WRITTEN QUESTION P-2434/99

by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: EU rules -v- Sweden's restrictive drugs policy

In Sweden the rules heavily restrict the import of substances classified as narcotics, even when they are prescribed by doctors for medicinal purposes. For example, the Läkemedelsverket (Medicines Department) regulation 1997/11 allows an individual to import amphetamines for no more than five days personal use.

A Swedish doctor has now reported Sweden's actions and regulations to the Commission. He maintains that the rules applied in Sweden infringe EU rules on the free movement of goods and services between the Member States. The doctor wishes the Commission to take action against Sweden and declare its rules to be illegal and in contravention of EC law.

If the Commission were to find that Sweden's laws were infringements of EU law, would a Swedish citizen then be able to have drugs prescribed by a doctor in another Member State whose drugs policy is more liberal, and then import them into Sweden, with the Swedish Customs authorities powerless to act?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2000)

The Commission confirms that it has received a complaint which states that Sweden restricts the right for citizens to travel freely between Member States with their own, legally prescribed and purchased medication. The complainant also alleges that the free exercise of the medical profession is restricted.

At the moment, the Commission is carrying out its initial investigation on the facts of the case. The fundamental rule however, as laid down for example in the Court of justice's findings(1) is that citizens shall be allowed to freely travel between Member States with their personal medication legally prescribed and purchased.

The conditions governing access to the professions of medical doctor and pharmacist, and the conditions in which these professions are practised, were harmonised by the doctors Directives Council Directive 75/362/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services(2) and Council Directive 75/363/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors(3) consolidated by Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications(4) and by the pharmacists Directives Council Directive 85/432/EEC of 16 September 1985 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of certain activities in the field of pharmacy(5) and Council Directive 85/433/EEC of 16 September 1985 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in pharmacy, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment relating to certain activities in the field of pharmacy(6). As a result, a medical prescription issued by a medical doctor established in another Member State provides the same guarantees for patients as a prescription issued by a medical doctor in another Member State.

However, pharmacists or others qualified to prescribe medicinal products can still refuse to honour a prescription if there are any doubts as to its authenticity, as might be the case for prescriptions which are likely to be misused or diverted to illegal purposes (special medical prescriptions mainly concerning narcotics or psychotropic substances and provided under Article 3 (2) of Council Directive 92/26/EEC of 31 March 1992 concerning the classification for the supply of medicinal products for human use(7)).

If the Commission after its investigation took the view that the Swedish rule in question, limiting the right for citizens to travel with medication containing dexamfetamin, is contrary to Article 28 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 30), the Swedish authorities will have to state their case and show that the Swedish measure is justified, according to the principles of necessity and proportionality, under any of the grounds of Article 30 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 36), here in particular public health grounds.

(1) In Cases Decker, C-120/95 of 28 April 1998, Commission -v- Germany, C 62/90 of April 8, 1992 and Schumacher, C-215/87 of 7 March 1989.

(2) OJ L 167, 30.6.1975.

(3) OJ L 167, 30.6.1975.

(4) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993.

(5) OJ L 253, 24.9.1985.

(6) OJ L 253, 24.9.1985.

(7) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992.