Insights & news

Belgium - Medicine Shortages - Constitutional Court Suspends Statutory Provision Limiting Exports For Benefit of Local Patient

  • 19/07/2019
  • Articles

Yesterday the Constitutional Court suspended Article 3, 2° of the “Law of 7 April 2019 modifying the Law of 25 March 1964 on medicines as regards the unavailability of medicines” (Wet tot wijziging van de wet van 25 maart 1964 op de geneesmiddelen voor wat de onbeschikbaarheden van geneesmiddelen betreft / Loi modifiant la loi du 25 mars 1964 sur les médicaments en ce qui concerne les indisponibilités de médicaments) (the “Law”). Pursuant to Article 3,2°, wholesalers (“WS”) with a public-service WS status (groothandelaar-verdeler/grossiste-répartiteur) are no longer allowed to supply medicines to customers of their choice and should limit their supplies to specific customer categories, namely (a) other WS with a public-service WS status; (b) community pharmacists; and (c) hospitals recognised under applicable rules (see, Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences Newsflash of 8 May 2019 and of 17 May 2019).
 
The Constitutional Court suspended this provision at the request of a number of regular wholesalers (the “Plaintiff Wholesalers”) who claimed that the new rule had cut off a major source of supplies - WS with a public-service WS status - which they had not been able to replace. The Plaintiff Wholesalers showed, first, that they were able to put forward weighty arguments against the challenged provision and, second, that they would suffer serious harm that would be difficult to undo if the challenged provision were not suspended.
 
Weighty Arguments
 
While the Plaintiff Wholesalers put forward four different sets of arguments, the Constitutional Court focused on the compatibility of the challenged provision with the rules of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”) which guarantee the free movement of goods. The Constitutional Court considered that the Plaintiff Wholesalers could no longer source supplies from the WS with a public-service status which, in turn, reduced their ability to export medicines from Belgium. According to the Constitutional Court, the challenged provision therefore amounted to a measure of equivalent effect as a quantitative restriction on exports in breach of Article 35, TFEU. The Constitutional Court added that such a measure can be justified on the grounds of the protection of health and life of humans as provided for by Article 36, TFEU and that, in theory, making sure that medicines are in sufficient supply on the Belgian territory to serve the patients on that territory would qualify as an objective protected by Article 36, TFEU.
 
However, the Constitutional Court went on to affirm that for two reasons the challenged provision was not suitable to achieve that objective. First, the file did not show that the export activities of regular WS actually had an adverse influence on the availability of specific medicines in Belgium. Moreover, the government had not been able to dispel that impression with fresh evidence. Second, WS with a public-service WS status are only allowed to furnish medicines to regular WS if they are sure to be in a position to meet their public-service obligations. The Constitutional Court concluded that Article 36, TFEU could not come into play and that, as a result, there were weighty arguments in favour of a suspension on the basis of Article 35, TFEU.      
 
Serious Harm Difficult To Undo 
 
The Constitutional Court found that the Plaintiff Wholesalers had been deprived of a major source of supply and had not been able to find alternative supply channels, such as direct purchases from the marketing authorisation holders. The Constitutional Court also noted that Parliament had failed to create a reasonable transition period, thus exacerbating the predicament of the regular WS to a point where a number of these WS found themselves on the edge of bankruptcy.
 
According to the Constitutional Court, all of these findings justified the suspension of Article 3, 2°.
 
Yesterday’s judgment puts a spanner in the works by compromising part of the outgoing government’s recent efforts to reduce medicine shortages. While the Constitutional Court was not impressed with the evidence produced to justify the export restriction, the new federal government will probably have to pursue similar and possibly better documented avenues to remedy some of the existing medicine shortfall problems. The Constitutional Court could still reach a different conclusion when reviewing the action for annulment against Article 3,2°, but the chances of this happening would seem remote.     
 
The judgment of the Constitutional Court is attached.

Attachments:

Key contacts

Related practice areas

Related insights

Sign up for updates
    • 23/08/2019
    • Articles

    Portugal Latest EU Member State to Tackle Medicine Shortages and Regulate Parallel Trade in Medicines

    In Portugal, an amending decree-law of 16 August 2019 which entered into force on 19 August 2019 seeks to strengthen access to medicines by reinforcing the public service obligation of the various stakeholders in the supply chain. That obligation involves the duty to ensure a continuous supply of medicines. It prohibits abusive or discriminatory practices such as directly or indirectly refusing to fulfill medicine orders or applying differing deadlines. The new decree-law reinforces the public-service obligations for pharmaceutical companies to ensure that medicines make it to wholesalers who have a duty of their own to supply pharmacies and other retailers. Those who hold a marketing authorisation must constantly monitor their stock positions and communicate possible shortages both to the other stakeholders and Infarmed, the Portuguese health agency. The decree-law also clarifies the dual role of wholesalers which have to (i) supply the domestic market; and (ii) operate as logistical service providers. Furthermore, the new decree-law makes an attempt to limit parallel trade by precluding wholesalers from selling medicines to other countries or other distributors, unless they have first made sure to supply the domestic market. Finally, the amendments bolster the ability of Infarmed to enforce the new rules. A communication which Infarmed issued to publicize the new rules is attached. Portugal thus becomes the latest EU member state to tackle medicine shortages and interfere with parallel trade in medicines. It is expected that the new European Commission which will start operations at the end of the year will also address this issue.

    Read more
    • 19/08/2019
    • Articles

    Belgium - Medicine Shortages - New Development

    At the end of July 2019, Febelco and PharmaBelgium-Belmedis, two wholesalers (“WS”) with a public-service WS status (groothandelaar-verdeler/grossiste-répartiteur – “WSD”), and the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NVGV/ANGR) filed with the Constitutional Court (“CC”) a petition for annulment of Article 3, 2° of the Law of 7 April 2019 “modifying the Law of 25 March 1964 on medicines as regards the unavailability of medicines” (Wet van 7 april 2019 tot wijziging van de Wet van 25 maart 1964 op de geneesmiddelen voor wat de onbeschikbaarheden van geneesmiddelen betreft/Loi du 7 avril 2019 modifiant la Loi du 25 mars 1964 sur les médicaments en ce qui concerne les indisponibilités de médicaments) (see attached excerpts from the list of pending CC cases). Pursuant to Article 3,2°, WSD are no longer allowed to supply medicines to customers of their choice and should limit their supplies to specific customer categories, namely (a) other WSD; (b) community pharmacists; and (c) hospitals recognised under applicable rules (see Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences Newsflashes of 8 May 2019 and of 17 May 2019).

    Read more
    • 05/08/2019
    • Articles

    Court of Justice of European Union Creates Questionable Regulatory Shortcut for Parallel Imports of Generic Medicines

    The Court of Justice of the European Union recently issued a puzzling judgment regarding parallel imports of generic medicines. Please find attached a case note discussing the judgment. We also attach a copy of the judgment itself.

    Read more

Subscribe to our updates

Please select the practice areas you are interested in: *