Insights & news

Belgian Competition Authority Imposes Second Fine on Professional Organisation of Pharmacists in Less Than Six Months

  • 17/10/2019
  • Articles

On 15 October 2019, the Belgian Competition Authority (“BCA”) again took formal steps against the professional organisation of pharmacists (“Orde der Apothekers”/ “Ordre des pharmaciens”) (the “PO”) (see, attached press release of 16 October 2019).

First Decision

In a first decision, the BCA imposed a fine of EUR 225,000 on PO. This sanction comes less than six months after that same body was in May 2019 at the receiving end of another fine of EUR 1 million on account of exclusionary measures thwarting the development of MediCare-Market (see, Van Bael & Bellis Life Science Newsflashes of 5 June 2019 and 24 June 2019).

This time, the BCA found that several provisions of the PO’s Code of Ethics and two of its communications unduly restricted the ability of pharmacists to advertise their business and non-pharmaceutical products, both online and offline.

In its current version, the Code of Ethics forbids any “solicitation” of patients. The BCA found this to be “almost identical” to a ban on advertising. The BCA also took issue with two PO communications of 2014 and 2017 prohibiting pharmacists from using Google AdWords or social media to advertise their products. Although the advertising of medicines is regulated in Belgium, no such regulation applies to non-pharmaceutical products. These provisions of the Code and these two communications therefore had as their very object the restriction of competition. Interestingly, the BCA specified that “it did not have any objections concerning medicines” as advertising prescription medicines to end users is forbidden by law and advertising over the counter medicines is strictly regulated.

Compared to its May 2019 decision, the BCA imposed a modest fine of EUR 225,000. The BCA only fined the PO for its communications preventing pharmacists from using Google AdWords or social media to advertise non-pharmaceutical products, not for the infringements included in the Code of Ethics. Having regard to the principle that decisions must be adopted within a reasonable time, the BCA explained that the infringements included in the Code of Ethics had been investigated since 2010 and should therefore not give rise to a fine. As a result, the fine was based on the sole turnover of pharmacists for their online sales of non-pharmaceutical products. Moreover, since the PO accepted to settle the case, it obtained a 10% reduction of the fine in exchange for its acknowledgment of the infringement and its waiver of the right to appeal this decision.

The PO also offered commitments to the BCA, which were mentioned as a reason for the BCA not to impose any fine for the infringements included in the Code of Ethics. These commitments were examined by the BCA in a separate decision.

Second Decision

In this second decision, the BCA decided to close the investigation partially without imposing a fine after PO offered to (i) adopt a new Code of Ethics allowing advertising and the solicitation of patients, also through paying referencing services and social media, by the end of 2019; (ii) adopt a commented version of the Code of Ethics complementing the Code of Ethics on advertising and commercial practices, which should notably distinguish between medicines and other products, by the end of 2019; (iii) review the commented version of the Code of Ethics on a regular basis with regard to the decisional practice of disciplinary bodies of the PO and to assess the need to review the Code of Ethics at least every five years; and (iv) make accessible to members on its website an anonymised version of the disciplinary decisions adopted pursuant to the provisions of the new Code of Ethics. The BCA considered that these commitments were sufficient to remedy the flaws which it had identified and therefore made them binding on the PO.

Contrary to the settlement procedure followed in the context of the first decision, when the BCA closes a case further to commitments received from the parties, it does not reach any final decision on the existence of an infringement. As a result, while the infringements contained in the first decision are now considered established, the BCA’s preliminary objections included in the second decision are not confirmed. In the second decision, the BCA blamed the PO for allowing disciplinary bodies to use specific provisions of its Code of Ethics as a basis for sanctioning pharmacists not only for their advertising activities, but also for offering significant rebates to patients. The BCA’s initial view was that this restriction on rebates amounted to “indirectly imposing a minimum price” for both medicines and non-pharmaceutical products sold in pharmacies. Since the BCA decided to accept the PO’s commitments, it did not take a final view on the merits of these initial objections.

