Unlawful promotion and sanctions: what the framework provides

Under EU law, advertising of a medicinal product is any form of door-to-door information, canvassing activity or inducement designed to promote the prescription, supply, sale or consumption of medicines (Article 86 of Directive 2001/83/EC) ^[1]. Advertising a medicine that has no marketing authorisation is prohibited outright (Article 87(1)), and advertising prescription-only medicines to the general public is prohibited too (Article 88) ^[1]. In Greece these provisions are transposed by Joint Ministerial Decision DYG3a/G.P. 32221/2013 ^[2]. The sanctions — administrative and criminal — are set by national law and reach the whole chain, as EOF reminded the public on 8 July 2026 ^[4].

This text is written for the buyer: to read the promotion they encounter correctly and to understand where they themselves stand within this framework. It is not a guide for sellers looking for where the limits lie. A buyer is rarely the target of these sanctions, but almost always bears their consequences: a product with no guarantee, possible seizure, and no means of redress.

What counts as promotion under the law

The definition in Article 86 is deliberately broad. It covers advertising to the public and to health professionals, door-to-door information, canvassing and any inducement, regardless of medium ^[1]. What applied to a leaflet in 2001 applies today to a sales page, a social media post, a "testimonial" video, a clinic's information brochure, or a reply to a customer's message.

For authorised medicines, Article 87 adds two conditions: every part of the advertising must comply with the summary of product characteristics, and the advertising must encourage rational use without being misleading ^[1]. For products without an authorisation there is no lawful advertising at all. Two provisions meet here: a therapeutic claim makes the product a medicine by presentation (Article 1(2)) and at the same time constitutes prohibited advertising of an unauthorised medicine (Article 87(1)) ^[1]. The same sentence produces two breaches.

Food supplements have their own claims framework. Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 allows only nutrition and health claims that have been authorised ^[6]. A supplement advertised with a promise of cure breaches that framework and, with the same sentence, moves into the scope of pharmaceutical law.

The chain of responsibility

Pharmaceutical law sets an authorisation for every link in the chain: a manufacturing authorisation for whoever manufactures (Article 40), a wholesale distribution authorisation for whoever distributes (Article 77), a marketing authorisation for the product itself (Article 6), and since 2011 specific rules for distance selling (Article 85c) ^[1][3]. EOF's notice on intravenous "therapies" maps this structure onto sanctions: "every person who takes part, directly or indirectly" in production, circulation, distribution, presentation, promotion and administration is liable ^[4].

Administrative and criminal sanctions

Directive 2001/83/EC leaves the type and level of sanctions to the Member States, but sets a minimum framework. Competent authorities must prohibit the supply of a medicine and withdraw it from the market where it proves harmful or its composition is not as declared (Article 117) ^[1]. Directive 2011/62/EU added Article 118a: Member States lay down penalties for falsified medicines that are effective, proportionate and dissuasive, and that take account of the risk to public health ^[3].

In Greek law, sanctions operate at two levels. Administratively, EOF can order withdrawal or suspension of circulation, impose fines and issue public notices, such as the one of July 2026 ^[4]. Criminally, breaches of pharmaceutical legislation are prosecuted through the courts, independently of any administrative measure. EOF's notice itself states no amounts or penalties; it refers to "the sanctions provided by law" ^[4]. We do not reproduce them either, because the relevant provisions have been amended repeatedly and differ by offence; the text in force at the time of the act applies, and its interpretation is a lawyer's job, not an article's.

For online sales specifically, Law 4316/2014 (Article 4) regulated the operation of online pharmacy shops, within the rules of Directive 2011/62/EU on the common EU logo ^[3][5]. An online shop that sells medicines without being a pharmacy sits outside that framework, whichever country it ships from.

The role of advertising and claims

EOF's notice lists specific claims — "detoxification", "anti-ageing", "immune boosting", "antioxidant therapy" — because those are what turned the preparations into unauthorised medicines ^[4]. For a buyer, the claim is the most legible signal there is. It is worth knowing how to read a health claim, because the same skill that takes apart an exaggeration on a food pack also recognises unlawful advertising of a medicine.

• Names of diseases or conditions next to the product: the presentation is pharmaceutical ^[1].
• Words such as "therapy", "protocol", "cycle", or a route of administration, in a description that is not of an authorised medicine.
• User testimonials and photographs of results: the seller is promoting consumption, not a product.
• A promise that the product "replaces" a prescription medicine: the third risk EOF highlighted, non-treatment ^[4].

Why it reaches intermediaries too

The notice's phrase "directly or indirectly" is not a figure of speech ^[4]. It covers those who neither manufacture nor sell themselves: platforms and resellers, accounts that promote products for a fee or commission, clinics and beauty centres that administer. Promotion under Article 86 does not have to come from the product's owner; it is enough that it aims at the product's sale ^[1].

This is also the point that concerns the buyer directly. Someone who buys for their own work is a buyer. Someone who resells, shares packs out to third parties, or publicly recommends a product with claims stops being only a buyer and becomes a link in the chain — with the responsibilities that follow. That line needs no legal analysis to be respected.

What it means for the labelling of a research product

The labelling of a lawful research product describes a substance, not an outcome: identity, batch, intended use for laboratory research, CLP hazard information, and nothing about people. If the label, the product page or the supplier's correspondence mentions a route of administration, indications or "results", the "research use only" statement neutralises nothing; Articles 1(2) and 87(1) apply ^[1]. The labelling requirements are analysed in the relevant article on this site.

For the buyer, the reading is simple. Labelling consistent with a laboratory purpose shows a supplier who knows the framework. Inconsistent labelling shows a supplier exposed to sanctions — and your material exposed with it, to seizure or to an interrupted supply without warning. Anyone who wants a yardstick can look at what a research-material supplier is allowed to say; whatever goes beyond that is promotion.

If you come across a product being promoted unlawfully, EOF explicitly asks the public to submit reports ^[4]; how to do that is described in the article on reporting a suspect product.