OPINION OF MR WAHL — CASE C‑297/16
CMVRO
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of
In its English version, Directive 2005/36 uses the term
Under Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 2006/123 (
Member States shall examine whether, under their legal system, any of the requirements [ Under Article 4(7) of Directive 2006/123 ( Member States shall examine whether their legal system makes access to a service activity or the exercise of it subject to compliance with any of the following non-discriminatory requirements: … … Member States shall verify that the requirements referred to in paragraph 2 satisfy the following conditions: …
…
all veterinary care establishments whether or not having legal personality authorised to practise in Romania; veterinary pharmacies and veterinary pharmaceutical outlets, if their capital is exclusively held by veterinary practitioners or if it is otherwise amassed in the wake of subsequent legislative amendments …
…
…
Under Article 69(1) of Directive 2001/82:
Apart from citing, inter alia, Articles 49, 54 and 55 TFEU, the referring court mentions Articles 1, 66, 67 and 69 of Directive 2001/82; Article 38 of Directive 2005/36; and Articles 3, 14 and 15 of Directive 2006/123.
Compare with judgment of
See judgment of
Judgment of
In his Opinion in Joined Cases
Directive 2006/123 establishes, according to its Article 1(1) (‘Subject matter
Judgment of
See however the Opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón in
Judgment of
See, in that regard, judgment of
See judgment of
Judgment of
Judgment of
See, as regards Article 49 TFEU in respect of similar rules relating to pharmacies, judgments of
Judgment of
On that issue, recital 65 of Directive 2006/123 is inconclusive.
See judgment of
Judgment of
See, for instance, recital 5 of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
See, regarding medicinal products for human use, judgment of
See judgment of
See, to that effect, judgment of
See, inter alia, World Economic Forum,
See, inter alia, European Parliament resolution of
See, by way of example, judgment of
See, by analogy, judgment of
Compare with judgment of
Unlike what is the case for prescription-based medicinal products destined for direct human consumption, see judgments of
extend to products for which a veterinary medical prescription is not mandatory; or do not allow persons professionally trained in pharmacy, other than veterinary practitioners, the right to retail those products, if need be in accordance with the directions of a veterinary medical prescription issued by a veterinary practitioner if their acquisition is contingent on such a prescription.
It is for the referring court to determine whether that is the case in the main proceedings.
See, for example, judgment of
Such as appears to follow from a combined reading of Article 32 and Article 37(1) of Law No 160/1998; Article 1(m) and Article 37(1) of the CVP; and Article 43(j) and Article 51(g) of the VHR before they were repealed by the contested order.
See my Opinion in
See judgment of
See the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament of
That eventuality is also hinted at in Article 1(m) of the CVP, which requires veterinary pharmacies and veterinary pharmaceutical outlets to specify
Judgment of
Ibid., paragraphs 68 and 78.
Ibid., paragraphs 29 and 56. Opticians do not enjoy that same status, see judgment of
I should add that, when pressed on that issue, the Romanian Government stated that its views on the second question referred were premised on an affirmative answer to the first question referred. However, it did not explain why the possibility of forgoing the ownership requirement is linked to the maintenance of the exclusive right for veterinary practitioners to retail, use and administer the products at issue.
The College simply mentions that, in 2014, the Authority checked 543 veterinary pharmacies and imposed a penalty on 112 of those for breach of the rules, without explaining what risk multidisciplinary ownership rules would have for the independence of veterinary practitioners. The lack of relevance of that circumstance appears corroborated by the fact that the College goes on to state that none of those 112 cases gave rise to disciplinary proceedings.
Judgment of
extend to products for which a veterinary medical prescription is not mandatory; or do not allow persons professionally trained in pharmacy, other than veterinary practitioners, the right to retail those products, if need be in accordance with the directions of a veterinary medical prescription issued by a veterinary practitioner if their acquisition is contingent on such a prescription. It is for the national court to determine whether that is the case in the main proceedings.