Remarkably, the BCA only “partially” closed the investigation further to the commitments offered by the PO. This seems to imply that the BCA is still investigating certain practices of the PO. It cannot therefore be ruled out that the BCA should adopt yet another decision regarding the PO in the coming months or years.

Key contacts

Related practice areas

Related insights

Sign up for updates
    • 25/09/2020
    • Articles

    European Parliament Adopts Resolution on Shortages of Medicines

    On 17 September 2020, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution entitled “Shortage of medicines – how to address an emerging problem” (the Resolution or R – see, attachment). The Resolution was long in the making and relies on the work of a wide range of parliamentary committees and individual Members of the European Parliament. As a result, the Resolution became an unstructured amalgamation of ideas and subjects, combining both vague principles and concrete measures. Additionally, some of these are unrelated to what the title of the Resolution indicates and, more worryingly, some clearly contradict statements contained in other parts of the Resolution. At the same time, the Resolution serves as a catalogue of issues of pharmaceutical policy which, if the European Parliament’s recommendations are heeded, rule makers at the European and Member State levels will tackle as matters of priority. The Resolution, which was passed with an overwhelming majority of 663 votes in favour, 23 votes against, and 10 abstentions, advocates that, depending on the issue, the Commission or the Member States should take the following steps:

    Read more
    • 21/09/2020
    • Articles

    Entry into Force of Second Agreement for Supply of COVID-19 Vaccine between European Commission and Sanofi-GSK

    As part of its European Vaccines Strategy adopted in June 2020 (see, Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences News Alert of 18 June 2020), the European Commission (the Commission) announced on 18 September 2020 the entry into force of a second agreement providing for access to a potential vaccine against Covid-19 (see, attached press release). The Commission’s partner for the new agreement is Sanofi-GSK which has promised to sell up to 300 million doses of the new vaccine if the product materialises. The agreement would seem to emulate a similar deal with AstraZeneca in that the Commission secures the supply of vaccines for EU Member States and for a range of lower and middle income countries while financing part of the vaccine’s upfront development costs (see, Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences News Alert of 31 August 2020). The vaccine now forms the subject of clinical trials and may become available in the second half of 2021 if it completes successfully its regulatory trajectory. Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline are developing a recombinant vaccine against Covid-19 that builds on Sanofi’s S-protein Covid-19 antigen, based on recombinant DNA technology, and GSK’s adjuvant technology. The combined approach is hoped to enhance the immune response and facilitate the production of vaccines on a large scale.

    Read more
    • 15/09/2020
    • Articles

    US President Signs Another Executive Order Implementing International Pricing Index Model

    On 13 September 2020, the US President signed another executive order (the New Order) implementing an international pricing index model (see, attachment). At the same time, he revoked an earlier such order signed at the end of July 2020 (see, Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences News Alert of 28 July 2020). The New Order is more a political manifesto than a set of technical rules. It once more bemoans the allegedly unfair price differences for many prescription medicines between the US and other developed nations and posits that US citizens are thus “subsidizing innovation and lower-cost drugs for the rest of the world”. Additionally, the New Order expresses concern about access to medicines in that “high drug prices in the United States also have serious economic and health consequences for patients in need of treatment”. The New Order seeks to remedy these problems in similar fashion to what the July order tried to achieve and dictates that the price of qualifying medicines should not exceed that of the most-favoured nation price (MFNP) for these medicines. The MFNP is defined as the “lowest price, after adjusting for volume and differences in national gross domestic product, for a pharmaceutical product that the drug manufacturer sells in a member country of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that has a comparable per-capita gross domestic product.” On that basis, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is directed to develop and test a payment model which implements the MFNP for two categories of medicines. Critics were quick to point out that the elaboration of a payment model does nothing more than signaling the start of a potentially lengthy administrative process. Still, developed nations are again at the receiving end of a strong message that prices for medicines in overseas markets that were developed in the US are likely to go up rather than down, regardless of their actual development costs.

    Read more

Subscribe to our updates

Please select the practice areas you are interested in: *