Insights & news

More Details Emerge Regarding Fine Imposed by Belgian Competition Authority on Professional Organisation of Pharmacists

  • 24/06/2019
  • Articles

At the end of May 2019, the Belgian Competition Authority (“BCA”) imposed a fine of EUR 1 million on the professional organisation of pharmacists (“Orde der Apothekers”/ “Ordre des pharmaciens”) (the “PO”) because the PO had taken a range of exclusionary measures to thwart the development of MediCare-Market, a successful retailer of both medicines and other, less regulated health products (see, Van Bael & Bellis Life Science Newsflash of 5 June 2019).
 
The BCA has now published the non-confidential version of its decision of 28 May 2019 (the “Decision”) which, as is customary, contains the report of the prosecutor in competition matters (“auditeur”/”auditeur”), submissions of the complainant and of the targeted entity, as well as the actual reasoning of the competition college, the decision-making body of the ABC (see, attached).
 
The BCA found that the PO had relied on a range of techniques to hamper MediCare-Market’s development, including disciplinary proceedings and court action.
 
Interestingly, the BCA also blamed the PO for limiting price competition, even though the scope for such competition was narrow as far as medicines are concerned. However, the BCA took issue first and foremost with attempts made by PO to stifle competition for health products other than medicines. For example, PO had taken court action against MediCare-Market on account of publicity made by that company which promised price reductions on non-pharmaceutical products. In PO’s view, this constituted unethical behavior unbecoming of a pharmacist. The ABC disagreed and added that, to the contrary, MediCare-Market’s actions had been welcome in that they made pharmacists aware of the legitimacy of price competition for products other than medicines. While the BCA is somewhat ambiguous on this, it also seemed to favour price competition for medicines in forms such as end-of-year reductions. This is illustrated by the start of the BCA’s analysis which refers to an OECD finding of 2017 that the pricing level for medicines in Belgium is too high compared to that of its neighbouring countries.
 
Additionally, the BCA made short shrift of the PO’s public service remit. Relying in part on a 2014 judgment of the EU General Court which confirmed a European Commission decision which had found the French “Ordre national des pharmaciens” to be in breach of the competition rules (case T-90/11, Ordre national des pharmaciens and others v. European Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2014:1049), the BCA maintained that legitimate public-service obligations cannot serve as a pretext for anti-competitive behaviour. Similarly, the BCA also rejected the general interest arguments that PO was supposedly right in pursuing MediCare-Market in order to (i) protect the credibility of the pharmacist’s profession; (ii) safeguard public health; and (iii) guard against the excessive consumption of medicines. The BCA went even further by positing that the general approach followed by the PO to foreclose MediCare-Market or at least stunt its development amounted to a restriction of competition by object. Showing its anticompetitive effects was therefore not necessary (the BCA still went on to demonstrate the adverse effects on competition resulting from the PO’s conduct).  

Attachments:

Key contacts

Related practice areas

Related insights

Sign up for updates
    • 15/07/2019
    • Articles

    Belgium - Request for Premiums and Benefits by Hospitals from Suppliers of Medicines and Medical Devices in Public Procurement Proceedings

    The Federal Agency for Medicines and Health Products (“FAMHP”) has recently come out against hospitals requesting premiums and benefits from firms participating in tender proceedings for the supply of medicines and/or medical devices. According to FAMHP, that practice is not only prohibited by Article 81 of the Law of 17 June 2016 on Public Procurement, but may also run foul of Article 10 of the Law of 25 March 1964 regarding Medicines. At issue is the widespread practice indulged in by hospitals to ask prospective suppliers of medicines or medical devices to take care of unrelated goods and services such as the supply of educational materials and software for patient management or to pay for outreach activities organised by the hospitals. Article 81 of the Law of 17 June 2016 on Public Procurement provides in relevant part that the award criteria of a request for tenders should be connected to the subject of the public procurement procedure. For its part, Article 10 of the Law of 25 March 1964 regarding Medicines prohibits firms, subject to exceptions, from offering or providng benefits in cash or in kind to specific healthcare professionals and institutions in connection with the prescription, administration or supply of medicines or medical devices. Similarly, healthcare professionals and institutions are banned from soliciting or receiving such benefits. Based on a combined reading of these provisions, FAMHP maintains that it is not possible to offer or request free additional services with the supply of medicines or medical devices. According to FAMHP, additional services have to (i) come at a price; or (ii) and this is a puzzling addition, “have to present a cost which expressly forms part of the price of the goods”. Importantly, the services have to present a connection with the goods supplied. FAMHP indicates that this implies that outreach activities or additional software are “not admissible”. It adds that “free competition” should be guaranteed at all times and that a hospital should be able to justify the use of a specific award criterion. In other words, the hospital does not benefit from discretionary powers when crafting and then implementing a procurement procedure. Attached are a circular letter of FAMHP on the subject as well as an opinion delivered earlier this year by the committee for public procurement, an advisory body, which informed the point of view of FAMHP.

    Read more
    • 12/07/2019
    • Articles

    Slovakia Final Member State To Benefit From EU-US Mutual Recognition Agreement For Inspections of Manufacturing Sites For Human Medicines

    Slovakia has become the 28th and final EU Member State to be given the powers to carry out good manufacturing practice (“GMP”) inspections at a level equivalent to that prevailing in the US (see attached press release). On 11 July 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) confirmed Slovakia’s status under the Mutual Recognition Agreement (“MRA”) governing GMP inspections of manufacturing sites for human medicines between the EU and the US. For their part, EU Member States have been able to rely on inspection results produced by the FDA since 1 November 2017. Pursuant to the MRA, the EU and the US now fully recognise inspections of manufacturing sites for human medicines carried out in each other’s territories. Separately, the batch testing waiver existing under the MRA will also start to apply. As a result, qualified persons in pharmaceutical firms based in Europe will no longer be required to carry out the quality controls when these have already been run in the US. The EU and US will continue implementation work for the MRA in hopes of extending its scope to a range of additional products, including veterinary medicines, human vaccines and plasma derived medicinal products.

    Read more

Subscribe to our updates

Please select the practice areas you are interested in: *