Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document C2007/140/18

    Case C-171/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht des Saarlandes (Germany) lodged on 30 March 2007 — Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes, Marion Schneider, Michael Holzapfel, Dr Fritz Trennheuser and Deutscher Apothekerverband e.V. v Saarland and Ministerium für Justiz, Gesundheit und Soziales, intervening party: DocMorris N.V.

    IO C 140, 23.6.2007, p. 11–11 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    23.6.2007   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 140/11

    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht des Saarlandes (Germany) lodged on 30 March 2007 — Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes, Marion Schneider, Michael Holzapfel, Dr Fritz Trennheuser and Deutscher Apothekerverband e.V. v Saarland and Ministerium für Justiz, Gesundheit und Soziales, intervening party: DocMorris N.V.

    (Case C-171/07)

    (2007/C 140/18)

    Language of the case: German

    Referring court

    Verwaltungsgericht des Saarlandes

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Claimants: Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes, Marion Schneider, Michael Holzapfel, Dr Fritz Trennheuser and Deutscher Apothekerverband e.V.

    Defendants: Saarland and Ministerium für Justiz, Gesundheit und Soziales

    Joined party: DocMorris N.V.

    Questions referred

    1.

    Are the provisions concerning freedom of establishment for capital companies (Articles 43 and 48 EC) to be interpreted as precluding a prohibition on foreign ownership of pharmacies, as provided for by Paragraph 2(1)(1) to (4) and (7), the first sentence of Paragraph 7 and the first sentence of Paragraph 8 of the Gesetz über das Apothekenwesen — ApoG — (Law on Pharmacies) of 15 October 1980 (BGBl. I, p. 1993), as amended most recently by Article 34 of the Regulations of 31 October 2006 (BGBl. I, p. 2407)?

    2.

    If the first question is answered in the affirmative:

    Having regard in particular to Article 10 EC and to the principle of effectiveness of Community law, is a national authority entitled and obliged to disapply national provisions it regards as contrary to Community law even if there is no clear breach of Community law and it has not been established by the Court of Justice of the European Communities that the relevant provisions are incompatible with Community law?
    Top