However, European Commission trade negotiators recently rejected mutual recognition of the compliance assessment by UK testing laboratories. The Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) between the FDA and the European Union allows drug inspectors to rely on information from anti-drug inspections carried out within the other country`s borders. Under the Drug Safety and Safety Act passed in 2012, the FDA has the authority to enter into agreements on the recognition of drug inspections by foreign regulators when the FDA has found that these authorities are able to conduct inspections in accordance with U.S. requirements. The FDA and the EU have been cooperating since May 2014 to assess how they control drug manufacturers and assess the risk and benefits of mutual recognition of inspections. The European Union (EU) has signed Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRA) with third-country authorities on the assessment of compliance of regulated products. These agreements contain a sectoral annex on mutual recognition of good manufacturing practice inspections (GMPs) and certification of batches of medicines for human and veterinary use. The transitional phase for drugs for human use, the text of the Protocol on Mutual Recognition of the Results of the Compliance Assessment is part of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, one side and the European Union and its Member States, for example, in the European Commission`s recent free trade agreements with Canada and Korea, which provide for the conclusion of a compliance assessment MRA without inviting their partners to adapt their regulatory requirements to the EU. Restrictions: Capacity determination applies to routine inspections. In the future, the following types of products and inspections may be included in the scope of the agreement, pending further considerations: a traditional MRA is a mutual recognition agreement of the “compliance assessment”.
What kind of mutual recognition agreements has the EU concluded? If the EU refuses to negotiate a similar system of mutual recognition with the UK, this may violate the most favoured nation obligation (MPF) under WTO law. The MFN is a non-discrimination rule that requires that any benefit granted to products originating in one country be granted to similar products originating in other countries. It is essential that “traditional” MRA does not require states to harmonize the rules (i.e. establishing technical standards and common rules) and do not require parties to one MRA to recognize each other`s requirements as equivalent – MRA is limited to the recognition of the partner`s CAB`s responsibility for assessing compliance. By granting mutual recognition of products covered by free trade agreements with Canada and Korea, but which refuse to give the same treatment to products originating in the United Kingdom, the EU could violate WTO legislation. The UK document reaffirms the importance of regulatory autonomy – “respect for the regulatory law of each party” – but also follows earlier considerations by proposing that the agreement “creates a framework for both parties to require the other to consider its technical regulation as equivalent to its own regulation.” NIST acts as the U.S. Designating Authority for MRAs. NIST is responsible for the designation of qualified U.S. CABs to our various MRA partners. NIST receives, reviews and processes CAB applications that are recognized by our MRA partners. The regulatory authorities of MRA partners formally recognise CABs for their specific technical rules/standards and/or certification requirements.