Facts

Parties:

  • [A. AG] and [B. AG] as appellants, represented by Dr. Felix Kesselring and/or Kathrin Lanz
  • Swissmedic, Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products, as respondent

Facts:

  • [A. AG] and [B. AG] are joint-stock companies based in [U.] (Canton of Aargau), which manufacture and distribute chemical-pharmaceutical and pharmaceutical products.
  • Both companies hold operating permits from Swissmedic with [C.] as the technically responsible person.
  • On March 15, 2017, the public prosecutor's office in Baden conducted a house search at the former operating sites, during which deficiencies in the storage of chemicals and medicines were identified.
  • [C.] was convicted of negligence and violation of the Narcotics Act.
  • Swissmedic suspended the operating permits and marketing authorizations of [A. AG] and [B. AG] due to the lack of trustworthiness of [C.] .
  • The appellants filed an appeal against the suspensions with the Federal Administrative Court and subsequently with the Federal Supreme Court.

Considerations

The appellants argue that Art. 39 para. 3 MPLO is contrary to international law, the constitution, and statutes, and that the suspension of the permits and marketing authorizations is disproportionate. They also contest that the prerequisites for suspension are not met and that the previous instance incorrectly applied Art. 39 para. 3 MPLO.

The Federal Supreme Court first examines whether Art. 39 para. 3 MPLO constitutes a statutory or executive ordinance provision. It concludes that it is an executive ordinance provision that does not require a statutory delegation norm. Art. 39 para. 3 MPLO is therefore not contrary to statutes.

Subsequently, the Federal Supreme Court examines whether the suspension of the permits and authorizations is…