Judgment of the Court of Justice Grand Chamber, 22 December 2022, EUROAPTIEKA, C-530/20

• Date: 22 December 2022
• Year: 2022

19

3. MEDICINAL PRODUCTS FOR HUMAN USE

Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber), 22 December 2022, EUROAPTIEKA,

C-530/20

Link to the full text of the judgment

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Medicinal products for human use – Directive 2001/83/EC – Article

86(1) – Concept of ‘advertising of medicinal products’ – Article 87(3) – Rational use of medicinal products –

Article 90 – Prohibited advertising methods – Advertising of medicinal products neither subject to medical

prescription nor reimbursed – Advertising on the basis of price – Advertising of special sales – Advertising

of bundled sales – Prohibition

‘EUROAPTIEKA’ SIA is a company operating a pharmaceutical business in Latvia. It is part of a group

that owns a network of pharmacies and companies distributing medicinal products for retail in that

country. In 2016, the Veselības inspekcijas Zāļu kontroles nodaļa (Medicinal Product Control Section of

the Health Inspectorate, Latvia) banned EUROAPTIEKA from the dissemination of advertising relating

to a promotional sale offering a reduction of 15% off the purchase price of any medicinal product

when at least three articles were purc hased. That decision was taken on the basis of a national

provision that prohibited the inclusion in advertising to the general public of a medicinal product,

which is neither subject to medical prescription nor reimbursed, of any information which encourages

the purchase of the medicinal product by justifying the need to purchase that medicinal product on

the basis of its price, by announcing a special sale, or by indicating that the medicinal product is sold

as a bundle together with other medicinal products (including at a reduced price) or other types of

product.

27

In 2020, hearing an appeal brought by EUROAPTIEKA against that provision, the Latvijas Republikas

Satversmes tiesa (Constitutional Court, Latvia) made a request to the Court of Justice for a preliminary

ruling on the interpretation of Directive 2001/83.

28

By its judgment, the Court of Justice, sitting as the Grand Chamber, clarifies the scope of the concept

of ‘advertising of medicinal products’, within the meaning of that directive, in particular as regards

content that refers not to a specific medicinal product but to unspecified medicinal products.

Furthermore, it rules on the compatibility with that directive of a national provision providing for

prohibitions such as those at issue in the main proceedings, including as to whether those

prohibitions seek to promote the rational use of medicinal products, within the meaning of that same

directive.

Findings of the Court

In the first place, the Court rules that the dissemination of information that encourages the purchase

of medicinal products by justifying the need for that purchase on the basis of price, by announcing a

special sale, or by indicating that the medicinal products are sold together with other medicinal

products, including at a reduced price, or with other products, falls within the concept of ‘advertising

27

Subparagraph 18.12 of the Ministru kabineta noteikumi Nr. 378 « Zāļu reklamēšanas kārtība un kārtība, kādā zāļu ražotājs ir tiesīgs nodot

ārstiem bezmaksas zāļu paraugus » (Decree No 378 of the Council of Ministers on ‘the detailed rules for the advertising of medicinal

products and detailed rules pursuant to which a medicinal product manufacturer may give free samples of medicinal products to medical

practitioners’), of 17 May 2011 (Latvijas Vēstnesis, 2011, No 78).

28

More specifically, the provisions referred to are Articles 86(1), 87(3) and 90 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parlia ment and of the

Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), as amended by

Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34).