A company which operates 10 pharmacies and a qualified pharmacist, who graduated from a Scottish university, have taken a High Court challenge to regulations which prohibit any non-Irish EU citizen who has not graduated here as a pharmacist from running a pharmacy unless it has been opened for more than three years.
The challenge to the "three-year rule" has been taken by Sam McCauley Chemists (Blackpool) Ltd and Mr Mark Sajda, a graduate of the University of Aberdeen with an address at West Avenue, Franfield, Cork.
They claim the rule is unjust, discriminatory and unconstitutional. They say it has created problems for them in recruiting pharmacists to act as authorised officers (persons who compound and dispense prescriptions) for pharmacies.
It is claimed that Trinity College Dublin provides the only course in pharmacy and that insufficient numbers of graduates are being produced to meet the demand.
In proceedings against the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, the Minister for Health, Ireland and the Attorney General, the company claims that it wished to appoint Mr Sajda as the authorised person for its pharmacy at Blackpool shopping centre in Cork, but, as a result of the transposition into Irish law of the Council Directive 85/443/EEC (the Recognition Directive) by the EC (Recognition of Qualifications in Pharmacy) Regulations 1991, could not do so.
In transposing the Recognition Directives, the Minister purported to amend the Pharmacy Act 1962, by providing that foreign-qualified chemists would not be recognised as authorised persons or nominated pharmacists, they claim.
This purported amendment they say is unconstitutional, void and of no effect in that the imposition of the three-year rule is not necessitated by the obligations of Community law.
Alternatively, the plaintiffs argue that Mr Sajda is a European Union national, born in Scotland, and is qualified to practise under his registration with the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland.
They also claim he is entitled to the benefit of provisions of the EU Treaty relating to free movement of services.
The Minister and State defendants deny the claims and plead that the amendment of the Pharmacy Act 1962, was necessitated by the obligations of EU membership, and accordingly the plaintiffs could not invoke provisions of the Irish Constitution to invalidate the amendment.
They also deny the company has sufficient legal standing to bring the proceedings.
They also plead that if Mr Sajda is a qualified pharmacist and entitled to practise here, that entitlement was at all times subject to law and the provisions of the Pharmacy Act 1962.
The Minister was entitled to make the regulations complained of, it is argued.