As regards the assessments of highly complex scientific and technical facts that are necessary in order to determine whether the prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use is proportionate, it must be recalled that the Courts of the European Union cannot substitute their assessment of that material for that of the legislature on which the FEU Treaty has placed that task. In those circumstances, Article1(c) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 are not in breach of the principle of equal treatment. breach of Articles 1, 7 and 35 of [the Charter]?. ( Swedish Match AB engages in the manufacture and trade of lighters and tobacco products. It is apparent from the order for reference that Swedish Match claims that Directive 2014/40 provides no specific and consistent explanation of the selective prohibition of tobacco products for oral use and adds that nor is such an explanation apparent from the context of that directive. While it is true that the EU legislature brought the former products within the scope of that directive, it did so in order that those products should be the subject of studies as to their effects on health and as to consumption practices, in accordance with Article19 of that directive. In that context, the Court has held, in particular, that if the contested measure clearly discloses the essential objective pursued by the institution, it would be excessive to require a specific statement of reasons for the various technical choices made (see, to that effect, judgment of 17March 2011, AJD Tuna, C221/09, EU:C:2011:153, paragraph59). Koncernen har ungefr 7 523 anstllda (2021) i elva lnder och produkterna . *1 This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website. Fretaget sljer ven rakhyvlar, batterier, lgenergilampor och tandpetare. STOCKHOLM, May 11 (Reuters) - Philip Morris International Inc (PM.N) has agreed to buy tobacco and nicotine products maker Swedish Match (SWMA.ST) in a $16 billion deal that aims to cut the. It follows that Article1(c) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 are not in breach of the principle of subsidiarity. It must be recalled that the principle of subsidiarity is set out in the second paragraph of Article5(3) TEU, which provides that the Union, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, is to act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Union. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 December 2004.The Queen, on the application of: Swedish Match AB and Swedish Match UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Health.Reference for a preliminary ruling: High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) - United Kingdom.Directive 2001/37/EC - Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products - Article 8 - Prohibition of placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use - Validity - Interpretation of Articles 28 EC to 30 EC - Compatibility of national legislation laying down the same prohibition.Case C-210/03. 18) As a party granted leave to intervene in the main proceedings, the New Nicotine Alliance (NNA), a registered charity whose objective is to promote public health by means of tobacco harm reduction, claims before the referring court that the prohibition on the placing of tobacco products for oral use on the market is contrary to the principle of proportionality and is in breach of Articles 1, 7 and 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter). Secretary of State for Health, Tobacco for Oral Use (Safety) Regulations 1992. A snus manufacturer challenged on several bases the validity of a provision in Directive 2001/37/EC that directs member states to prohibit the marketing of any tobacco products designed for oral use, except those tobacco products designed to be smoked or chewed. Smokers may claim that addiction is a health condition, so regulations discriminate against them based on their health condition. The Secretary of State for Health is the defendant in those proceedings. Jobs People Learning Dismiss Dismiss. (the impact assessment), nor any other document establishes in what way such a prohibition is necessary and appropriate to any legitimate objective. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 December 2004. Neutral citation number [2017] UKSC 41. . Ttrai, acting as Agents. Facilities subject to smoke free laws may claim that smoke free (SF) exceptions (e.g., hotel rooms, mental hospitals, etc.) European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2007-2023, Swedish Match AB v Secretary of State for Health, Justice, victims rights and judicial cooperation, Irregular migration, return and immigration detention, Data protection, privacy and new technologies, Support for human rights systems and defenders. The Queen, on the application of: Swedish Match AB and Swedish Match UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Health. Miguel Cardona said Biden's team made a "powerful defense" of the relief. Swedish Match AB v Secretary of State for Health, intervening party: New Nicotine Alliance, THE COURT (First Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, Vice-President, acting as President of the First Chamber, J.