Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:07:13.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Legality, Rationale and Science of Tobacco Display Bans After the Philip Morris Judgment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Alberto Alemanno
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A visual display ban on tobacco products, imposed by national legislation of an EEA State, such as the one at issue in the case at hand, constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports within the meaning of Article 11 EEA if, in fact, the ban affects the marketing of products imported from other EEA States to a greater degree than that of imported products which were, until recently, produced in Norway. It is for the national court to identify the aims which the legislation at issue is actually intended to pursue and to decide whether the public health objective of reducing tobacco use by the public in general can be achieved by measures less restrictive than a visual display ban on tobacco products (author's headnote).

Type
Case Notes
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 591 - 599
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Judgment of 12 September 2011.

2 Philip Morris Norway v. Staten v/Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet, EFTA Court of 12 September 2011, E-16/10.

3 See Section 4 of the Act of 9 March 1973 No 14 relating to the Prevention of the Harmful Effects of Tobacco.

4 See the Act of 3 April 2009 No 18, amending the Act of 9 March 1973 No 14 relating to the Prevention of the Harmful Effects of Tobacco, and introducing a Section 5 into the 1973 Act.

5 Being subject to the principle of “homogeneous interpretation”, the EFTA Court is bound by the case law of the CJEU but only insofar as relevant case law exists. See Baudenbacher, C., “The EFTA Court: An Actor in the European Judicial Dialogue”, 28 Fordham International Law Journal (2005), pp. 353–391 Google Scholar; and also Baudenbacher, C., “The EFTA Court, the ECJ, and the Latter's Advocates General – A Tale of Judicial Dialogue”, in Arnull, Anthony, Eckhout, Piet and Tridimas, Takis (eds), Continuity and Change in EU Law. Essays in Honour of Sir Francis Jacobs (Oxford: 2008), pp. 90 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 The latter provision, similar to Article 36 of the TFEU, allows the adoption of restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds of the protection of health and life of humans, among others.

7 Joined Cases C-267/91 and C-268/91 Keck and Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097.

8 See Case C-110/05 Commission v. Italy [2009] ECR I-519, paras. 35 and 37.

9 Commission v. Italy, para. 41.

10 Ibid., para. 42.

11 Commission v. Italy, para. 44.

12 Ibid., para. 47.

13 Ibid., para. 48.

14 Case E-4/04 Pedicel AS v. Sosial- og helsedirektoratet, EFTA Court Report 2005, p. 1.

15 Ibid., para. 48.

16 Ibid., para. 46, citing case C-405/98 Konsumentombudsmannen v. Gourmet International Products AB [2001] ECR I-1795, at para. 21.

17 Ibid., para. 49.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid., para. 50.

20 Case C-69/88 Krantz [1990] ECR I-583, para. 11; Case C-379/92 Peralta [1994] ECR I-3453, para. 24; Case C-96/94 Centro Servizi Spediporto [1995] ECR I-2883, para. 41; and Case C-412/97 ED [1999] ECR I-3845, para. 11.

21 Case C-291/09 Guarnieri & Cie, judgment of 7 April 2011, not yet reported, para. 17.

22 Guarnieri & Cie, para. 59.

23 Ibid., para. 79.

24 Ibid., para. 77.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid., para. 81.

27 Ibid., para. 83.

28 Ibid., para. 84.

29 Ibid., para. 86.

30 Commission v. Italy.

31 See, e.g., Prete, L., “Of Motorcycle Trailers and Personal Watercrafts: The Battle over Keck”, 35 Legal Issues of Economic Integration (2008), p. 133 Google Scholar; Pecho, P., “Goodbye Keck? A Comment on the Remarkable Judgment in Commission vs Italy”, C-110/05, 36 Legal Issues of Economic Integration (2009), p. 257 Google Scholar; Sibony, A. and Defossez, A., “Chronique – Marché intérieur”, 46 Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Européen (2010), pp. 129, 143Google Scholar.

32 See, e.g., C-108/09 Ker-Optika, judgment of 2 December 2010, not yet reported, para. 51.

33 Yet, as observed by Peter Oliver, we already knew that these measures were covered by the general Dassonville formula. See Oliver, Peter, Oliver on Free Movement of Goods in the European Union (Hart Publishing, 2010), 5th edition, p. 129 Google Scholar.

