Internet-Based Pharmacy Granted Authorization to Provide Incentives - Pharmacy granted permission to secure premises with high-value keys
In a significant decision that could shape the pharmaceutical landscape within the European Union, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in Karlsruhe, Germany, ruled that the rules on drug pricing that applied in Germany until the end of 2020 did not apply to mail-order pharmacies based in other EU countries.
The ruling, which was based on guidelines from the European Court of Justice (ECJ), set hurdles for measures that effectively act as a quantitative import restriction. This means that the BGH applied strict standards to ensure the free movement of goods across member states, a fundamental principle of the EU.
The case, which has been ongoing for over a decade, began with the controversy over whether drug price binding applies to mail-order pharmacies in other EU countries. The Bavarian Pharmacists' Association saw this as a violation of competition law and drug price binding and filed a lawsuit. The Higher Regional Court (OLG) Munich ruled that drug price binding does not contradict EU law.
One of the key players in this case was Tanimis Pharma, a mail-order pharmacy based in the Netherlands. In 2012, Tanimis Pharma offered a three-euro reward per medication, up to a maximum of nine euros per prescription, to customers in Germany. However, the BGH's ruling does not take into account a recently enacted amendment to the Social Security Code regarding bonuses.
The BGH's ruling was met with mixed reactions. The Federal Association of German Pharmacists' Associations (ABDA) regretted the decision but assumed that the social-law price binding introduced by the Pharmacy Strengthening Act would remain in place. On the other hand, the ruling was seen as a victory for competition and consumer choice.
The impact of such a ruling is far-reaching. It could affect how mail-order pharmacies operate within Germany and potentially influence EU-wide practices. However, it is essential to consider the broader legal framework governing the sale of pharmaceuticals within the EU. The EU principle of free movement of goods allows for the unhindered movement of goods across member states, but this principle faces exceptions, particularly for goods that are subject to specific regulations like pharmaceuticals.
In addition, the German Medicines Act (AMG) and similar legislation in other EU countries regulate the sale and distribution of medicines. These acts often include provisions that restrict certain practices, such as offering bonuses for prescription drugs, to ensure the protection of public health.
As the search results do not provide a direct answer to the query, further research or access to specific legal rulings would be necessary to assess the exact implications. However, the general principles of EU law and national health regulations would guide the court's decision and its impact on mail-order pharmacies.
In conclusion, the BGH's ruling allows mail-order pharmacies based in other EU countries to offer bonuses for prescription medication in Germany. This ruling is a significant step towards fostering competition in the pharmaceutical market and promoting consumer choice. However, it is crucial to remember that the broader legal framework governing the sale of pharmaceuticals within the EU will continue to play a vital role in shaping the pharmaceutical landscape.
- Vocational training programs in science and health-and-wellness sectors could potentially benefit from the ruling set by the European Court of Justice (ECJ), as the decision emphasizes the importance of free movement of goods across member states and the promotion of competition.
- Given the BGH's ruling on mail-order pharmacies and the principle of free movement of goods in the EU, it might be interesting to explore opportunities for vocational training partnerships between EC countries, particularly in areas such as pharmacy and health-and-wellness, to foster mutual learning, improvement, and industry growth.
