On the admissibility of discounts and discounts in pharmaceutical wholesaling in the case of dispensing prescription medicines to pharmacies
Judgment of the 5. October 2017 - I ZR 172 / 16
The I. Civil Senate of the Federal Supreme Court, which is responsible for competition law, has today ruled that pharmaceutical wholesalers are not obliged to levy a minimum price when dispensing prescription medicines to pharmacies.
The defendant is a pharmaceutical wholesaler distributing prescription drugs (so-called Rx articles). She advertised in an information leaflet and on her website by offering her pharmacy customers a discount of 70% plus 3% discount on the discounted price on all Rx items up to 2,5 € and a discount of 70% plus 2 from 2,5 € up to the high price limit % Discount on the discounted price.
The plaintiff, the center for combating unfair competition, sees this as a violation of the price regulations in § 78 of the Medicines Act (AMG) and § 2 of the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation (AMPreisV) in the since 1. January 2012 applicable version. It has claimed the defendant for injunctive relief and compensation for charges. Continue reading
a) The home care contract, which closes the pharmacist with the home carrier according to § 12a Abs. 1 ApoG, is its legal nature, subject to official approval, under private law, acting in favor of the resident framework contract, the central care of the residents by the in the Contract certain pharmacy legally legalized.
b) Die gesetzliche Regelung in § 12a ApoG verfolgt eine doppelte Zielrichtung. Einerseits will der Gesetzgeber den Heimen im Sinne des § 1 HeimG einen sachkundigen Apotheker zur Seite stellen, der die “Heimapotheke” kostenlos führt. Andererseits soll der Apotheker für den nicht abgegoltenen Aufwand einen (potentiellen) finanziellen Ausgleich dergestalt erhalten, dass er die Heimbewohner im Rahmen eines auf längere Dauer angelegten Ver-tragsverhältnisses mit Arzneimitteln beliefert.
c) A contracting party that terminates the contractual relationship by failing to observe an agreed period of notice violates its obligation to take due consideration under § 241 para. 2 BGB and commits a breach of duty within the meaning of § 280 para. 1 sentence 1 BGB (following BGH, judgment of 16 January 2009 - V ZR 133 / 08, NJW 2009, 1262).
BGH JUDGMENT III ZR 446 / 15 of the 14. July 2016
BGB § 280 Abs.1; ApoG § 12a Abs. 1 Continue reading