No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
Judgement of the CJEC in Case C-491/01, The Queen and the Secretary of State for Health ex parte British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd and Imperial Tobacco Ltd (Tobacco Manufacturing Directive Case)
1 Japan Tobacco had already sought the annulment of the Directive before the CFI. Its application was rejected as inadmissible due to lack of direct concern (Case T-223/01).Google Scholar
2 Case C-50/00P, Union de Pequeños Agricultores, see on this D. Hanf, “Kicking the ball into the Member States’ field: the Court's response to Jégo-Quéré“ in 3 (2002) German Law Journal 8 (http://www.germanlawjournal.com/past_issues.php?id=171).Google Scholar
3 Point 87.Google Scholar
4 Case C-376/98, Germany v. Parliament and Council.Google Scholar
5 Point 94.Google Scholar
6 In the case of, for example, a packet of cigarettes, the warnings - depending on the number of official languages used - should cover up to 35% of the front of the packet, 50% of the back with 15% of the sides being taken up with tar, nicotine and tobacco yields.Google Scholar
7 Article 295 states that the provisions of the Treaty “shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing teh system of property ownership”.Google Scholar
8 Point 191. Emphasis added.Google Scholar
9 See above note 4Google Scholar
You have
Access