CELEX: 62012CN0367
Language: en
Date: 2012-08-01 00:00:00
Title: Case C-367/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 1 August 2012 — Corinna Prinz-Stremitzer, Susanne Sokoll-Seebacher

27.10.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 331/13
            
         
      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 1 August 2012 — Corinna Prinz-Stremitzer, Susanne Sokoll-Seebacher
      (Case C-367/12)
      (2012/C 331/20)
      Language of the case: German
      
         Referring court
      
      Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicants: Corinna Prinz-Stremitzer, Susanne Sokoll-Seebacher
      
         Additional parties: Tanja Lang, Susanna Zehetner
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Do the rule of law considerations inherent in Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and/or the considerations of transparency inherent in Article 49 TFEU preclude a national provision such as point 3 of Paragraph 10(2) of the Apothekengesetz (Law on pharmacies; ApG) at issue in the main proceedings, pursuant to which the condition whether there is a need to establish a new public pharmacy is not specified at least in essence in the legislation itself but its elaboration is left in considerable respects to the national courts, since it cannot be excluded that a scheme of that kind affords a significant competitive advantage to interested parties from Austria, individually and as a whole, over nationals from other Member States?
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Does Article 49 TFEU preclude a national provision such as point 3 of Paragraph 10(2) of the ApG, which in relation to the crucial condition whether a need is deemed to exist sets a rigid threshold of 5 500 persons without allowing for any departure from that general rule, since de facto under a scheme of that kind it does not appear possible to ensure (without more) the achievement in a consistent manner of the legislative objective pursued, in terms of paragraphs 98 to 101 of the Court’s judgment in Joined Cases C-570/07 (1) and C-571/07 Blanco Pérez and Chao Gómez?
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  If Question 2 is also answered in the negative: Do Article 49 TFEU and/or Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union preclude a provision such as point 3 of Paragraph 10(2) of the ApG which has been interpreted, as result of the case-law of the highest national courts on the notion of assessment of a need, to include additional detailed criteria — such as whether an application has priority in time, the blocking effect of an existing application in relation to subsequent applications, the two-year lockout period following the rejection of an application, criteria for determining the number of ‘permanent residents’ and ‘incoming users’ and for allocating the customer base in the event of an overlap between the 4-km zone surrounding each of two or more pharmacies, etc. — since, as a result, it is not possible to ensure that, as a general rule, the provision will be applied in a manner that is foreseeable and calculable and within a reasonable period and, hence, the legislative provision cannot be considered appropriate, in fact, to ensure the achievement in a consistent manner of the legislative objective pursued (see paragraphs 98 to 101 and 114 to 125 of the Court’s judgment in Blanco Pérez) and/or the provision of an adequate pharmaceutical service must be regarded as de facto not ensured and/or discrimination must be presumed as between interested parties from Austria amongst themselves or between them and interested parties from other Member States?
               
            
         (1)  Judgment of 1 June 2010 in Case C-570/07 (ECR 2010, I-4629).