC shows the need for clarity on medicines used in the context of a clinical trial that are not investigational medicinal products. These ‘auxiliary medicinal products’ (so far referred to in implementing Commission guidelines as ‘non-investigational medicinal products’) will be subject to proportionate rules on manufacturing and labelling.

10.

3.8. Sponsors, co-sponsorship, EU contact person (Chapter 11 of the proposed Regulation)


Every clinical trial must have a ‘sponsor’, i.e. a legal or natural person responsible for initiating and managing the clinical trial.

This ‘responsibility’ must not be confused with issues of ‘liability’ for harm of a patient. The rules on liability depend on the applicable national liability laws and are independent from the responsibility of a sponsor.

Regarding ‘responsibility’, it is clearly preferable to have only one sponsor per clinical trial. A ‘single sponsor’ is the best means to ensure that all information regarding the entire clinical trial are provided to the bodies supervising the clinical trial and all necessary measures are taken.

However, clinical trials are increasingly initiated by loose networks of scientists or scientific institutions within one Member State or across several Member States. These networks have in some cases, for practical or legal reasons, difficulties in establishing who amongst them would act as ‘single sponsor’. These networks may also have practical or legal difficulties in forming, jointly, one legal entity to act as ‘single sponsor’.

To address this difficulty, while ensuring that the effective supervision of a clinical trial is not compromised, the proposed Regulation introduces the concept of ‘co-sponsorship’. At the outset, all co-sponsors are responsible for the entire clinical trial. However, the proposed Regulation allows co-sponsors to ‘split’ the responsibility for the clinical trials amongst themselves. Even if co-sponsors split responsibilities, however, all co‑sponsors remain responsible for establishing a sponsor who can take measures requested by a Member State, and who can give information on the clinical trial as a whole.

The sponsor’s obligations are independent from where the sponsor is established — whether in the EU or in a third country. However, if the sponsor is established in a third country, in order to ensure an effective supervision of a clinical trial, an EU contact person must be provided. Communication with that contact person is considered as communication with the sponsor.

11.

3.9. Compensation for damages (Chapter 12 of the proposed Regulation)


Directive 2001/20/EC introduced an obligatory insurance/indemnity. This obligatory insurance/indemnity has substantially increased the costs and administrative burden of conducting clinical trials, but there is no evidence that the number of damages, or the amount, has increased with the entry into force of the Directive.

The proposed Regulation acknowledges that clinical trials do not in all cases pose an additional risk to subjects compared to treatment in normal clinical practice. Consequently, where there is no additional risk, or where that additional risk is negligible, it is not necessary to provide a specific damage compensation (be it an insurance or an indemnification) for the clinical trial. In these cases, the insurance coverage of the medical practitioner, the institution, or product liability insurance provides sufficient coverage.

In cases where a clinical trial does pose an additional risk, the proposed Regulation obliges the sponsor to ensure compensation – be it through insurance, or through an indemnification mechanism. Regarding the latter, the proposed Regulation puts Member States under an obligation to set up a national indemnification mechanism which works on a not-for-profit basis. This shall help in particular non-commercial sponsors to obtain coverage for possible compensations. These non-commercial sponsors have had, since the introduction of the obligatory insurance/indemnity with Directive 2001/20/EC, great difficulties to obtain compensation coverage.

12.

3.10. Inspections (Chapter 13 of the proposed Regulation)


The provisions on inspections are largely based on Directive 2001/20/EC. Regarding inspection capacity, the proposed Regulation provides the legal basis for Commission staff to perform controls in Member States and in third countries in the context of the EU acquis for medicinal products for human use and clinical trials.

13.

3.11. Repeals and Entry into force (Chapter 19 of the proposed Regulation)


The proposed Regulation addresses the aspects regulated in Directive 2001/20/EC. That Directive is therefore repealed.

In order to allow for a smooth transition from the rules of the (transposed) Directive 2001/20/EC to this Regulation, both sets of rules will apply in parallel for three years after the date of application of this Regulation. This will facilitate the transition, in particular for aspects of the authorisation procedure.

14.