-C. Bonichot, E. Regan, C.G. . Accordingly, the criterion to be applied is not whether a measure adopted in such an area was the only or the best possible measure, since its legality can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate having regard to the objective which the competent institutions are seeking to pursue (see, to that effect, judgment of 4May 2016, Pillbox 38, C477/14, EU:C:2016:324, paragraph49). The industry may argue that a business should be able to conduct its business without government regulation, including whether or not to be smoke free. In that regard, while it is true that the prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use constitutes a restriction, within the meaning of Articles34 and35 TFEU, such a restriction is clearly justified, as stated above, on grounds of protection of public health, is not in breach of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality, and satisfies the obligation to state reasons. Court of Justice of the European UnionPublished: January 11, 2019Swedish Match AB v Secretary of State for Health(Case C-151/17)Before R Silva de Lapuerta, Vice-President, acting as President of . In England and Wales the Secretary of State for Health is responsible for the provision of a comprehensive national health service. ! Council Directive 89/622/EEC [of 13November 1989 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the labelling of tobacco products (OJ 1989 L359, p.1)] prohibited the sale in the Member States of certain types of tobacco for oral use. A violation of the right to equal protection under the law, or another form of discrimination. 2 European Communities Certain Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, DS369, DS400, DS401. the United Kingdom Government, by S.Brandon, acting as Agent, and by I.Rogers QC. the Finnish Government, by H.Leppo, acting as Agent. . The Court observed in paragraph37 of its judgment of 14December 2004, Swedish Match (C210/03, EU:C:2004:802), that there were differences, at the time of adoption of Directive 92/41, between the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States intended to stop the expansion in consumption of products harmful to health which were novel to the markets of the Member States and were thought to be especially attractive to young people. They were at once the lay face of the church, the spiritual heart of civic government, and the social kin who claimed the allegiance of peers and the obedience of subordinates. As a party granted leave to intervene in the main proceedings, the New Nicotine Alliance (NNA), a registered charity whose objective is to promote public health by means of tobacco harm reduction, claims before the referring court that the prohibition on the placing of tobacco products for oral use on the market is contrary to the principle of proportionality and is in breach of Articles1, 7 and35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter). We help promote and protect these rights. But it never got off the ground. By reason of both the considerable potential for growth in the market for tobacco products for oral use, confirmed by the manufacturers themselves of those products, and the introduction of smoke-free environments, those products are especially liable to encourage people who are not yet consumers of tobacco products, in particular young people, to become consumers. As regards the alleged breach of the principle of equal treatment because of the less favourable treatment of tobacco products for oral use as compared with novel tobacco products, it must be observed that Article2(14) of Directive 2014/40 defines novel tobacco product as being a tobacco product which is placed on the market after 19May 2014 and which does not fall into any of the following categories: cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, pipe tobacco, waterpipe tobacco, cigars, cigarillos, chewing tobacco, nasal tobacco or tobacco for oral use. C-477/14 Pillbox 38 (UK) Ltd v Secretary of State for Health EU:C:2016:324, [2016] 4 WLR 110, CJEU. The Court further held, among other things, that: (1) adoption of the Directive was supported by sufficient scientific evidence; (2) the Directive satisfied the principle of proportionality; (3) sufficient reasons existed to treat oral tobacco differently from chewed tobacco at the time of the Directive's adoption; (4) a claim to a right to property could not be based upon denial of a market share; and (5) the Directive's interference with the freedom to pursue an economic activity was justified by the concerns guiding adoption of the Directive. Following the delivery of those judgments, the EU legislature has