I agree Tim. I think the evidence points towards the EMA being deliberately obstructionist - probably because they were forced by the court to treat VG as a device. The minutes of the EMA meeting (where the first list of questions was handed down) stated this:
"Furthermore the members discussed some procedural aspects relating to the CE mark classification."
I wonder what was discussed and whether some sort of plan was formulated to frustrate the application.
They handed down a list of questions to answer in January 2014.
They handed down a list of outstanding issues in September 2014.
They delayed the TIS response to the issues in November 2014 until January.
They delayed it again in January 2015 until February.
At some stage between the end of February and the end of March the EMA decided not to proceed by way of the usual process but to instead proceed by way of oral examination.
In hindsight the signs were clear that EMA did not want anything to do with VG. I wish I had read those signs correctly at the time.
Rev
TIS Price at posting:
8.7¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Not Held
