Abstract EN:

Over the last twenty years, the definition of a drug (article l. 511 of the public health code) has been the subject of wide-ranging legal controversy. An analysis of the many decisions handed down by the internal courts reflects the opposition, on the one hand, of those who support a broad approach to the text, as protector of public health, and on the other hand, of those who would like a narrower interpretation, allowing the free sale of products classified as "borderline" : vitamins, antiseptics, etc. It was inevitable that the debate would be brought to the court of justice of the european community. At one of its early rulings handed down in 1983, the above body favored the protection of public health. But this decision, in the opinion of the writer, presented flaws which allowed the letter rather than the spirit to be interpreted to an even greater extent. In france, the main tribunals found themselves split between the two approaches to article l. 511. I. E. The broad or the narrow interpretation. A study of the various rulins handed down in 1991 shows how the community body was lead to pronouncing even more clearly in favor of a broad concept of what constitutes a drug. However, the debate has now moved to the area of civil liberties : article l. 511, on the basis of which proceedings can be brought for the illegal exercise of pharmacy, could appear too ague to allow the principle of the legality of crimes and penalties to be respected. The european court of human rights will shortly rule on the relevance of this criticism. Its decision could have a tremendous effect on the choices open to public health in the future.