On 19 June 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a ruling in case C-376/22. The case concerned the compliance of Polish regulations banning pharmacy advertising with European Union law. In 2012, Poland introduced Article 94a of the Pharmaceutical Law, which imposed a total ban on advertising pharmacies, pharmacy outlets, and their activities, allowing only information about their location and opening hours. Financial penalties were imposed for violations.
In 2013, the Lewiatan Confederation filed a complaint with the European Commission, arguing that the ban violated EU economic freedoms. The Commission initiated infringement proceedings, and after Poland failed to respond, the case was referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The ruling was issued on 19 June 2025 and fully upheld the Commission’s complaint, finding that Poland had breached its obligations under EU law. This opens a new chapter regarding the future of pharmacy and pharmacy outlet advertising.
The CJEU ruled that the ban is too general, unconditional, and disproportionate.
The Court of Justice of the European Union, in its ruling of 19 June 2025 (C-376/22), presented a comprehensive and multifaceted analysis justifying the incompatibility of the Polish ban on pharmacy advertising with EU law. The Court’s reasoning covers both the violation of the E-commerce Directive and the infringement of fundamental Treaty freedoms – the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services.
The Court noted that Polish regulations do not provide any mechanism for assessing the content of advertisements in terms of their compliance with professional ethics. Instead, they impose an absolute ban on all advertising, regardless of its form, content, or purpose. As stated in the ruling:
“In accordance with the Court’s established case law, national measures that completely prohibit a certain type of activity are, as a rule, disproportionate if less restrictive measures are available to achieve the same objective” (para. 67).
The Court emphasized that not every form of advertising is harmful or unethical, and that Member States should rather regulate the content of advertisements than impose a total ban.
The CJEU criticized the lack of distinction between informational and commercial advertising.
The CJEU noted that Polish regulations do not distinguish neutral information (e.g., about health services, opening hours, available consultations) from strictly commercial advertising. As a result, the ban also covers activities that are considered permissible and beneficial from the patient’s perspective in other EU countries.
The challenged regulations do not provide any exception for neutral information that may be important for patients and consumers, and their prohibition is not justified by public health protection.
Polish regulations violate the E-commerce Directive.
On 19 June 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the ban on advertising pharmacies, pharmacy outlets, and their activities, in force in Poland since 2012, is contrary to European Union law. In particular, it violates the E-commerce Directive, which allows regulated professionals—including pharmacists—to promote their services online.
The Court unequivocally stated that Poland violated Article 8(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC, which permits regulated professionals to use commercial information online, provided it complies with professional conduct rules. The CJEU noted:
The rules of professional conduct cannot lead to a general and total ban on all advertising, as is the case in Poland.
The Court emphasized that this ban cannot be justified by general ethical considerations, as the directive allows for restrictions but not their absolutization.
The CJEU stressed that although Member States may regulate the content of advertisements to protect public health, they cannot impose a total ban on advertising. The Polish legal model, which restricts pharmacies solely to providing information about their location and opening hours, was deemed too restrictive and disproportionate.
The Court noted that Directive 2000/31/EC does not allow Member States to impose a general ban on advertising services provided electronically. On the contrary, it enables regulated professionals to use commercial information online, provided it complies with professional conduct rules. By introducing a total ban, Poland exceeded the permissible limits of regulation, according to the CJEU.
The ban violates the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services.
With regard to Articles 49 and 56 TFEU, the CJEU stated that the advertising ban:
• Hinders market access for pharmacists from other Member States,
• Restricts the ability of pharmacies to promote their services, thereby affecting their competitiveness,
• Is neither justified nor necessary for the protection of public health.
Poland failed to demonstrate that the ban is appropriate and necessary to achieve the intended objective of protecting public health, particularly by preventing the excessive consumption of medicinal products (para. 84).
The Court also noted that the ban affects more than two-thirds of pharmacists in Poland, making it an exceptionally broad and repressive measure.
The Court also found that the ban on pharmacy advertising violates the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union—specifically, the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services. In the CJEU’s view, these restrictions hinder pharmacists from reaching patients, promoting their services, and developing their businesses, especially in the case of new market entrants.
Poland did not demonstrate that such far-reaching restrictions are necessary for the protection of public health. The CJEU emphasized that the ban affects more than two-thirds of pharmacists in Poland and cannot be justified by general ethical or professional considerations.
The Court also took into account the cross-border context and emphasized that the ban limits pharmacists—particularly those based in other Member States—in their ability to present themselves to potential clients and promote the services they intend to offer. It also hinders market access for individuals seeking to open a pharmacy in Poland, especially if they operate in other EU countries.
Summary of the CJEU’s Reasoning
The CJEU pointed out that Poland did not present any empirical data or analyses to demonstrate that the advertising ban actually contributes to reducing excessive medication use or improving the quality of pharmaceutical services.
The Polish authorities failed to demonstrate that less restrictive measures, such as content regulation or penalties for misleading advertisements, would be insufficient to achieve that objective.
Therefore, the CJEU unequivocally and comprehensively concluded that the Polish ban on pharmacy advertising is incompatible with EU law because:
• It violates the E-commerce Directive,
• It restricts the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services,
• It is disproportionate and unjustified,
• It is not based on evidence of effectiveness,
• It does not consider less restrictive alternatives.
This ruling sets a precedent for all Member States considering restrictions on advertising for regulated professions. It clearly indicates that protecting public health cannot be used as a pretext to impose total bans that violate fundamental EU freedoms.
Poland must comply with the ruling.
The CJEU ruling means that Poland should promptly amend its regulations to align them with EU law. Otherwise, the European Commission may refer the case back to the Court and seek the imposition of financial penalties.
When amending the regulations, it is important to consider what the Court identified as a series of specific violations:
- The ban is too general and unconditional—it does not distinguish between informational and commercial advertising.
- There is no mechanism to assess the content of advertisements for compliance with professional ethics, which could serve as an alternative to a total ban.
- The ban covers not only advertising of medicinal products but the entire pharmacy activity, exceeding justified regulatory objectives.
- Poland has not provided evidence that the advertising ban actually contributes to protecting public health, nor that less restrictive measures would be insufficient.
- The directive cannot be circumvented by bans targeting only certain pharmacists or types of activity—the rules must be consistent and proportionate.
The case was brought before the CJEU following a complaint by the European Commission in 2024, which found that Poland had not remedied the infringement despite previous warnings and opinions. The complaint was originally filed by the Lewiatan Confederation in 2013, arguing that the advertising ban limits the potential of Polish pharmacists and their competitiveness in the European market.
Therefore, the CJEU ruling may have far-reaching consequences for the pharmaceutical market in Poland. In light of this ruling, courts and administrative authorities should no longer rely on Article 94a(1) of the Pharmaceutical Law as a basis for handling cases related to pharmacy advertising. This opens a new chapter in communication between pharmacies and patients—one that is compliant with EU law. Proposals to amend this provision should be expected in the near future.