34 See Article 6 EEA and Article 3 II SCA.

35 C-108/09 Ker-Optika, supra note 33.

36 See, e.g., Cases E-5/96 Nille, EFTA Court Report [1997] 30, at para. 28 et sqq., with reference to ECJ 17 October 1995 – C-124/94 – DIP and Others v. Comune di Bassano del Grappa and Comune di Chioggia, 1995 ECR, I-3257; E-4/04 Pedicel EFTA Court Report [2005] 1.

37 See Report for the hearing, paras. 17–19.

38 Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Case C-412/93 Leclerc-Siplec [1995] ECR I-179, point 50.

39 See footnote 2 of the report for the hearing.

40 Report for the hearing, para. 14.

41 See also Opinion of AG Geelhoed in Case C-239/02 Douwe Egberts [2004] ECR I-7007.

42 Case C-391/92 Commission v. Greece [1995] ECR I-1621, para. 17.

43 Ibid., para. 48.

44 Ibid., para. 49.

45 See, e.g., Pollay, R., “Targeting youth and concerned smokers: Evidence from Canadian tobacco industry documents”, 9 Tobacco Control (1999), pp. 136–147 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

46 Case E-4/04 Pedicel AS v. Sosial- og helsedirektoratet, supra note 14, p. 1.

47 Ibid., p. 1, para. 46, citing case C-405/98 Konsumentombudsmannen v. Gourmet International Products AB [2001] ECR I-1795, at para. 21.

48 All we know is that “all tobacco products sold in Norway are manufactured in other states.” Yet we don't know which ones. Report for the Hearing, para. 134.

49 It is true, however, that the opening words of Article 8(2) of the EEA Agreement could be interpreted as indicating that there might be instances in which Articles 11 and 13 could apply to goods originating in third countries.

50 Ibid., para. 83.

51 Ibid., para. 84.

52 See, e.g., A. Alemanno, “The shaping of risk regulation by Community Courts”, Jean Monnet Working Paper, New York University, number 1/18, 2008.

53 See, e.g., Case E-3/00 EFTA Surveillance Authority v. The Kingdom of Norway, EFTA Court Report 2000–2001, p. 73; Case E-4/04, Pedicel AS v. Sosial- og helsedirektoratet, supra note 14, p. 1.

54 Joined Cases C-171/07 and C-172/07 Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes and Others [2009] ECR I-4171, para. 30.

55 Alemanno, A. and Bonadio, E., “Plain Packaging of Cigarettes under EU Law”, in Mitchell, Andrew, Voon, Tania and Liberman, Jonathan (eds), Public Health and Plain Packaging of Cigarettes: Legal Issues (Edward Elgar, UK: forthcoming 2012)Google Scholar.

56 The Finnish display ban is set to enter into force on January 1, 2012.

57 Directive 2001/37 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products OJ L 194/26.

58 The FCTC provides “a framework for tobacco control measures to be implemented by the parties at the national, regional and international levels in order to reduce continually and substantially the prevalence of tobacco use and exposure to tobacco smoke. See WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (2003), available on the Internet at <http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2003/9241591013.pdf> (last accessed on 28 October 2011). The FCTC entered into force on 27 February 2005. The treaty, which is now closed for signature, has 173 signatories, including the European Union, which makes it the most widely adopted treaty in UN history.

59 European Commission, Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General, Public Consultation Document on the possible revision of the Tobacco Products Directive, 2010.

60 The only sector-specific treaty provision dealing with public health, Article 168 Treaty for the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), expressly excludes harmonising measures in this area (Article 168(5)).

61 See, e.g., Case C-376/98 Germany v. European Parliament and Council (Tobacco Advertising I) [2000] ECR 1-8419, para. 90; and, lastly, Case C-58/08 The Queen, on the application of Vodafone Ltd and Others v. Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform [2010] ECR not yet reported, para. 32.

62 Case C-376/98 Germany v. European Parliament and Council (Tobacco Advertising I) [2000] ECR 1-8419, para. 88; Case C-380/03 Federal Republic of Germany v. European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Tobacco Advertising II) [2006] ECR I-11573, para. 39.

63 See, e.g., Davies, G., “Can Selling Arrangements be Harmonised?”, 30 European Law Review (2005), p. 370 Google Scholar.

64 Para. 49. Yet, as briefly mentioned in para. 50 of the judgment, it remains to be verified whether such distortions of competition can be considered “significant” enough to trigger a valid invocation of Article 114 TFEU.