The Supreme Administrative Court stated that transferring the authorization to run a generally accessible pharmacy to a franchisee who is controlled, and therefore dependent on the franchisor, would violate the anti-concentration provisions introduced by the "Pharmacy for a Pharmacist" act, informs the Association of Pharmacists Employers of Polish Pharmacies. In the pharmacy community, this action is referred to as "polishing" and is a violation of the rules of ethics in the profession.
There are the first judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court regarding franchise pharmacies
Published Oct. 19, 2022 10:55
Pixabay
According to ZAPPA data, there are several dozen pharmacies operating on the Polish market, operated by controlled networks of companies or companies established by pharmacists. The union announced that it will seek disciplinary and criminal consequences against pharmacists who grant their own professional powers to pharmacy chains.
Meanwhile, on Monday (October 17), the Supreme Administrative Court issued judgments in two cases in which it confirmed that pharmacists' companies were controlled by a pharmacy chain, and therefore WIF and GIF rightly refused to transfer pharmacy licenses to these companies. In its justification, the Supreme Administrative Court indicated that it is not the franchise agreement itself that gives rise to a state of control, but its specific provisions and provisions of other agreements concluded between the franchisee and the franchisor. It is, for example, a loan agreement or a contract for the provision of services.
The permits were not transferred due to the fact that the franchisees applying for them were controlled and dependent on their franchisors, i.e. they formed capital groups with them. The transfer of permits would therefore breach the anti-concentration provisions.
Actual. based on: ZAPPA