3.12 Simplification of substantial rules for clinical trials with authorised medicinal products and low-intervention clinical trials


The regulation of clinical trials addresses two distinct risks: the risk to subject safety and the risk to data reliability. The former can vary widely, depending on a range of factors, in particular:

· The extent of knowledge and prior experience with the investigational medicinal product (in particular, whether or not the investigational medicinal product is authorised in the EU); and

· The type of intervention (which can range from a simple blood sample to a sophisticated biopsy).

The Directive 2001/20/EC is being heavily criticised for not taking sufficiently into account these differences in risk. Instead, the obligations and restrictions laid down in the Directive 2001/20/EC apply largely irrespectively of the risk to subject safety.

This aspect is discussed extensively in the impact assessment report. On the basis of this impact assessment, throughout the proposed Regulation aspects of risk-proportionality have been carefully taken into account.

15.

3.13. Legal form of a Regulation


The proposed legal text takes the form of a Regulation and replaces the Directive 2001/20/EC.

The legal form of a Regulation ensures a coherent procedure for submission of applications for authorisations of clinical trials and their substantial modifications.

Indeed, experience shows the difficulties that are created if Member States, in their cooperation, base their work on similar, but different transposing national laws. Only the legal form of a Regulation ensures that the Member States base their assessment of an application for authorisation of a clinical trial on an identical text, rather than on diverging national transposition measures.

The above holds not only for the entire authorisation process, but also for all other issues addressed in this Regulation, such as safety reporting during clinical trials, and the requirements for labelling of the medicinal products used in the context of a clinical trial.

Moreover, experience has shown that Member States misused the transposition process in order to introduce additional procedural requirements.

Finally, the legal form of a Regulation has an important simplification effect. The replacing of transposition measures at national level allows the relevant actors to plan and conduct the clinical trial, including multi-national clinical trials, on the basis of one regulatory framework, rather than on the basis of a patchwork of 27 national frameworks in the transposing Member States laws.

Despite the legal form of a Regulation, however, there remain areas where the regulatory framework at EU level will be complemented by national laws: Examples are the rules on establishing who is a legal representative of the subject, as well as the substantial rules of liability in the case of damages.

16.

3.14. Competences, Double legal basis and subsidiarity


The proposed Regulation is, like Directive 2001/20/EC, based on Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). In addition, the proposed Regulation is based on Article 168(4)(c) TFEU.

The proposed Regulation is based on Article 114 TFEU as it aims to harmonise the regulatory framework for clinical trials. In addition, the proposed Regulation aims to contributing to the harmonisation of the rules for pharmaceutical products placed on the market, including authorisation of their placing on the market. Finally, the proposed Regulation aims to harmonise the rules for medicines used in the context of a clinical trial, thus allowing for their free movement within the Union.

Regarding the harmonisation of the rules on clinical trials, practically every larger clinical trial is conducted in more than one Member State. Moreover, the results generated in a clinical trial may be used as basis for other clinical trials. In this respect, it is critical to ensure that the rules for patient rights and safety and data reliability and robustness are harmonised in order for them to be recognised throughout the Union.

Regarding the harmonisation of the rules for medicinal products in general, harmonised rules on clinical trials open up the possibility of referring to the results and findings of clinical trials in applications for an authorisation for placing a medicinal product on the Union market, including subsequent variations and extensions of the marketing authorisation.

Regarding the harmonisation of rules for medicinal products used in the context of a clinical trial, it has to be recalled that medicinal products intended for research and development trials are excluded from the Community Code for medicinal products for human use. Such medicinal products, however, may be produced in a different Member State from that where the clinical trial is conducted. Thus, these products do not benefit from secondary Union law ensuring their free movement while maintaining a high level of protection of human health.

In addition, the proposed Regulation is based on Article 168(4)(c) TFEU as it aims at setting high standards of quality and safety for medicinal products. According to Articles 168 and 4(2)(k) TFEU this Union competence is – like Article 114 TFEU ‑ a shared competence which is exercised with the adoption of the proposed Regulation.

