25.11.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/11


Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — VIPA Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft. v Országos Gyógyszerészeti és Élelmezés-egészségügyi Intézet

(Case C-222/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Cross-border healthcare - Directive 2011/24/EU - Articles 3(k) and 11(1) - Prescription - Definition - Recognition of a prescription issued in another Member State by an authorised person - Conditions - Free movement of goods - Prohibition of measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on exports - Articles 35 and 36 TFEU - Restriction on the dispensing by a pharmacy of prescription-only medicinal products - Order form issued in another Member State - Justification - Protection of human health and human life - Directive 2001/83/EC - Second paragraph of Article 81 - Supply of medicinal products to the public of a Member State)

(2019/C 399/12)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VIPA Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft.

Defendant: Országos Gyógyszerészeti és Élelmezés-egészségügyi Intézet

Operative part of the judgment

Article 3(k) and Article 11(1) of Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 on the application of patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which it is not permissible for a pharmacy in that Member State to dispense prescription-only medicinal products on the basis of an order form where that order form has been issued by a healthcare professional authorised to prescribe medicinal products and to exercise his activity in another Member State, whereas such dispensing of those products is permitted where that order form has been issued by a healthcare professional authorised to exercise his activity in the first Member State, bearing in mind that, under that legislation, such order forms do not contain the name of the patient concerned.

Articles 35 and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding such legislation of a Member State, in so far as that legislation is justified by the objective of protecting human health and human life, is appropriate for securing the attainment of that objective and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain it, which is for the national court to determine.


(1)  OJ C 221 25.06.2018.