EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-393/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 10 September 2008 — Emanuela Sbarigia v Azienda USL RM/A, Comune di Roma, Assiprofar — Associazione Sindacale Proprietari Farmacia and Ordine dei Farmacisti della Provincia di Roma

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008CN0393

62008CN0393

January 1, 2008
With Google you find a lot.
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 285/28

(Case C-393/08)

(2008/C 285/46)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Emanuela Sbarigia

Defendants: Azienda USL RM/A, Comune di Roma, Assiprofar — Associazione Sindacale Proprietari Farmacia and Ordine dei Farmacisti della Provincia di Roma

Questions referred

1.Is it compatible with the Community principles upholding freedom of competition and freedom to provide services, laid down inter alia in Articles 49 EC, 81 EC, 82 EC, 83 EC, 84 EC, 85 EC and 86 EC, to impose on pharmacies the abovementioned prohibitions — whereby they are not allowed either to decline to take an annual holiday or to remain open whenever they so desire, beyond the maximum limits at present allowed under the abovementioned provisions of Lazio Regional Law No 26/2002 — and the concomitant additional requirement, under Article 10(2) of that Regional Law, of a prior discretionary assessment by the Administration (carried out in agreement with the bodies and organisations specified in that article) as to the special nature of the municipal area in which the applicant pharmacies are located, as a precondition for obtaining a derogation from those prohibitions within the Municipality of Rome?

2.Is it compatible with Articles 152 EC and 153 EC to impose on the public pharmacy service, albeit with the aim of protecting the health of consumers, conditions — such as those laid down in Regional Law No 26/2002 — limiting or precluding the possibility of extending the daily, weekly or annual opening times of individual pharmacies?

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia