”
Federal Court of Justice decision in the context of binding prescription drug prices
\n\n
The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) addressed the question of whether the price-binding rules applicable in Germany for prescription-only medicinal products could also be enforced against mail-order pharmacies established in another EU Member State. The legal assessment concerned an earlier legal situation under which mail-order pharmacies supplying from other EU countries were also intended to be bound by German price regulations.
\n
Initial situation: price fixing and cross-border mail-order trade
\n
Binding to fixed retail prices for prescription-only medicinal products
\n\n
Under the provisions in force at the time, fixed retail prices were предусмотр for prescription-only medicinal products. These requirements were intended to ensure a uniform price level and to limit price competition for certain medicinal products.
\n
Competition through bonuses and discounts
\n\n
In practice, the key issue was in particular whether mail-order pharmacies from other EU states were allowed to grant customers in Germany financial advantages—such as in the form of bonuses or discounts. Such advantages were in tension with the German price-binding rules, which prohibited comparable arrangements for domestic pharmacies.
\n
Core statement of the BGH: ineffectiveness of the former binding effect vis-à-vis EU mail-order pharmacies
\n
Reference to the EU-law assessment
\n\n
The BGH classified the former legal situation to the effect that applying the German price-binding rules to mail-order pharmacies established in other EU Member States was not effective. Decisive in this regard was the framework of EU law, within which national requirements must not restrict cross-border provision of services in an impermissible manner.
\n
Consequence for unfair-competition-law claims
\n\n
In the course of this legal classification, the BGH clarified that competition-law claims based solely on the then-assumption of a binding price-fixing obligation also for EU mail-order pharmacies do not succeed to that extent. This denies the enforceability of corresponding injunctive relief or competition measures that relied on the earlier binding effect.
\n
Classification of the decision for market participants
\n
Delineation between national regulation and the internal market
\n\n
The decision illustrates the legal relevance of distinguishing between national price regulations and the EU-law requirements of the internal market. For assessing market conduct—especially in cross-border distribution structures—it depends on the effectiveness of the respective provisions relied upon in their EU-law context.
\n
Significance for the assessment of advertising and discount models
\n\n
The decision concerns the legal assessment of models by which EU mail-order pharmacies communicated or granted price advantages to customers in Germany. Insofar as legal challenges were based on the former price-binding rules—which, vis-à-vis EU mail-order pharmacies, were not effective—there is, according to the decision, no sound basis.
\n
Points of contact for legal clarification in unfair competition law
\n\n
The BGH decision shows that the legal assessment of cross-border distribution and advertising concepts in a regulated market environment is closely tied to the respectively effective normative requirements and their embedding in EU law. If questions arise within companies, among investors, or in strategic product and sales alignment regarding the classification under unfair competition law of corresponding constellations, a tailored classification as part of professional legal advice in competition law by MTR Legal attorneys may be useful. Source of the initial information: Juraforum article “BGH: Former price-binding for EU mail-order pharmacies ineffective” (available at the link mentioned by the reader).
“
