Comments on the (un)constitutionality of sanctions for violating the professional independence of a pharmacist by an entity running a pharmacy

The aim of the study is an attempt to assess the constitutionality of the provision of Art. 103 sec. 2 point 10 of the Pharmaceutical Law Act, amended by the Pharmacist Profession Act of 10 December 2020. This provision extends the scope of the sanction of withdrawal of a pharmacy authorization to cases of violation of the professional independence of a pharmacist by the entity running it (entrepreneur), as provided for in Art. 35 sec. 2 of the Pharmacist Profession Act. Critical analysis was also applied to the parliamentary discussions on the need to clarify the nature of the violation in question with the criterion of „persistence” in the context of the admissibility of using vague terms in the law. According to the thesis of the study, the resignation from this criterion seriously questions the compliance of Art. 103 paragraph 2 point 10 Pharmaceutical Law Act in connection with Art. 35 sec. 2 Pharmacist Profession Act with the principle of specificity of law, the principle citizens’ trust in the state and the law it enacts, as well as the principle of legal certainty and legal security, and the principle of proportionality of interference in the sphere of freedom of economic activity and property right.

The Constitutionality of the Practice of Applying and Interpreting Art. 99 sec. 3 and 3a of the Pharmaceutical Law – Evolution of the Position of Administrative Courts

The study analyzes the jurisprudence of administrative courts regarding the scope of application of Art. 99 sec. 3 and 3a of the Pharmaceutical Law. The application of an extensive interpretation of this provision was deemed unconstitutional. Such an interpretation assumes that it is applicable not only in the procedure for granting a permit to operate a pharmacy, but also in the procedure for its amendment and withdrawal. The authors express the conviction that it is necessary to stabilize the position of the courts in this matter and to adopt the view expressed in the latest judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court that Art. 99 sec. 3 and 3a of the Pharmaceutical Law Act is a clear and coherent provision of a purely competence nature. Deriving from this provision the obligations of an entity running a pharmacy that have not been expressed by the legislator violates fundamental constitutional principles and values.