Betäubungsmittelgesetz - BtMG (Deutschland) (German Edition)
Here you can find out what to bear in mind if you are in the possession of medicines when travelling. Entering Germany. When entering Germany travellers may bring with them medicinal products in quantities that meet usual personal needs. Neither is the authorisation or registration of the medicinal products in Germany of any relevance.
In this connection you should be aware that products that are freely traded in your own country such as food supplements, vitamin preparations, or purely vegetable natural medicines, may be treated as medicinal products in Germany, and therefore fall within the scope of the Medicinal Products Act, particularly where they are presented as agents for the treatment of illnesses. The provisions of the medicinal products legislation of the country in which such preparation is being offered or sold are not of relevance here.
Medicinal products that are prohibited to travellers.
They include. Other regulations that must be observed. In addition, preparations containing certain vegetable or animal substances may also be subject to the provisions on the protection of species. Medicinal products that fall under the Narcotic Drugs Act. Legal basis. What are narcotics? Medicines containing narcotics carried as travel necessities. Special provisions that apply to medicinal products such as morphine that fall under the Narcotic Drugs Act must be observed; they must therefore be specifically prescribed by the attending doctor.
Travellers may take with them appropriate quantities of narcotics that have been prescribed in this way by their doctors for their own use during the period of their travel to Germany.
In this exceptional case, the treatment of the seriously ill claimant with home-grown cannabis is in the public interest because, according to the binding findings of the court of appeal, the ingestion of cannabis leads to a considerable relief of his symptoms, and there is currently no equally effective and affordable drug available to him. The purchase of so-called medicinal cannabis from a pharmacy which also requires a permit is unsuitable as an alternative treatment for cost reasons.
- BtmG | German to English |.
- Betäubungsmittelgesetz - Wikipedia!
- Machine Translation of "Law Of The Circulation Of Narcotic Drugs" (Germany).
- Librarian in Bondage: She paid her fine for overdue lust! (Caught in the Act Book 6)?
- Right Where You Need Me.
His health insurance has repeatedly refused to pay the costs. He is not able to finance the costs from his incapacity pension.
Cannabinoids in the Treatment of Parkinson’s Disease
Under the given circumstances the claimant cannot reasonably be expected to initiate new legal proceedings against his health insurance company for assumption of costs before the social court. According to the binding factual findings of the Higher Administrative Court the security and control of the narcotics traffic is sufficiently guaranteed. The safeguards installed by the claimant in his apartment provide sufficient protection against unauthorized removal of the narcotics.
There is also no indication of any improper use by him. Furthermore, as a result of years of self-therapy the claimant now has extensive experience in terms of the efficacy and dosage of the cannabis variety he grows.
Self-cultivation of cannabis for therapeutic purposes permissible by way of exception
Moreover, both the cultivation and the therapy are under medical supervision. Permission may also not be withheld under the international Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of The authority of the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices to grant the permit with incidental provisions remains unaffected. Please note that the official language of proceedings brought before the Federal Administrative Court of Germany, including its rulings, is German.
This translation is based on an edited version of the original ruling.
ihosaxupoxyd.tk dictionary :: Betäubungsmittel BtM :: German-English translation
Please note that only the German version is authoritative. Page numbers in citations have been retained from the original and may not match the pagination in the English version of the cited text. If no compelling grounds for refusal according to section 5 of the Narcotic Drugs Act exist in such a case, it is legally mandatory to make use of the discretion provided under section 3 2 of the Narcotic Drugs Act by granting permission on the grounds of the protection of physical integrity required by article 2 2 first sentence of the Basic Law.
The parties dispute whether the claimant can or must be granted a licence allowing him the self-cultivation of cannabis to be used in the treatment of his multiple sclerosis disease.
The 52 year old claimant has been suffering from severe multiple sclerosis since Because of his disease, he has been in early retirement since He receives a monthly incapacity pension of approximately EUR He has been treating the symptoms of his disease by regular use of self-cultivated cannabis since His complaint before the social courts against his health insurance to provide him with a THC containing drug as aid in kind, or alternatively to assume the costs, had remained unsuccessful.
In December the application was rejected by the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices citing compelling grounds for refusal according to section 5 1 BtmG. The Federal Institute argued that self-cultivation of cannabis was not necessary for the medical care of the claimant since there was a therapeutic alternative on the basis of standardised cannabis extracts.
Furthermore, the permission would contravene the purpose of the Narcotic Drugs Act aimed at precluding drug addiction as far as possible. According to the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, the security of the trade in narcotic drugs was not guaranteed since the cultivation by an individual could not ensure consistent quality of the cannabis.
- How do we use this information??
- Rebel With A Cause.
- The Perfect Diet.