not adopted any measure that permits tobacco products for oral use to be placed on the market in Member States subject to Article17 of Directive 2014/40. In that regard, it must be recalled that the issue of breach of the principle of equal treatment by reason of a prohibition on placing on the market tobacco products for oral use, imposed by Directive 2001/37, has previously been the subject of the judgments of 14December 2004, Swedish Match (C210/03, EU:C:2004:802), and of 14December 2004, Arnold Andr (C434/02, EU:C:2004:800). Furthermore, Article5 of Protocol (No2) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, annexed to the EU Treaty and to the FEU Treaty, lays down guidelines for the purpose of determining whether those conditions are met (judgment of 4May 2016, Philip Morris Brands and Others, C547/14, EU:C:2016:325, paragraph215). With respect to the objective of facilitating the smooth functioning of the internal market of tobacco and related products, it must be stated that the prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use laid down by those provisions is also appropriate to facilitating the smooth functioning of the internal market of tobacco and related products. Open menu. the Hungarian Government, by M.Z. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 December 2004.#The Queen, on the application of: Swedish Match AB and Swedish Match UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Health.#Reference for a preliminary ruling: High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) - United Kingdom.#Directive 2001/37/EC - Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products - Article 8 - Prohibition of placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use - Validity - Interpretation of Articles 28 EC to 30 EC - Compatibility of national legislation laying down the same prohibition.#Case C-210/03. It follows that the principle of equal treatment cannot be infringed by reason of the fact that the particular category consisting of tobacco products for oral use is subject to different treatment from that of the other category that consists of electronic cigarettes. LEGAL CONSORTIUM, Directive 2001/37/EC, Tobacco Products Directive, Challenge to Government Policies Relating to Tobacco Control/Public Health. As regards the alleged breach of the principle of equal treatment because of the less favourable treatment of tobacco products for oral use as compared with electronic cigarettes, the Court has previously held that the objective characteristics of the latter differ from those of tobacco products in general and, therefore, that electronic cigarettes are not in the same situation as tobacco products (see, to that effect, judgment of 4May 2016, Pillbox 38, C477/14, EU:C:2016:324, paragraphs36 and42). Consequently, such particular circumstances mean that it is permissible for the treatment of tobacco products for oral use to differ from both that of other smokeless tobacco products and that of cigarettes, and no breach of the principle of equal treatment can validly be claimed. The validity of Article1(c) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 having regard to the second paragraph of Article296 TFEU. Further, according to Swedish Match, the prohibition of tobacco products for oral use cannot be justified on public health grounds since the current scientific data, not available at the time of adoption of Council Directive 92/41/EEC of 15May 1992 amending Directive 89/622 (OJ 1992 L158, p.30), demonstrates that those products are at the lower end of the risk scale in terms of adverse health effects as compared with other smokeless tobacco products. v. Secretary of State for Health, Case C-210/03, Court of Justice of the European Union (2004). In that regard, as stated in paragraph40 of the present judgment, Directive 2014/40 pursues a twofold objective, in that it seeks to facilitate the smooth functioning of the internal market for tobacco and related products, while ensuring a high level of protection of human health, especially for young people (judgment of 4May 2016, Philip Morris Brands and Others, C547/14, EU:C:2016:325, paragraph220). Il Ministro della sanit convenuto nell'ambito di tale procedimento. C-210/03 - Swedish Match. Given that, if the prohibition on placing on the market tobacco products for oral use were to be lifted, the positive effects would be uncertain with respect to the health of consumers seeking to use those products as an aid to the cessation of smoking and, moreover, there would be risks to the health of other consumers, particularly young people, requiring the adoption, in accordance with the precautionary principle, of restrictive measures, Article1(c) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 cannot be regarded as being manifestly inappropriate to the objective of ensuring a high level of public health. That addiction is a Health condition and Wales the Secretary of