WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3247/98 by Ernesto CACCAVALE Monopolistic system of regulating chemists' shops in Italy
Date: 1998-10-28
Institutions: CACCAVALE, European Parliament
Subjects: Italy, access to a profession, consumer protection, geographical distribution, monopoly, pharmaceutical industry, pharmaceutical legislation, pharmacist, pharmacology, right of establishment

C 320/32

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.11.1999

(1999/C 320/043)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3247/98

by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission

(28 October 1998)

Subject: Monopolistic system of regulating chemists’ shops in Italy

The laws and regulations governing the provision of services by pharmacists in Italy incorporate a whole series
of unfair privileges and restrictions, for example:

’ the law gives pharmacists the exclusive right to prepare and sell to the public over-the-counter medicinal

products;

’ the number of chemists’ shops in an area is limited on the basis of demographic and geographical criteria
and proximity. The law prescribes that there should be one chemists’s for every 5 000 inhabitants in
communes with a population of up to 12 000, and one for every 4 000 inhabitants in the rest. Moreover,
no new retail chemist’s may be located within 200 metres of an existing one;

’ to be licensed to operate, pharmacists must pass a public competition based on qualifications and tests, or

inherit a business, i.e succeed by virtue of unfair advantages conferred by family connections;

’ with regard to the practical aspects of running the business, retail chemists’ opening hours and duty
rosters are laid down by the mayor of the commune in accordance with rules established by the prefect
(provincial governor). The only advertising of public health services allowed by law is by means of
advertisements in the telephone directory, subject to authorisation by the mayor and at the request of the
relevant professional body.

This whole raft of restrictions for the benefit of pharmacists is out of line with the main objective, which is to
protect public health. In particular, the main purpose of limiting the number of retail pharmacists appears to
be to maintain the level of their incomes, rather than to ensure that chemists’ shops are distributed in a rational
and satisfactory manner, and the result is to place them in an unjustified monopoly position.

In view of the foregoing, could the Commission:

’ state the current stage reached in the study it is drawing up on this subject?

’ state whether it agrees that there are sufficient grounds to regard the Italian regulations as strongly

monopolistic, in defiance of European laws on free competition?

’ state what measures it intends to take to protect consumers’ needs and encourage easier access to the

profession of pharmacist?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answers to Written Questions E-3477/97 by
Mrs Kestelijn-Sierens (1) and E-3011/98 by Mr Amadeo (2), the latter concerning, in particular, the conditions
currently applied in Italy for running chemists’ shops.

The Commission is of the opinion that, in the specific context of the right to freedom of establishment within
the Community, national measures such as the ones referred to by the Honourable Member (monopoly
position enjoyed by chemists for sales of over-the-counter medicinal products, demographic and geographic
criteria determining the opening of chemists’ shops, public competitions for licences to open chemists’ shops,
chemists’ opening hours and duty rosters fixed by the authorities and restrictions on advertising) are not
contrary to the principle of freedom of establishment provided for in Article 52 of the EC Treaty insofar as they
are applied in a non-discriminatory manner and are in proportion to their purpose. The Commission believes
that the disproportionate nature of these measures with respect to their purpose still has to be demonstrated.

Finally, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it is not undertaking a study of the above-
mentioned issues.

(1) OJ C 223, 17.7.1998.
(2) OJ C 142, 21.5.1999, p. 70.