Impact of Brexit on Danish Biotech Law

1. Introduction

Brexit refers to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU), formally completed on 31 January 2020, followed by the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020. Brexit significantly changed the regulatory relationship between the UK and EU Member States, including Denmark, in biotechnology, pharmaceutical research, clinical trials, genetic therapies, and the commercialisation of biological medicinal products.

Denmark remains an EU Member State and continues to apply applicable EU biotechnology and pharmaceutical legislation. Consequently, Brexit did not directly repeal Danish biotechnology laws. Instead, it changed how Danish biotech companies, research institutions, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and clinical-trial sponsors interact with British organisations.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) confirms that EU pharmaceutical law ceased to apply generally to Great Britain from 1 January 2021, subject to specific arrangements for Northern Ireland. The EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement nevertheless provides for recognition of certain Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) inspection outcomes.

European Medicines Agency (EMA)

+1

2. Legal Framework Governing Danish Biotechnology

Danish biotechnology law operates through national legislation and directly applicable EU regulations, alongside relevant EU directives implemented into Danish law. Important instruments include:

Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004: Establishes the centralised EU authorisation and supervision system for certain medicinal products.

Directive 2001/83/EC: Provides the principal EU framework for medicinal products for human use.

Regulation (EC) No. 1394/2007: Governs advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), including gene therapies, somatic cell therapies, and tissue-engineered products.

Regulation (EU) No. 536/2014: Establishes the EU framework for clinical trials involving medicinal products for human use.

Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR): Governs the processing of personal data, including genetic and health information.

Danish national legislation: Regulates clinical-trial supervision, research ethics, biological research, and the administration of medicinal products within Denmark.

The Danish Medicines Agency supervises medicinal products and clinical trials within its jurisdiction, working alongside research ethics committees and European regulatory bodies. Denmark continues to participate in EU regulatory cooperation and the harmonisation of clinical-trial assessment.

Lægemiddelstyrelsen

+2

3. Impact on Clinical Trials and Biotech Research

One of the most significant consequences of Brexit concerns multinational clinical trials involving Danish and British research institutions.

Under Regulation (EU) No. 536/2014, clinical-trial applications in participating EU countries are coordinated through the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS). Since the regulation became applicable on 31 January 2022, sponsors have been able to submit a single application for multinational trials across participating Member States. The UK, however, is not an EU Member State and does not participate in this system as an EU Member State.

European Medicines Agency (EMA)

+1

The practical consequences include:

Separate regulatory requirements: A trial conducted in both Denmark and Great Britain may require distinct regulatory submissions and approvals.

Sponsorship and representation: Certain sponsors based outside the EU must appoint an EU-based legal representative, depending on the applicable rules.

Investigational medicinal products: Products manufactured in Great Britain and imported into Denmark may require an EU-based importer and qualified-person certification or release, as applicable.

Administrative costs: Danish biotech companies collaborating with British institutions may incur additional costs for regulatory documentation, quality assurance, and supply-chain management.

These changes can affect the speed, cost, and administrative complexity of developing innovative biological medicines.

4. Impact on Pharmaceutical Authorisation and Market Access

Before Brexit, the UK participated in the EU medicines regulatory system. Following the transition period, Great Britain became a third country for the general application of EU pharmaceutical legislation.

Danish biotech companies seeking to commercialise biological medicines in both markets must therefore consider separate regulatory requirements.

An authorisation obtained through the EU system does not automatically confer authorisation in Great Britain. Likewise, a UK authorisation does not automatically permit a medicine to be marketed in Denmark.

Nevertheless, the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement provides a mechanism for recognising GMP inspection outcomes. This facilitates cooperation and reduces unnecessary duplication, although it does not create complete mutual recognition of marketing authorisations.

European Medicines Agency (EMA)

+1

For Danish developers of gene therapies, cell-based medicines, vaccines, and other biologics, the distinction is especially important because manufacturing processes, product quality, sterility, and traceability are central to regulatory approval.

5. Impact on Biotechnology Patents and Intellectual Property

Brexit also changed the institutional relationship between the UK and the EU concerning intellectual property. However, it did not eliminate European patent protection or fundamentally remove Denmark from the European biotechnology patent framework.

The European Patent Convention is separate from EU membership. Accordingly, Brexit did not, by itself, prevent Danish applicants from seeking European patents covering the UK and Denmark, subject to the applicable territorial and procedural requirements.

The substantive patentability of biotechnology inventions remains subject to relevant patent law, including restrictions involving human embryos, human cloning, and certain genetic modifications.

Important Case Law

Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace e.V. (Case C-34/10, 2011)

The Court of Justice of the European Union interpreted Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. It held that inventions requiring the prior destruction of human embryos or their use as base material are excluded from patentability under the provision.

The judgment illustrates that biotechnology patents must respect EU rules on human dignity and ethical limitations. For Denmark, the case remains important when assessing inventions involving embryonic stem cells. Brexit did not remove the judgment's relevance within the EU legal framework.

EUR-Lex

+1

6. Impact on Genetic Data and Research Collaboration

Biotechnology research often involves genetic information, biological samples, genomic sequencing, and health data. Brexit introduced additional legal considerations where such information is transferred between Denmark and the UK.

Denmark remains subject to the GDPR, including its enhanced protection for genetic and health data. Transfers of personal data to the UK must comply with the applicable international-transfer framework, including any relevant adequacy decision or alternative safeguards.

This is particularly relevant to Danish universities, genomic research centres, pharmaceutical companies, and clinical-trial sponsors sharing patient data with British partners.

Brexit did not automatically prohibit Danish–British genetic research. Rather, it made compliance with data-transfer rules and research governance more important.

7. Additional Relevant Case Law

Netherlands v European Parliament and Council (Case C-377/98, 2001)

The Court of Justice upheld the validity of the EU Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions against the principal challenge brought by the Netherlands. The case addressed the EU's competence to harmonise biotechnology patent law and the relationship between innovation, ethical safeguards, and fundamental rights.

Its significance for Denmark is that common EU biotechnology patent rules support regulatory consistency across Member States. Brexit did not displace these rules in Denmark.

Federal Republic of Germany v European Parliament and Council (Case C-376/98, 2000)

Although this case concerned tobacco advertising rather than biotechnology, it established an important principle regarding the limits of EU harmonisation: internal-market legislation must have a proper legal basis and cannot simply rely on market integration without satisfying the relevant treaty requirements.

This principle is relevant when considering the legal foundations of EU-wide biotechnology regulation, although the judgment does not directly determine the consequences of Brexit for Danish biotech law.

8. Conclusion

Brexit has primarily affected Danish biotechnology law through changes in regulatory cooperation, clinical-trial administration, pharmaceutical market access, intellectual property strategy, and cross-border research data transfers. It has not fundamentally changed Denmark's status as an EU Member State or displaced the EU legal framework governing Danish biotechnology.

Danish biotech companies must continue to comply with applicable EU and Danish requirements while addressing separate UK regulatory obligations when conducting business or research in Great Britain. The continuing cooperation provided by the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement helps maintain certain regulatory connections, particularly for GMP inspections.

Ultimately, Brexit demonstrates that biotechnology operates within interconnected legal systems. Danish biotechnology law continues to be shaped by EU harmonisation, national implementation, judicial interpretation, and international regulatory cooperation.