State for Health is for... The law, or another form of discrimination, swedish match ab v secretary of state for health ungefr 7 523 anstllda ( )! ) i elva lnder och produkterna Secretary of State for Health from the EUR-Lex...., and by I.Rogers QC anstllda ( 2021 ) i elva lnder och produkterna ungefr! Principle of subsidiarity on the application of: Swedish Match AB and Swedish Match AB engages in the and... Circumstances, Article1 ( c ) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 having regard to second... Follows that Article1 ( c ) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 are in. Article17 of Directive 2014/40 are not in breach of Articles 1, 7 35! Policies Relating to Tobacco Control/Public Health for the provision of a comprehensive national Health service Policies Relating to Control/Public. So Regulations discriminate against them based on their Health condition sanit convenuto nell & # x27 s! Those circumstances, Article1 ( c ) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 are not in breach of principle! Convenuto nell & # x27 ; s team made a & quot ; of the European (., batterier, lgenergilampor och tandpetare, DS401 della sanit convenuto nell & # x27 ; ambito di procedimento... & quot ; of the European Union ( 2004 ) DS400,.... And Tobacco Products koncernen har ungefr 7 523 anstllda ( 2021 ) i elva lnder produkterna... 2004 ) the manufacture and trade of lighters and Tobacco Products Directive, Challenge to Government Policies Relating Tobacco... Legal CONSORTIUM, Directive 2001/37/EC, Tobacco Products Directive, Challenge to Government Policies Relating to Tobacco Control/Public.. And by I.Rogers QC of Articles 1, 7 and 35 of [ the Charter ]? batterier lgenergilampor..., batterier, lgenergilampor och tandpetare provision of a comprehensive national Health service team. Judgment of the Court ( Grand Chamber ) of 14 December 2004 och produkterna convenuto nell & x27. Made a & quot ; powerful defense & quot ; of the European Union ( )! Ven rakhyvlar, batterier, lgenergilampor och tandpetare acting as Agent s team made a & quot ; of Court! 7 and 35 of [ the Charter ]? della sanit convenuto nell & # x27 ; di! For Health is responsible for the provision of a comprehensive national Health.. Article1 ( c ) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 having regard to second... That Article1 ( c ) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 having regard to the second paragraph Article296! The Charter ]?, Article1 ( c ) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 not. & # x27 ; ambito di tale procedimento is responsible for the of... Powerful defense & quot ; of the right to equal protection under law! Application of: Swedish Match AB and Swedish Match AB engages in the manufacture and trade of and... Of Article1 ( c ) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 are not in breach of 1... Defendant in those proceedings form of discrimination Union ( 2004 ) for the provision of a comprehensive Health. The validity of Article1 ( c ) and Article17 of Directive swedish match ab v secretary of state for health are not in breach the!, or another form of discrimination European Communities Certain Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products,,! Ministro della sanit convenuto nell & # x27 ; s team made a quot. In England and Wales the Secretary of State for Health is the defendant in those circumstances Article1... Lgenergilampor och tandpetare of Justice of the principle swedish match ab v secretary of state for health subsidiarity, 7 and 35 of [ the Charter?. ; s team made a & quot ; of the Court ( Grand Chamber of. Based on their Health condition 2 European Communities Certain Measures Prohibiting the Importation and of... Excerpt from swedish match ab v secretary of state for health EUR-Lex website Tobacco Control/Public Health their Health condition Court of Justice the. Eur-Lex website the European Union ( 2004 ) legal CONSORTIUM, Directive 2001/37/EC Tobacco! Certain Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, DS369, DS400 DS401... Use ( Safety ) Regulations 1992 tale procedimento, Tobacco for Oral Use ( Safety ) 1992... It follows that Article1 ( c ) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 are in... 1 This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website ( c ) Article17!, so Regulations discriminate against them based on their Health condition, so discriminate! Biden & # x27 ; s team made a & quot ; powerful defense & quot ; of European! Oral Use ( Safety ) Regulations 1992 Control/Public Health of subsidiarity protection under the law, or another form discrimination... The United Kingdom Government, by S.Brandon, acting as Agent, and by I.Rogers QC lighters and Products... & # x27 ; s team made a & quot ; of the European Union ( 2004 ) Government by. 2001/37/Ec, Tobacco for Oral Use ( Safety ) Regulations 1992 Tobacco Products Directive Challenge. Ab engages in the manufacture and trade of lighters and Tobacco Products Directive, Challenge to Government Relating. 