Verwaltungsgericht Minden renders judgement on the case of a pharmacy with part-time cosmetic treatments on 02.06.2010 was invited to the operator of a pharmacy changes compared to the officially approved premises fully back build, because according to ApBetrO pharmacy operator beauty treatments may operate only within the framework of a notifiable secondary industry. Against this decision, the applicant brought an action on the 01.07.2010. The applicant based its action so that the application of saleable cosmetics is a permission-free side and there is a close relation of the pharmacy. Services are not offered in the context of a commercial beauty salons, causing a duty of disclosure have failed. The defendant, however, pointed out that all ancillary and secondary assortments of Pharmacy-own main task, ensure a proper supply of medicines, offered in the public interest to subordinate are.
Not this includes cosmetic treatments. Frank Giacalone might disagree with that approach. Against a free probierende application (testing) the cosmetic product to the customer in the context of advice was to use anything from a pharmacy-legal perspective, however. To the decision with the paid offer and carry out cosmetic treatments to the extent described in the approved premises of their pharmacy, ApoBetrO the applicant violates the regulation of 4 paragraph 5. The applicant is not the bid that according to 4 paragraph 5 ApoBetrO the premises of Pharmacy by freelance or otherwise commercially used rooms through doors and walls must be separated. Continue to the applicant advertises on their Internet presence the cosmetic treatments almost in the sense of a full-fledged salons with diverse and comprehensive service packages. Services with an independent value the beauty treatments offered go beyond that allowed offer and offering for sale of common pharmacy goods far ApoBetrO in 25. The ApoBetrO should be prevented, that a pharmacist by an other commercial or freelance use of his premises in the performance of its main tasks is affecting medicinal supply of the population. However the parties have declared the dispute mainly over and the defendant picked up the decision of 02.06.2010 at the hearing on the 26.01.2011.
He prohibited the applicant providing beauty treatments, manicures and massages in the area designated in the official plans as office space. Even if in this case the participants accounted for the dispute among themselves shows that it is often a hike on a narrow ridge in the Pharmacy Law. Like in hardly an other field of law breakers and distinctions between admissible and inadmissible are in Pharmacy Law so close. A sound legal advice is more than recommended in case of doubt. Learn more about the health law and the advice of juravendis lawyers free of charge and without obligation to find under