lunes, 5 de julio de 2010

Una norma sobre horarios de farmacias en Roma no afecta al comercio entre Estados miembro

En la Sentencia de 1 de julio de 2010, el TJ ha rechazado la cuestión prejudicial planteada por un Tribunal italiano respecto a la conformidad con el Derecho Europeo de una regulación alucinante de los horarios de las farmacias en determinadas zonas de Roma ( Article 10 of the L.R. 26/02 is worded as follows: ‘1.      For the municipality of Rome, each [local health office (‘USL’)] shall adopt the measures provided for in this Law falling within its competence, with the agreement of the other USLs concerned. 2.      For outlets situated in specific municipal areas, the weekly public opening times, holidays for urban pharmacies and the weekly half-day rest period … may be modified by decision of the Uffizio Sanitario Locale responsible for the area in question, in agreement with the mayor of the municipality concerned, the provincial order of pharmacists and the provincial professional organisations most representative of public and private pharmacies.’). El TJ dice que no hay cuestión alguna relevante para el Derecho Europeo con la siguiente argumentación

31      As regards, secondly, Articles 81 EC and 82 EC, although it is true that they are concerned solely with the conduct of undertakings and not with laws or regulations emanating from Member States, those articles, read in conjunction with Article 10 EC, which lays down a duty to cooperate, none the less require Member States not to introduce or maintain in force measures, even of a legislative or regulatory nature, which may render ineffective the competition rules applicable to undertakings (see Cipolla and Others, paragraph 46 and case‑law cited).
32      In that regard, however, it is quite obvious that the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, relating to the possible grant of an exemption in relation to the opening periods of a pharmacy located in a specific municipal area of the municipality of Rome, cannot, in itself or by its application, affect trade between Member States within the meaning of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC (see, a contrario, Case 8/72 Vereniging van Cementhandelaren v Commission [1972] 977, paragraph 29; Case C‑179/90 Merci convenzionali porto di Genova [1991] ECR I‑5889, paragraphs 14 and 15; and Case C‑35/99 Arduino [2002] ECR I‑1529, paragraph 33).

35      As regards Article 28 EC, referred to by certain interested persons which submitted observations before the Court, it must be held, for the sake of completeness, that, for the reasons referred to in paragraph 32 of this judgment, an effect on trade between Member States and, therefore, the possibility of a barrier to the free movement of goods must also be ruled out from the outset.

No hay comentarios:

Archivo del blog