Franziska Katterbach, Attorney at Law & Partner at Oppenhoff – Interview Series

Similar to the United States market, the implementation, regulation, and ongoing compliance of the German cannabis industry will be navigated primarily by attorneys and legal professionals. As is expected when a billion-euro industry is legalized, significant questions and uncertainties remain regarding how this new framework will align with both German national law and EU regulations.

To gain a deeper perspective on the legal complexities of this emerging sector, mycannabis.com spoke with Franziska Katterbach, Attorney at Law and Partner at Oppenhoff.

So, where did you attend both university and law school? From your experiences with American lawyers, what would you say are the largest differences between German and American law schools?

I studied law at the University of Leipzig and completed my legal traineeship at the Regional Court of Darmstadt.

One of the key differences compared to US law schools is that the German system is far less specialized. It focuses heavily on building a strong foundation in legal reasoning and system thinking, rather than practical or sector-specific training.

Interestingly, neither pharmaceutical law nor cannabis law (if that even exists) play a meaningful role in university education in Germany. As a result, expertise in highly regulated industries is typically developed in practice — through exposure to complex legal frameworks and real-world application.

What were the most useful courses that you took during your law school program? How did those courses prove to be worthwhile throughout your legal career?

Rather than individual courses, it was the overall methodological training that proved most valuable.

German legal education emphasizes structuring complex issues, understanding the hierarchy of norms, and applying abstract rules to real-life scenarios. These skills are essential when working in highly regulated industries such as Life Sciences.

In practice, the real challenge is not knowing a single law — it is understanding how multiple regulatory regimes interact and how they are applied in reality.

What caught your professional interest about the fields of Life Science and, eventually, cannabis law? Why is that field of law unique for a lawyer in Germany to practice?

What attracted me to Life Sciences is the combination of legal complexity and real-world impact.

I have been practicing law in the Life Sciences sector long before cannabis became a “hot topic”. 

This background allows me to approach cannabis not as a standalone or exceptional field, but as another pharmaceutical product — albeit with certain specific regulatory particularities.

Cannabis law, in particular, is unique because it sits at the intersection of multiple legal regimes — pharmaceutical law, narcotics law, medical law, and closely intertwined European law. Importantly, there is no “cannabis law” in the sense of a single, codified body of law.

In a medical context, cannabis is regulated largely in line with other herbal prescription drugs, often dispensed as magistral preparations. This means that the legal analysis is less about a standalone framework and more about understanding how existing pharmaceutical and regulatory rules apply in a specific context.

At the same time, the regulatory regime for medical cannabis in Germany has been continuously evolving since 2017, with multiple legislative and practical changes along the way. I have had the privilege of observing and advising on these developments from the early stages — even prior to the first major legislative reform in 2017.

In 2024 the MedCanG (Medical Cannabis Act) and the KCanG (Recreational Cannabis Act) have introduced additional, specific layers of regulations to clearly distinguish between the regulatory requirements for medical cannabis and those applicable to recreational use. However, these new laws do not operate in isolation. Rather, they complement and interact with the existing legal frameworks. 

This results in a legal framework in which cannabis assumes a distinct and special role, without constituting a fully autonomous or self-contained area of law. Instead, it further reinforces the complexity of an already fragmented legal landscape that must be carefully navigated in practice. 

For a lawyer in Germany, this field is therefore not about applying one clear set of rules. It is about navigating a fragmented and constantly evolving legal landscape, understanding the underlying system, and translating that into workable and compliant business models.

This also means that, within our legal system, it is not sufficient to monitor legislative developments at the state, national and international, in particular European, level. It is equally important to follow administrative practice, identify emerging trends in case law, and understand where courts begin to set practical boundaries and guiding principles.

While working with internationally operating cannabis companies such as Canopy and Khiron Life Sciences Corp., what were some of your regular duties? How did you assist in the expansion of their operations into Germany?

My role involved supporting the full market entry and expansion strategy in Europe, particularly in Germany. I had the privilege of helping shape this expansion in very nascent markets, at a time when it was often not yet clear how the regulatory framework would evolve.

This included structuring supply chains, ensuring regulatory compliance, advising on licensing requirements, and aligning business models with German and European legal frameworks.

However, the role of an in-house legal executive in such an environment goes beyond purely legal advice. It is about navigating through a complex and often uncertain regulatory landscape while keeping the broader business objective in focus. This requires balancing expectations — being realistic about regulatory constraints without becoming a barrier to progress.

I have always seen my role as enabling the business to move forward compliantly, even in a fragmented and evolving system. That means finding solutions within the legal framework rather than focusing on limitations.

In practice, this involved working very closely with operational teams to translate legal requirements into practical, scalable solutions — which is ultimately where legal advice becomes truly valuable.

My guiding principle has always been that, in this space, very little is truly impossible. The path may be complex and require persistence, but with the right structure and mindset, solutions can almost always be found — a principle that applies equally to my current role as a lawyer.

What were the biggest challenges those companies faced from German legal and regulatory authorities when first establishing operations? How did you assist those companies in overcoming or solving those issues?

The main challenge was not necessarily the law itself, but its interpretation and application by different authorities, as well as how companies managed to navigate and respond to these differing regulatory approaches in practice.

Companies were faced with a highly fragmented regulatory environment, varying administrative practices, and a lack of established precedents. This created a situation where legal certainty was often limited, and regulatory outcomes could not always be predicted with confidence.