The proposed Regulation aims at setting high standards of quality and safety for medicinal products in two respects:

· It ensures that data generated in clinical trials is reliable and robust, thus ensuring that treatments and medicines which are supposed to be safer for the patient build on reliable and robust clinical data. Only if the data on which these decisions are taken is reliable and robust, regulators, scientists, industry and the public can take the right decisions to ensure a high standard of quality and safety of medicinal products. The provisions ensuring this relate in particular to the authorisation procedure, to the rules on the conduct of the clinical trial, including the rules on monitoring and supervision by Member States.

· It aims at setting high standards to ensure the quality and safety of medicines administered to subjects in the context of a clinical trial (while acknowledging that this assurance is only possible within the limitations of the absence of knowledge, which characterises a clinical trial): This is ensured inter alia through the authorisation procedure set up with the proposed Regulation, as well as the rules on manufacturing of medicinal products used in the context of a clinical trials, safety reporting, and inspections.

Article 168(4)(c) TFEU cannot serve as sole legal basis, but needs to be complemented with the legal basis of Article 114 TFEU for the following reasons:

· As set out above, the proposed Regulation pursues equally as object the establishment and functioning of the internal market, and the setting of high standards of quality and safety for medicinal products;

· The proposed Regulation pursues the setting of high standards as regards quality and safety, but also as regards efficacy of medicinal products for human use: It ensures, just as regards the aspect of safety, that subjects participating in a clinical trial may receive an efficacious medicine/treatment. It also aims to ensure that the data generated in a clinical trial is reliable and robust not only regarding aspects of quality and safety, but also aspects of efficacy of the medicinal product. This aspect of efficacy, however, is not explicitly addressed in Article 168(4)(c) TFEU. Rather, this aspect of public health is addressed through Article 114 i TFEU (high level of health protection).

Situations like this were dealt with unsatisfactorily until Directive 2001/20/EC came into force. Laws, regulations and administrative acts differed from one Member State to another. These differences forced marketing authorisation holders to adapt their applications for authorisation to place their medicinal product on the market. They also hindered distribution of these products. This had a direct effect on the completion and operation of the internal market.

EU legislation on clinical trials attempts to meet this need. It lays down, at Union level, the rules of procedure to be complied with on aspects such as authorisation and performance of clinical trials, safety reporting, manufacturing and labelling of medicinal products used in a clinical trial.

In regulating clinical trials, the Union exercises its shared competence in accordance with Article 4 of the TFEU.

Any changes made to these rules by Member States would conflict with the requirements of the Treaty, as only the Union can amend them.

Having said this, for regulating clinical trials, the Treaty sets limits as regards harmonisation of ethical aspects of authorisation and regulation of clinical trials. Ethical aspects relate, in particular, to the need to obtain ‘informed consent’ from the subject or the legal representative. Irrespective of the risk that a clinical trial may pose to a patient, the mere fact that the treatment is part of an experiment renders it necessary — from an ethical viewpoint — to obtain the informed consent of the subject. Hence, the assessment of aspects related to ‘informed consent’ does not form part of the cooperation amongst Member States, but is assessed by each Member State individually.

There are also several aspects of an intrinsically national nature, in particular:

· Rules for establishing who is a ‘legal representative’ of a subject who cannot give informed consent (for example, because the subject is a child): these rules differ widely across the EU, depending on national tradition and practices;

· Rules on the extent of and prerequisites for liability for damages suffered by a subject: these rules are deeply rooted in national civil law on medical liability. This applies not only to the degree of negligence (e.g. no-fault or objective liability) but also to the rules on the burden of proof and on calculating the extent of damage.

Consequently, while regulation of clinical trials and, in particular, revision of Directive 2001/20/EC, is compatible with the principle of subsidiarity, there are limits set by the Treaties which have to be considered.

2.

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION



The budgetary implications of this proposal are as follows:

· Costs for databases (one-off costs and maintenance);

· Commission staff to manage the functioning of the Regulation;

· Costs for meetings of Member States to ensure that the authorisation procedure set out in this Regulation functions properly;

· Commission staff and other costs to conduct Union controls and Union inspections.

Details of the costs are set out in the legislative financial statement. A thorough discussion on the costs is contained in the impact assessment report.

The costs will be covered with the envelope of the Health for Growth Programme 2014-2020.