LexGo

CJEU rules that free samples of OTC medicinal products can be provided to pharmacists
15/06/2020

 

On 11 June 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirmed that it is prohibited to distribute free samples of prescription-only medicines to pharmacists but clarified – against the Advocate General's opinion of 20 January 2020 – that the prohibition does not extend to over-the-counter (OTC) products. 

Background

Before the German courts, Novartis successfully objected to the supply by Ratiopharm of free samples of a generic version of Novartis' Voltaren Schmerzgel (a pain relief gel with the active ingredient diclofenac) to pharmacists "for demonstration purposes". Ratiopharm appealed to the Bundesgerichtshof, which submitted a request for a preliminary ruling based on Article 96 of Directive (EU) No 2001/83/EC relating to medicinal products for human use (hereinafter the "Directive"). This provision permits, under strict conditions, the supply of free samples of medicinal products to persons qualified to prescribe them, i.e. physicians. In short, the Bundesgerichtshof asked the CJEU whether the supply of free samples under Article 96 of the Directive extends to pharmacists.

Distinction between prescription-only and OTC medicinal products 

Article 96(1) of the Directive sets out the conditions under which samples of medicinal products can be provided to "persons qualified to prescribe medicinal products" (limitation on the number of samples, only upon written request, subject to an adequate system of control and accountability and an obligatory summary of product characteristics). Article 96(2) authorises the Member States to adopt more restrictive measures in this regard.

The CJEU confirmed that Article 96 cannot be interpreted as authorising the supply of free samples of medicinal products to pharmacists, since they do not belong to the category of "persons qualified to prescribe medicinal products".

However, the CJEU went on to find that Article 96(1) applies to prescription-only medicinal products, which are potentially dangerous and whose use requires supervision by a physician, not to all medicinal products. Article 96(2) must be read in conjunction with Article 96(1) and has the same scope. Consequently, it relates only to medicinal products requiring a prescription.

In its interpretation, the CJEU relied on the Directive's distinction between OTC and prescription-only medicinal products, including the impact of this distinction on the possibility to advertise the products. Prescription-only medicines give rise to certain risks in relation to their use or effects and require supervision by persons qualified to prescribe them. Over-the-counter medicinal products, on the other hand, are not associated with the same risks. The CJEU mentioned Recital 51, which states that, under certain restrictive conditions, it should be possible to provide samples of medicinal products free of charge to persons qualified to prescribe (i.e. physicians) or supply (i.e. pharmacists) them, so that they can familiarize themselves with new products and acquire experience in dealing with them.

These considerations led to the conclusion that the Directive allows the supply of free samples of medicinal products to pharmacists under national law, subject to strict conditions in keeping with the Directive's purpose and provided the products concerned do not require a prescription.

Application to Belgium: Royal Decree of 11 January 1993

In Belgium, the Royal Decree of 11 January 1993 restricts the supply of free samples of medicinal products to persons qualified to prescribe them and hospital pharmacies (Article 1 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 5).

As the CJEU ruled that national law cannot prohibit the supply to pharmacists of free samples of OTC medicinal products, Belgian law will have to be amended to allow for this possibility.

Voir aussi : Nautadutilh Avocats Luxembourg Sàrl ( Mr. Vincent Wellens )

[+ http://www.nautadutilh.com]


Tous les articles Droit Européen

Derniers articles Droit Européen

New mandatory automatic exchange of information rules for Digital Platforms “DAC7”
24/07/2020

On 15 July 2020, the EU Commission published a directive proposal (the “DAC7 Proposal”), amending, for the 6th...

Read more

Brexit uncertainty forces UK FCA to re-open the TPR
23/07/2020

In light of the ongoing Brexit discussions, the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has decided to re-open the temporary ...

Brexit uncertainty forces UK FCA to re-open the TPR Read more

Optional deferral of the EU Mandatory Disclosure Directive reporting obligations
25/06/2020

On 24 June 2020, the Council of the European Union (the Council) adopted an amendment to the Mandatory Disclosure Directiv...

Read more

CJ rules Luxembourg fiscal unity regime infringes EU law (B & others)
16/06/2020

On 14 May 2020, the CJ delivered its judgment in case B and Others v Administration des contributions directes (...

CJ rules Luxembourg  fiscal unity regime infringes EU law (B & others) Read more

Derniers articles de Mr. Vincent Wellens

Luxembourg law on e-signature and other trust e-services now fully consistent with the eIDAS Re...
30/07/2020

Bill No 7427 was adopted on 17 July 2020 and published on 28 July 2020 (click here). The new law modifies the Luxembo...

Read more

Schrems II: What is (or should be) on your to-do list for international data transfers?
21/07/2020

Today, on 16 July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down its Schrems II judgment in...

Read more

Data protection impact assessments: new EDPS recommendations
06/07/2020

On 6 July 2020, the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) published a report on the use of data protection impact ass...

Read more

CJEU renders important decision on the liability of online platforms in trade mark infringement c...
07/04/2020

On 2 April 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) rendered a judgment (C-567/18) clarifying...

Read more

LexGO Network