# C_2009205EN.01002202.xml

| 29.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/22

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte (Italy) lodged on 15 June 2009 — Maurizio Polisseni v A.S.L. No 14 V.C.O.Omegna

(Case C-217/09)

2009/C 205/39

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Piemonte

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maurizio Polisseni

Applicant:

Defendant: A.S.L. No 14 V.C.O.Omegna

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 43 EC and, in any event, Community law on competition, preclude a national rule such as that laid down in Article 1 of Law No 475 of 2 April 1968 and Article 13 of Presidential Decree No 1275 of 21 August 1971, in so far as it makes authorisation to transfer a pharmacy from one set of premises to another, even though it remains within the authorised area, subject to the requirement that it must be located at a distance of at least 200 metres from other similar establishments, measured by the shortest route on foot from door to door; in particular, are the restrictions on freedom of establishment imposed in that rule at odds with the reasons of public interest which could justify such restrictions and are they not in any event inappropriate for the purpose of meeting those interests? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 43 EC and, in any event, Community law on competition, preclude a national rule such as that laid down in Article 1 of Law No 475 of 2 April 1968 and Article 13 of Presidential Decree No 1275 of 21 August 1971, in so far as it makes authorisation to transfer a pharmacy from one set of premises to another, even though it remains within the authorised area, subject to the requirement that it must be located at a distance of at least 200 metres from other similar establishments, measured by the shortest route on foot from door to door; in particular, are the restrictions on freedom of establishment imposed in that rule at odds with the reasons of public interest which could justify such restrictions and are they not in any event inappropriate for the purpose of meeting those interests?

| 2. | Does the principle of proportionality, which must be observed by any legitimate restriction on freedom of establishment and competition, in any event preclude a restriction on a pharmacist’s right to engage in free enterprise such as that resulting from the rules on minimum distance referred to in the first question? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the principle of proportionality, which must be observed by any legitimate restriction on freedom of establishment and competition, in any event preclude a restriction on a pharmacist’s right to engage in free enterprise such as that resulting from the rules on minimum distance referred to in the first question?

| 3. | Do Articles 152 EC and 153 EC, which impose a high level of protection on human health and consumer interests as a matter of priority, preclude a national rule such as that laid down in Article 1 of Law No 475 of 2 April 1968 and Article 13 of Presidential Decree No 1275 of 21 August 1971, in so far as it makes authorisation to transfer a pharmacy from one set of premises to another, even though it remains within the authorised area, subject to the requirement that it be located at a distance of at least 200 metres from other similar establishments, measured by the shortest route on foot from door to door, without any further consideration being given to the customers’ interests or to the requirement of efficient local distribution of services relating to the protection of health? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Do Articles 152 EC and 153 EC, which impose a high level of protection on human health and consumer interests as a matter of priority, preclude a national rule such as that laid down in Article 1 of Law No 475 of 2 April 1968 and Article 13 of Presidential Decree No 1275 of 21 August 1971, in so far as it makes authorisation to transfer a pharmacy from one set of premises to another, even though it remains within the authorised area, subject to the requirement that it be located at a distance of at least 200 metres from other similar establishments, measured by the shortest route on foot from door to door, without any further consideration being given to the customers’ interests or to the requirement of efficient local distribution of services relating to the protection of health?

---