Another 4 weeks…
- Thread starter Mottie
- Start date
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 14,271
- Reaction score
- 2,079
- Country
Yup. I've already show you the law, why do you continue to lie about things like this?
Nope...
But hey what does a brexiteer know?
regulation 174 of the Human Medicine Regulations 2012
Regulations also transpose the latest European Directive 2010/84/EU
No it hasn't
And pro jabbers are the ones clutching at straws, but should there be any fall out they will be the ones squealing the loudest!
Sponsored Links
Clearly someone doesn't understand the scope of the 'emergency laws' we are currently living under...
There is very limited liability
Ignorance is obviously bliss in your case
Edit: Just to remind you...
Announced December 2020
"The UK government announced Thursday that it had granted Pfizer legal indemnity protecting the American pharmaceutical company from civil lawsuits due to any unforeseen complications arising from problems with its COVID-19 vaccine. The special legal indemnity was the result of an emergency government consultation in September, when the UK Department of Health & Social Care determined that changes to civil liability were necessary to better facilitate the widespread use of a COVID-19 vaccine in Britain."
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 14,271
- Reaction score
- 2,079
- Country
Clearly. The law in question is the Human Medicine Regulations 2012, not an emergency law at all.
Article 5(3) of Directive 2001/83 requires that Member States lay down provisions so that marketing authorisation holders, manufacturers and health professionals are not subject to civil or administrative liability for any consequences resulting from the use of an unauthorised medicinal product, or from the use of a product otherwise than in accordance with its authorisation, when such use is by the licensing authority in response to (among other things) the spread of pathogens. This requirement is implemented into UK law by regulation 345.
What regulation 345 does, therefore, is transpose into UK law a requirement of EU law that key actors in the medicines supply chain cannot generally be sued in the civil courts for the consequences resulting from the use of an unlicensed product, or a new use of a licensed product, that a national licensing authority is recommending in order to deal with certain specific health threats.
What regulation 345 does, therefore, is transpose into UK law a requirement of EU law that key actors in the medicines supply chain cannot generally be sued in the civil courts for the consequences resulting from the use of an unlicensed product, or a new use of a licensed product, that a national licensing authority is recommending in order to deal with certain specific health threats.
No longer applicable given the coronovirus act 2020
"The principle of providing immunity from civil liability derives from the Directive. Some of the critical detail, however, is left to individual EU States and countries outside the EU that are implementing this provision."
Thus it is not a 'blanket' rule, it is up to individual nations...
Otherwise how did the UK manage to pass it's covid law before it officially left the EU?
It quite clearly states that it's a requirement of EU law.
The UK has always been able to pass its own laws outside of the EU framework
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 14,271
- Reaction score
- 2,079
- Country
Nonsense. Could you refer me to the part which revokes the Human Medicine Regulations 2012?
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 14,271
- Reaction score
- 2,079
- Country
"Regulation 345 does not provide complete immunity from civil liability. As Directive 2001/83 requires, regulation 345(4) preserves the application of section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA). This means that if a product does not meet the standards set by the Part 1 of the CPA, manufacturers and marketing authorisation holders are not protected from legal action. A product is defective, for the purposes of the CPA, “…if the safety of the product is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect…”, taking all the circumstances into account."
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 14,271
- Reaction score
- 2,079
- Country
The law itself, section 4 is the relevant bit;
Immunity from civil liability
345.—(1) This regulation applies where the licensing authority makes a recommendation or requirement to which paragraph (2) applies in response to the suspected or confirmed spread of—
(a)pathogenic agents;
(b)toxins;
(c)chemical agents; or
(d)nuclear radiation,
which may cause harm to human beings.
(2) This paragraph applies to a recommendation or requirement—
(a)for the use of a medicinal product without an authorisation; or
(b)for the use of a medicinal product with an authorisation, but for a therapeutic indication that is not permitted under the authorisation.
(3) None of the following are to be subject to any civil liability for any loss or damage resulting from the use of the product in accordance with the recommendation or requirement—
(a)any holder of an authorisation for the product;
(b)any manufacturer of the product;
(c)any officer, servant, employee or agent of a person within paragraph (a) or (b); or
(d)any health care professional.
(4) This regulation does not apply in relation to liability under section 2 (liability for defective products) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987(1) or article 5 of the Consumer Protection (Northern Ireland) Order 1987(2).
Immunity from civil liability
345.—(1) This regulation applies where the licensing authority makes a recommendation or requirement to which paragraph (2) applies in response to the suspected or confirmed spread of—
(a)pathogenic agents;
(b)toxins;
(c)chemical agents; or
(d)nuclear radiation,
which may cause harm to human beings.
(2) This paragraph applies to a recommendation or requirement—
(a)for the use of a medicinal product without an authorisation; or
(b)for the use of a medicinal product with an authorisation, but for a therapeutic indication that is not permitted under the authorisation.
(3) None of the following are to be subject to any civil liability for any loss or damage resulting from the use of the product in accordance with the recommendation or requirement—
(a)any holder of an authorisation for the product;
(b)any manufacturer of the product;
(c)any officer, servant, employee or agent of a person within paragraph (a) or (b); or
(d)any health care professional.
(4) This regulation does not apply in relation to liability under section 2 (liability for defective products) of the Consumer Protection Act 1987(1) or article 5 of the Consumer Protection (Northern Ireland) Order 1987(2).
Additionally AZ have some protection from civil claims in the EU as well, so your central point is demonstrably false as well
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,395
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
Is this the liability that Johnny2007 claimed EU citizens had to sign a disclaimer before receiving the vaccine?
Is it possible to sign a disclaimer from a law?
Is it possible to sign a disclaimer from a law?
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 13,043
- Reaction score
- 3,000
- Country
When did the government ever hit it's target for house building?
Is that just in the UK or globally ? If all these scientists are working on the same virus, why so many different vaccines ?
Sponsored Links
