After the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice that rejected a claim from Farmacity to be able to operate in the Province of Buenos Aires, the pharmacy chain expressed that they will abide by the measure, but regretted the sentence and assured that “It makes it difficult for Buenos Aires residents to have more access to health.”
Thus, in a brief statement, Farmacity expressed its position: “We regret the ruling that makes it difficult for Buenos Aires residents to have more access to health, as was our purpose, which, we understood, was fully adjusted by law“.
It continues: “Farmacity will continue, in full compliance with the laws and of course, within the framework defined by the CSJN ruling, investing and working to reach the largest number of inhabitants of the province, generating employment of value, and collaborating with the different actors of the health system to enhance the health model “.
This Wednesday, contrary to Farmacity’s claim on the merits, the highest court ruled in favor of the provincial regulations that excludes public limited companies from operating as pharmacies within the Buenos Aires territory.
.In the case – long in the courts – the pharmacy company questioned the provincial regulations that regulates who can own pharmacies in the Province.
The Supreme Court ruling came out with the vote of judges Elena Highton de Nolasco, Ricardo Lorenzetti and Martín Irurzun, while Judge Mirta Gladis Sotelo de Andreu voted in dissent.
Judges Carlos Rosenkrantz and Horacio Rosatti excused themselves – hence the votes of Irurzun and Sotelo de Andreu, who are not part of the supreme body – while Juan Carlos Maqueda did not vote.
It was precisely the judges Lorenzetti and Highton who considered “reasonable” the regulation that excludes corporations as subjects that can be owners of pharmaceutical establishments in the Buenos Aires territory.
They specified: “It constitutes a reasonable regulation, as it does not violate the freedom of trade or the right to equality “.
Farmacity SA had filed the lawsuit against the Province of Buenos Aires after being denied a generic request to operate at the provincial level, for which he asked for the nullity of that rule.
The chain, in that sense, had made a request for authorization to operate a pharmacy in the town of Pilar “based on the provisions of article 14 of law 10,606” which, when listing the people who may be authorized to set up pharmacies, does not include public limited companies.