17

In those circumstances, the Landesverwaltungsgericht Oberösterreich (Regional Administrative Court of the Province of Upper Austria) decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘Having regard to the findings of the Court of Justice in the operative part (and in paragraph 51) of its judgment of 13 February 2014 in Sokoll-Seebacher (C‑367/12, EU:C:2014:68), according to which Article 49 TFEU precludes legislation of a Member State such as Paragraph 10(2)(3) of the ApG which lays down, as an essential criterion for determining the existence of a need for the opening of a new pharmacy, a strict limit (specifically 5500) on the number of ‘people who continue to be served’, must Article 49 TFEU, in particular, the requirement that the desired objective be achieved in a consistent manner (a) be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a limit has been set which not only has an indicative value, but is also specific (that is it is quantified and cannot therefore be varied by interpretation), renders that legislation as a whole inconsistent and, therefore, contrary to EU law, in so far as the competent national authorities are, in principle, unable to derogate from it in order to take account of local circumstances (especially as the criteria laid down in paragraph 24 of the judgment of 13 February 2014 in Sokoll-Seebacher (C‑367/12, EU:C:2014:68), so as to attain the desired objective in a consistent and systematic manner must in each case be satisfied cumulatively), so that on a national level there is no need to apply that criterion concerning the determination of the existence of a need until the national legislature replaces it with more flexible rules which are consistent with EU law (for example, similar to Paragraph 10(6) of the ApG relating to the limit of 500 metres laid down by Paragraph 10(2)(2) of the ApG), or (b) must Article 49 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the setting of a limit by Paragraph 10(2)(3) of the ApG, which has not only an indicative value but is also specific (that is it is quantified and cannot, therefore, be varied by interpretation), is contrary to EU law only if it applies in a specific situation in which there is in fact a need to open a pharmacy on account of local conditions or other circumstances without which adequate access to medicinal products cannot be provided (see paragraph 45 read together with paragraph 50 of the judgment of 13 February 2014 in Sokoll-Seebacher (C‑367/12, EU:C:2014:68) for certain persons (in particular “incoming users”, new arrivals, etc.), even if, in the future the number of people potentially served by one or more existing pharmacies would in fact fall below the limit of 5500 persons, so that it is unnecessary to apply that criterion based on the determination of the existence of a need only to those cases, whether in rural, urban or other areas until the national legislature adopts legislation clarifying matters, or (c) must Article 49 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the setting of a limit by Paragraph 10(2)(3) of the ApG, which has not only indicative value but is also specific (that is to say it is quantified and cannot, therefore, be varied by interpretation) is incompatible with EU law only if it applies in a specific situation concerning an isolated rural area even if, in the future, the number of people potentially served by one or more existing pharmacies would in fact fall below the limit of 5500 persons, so that it is necessary to apply that criterion based on the assessment of the existence of a need only if it has repercussions on the population residing in a rural and/or isolated area, until the national legislature adopts new legislation clarifying matters?’