Confusion over Sweden’s retail monopolies

By Teresa Kuchler

Date: 09/06/05

A verdict from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on trade in non-prescription drugs has sparked confusion and re-opened the debate on the Swedish monopoly system.

Last week the ECJ declared that the Swedish government's monopoly on retail sales of medicines was in breach of EU law. It supported the case of a retailer who was selling non-prescription nicotine chewing gum and headache pills in Sweden against the national authorities.

But the verdict has sparked confusion and both supporters and critics of the monopoly system have chosen to interpret the court's verdict as a victory.

As soon as the verdict was released, representatives of the Swedish Federation of Trade and retail trade organisations declared that they would start selling non-prescription drugs in supermarkets within six months.

But the Health Minister Ylva Johansson said the verdict underlined that the monopoly can remain, although in a slightly different form and warned retailers against starting "Wild West-style selling in the petrol stations".

Jonathan Todd, European Commission spokesman for competition, gave the Swedish government vague support, saying that the monopoly system did not have to go, but that it "had to be transformed". The ECJ said that a selection system, which excludes discrimination, had to be introduced, and that an independent party should supervise such a system.

The Swedish monopoly policies on drugs and alcohol had already been challenged before the ECJ in 1997, when a shop owner started to sell alcohol in his supermarket. Then the court reached a similar verdict to its ruling in the medicines case.

Critics of the monopoly say it is only a matter of time before a company decides to challenge the government and starts to sell non-prescription drugs. If the drug monopoly falls, the alcohol monopoly could follow.

Article reports that a verdict from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on trade in non-prescription drugs has sparked confusion and re-opened the debate on the Swedish monopoly system.

• Primary Source