Pharmacist must be tax evasion or pharmacist

Administrative court Aachen: for the profession of Pharmacist is still reliable

A was convicted of tax evasion convicted pharmacist can exercise still his profession. Even if he was operating his own pharmacy because of unworthiness, is not justified automatically by the withdrawal of the license to practice medicine, held on Thursday, 10. January 2018, the administrative court of Aachen (Az.: 5 K 4827/17).

In the concrete case, the IRS had identified in an audit in a pharmacy in Düren, in the period from 2009 to 2012, the pharmacist manipulation software was used. The district court of Aachen had been sentenced because of tax evasion in the amount of approximately 238.000 Euro to a ten-month suspended sentence. The incorrect Declaration of capital income from property, plant and equipment and the deliberate filing of false tax returns have been him.

The criminal conviction had consequences. To him, the pharmacy operating license has been revoked. The competent Supervisory authorities had deprived the pharmacist of the license to practice medicine.

The administrative court of Aachen, confirmed by a judgment of 6. July 2018 the withdrawal of the pharmacy operating licence (Az.: 7 K 5905/17). The pharmacist had committed over a number of years of violations of the law and a “excessive Gewinnstreben“ placed on the day. There were “personal deficits with regard to the Rechtstreue“ of the man, so that is to be expected in the future, similar behavior. The judgment is not because of the application for leave to appeal is still quite strong.

The lawsuit against the revocation of the medical license was before the administrative court, however, now success. The plaintiff had made none of behavior of guilty, from which his unworthiness or unreliability to the exercise of the profession of Pharmacist. The withdrawal of the approval was an “extreme Maßnahme“, would not be justified in view of the Offence committed. Significantly, the circumstances of the individual case.

Here, the pharmacist had violated his legal and financial obligations. There is, however, no evidence of wrongdoing in relation to the relationship of trust between pharmacists and patients or customers. Also there was no damage to the public health system.

The plaintiff had the use of the “Mogelsoftware“ from a private drive completed, and the enlightenment contributed. fle