Furthermore, the claimant had neither proved that he had suitable rooms and safeguards in place for the cultivation, drying and storage of cannabis nor did he possess the required expertise. The Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices rejected the objection Widerspruch lodged by the claimant, adding that the granting of a permit would also contravene the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Even assuming that no compelling grounds for refusal existed and that the granting of permission was therefore at the discretion of the authorities, the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices said that such a permission was no option because an alternative therapy with cannabis-containing drugs was available to the claimant.
The aim of the action by the claimant was to oblige the defendant to allow him the cultivation of cannabis in his apartment and to use it for his treatment. The Higher Administrative Court rejected the appeal on points of fact and law Berufung lodged by the defendant as well as the cross-appeal filed by the claimant. The Higher Administrative Court had found without violation of federal law section 1 no.
Furthermore, the Higher Administrative Court had rightly found that the permission may not be withheld according to section 5 2 BtMG in conjunction with the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs because of the lack of a cannabis agency 3. The contested judgment does however violate federal law insofar as it obliges the defendant only to issue a new decision on the application for a permit. Since discretion was reduced to only one possible sound decision Ermessensreduzierung auf Null the claimant is entitled to a permit 4. This means that the appeal must be fully upheld and the rulings of the previous instances must be amended section 3 first sentence no.
According to this section, the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices may issue a permit for the cultivation of the narcotics specified in annex I of the Act only in exceptional circumstances for scientific or other purposes in the public interest. Cannabis marihuana, plants and plant parts belonging to the cannabis family is not part of the marketable narcotics listed in annex I to section 1 1 BtMG. The granting of the cultivation permit applied for is in the public interest within the meaning of section 3 2 BtMG.
The required public interest exists provided the illness can be cured or, at least, alleviated by the treatment with the narcotic and there are no equally effective therapeutic alternatives available to the person concerned Federal Administrative Court BVerwG, Bundesverwaltungsgericht , judgment of 19 May - 3 C These preconditions that apply both to the permit for self-cultivation of cannabis and the permission for its purchase cf.
BVerwG, judgment of 19 May , see above, p. According to the binding findings of the courts below regarding the facts of the case section 2 VwGO the use of cannabis results in a major improvement of his subjective well-being This substantiates the existence of a therapeutic benefit that justifies the assumption of a public interest in the use of cannabis for medical purposes BVerwG, judgment of 19 May - 3 C In case an exceptional permit is granted under section 3 2 BtMG it is possible in individual cases to import medicinal cannabis to Germany and sell it to patients in pharmacies.
According to the findings of the court of appeal, the purchase of medicinal cannabis from a pharmacy in the required dose of approximately g of "cannabis flos Bedrocan" would cause the claimant monthly costs of at least EUR , if not EUR 1, Given a monthly incapacity pension of approximately EUR he is unable to bear these costs. By contrast, his monthly expenses for self-cultivation of cannabis are limited to approximately EUR The latter has repeatedly refused to pay the costs for his supply with medicinal cannabis In case such a rejection is based on a potentially false legal opinion, the party concerned can be principally expected to initiate legal proceedings before the social courts.
But the Higher Administrative Court found without error of law that the claimant cannot reasonably be expected under the given circumstances to initiate new legal proceedings before the social courts. According to the established jurisprudence of the social courts, entitlement to benefits in kind under section 27 1 first sentence in conjunction with second sentence no.
The present case does also not constitute an exceptional case where the health insurance would be obliged to cover the costs despite the absence of a guideline recommendation. The preconditions of a so-called rarity case Seltenheitsfall of a disease are not fulfilled. According to this provision, insured persons suffering from a life-threatening or regularly lethal or comparable disease, for which no generally accepted standard-of-care service is available, are entitled to a service deviating from section 2 1 third sentence SGB V provided there is a more than remote prospect of cure or of a perceptible positive impact on the progression of the disease.
The precondition for an entitlement to benefits is the existence of a life-threatening or regularly lethal or comparable disease in an emergency-like situation. This may be the case if the concrete circumstances in an individual case make it likely that the progression of the disease will lead to a lethal outcome or the loss of an important sensory organ which cannot be compensated or a prominent bodily function within a short and foreseeable period explanatory memorandum for the GKV-VSG, Bundestag printed paper BT-Drs.
But these considerations constituted only a preliminary evaluation in the framework of an impact assessment during temporary order proceedings; and - as far as can be established - this case has remained a singular decision. This is particularly true given the extraordinary long permission procedure extending over a period of more than 15 years. The claimant filed an application for a permit in May In parallel, he had brought an action to obtain a supply with Dronabinol before the Social Court as early as in February This action was unsuccessful in all instances.
The administrative court proceedings by the defendant against the first refusal of 31 July came to an end before the Higher Administrative Court in mid after the defendant had reversed the decision with a view to the Senate judgment of 19 May - 3 C