EUR-Lex De toegang tot het recht van de Europese Unie
Dit document is overgenomen van EUR-Lex
Document 62015CN0148
Case C-148/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 30 March 2015 — Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung e.V. v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.
Case C-148/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 30 March 2015 — Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung e.V. v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.
Case C-148/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 30 March 2015 — Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung e.V. v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.
OJ C 213, 29.6.2015, blz. 15–16
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
29.6.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 213/15 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 30 March 2015 — Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung e.V. v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.
(Case C-148/15)
(2015/C 213/24)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung e.V.
Defendant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.
Questions referred
1. |
Must Article 34 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that a system of fixed prices laid down by national law applicable to prescription-only medicinal products constitutes a measure having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 34 TFEU? |
2. |
If the Court answers Question 1 in the affirmative: Is the system of fixed prices for prescription-only medicinal products justified under to Article 36 TFEU on grounds of the protection of health and life of humans if that system is the only means of ensuring a consistent supply of medicinal products to the population across the whole of Germany, in particular in rural areas? |
3. |
If the Court also answers Question 2 in the affirmative: What is the degree of judicial scrutiny required when determining whether the condition mentioned in Question 2 is in fact satisfied? |