At the same time, many of these companies were publicly listed and under significant pressure to deliver results. In the early stages, the focus was very much on rapid expansion and building production capacity. As the market evolved, this shifted towards capital discipline and navigating increasingly constrained financial environments as the initial market hype began to normalize.

This combination — regulatory uncertainty on the one hand and commercial pressure on the other — created a challenging dynamic.

Overcoming these challenges required a combination of robust legal structuring, early and constructive engagement with authorities, and a pragmatic understanding of how regulators think and operate.

My role was to help bridge this gap: translating regulatory complexity into actionable strategies while ensuring that business objectives could be pursued in a compliant and sustainable way.

As a Partner with Oppenhoff, what are the most common issues that your clients in the German cannabis industry run into? What are the original causes of those issues to begin with?

Most issues today arise from the complexity and fragmentation of the legal framework.

Cannabis businesses in Germany must navigate rules that are spread across multiple laws and shaped by both national and European requirements. At the same time, regulatory practice can differ significantly depending on the authority involved — not only between different federal states, but even within individual states.

A key challenge is that there is no single “cannabis law” providing clear guidance. Instead, companies must operate within existing pharmaceutical and regulatory frameworks, which were not originally designed for this type of product and business model.

However, the challenges are not purely legal. They are equally operational and financial in nature.

For example, many distributors in Germany face a structural cash cycle issue: they are required to pre-finance inventory, while pharmacies — as their primary customers — typically operate on payment terms of 60 days or more. While such terms are not uncommon in the pharmaceutical sector, the difference is that traditional inventory financing solutions are often not readily available in the cannabis space.

This creates significant pressure on working capital and has been one of the drivers behind the consolidation we are currently observing in the market.

Against this backdrop, one of the key strategic questions for companies is how to position themselves sustainably. In my view, success is less about trying to cover the entire value chain and more about identifying the right niche — being highly focused, while at the same time remaining agile enough to adapt to a continuously evolving regulatory and market environment.

The root cause of many of these issues is therefore a structural mismatch between a complex and evolving legal framework, capital constraints, and ambitious business models — which makes alignment between regulation and commercial reality particularly demanding.

What advantages does allowing for the importing of cannabis from other countries give to the German cannabis industry? What benefits does importing cannabis provide for German medical cannabis patients?

Imports have played a crucial role in ensuring a stable and high-quality supply of medical cannabis in Germany.

They allow patients to access standardized, pharmaceutical-grade products while domestic production capacity is still developing.

From a market perspective, imports also create competition, improve product availability, and support the overall professionalization of the supply chain.

What are some valuable lessons that the German cannabis industry can learn from American and Canadian cannabis operators? How can German cannabis regulators study how different American state/Canadian province markets operate and craft regulations based on previous results?

One key lesson is the importance of building scalable and compliant structures from the outset.

North American markets have demonstrated both the opportunities and the risks of rapid expansion — particularly where regulatory frameworks and business models are not fully aligned.

For Germany and Europe, the opportunity lies in learning from these experiences and developing a more structured, sustainable market model from the beginning.

At the same time, one fundamental principle should not be overlooked: the medical cannabis framework should not be diluted or compromised when developing recreational markets, especially considering the patients who depend on cannabis-based therapies as part of their medical treatment.

In Germany, the healthcare system is built on the principle that medications which can be prescribed may, under certain conditions, also be reimbursed. Medical cannabis is part of this system and must be treated accordingly — as a pharmaceutical product with defined quality standards, clear medical oversight, and patient access pathways.

Blurring the lines between medical and recreational use risks undermining both physician confidence and the integrity of the healthcare system.

A well-functioning market therefore requires clear separation, with each segment following its own regulatory logic. This is an area where European regulators have the opportunity to take a more structured and differentiated approach from the outset.

As an attorney, how would you describe the current state of the German cannabis market since 2024? How successful has Germany’s Medical Cannabis Act been, and what are the largest roadblocks that prevent the industry from expanding further?

The German cannabis market has entered a new phase of growth, particularly in the medical sector.

We are seeing increasing patient demand, improved access, and a growing level of market maturity. At the same time, there is ongoing political discussion around the broader regulatory framework. Notably, the implementation of a comprehensive recreational cannabis regime currently appears to be on hold, and I do not expect significant changes in the near term.

At the same time, a functioning system has emerged that provides accessible prescribing pathways for medical cannabis. While this development reflects growing demand and practical adaptation within the market, it should not be confused with a coherent and fully developed recreational regulatory framework.

However, the current investment activity and market developments suggest a strong underlying conviction: the key business models are adaptable and capable of evolving alongside the regulatory framework.

More importantly, patient demand is not policy-driven — it is structurally growing. As access improves and medical acceptance increases, this demand will continue to expand, providing a stable foundation for the market, irrespective of short-term political shifts.

At the same time, this development is driven by patients who rely on cannabis-based therapies to manage medical conditions and improve their quality of life. This is a factor that should remain central to both regulatory and market considerations.

It is also important to recognize that the regulatory framework has never been static. Since 2017, the regime for medical cannabis has undergone multiple changes and continues to evolve. For businesses operating in this space, agility is therefore not optional — it is essential. The only constant is change, combined with a steadily growing patient demand that continues to underpin the market.

Against this backdrop, it remains crucial to preserve the integrity of the medical framework. Medical cannabis is part of the healthcare system and should continue to be treated as such — with clear standards, medical oversight, and, where applicable, reimbursement.

The main challenge going forward will be ensuring regulatory clarity and consistency, while allowing the market to continue evolving in a sustainable way.

Thank you for joining us, Franziska! For more information on Oppenhoff, please visit its website.