Restrictions of the Sale of Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices such as Contact Lenses over the Internet and the Free Movement of Goods

in European Journal of Health Law
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Abstract

In the light of new case law development, this article examines whether national restrictions on the on-line sale of pharmaceuticals and medical devices such as contact lenses are consistent either with EU secondary law, either with Article 34 TFEU that prohibits measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports. In particular, this article focuses on an analysis of two judgments on this important issue delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union in 2003 and 2010, namely the Deutscher Apothekerverband decision and the Ker-Optika decision.

Restrictions of the Sale of Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices such as Contact Lenses over the Internet and the Free Movement of Goods

in European Journal of Health Law

Sections

References

55)

Rosassupra note 45 440.

58)

L. GromleyEU Law of Free Movement of Goods and Customs Union (Oxford: OUP2009) 426.

60)

F. Picod“La nouvelle approche de la Cour de justice en matière d’entraves aux échanges”RTDE 2 (1998) 169; A. Mattera “De l’arrêt “Dassonville” à l’arrêt “Keck”: l’obscure clarté d’une jurisprudence riche en principes novateurs et en contradictions” RMUE (1994) 117; S. Weatherill “After Keck: some thoughts on how to clarify the clarification” CMLRev 33 (1996) 885; R. Kovar “Dassonville Keck et les autres: de la mesure avant toute chose” RTDE 2 (2006) 213; M. Poiares Maduro “Keck: The End? The Beginning of the End? Or just the End of the Beginning?” (1994) Irish Journal of European Law 36; L. Gromley “Two Years after Keck” Fordham Intl L J 19 (1996) 866; C. Barnard “Fitting the remaining pieces into the goods and persons jigsaw?” ELRev (2001) 26 35.

77)

N. de Sadeleer“L”examen, au regard de l’article 28 CE, des règles nationales régissant les modalités d’utilisation de certains produits”JDE (2009) 247-250.

82)

C. Barnard‘Trailing a new approach to free movement of goods?’Cambridge Law Journal (2009) 290; E. Spaventa ‘Leaving Keck behind? The free movement of goods after the ruling in Commission v. Italy and Michelsson and Roos’ ELRev 34 (2009) 914.

84)

Spaventasupra note 82 921-922; Horsley supra note 76 2016.

85)

Spaventaibid. 920.

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 5 5 2
Full Text Views 4 4 4
PDF Downloads 2 2 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0