- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-606/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Paris (France) lodged on 30 September 2021 — Doctipharma SAS v Union des Groupements de pharmaciens d’officine (UDGPO), Pictime SAS operating under the name ‘Coreyre’
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CN0606
62021CN0606
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 513/23
(Case C-606/21)
(2021/C 513/33)
Language of the case: French
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Doctipharma SAS
Defendants: Union des Groupements de pharmaciens d’officine (UDGPO), Pictime SAS operating under the name ‘Coreyre’
Questions referred
—Is Doctipharma’s activity which is conducted on and from its website www.doctipharma.fr, to be regarded as an ‘information society service’ within the meaning of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998? (1)
—If so, does Doctipharma’s activity, which is conducted on and from its website www.doctipharma.fr, fall within the scope of Article 85c of the European Directive of 6 November 2011, (2) as amended by the Directive of 8 June 2011?
—Is Article 85c of the Directive of 6 November 2001, as amended by the Directive of 8 June 2011, to be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition, based on an interpretation of Articles L. 5125-25 and L. 5125-26 of the Public Health Code, of Doctipharma’s activity, which is conducted on and from its website www.doctipharma.fr, constitutes a restriction justified by public health protection?
—If not, is Article 85c of the Directive of 6 November 2011, as amended by the Directive of 8 June 2011, to be interpreted as meaning that it allows Doctipharma’s activity, which is conducted on and from its website www.doctipharma.fr?
—In that situation, is the prohibition of Doctipharma’s activity, based on the interpretation by the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) of Articles L. 5125-25 and L. 5125-26 of the Public Health Code, justified by public health protection within the meaning of Article 85c of the Directive of 6 November 2001, as amended by the Directive of 8 June 2011?
—If not, is Article 85c of the Directive of 6 November 2001, as amended by the Directive of 8 June 2011, to be interpreted as allowing the activity of an ‘information society service’ offered by Doctipharma?
(1) Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37).
(2) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).
* * *