Case C-198/09: Order of the Court of 9 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy)) — IFB Stroder Srl v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 89/105/EEC — Transparency of measures governing the pricing of medicinal products for human use — Article 4 — Price freeze — Price reduction)
Date: 2009-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Italy, fixing of prices, health expenditure, interpretation of the law, medicinal product, pharmaceutical industry, price freeze, price reduction








C_2010051EN.01001602.xml










27.2.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 51/16





Order of the Court of 9 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy)) — IFB Stroder Srl v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)
(Case C-198/09) (1)

(Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 89/105/EEC - Transparency of measures governing the pricing of medicinal products for human use - Article 4 - Price freeze - Price reduction)
2010/C 51/26
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: IFB Stroder Srl

Defendant: Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Interpretation of Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 89/105/EC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 8) — Price freeze imposed on medicinal products — Procedures to follow in the case of a price reduction

Operative part







1.


Article 4(1) of Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems is to be interpreted as meaning that, provided the requirements laid down in that provision are met, the competent authorities of a Member State may adopt general measures reducing the prices of all, or of certain categories of, medicinal products, even if the adoption of those measures is not preceded by a freeze of those prices.










2.


Article 4(1) of Directive 89/105 must be interpreted as meaning that, provided the requirements laid down in that provision are met, the adoption of measures reducing the prices of all, or of certain categories of, medicinal products is possible more than once a year and for several years.










3.


Article 4(1) of Directive 89/105 is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude measures controlling the prices of all, or of certain categories of, medicinal products from being adopted on the basis of predicted expenditure, provided that the requirements laid down in that provision are met and that the predictions are based on objective and verifiable data.










4.


Article 4(1) of Directive 89/105 is to be interpreted as meaning that it is for the Member States to determine, in accordance with the objective of transparency pursued by that directive and the requirements laid down in that provision, the criteria on the basis of which the review relating to macro-economic conditions, as provided for in that provision, is to be conducted and that those criteria may consist in pharmaceutical expenditure alone, in health expenditure overall or even in other types of expenditure.










5.


Article 4(2) of Directive 89/105 must be interpreted as meaning that:






—


Member States must, in all cases, provide for the possibility for an undertaking which is concerned by a measure freezing or reducing the prices of all, or of certain categories of, medicinal products to apply for a derogation from the price imposed pursuant to such measure;










—


Member States are to ensure that a reasoned decision on any such application is adopted; and










—


the genuine participation of the undertaking concerned consists, first, in the submission of an adequate statement of the particular reasons justifying its application for derogation and, second, in the provision of detailed additional information if the information supporting the application is inadequate.










(1)  OJ C 233, 26.9.2009.