EOPYY Sues Novartis for €228 Million as Case Goes to Court on November 12

The Athens Multi-Member Court of First Instance is expected to hear on November 12, 2026, under ordinary proceedings, a lawsuit filed by the National Organization For Health Care Services (EOPYY) against Novartis Hellas seeking €228.63 million in damages for non-material damage.

The lawsuit, which mononews.gr presents exclusively, was filed on June 17, 2025.

According to EOPYY’s court filing, the case concerns a series of practices allegedly resulting in influenced prescribing patterns and the artificial boosting of the company’s sales in the Greek market.

The €228.63 million sought represents, according to the lawsuit, compensation for the non-material damage that EOPYY claims to have suffered. The organisation also reserves the right to pursue additional claims in respect of any material damage.

The lawsuit describes a system of practices which, according to EOPYY, went beyond isolated actions and involved organised interventions targeting healthcare professionals, including through the funding of their participation in international medical conferences and through targeted epidemiological studies.

It should be stressed that the lawsuit, filed in June last year, is based on the out-of-court settlement reached by Novartis’ parent company with the US Department of Justice in June 2020.

If EOPYY prevails in the legal battle and is awarded the amount it is seeking, the financial impact could be substantial for the pharmaceutical company, which reported net revenue of €204.23 million and profit of €8.18 million in 2025.

The role of doctors at public hospitals

A central element of the lawsuit concerns healthcare professionals working at public or state-controlled hospitals and clinics.

According to the relevant documents, these healthcare professionals were considered, for the purposes of US law, to be “foreign officials.”

The term is associated with the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), which, under certain circumstances, also covers employees of state-owned or state-controlled entities.

Against this backdrop, EOPYY’s lawsuit refers to financial benefits and other incentives provided to doctors, which it links to increased prescribing of Novartis medicines.

The organisation argues that these benefits were not merely expenses related to scientific information or professional education, but formed part of a broader commercial strategy to promote the company’s products.

The case of Lucentis

Particular emphasis is placed on Lucentis, Novartis’ ophthalmology drug containing the active ingredient ranibizumab, which is used, among other indications, to treat neovascular, or “wet,” age-related macular degeneration.

According to the lawsuit, promotion of the drug was linked to funding doctors’ participation in international medical conferences.

The expenses described in the court filing included airfare, luxury accommodation, meals at expensive restaurants and conference registration fees, with the total cost per participant sometimes exceeding $6,000.

According to EOPYY, these benefits were not unrelated to doctors’ prescribing practices. On the contrary, the lawsuit portrays them as part of a practice directly linked to the achievement of specific sales targets.

The filing also includes references to internal communications which, it claims, demonstrate a link between the benefits provided and prescribing activity.

One statement cited in the relevant correspondence reads: “To receive, you have to prescribe. There are no more gifts.”

The statement takes on particular significance within the overall narrative of the lawsuit, as EOPYY argues that it illustrates how the benefits in question were linked to efforts to increase prescribing.

The same logic applies to another internal instruction which, according to the lawsuit presented by Mononews, concerned an effort to secure all relevant prescriptions from a particular doctor.

The controversial epidemiological study
The lawsuit also focuses on a specific epidemiological study concerning hypertension, which began in 2008–2009.

According to the lawsuit, the initiative was not originally designed exclusively as scientific research. Instead, it is presented as a commercial project that was subsequently transformed into a scientific study.

EOPYY refers to a programme involving more than 2,200 healthcare professionals and more than 44,000 patients, with an investment that, according to the evidence cited in the lawsuit, exceeded €2.8 million.

The lawsuit also states that projected sales were expected to exceed €8.6 million.

The particularly critical point, as presented by EOPYY, is that the initiative initially appears to have had a commercial orientation before subsequently acquiring the character of a scientific study.

The filing also refers to an internal discussion among company executives during which, it claims, it was noted that participating doctors believed they were being paid for the medicines they prescribed rather than for collecting research data.

EOPYY relies on this point to support its argument that the study cannot be viewed in isolation from prescribing activity and the commercial promotion of medicines.

Indeed, according to an internal discussion cited in the lawsuit, the practice appears to have been treated as part of the company’s broader commercial strategy.

The accounting entries

Another key element of the lawsuit concerns the way in which, according to EOPYY, the relevant expenses were recorded in the company’s accounts.

The organisation argues that expenses associated with conferences and the study in question were recorded as legitimate advertising and promotional expenses, whereas, according to the lawsuit, they were in fact linked to practices intended to increase prescribing and sales.

According to the court filing, the relevant entries were incorporated into the company’s accounting records and subsequently into Novartis’ consolidated financial statements.

EOPYY attaches particular importance to this issue, arguing that it was not merely a matter of formal accounting treatment, but a practice connected to the actual nature and purpose of the expenses in question.

As the lawsuit states, the case “is not merely a formal accounting violation.”

The organisation’s position is that the entries formed part of a broader system of practices that influenced prescribing and, consequently, the pharmaceutical expenditure that the public healthcare system was required to cover.

The burden on EOPYY

At the heart of the lawsuit is the alleged link between these practices and public pharmaceutical expenditure.

EOPYY argues that the practices described in the filing resulted in an artificial increase in sales and prescribing and, consequently, placed an additional burden on public funds.

The lawsuit directly links these practices to the damage that EOPYY claims to have suffered as a result of what it describes as the distortion of the proper functioning of the prescribing process.

According to the reasoning set out in the lawsuit, this is not simply a dispute between a pharmaceutical company and a public-sector body.

EOPYY argues that the case concerns the protection of the lawful functioning of the healthcare system and the proper management of public funds.

For this reason, it is seeking compensation for the non-material damage it claims to have suffered, while, as stated in the filing, reserving the right to seek compensation for any material damage as well.

What EOPYY is seeking from Novartis

In its lawsuit, EOPYY is seeking €228.63 million from Novartis Hellas as compensation for non-material damage, together with statutory interest and legal costs.

The legal basis of the claim includes, among other provisions, Articles 59 and 932 of the Greek Civil Code. EOPYY argues that the practices in question infringed its rights and impaired its functioning as a public-sector body.

The essence of the lawsuit is that, according to EOPYY, the practices described constituted an organised network of actions aimed at influencing prescribing, increasing sales and ultimately shifting the cost of higher pharmaceutical expenditure onto the public healthcare system.

This is precisely the basis on which EOPYY is seeking financial compensation.

The matter will now be determined by the courts, with the Athens Multi-Member Court of First Instance due to examine the lawsuit and the claims contained in it on November 12.