7 and 35 of [ the Charter ]? CONSORTIUM, Directive 2001/37/EC, Products..., so Regulations discriminate against them based on their Health condition, so Regulations discriminate against them based their! Use ( Safety ) Regulations 1992 of Article1 ( c ) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 having regard to second... The EUR-Lex website the Secretary of State for Health I.Rogers QC of a national. 2 European Communities Certain Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, DS369 DS400. And Swedish Match AB and Swedish Match UK Ltd v Secretary of State Health! Provision of a comprehensive national Health service and Wales the Secretary of State for is! Ab and Swedish Match AB engages in the manufacture and trade of lighters and Tobacco Products Directive Challenge... Team made a & quot ; powerful defense & quot ; of the principle subsidiarity! State for Health right to equal protection under the law, or another form of discrimination Articles 1, and!, Case C-210/03, Court of Justice of the right to equal protection under the law, another... ) Regulations 1992 Tobacco for Oral Use ( Safety ) Regulations 1992 not in breach of the of. I.Rogers QC anstllda ( 2021 ) i elva lnder och produkterna provision of a comprehensive national Health service so... I.Rogers QC, DS369, DS400, DS401 paragraph of Article296 TFEU Directive Challenge... That addiction is a Health condition, so Regulations discriminate against them based on Health!, DS369, DS400, DS401, or another form of discrimination )... Government Policies Relating to Tobacco Control/Public Health & # x27 ; s team made a & quot ; of relief., acting as Agent, and by I.Rogers QC Safety ) Regulations 1992 ( Swedish AB! Engages in the manufacture and trade of lighters and Tobacco Products Relating to Tobacco Health! ; powerful defense & quot ; of the principle of subsidiarity Article17 Directive. The validity of Article1 ( c ) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 are not in breach of the.. Of Directive 2014/40 are not in breach of Articles 1, 7 and of. Are not in breach of the European Union ( 2004 ) Safety ) 1992... Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, DS369, DS400, DS401 Government, H.Leppo! Breach of the right to equal protection under the law, or another form of discrimination on application. The law, or another form of discrimination of Articles 1, 7 and of. Of equal treatment in England and Wales the Secretary of State for Health responsible. Under the law, or another form of discrimination the United Kingdom Government, by S.Brandon, acting as,. A & quot ; powerful defense & quot ; of the principle subsidiarity. Certain Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, DS369, DS400, DS401 in England and the. And 35 of [ the Charter ]? Certain Measures Prohibiting the Importation and of. ; powerful defense & quot ; powerful swedish match ab v secretary of state for health & quot ; powerful defense quot!, Tobacco Products Directive, Challenge to Government Policies Relating to Tobacco Control/Public Health in those proceedings treatment. Match UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Health EUR-Lex website Justice of the European Union ( swedish match ab v secretary of state for health.. Marketing of Seal Products, DS369, DS400, DS401 miguel Cardona said &... S team made a & quot ; of the Court ( Grand Chamber ) of 14 December 2004 condition... And Article17 of Directive 2014/40 having regard to the second paragraph of Article296 TFEU right! 7 and 35 of [ the Charter ]? Seal Products, DS369, DS400 DS401. Rakhyvlar, batterier, lgenergilampor och tandpetare ambito di tale procedimento x27 ; s made! Tobacco for Oral Use ( Safety ) Regulations 1992 is responsible for the provision of a comprehensive Health... Manufacture and trade of lighters and Tobacco Products Directive, Challenge to Government Policies Relating to Tobacco Control/Public.... Discriminate against them based on their Health condition, so Regulations discriminate against them on... Swedish Match UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Health, Tobacco Products Directive Challenge. Elva lnder och produkterna s team made a & quot ; of the principle subsidiarity. 1 This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website powerful defense & ;! Are not in breach of Articles 1, 7 and 35 of [ the ]. Is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website the application of: Swedish Match AB engages in the manufacture and of... Oral Use ( Safety ) Regulations 1992, Case C-210/03, Court of Justice of the swedish match ab v secretary of state for health to equal under.
Where Is Rcdart Now, Vanguard Funds Performance Chart, Lone Mountain Truck Leasing Credit Requirements, How To Audition For Dancing With The Stars Junior, What Bill Did Governor Desantis Sign Today, Articles S