Price specifications: German shippers demand clear conditions

After the ruling comes the ruling: On July 17, the First Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) announced that the fixed price for mail-order companies is not binding under the old legal situation . Immediately after the ruling, Doc Morris launched further discount campaigns .

On July 31, the Federal Court of Justice will once again address the difficult relationship between EU mail-order companies and brick-and-mortar pharmacies, specifically a claim for damages related to previous advertising campaigns by Doc Morris. The mail-order company is asserting claims for damages amounting to millions of euros against the North Rhine Chamber of Pharmacists (AKNR), alleging that it has suffered significant economic damages as a result of legal action initiated by the Chamber.

Overarching the issue is the fundamental conflict between EU competition law and national law, which local pharmacies must adhere to. Following another discount campaign, the AKNR recently sent a first warning to Doc Morris for violating the German Medicines Advertising Act (HWG) .

The mail-order pharmacy Mycare is based in Germany and is therefore subject to national regulations. Pharmacist Martin Schulze, Head of Pharmaceutical Customer Service at Mycare, once again draws attention to the complex legal situation ahead of the upcoming Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruling. Neither the BGH nor the European Court of Justice (ECJ) have yet conclusively clarified how the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation can actually be enforced in the framework contract under the German Social Code (SGB). Price fixing has been enshrined there, in SGB V, since 2020.

The framework agreement obliges EU mail-order pharmacies to comply with German price guidelines when billing statutory health insurance prescriptions – discounts, bonuses or co-payment waivers would therefore actually be inadmissible.

The problem, Schulze said, is the difficulty of enforcement. "For international providers, the regulatory authorities in their respective countries of origin are primarily responsible. Proceedings against them usually have to be conducted there – a complex, lengthy, and costly process with an uncertain outcome," Schulze said in a statement. Violations are rarely punished.

A signal to politicians to finally create equal competitive conditions for all.

Federal Association of German Mail-Order Pharmacies (BVDVA)

In addition, health insurance companies hardly intervene – Schulze criticized the mail-order companies' discount practices, which not only undermine the fixed price but also the solidarity principle of statutory health insurance. The mail-order companies exploit this loophole: "The reality shows that what is prohibited in Germany for good reasons is systematically exploited by international competitors and has so far been barely sanctioned."

The structural imbalance – further exacerbated by a "strong lobby presence at the EU level" – is to the "disadvantage of all those providers who adhere to the applicable rules," Schulze said. This "abnormal situation" has been known for a long time. The fact that it has not been rectified raises "fundamental questions about fairness and competitiveness in the German pharmacy market." It is important "to finally create clear, uniform, and enforceable rules for all market participants."

The alarm among German mail-order pharmaceutical companies became apparent immediately after the recent Federal Court of Justice ruling on price fixing. The ruling from Karlsruhe is "a signal to politicians to finally create a level playing field for everyone," said a statement from the Federal Association of German Mail-Order Pharmacies (BVDVA). The association certainly wants more flexibility than brick-and-mortar pharmacies, which see price fixing primarily as a form of protection. The BVDVA, on the other hand, can envision competition based on price. However, there must be "clear upper and lower limits."