WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3704/97 by Jyrki OTILA to the Commission. A pharmacists' monopoly in Finland?
Date: 1997-11-19
Institutions: European Parliament, OTILA
Subjects: Finland, State aid, application of EU law, monopoly, pharmacology, restriction on competition, tax relief, university

8. 6. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174/105

The most recent study assesses current scientific knowledge about the hazards and risks of chrysotile. It suggests
that there are now safer alternatives available for almost all products for which chrysotile is currently used.

On the basis of what is known about the health risks, therefore, the Commission plans to propose a Community
wide ban on chrysotile asbestos, with exceptions. This preliminary policy position was presented to Member
States and industry at a working group meeting held on 9 December 1997. It is clear that there is a qualified
majority in favour of the principle, although more discussion is needed to agree an acceptable list of exceptions.
The details of the Commission proposal will depend in part on the outcome of a further study into the technical
and economic consequences of substitution. This study should be completed by the end of March 1998, and a
formal proposal for a directive will be made shortly afterwards.

(98/C 174/163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3704/97

by Jyrki Otila (PPE) to the Commission

(19 November 1997)

Subject: A pharmacists(cid:146) monopoly in Finland?

The (cid:145)University Pharmacy(cid:146) opened in Helsinki in 1828. In 1953 an amendment to the Pharmacies Act gave it the
right to open branch pharmacies too.

Finnish law also grants the University Pharmacy a number of privileges, whereby it is not required to pay the
(cid:145)pharmacy levy(cid:146) to the state and also enjoys other tax benefits.

Originally  the  University  Pharmacy  was  founded  as  a  pharmacy  linked  to  Helsinki  University  and  working
specifically  in  the  city  of  Helsinki.  Its  raison  d(cid:146)e(cid:136)tre  was  the  training  it  provided  to  persons  studying
pharmaceutics at Helsinki University.

Now the University Pharmacy has expanded its activities to other cities which do not even have a university.
Moreover only 27% of pharmaceutics students (in 1997) carry out their compulsory practical training as part of
their studies at the University Pharmacy, the other 73% going to private pharmacies.

In my view this practice is in conflict with the legislation on competition and the EU(cid:146)s principles of trade policy.
From the point of view of competition the University Pharmacy occupies a distinct monopoly position. Is the
Commission aware of this situation in Finland, and if not, what it will do to rectify it?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 1998)

The Commission is aware of the alleged privileged position of the Pharmacy of the University of Helsinki. The
Honourable  Member  claims  the  existence  of  state  benefits  (exemption  from  pharmacy  levies  and  other  tax
benefits)  and  a  monopoly  situation.  However,  a  monopoly  does  not  seem  to  exist.  As  evidenced  by  the
information provided private pharmacies do also exist and thus compete with the University Pharmacy.

The alleged state benefits have to be examined under the state aid rules of the EC Treaty. According to these
rules, the Commission can only act when trade between Member States is distorted by state measures which
favour certain enterprises.

On the basis of the available information, the Commission concludes that the benefits in question will only have
local effects, limited to places with retail outlets of the University Pharmacy. Thus, trade between Member States
will not be distorted.

The Commission does not therefore intend to investigate further into this matter.