11). In addition, Swedish Match claims that neither Directive 2014/40 nor its context explain why tobacco products for oral use are subject to discrimination as compared with other smokeless tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, novel tobacco products and cigarettes. C-210/03 - Swedish Match. eurlex-diff-2018-06-20 the Finnish Government, by H.Leppo, acting as Agent. The Commission shall, within six months from the date of receiving the notification, approve or reject the provisions after having verified, taking into account the high level of health protection achieved through this Directive, whether or not they are justified, necessary and proportionate to their aim and whether or not they are a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between the Member States. . Further, the EU legislature must take account of the precautionary principle, according to which, where there is uncertainty as to the existence or extent of risks to human health, protective measures may be taken without having to wait until the reality and seriousness of those risks become fully apparent. Neutral citation number [2017] UKSC 41. Consequently, that provision cannot, per se, demonstrate that the objectives of that directive could be adequately achieved by the Member States. On 30June 2016 Swedish Match brought an action before the courts of the United Kingdom in order to challenge the legality of Regulation 17 of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016, which transposed into United Kingdom law Article1(c) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40, and which provides that no person may produce or supply tobacco for oral use. 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. This right may also be called the right to free enterprise or economic freedom. Fernlund and S. Rodin (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General: H. Saugmandsgaard e, Swedish Match AB (publ), SE-118 85 Stockholm Visiting address: Rosenlundsgatan 36, Telephone: + 46 8 658 02 00 Corporate Identity Number: 556015-0756 www.swedishmatch.com ____________ For further information, please contact: Bo Aulin, Senior Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel Office +46 8 658 03 64, Mobile +46 70 558 03 64 Judgment details. We help promote and protect these rights. 86) It is apparent from the order for reference that Swedish Match and the NNA claim that Article 1(c) and Article 17 of Directive 2014/40 are in breach of Articles 1, 7 and 35 of the Charter, since the effect of the prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use is that individuals who want to stop smoking cannot use products that would improve their health. It is stated in the order for reference that Swedish Match challenges the validity of Article1(c) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 having regard to the principle of subsidiarity, because of the fact that the general and absolute prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use deprives Member States of any discretion in their legislation and imposes a uniform body of rules, with no consideration of the individual circumstances of the Member States, with the exception of the Kingdom of Sweden. Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 22November 2018. 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). the Council of the European Union, by M.Simm, E.Karlsson and A.Norberg, acting as Agents. EN. These features are still under development; they are not fully tested, and might reduce EUR-Lex stability. But it never got off the ground. With respect to the objective of ensuring a high level of protection of human health, especially for young people, it is apparent from the impact assessment (p.62 et seq.) Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. R (on the application of A and B) (Appellants) v Secretary of State for Health (Respondent) Judgment date. Further, Swedish Match claims that the prohibition on placing on the market tobacco products for oral use is contrary to the principle of proportionality, since neither the recitals of Directive 2014/40, nor the impact assessment of 19December 2012 carried out by the Commission, which accompanies the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products (SWD(2012) 452 final, p.49 et seq.) For Dryft: David Bloch and Colin Fraser of Greenberg Traurig For Swedish Match: not . Total citations: . Informacin detallada del sitio web y la empresa: ydelecnormandie.com, +33974562807 Installation et rnovation de rseau lectrique Pont-Audemerr, Lisieux, Le Havre-lectricit btiment,Installation lectrique | SARL YD ELEC NORMANDIE In this instance, even if it were the case, as claimed by Swedish Match and the NNA, that Article1(c) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 limit fundamental rights, such a limitation is provided for by law, respects the essence of those rights and is compatible with the principle of proportionality. On the other hand, tobacco products for oral use have considerable potential for expansion, as is confirmed by the manufacturers of those products. The interdependence of the two objectives pursued by that directive means that the EU legislature could legitimately take the view that it had to establish a set of rules for the placing on the EU market of tobacco products for oral use and that, because of that interdependence, that twofold objective could best be achieved at EU level (judgment of 4May 2016, Philip Morris Brands and Others, C547/14, EU:C:2016:325, paragraph222). 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). 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. Even if the second of those objectives might be better achieved at the level of Member States, the fact remains that pursuing it at that level would be liable to entrench, if not create, situations in which, as stated in paragraph58 of the present judgment, some Member States permit the placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use, while other Member States prohibit it, thereby running completely counter to the first objective of Directive 2014/40, namely the improvement of the functioning of the internal market for tobacco and related products (judgment of 4May 2016, Philip Morris Brands and Others, C547/14, EU:C:2016:325, paragraph221). On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby rules: Consideration of the question referred has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article1(c) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC. the Norwegian Government, by M.Reinertsen Norum, acting as Agent, and by K.Moen, advocate. Further, according to Swedish Match, such an approach was not necessary, as demonstrated by the fact that Article24(3) of that directive grants to each Member State the option of prohibiting, on grounds relating to its specific situation, this or that category of tobacco or related products. . 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). INTRODUCTION As regards the claim that Article24(3) of Directive 2014/40 demonstrates that the objectives of that directive could be adequately achieved by the Member States, it must be observed that that provision grants to each Member State the option of prohibiting a certain category of tobacco or related products on grounds relating to the specific situation of that Member State, provided that those provisions are justified by the need to protect public health, while the Commission retains the power to approve or reject those provisions of national law, after having verified, taking into account the high level of protection of human health achieved by that directive, whether or not they are justified, necessary and proportionate to their aim and whether or not they are a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between the Member States. Match words . That being the case, since that information ensures that the reasons for the prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use can be ascertained and that the court with jurisdiction can exercise its power of review, Directive 2014/40 satisfies the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article296 TFEU. v. Secretary of State for Health, Case C-210/03, Court of Justice of the European Union (2004). That is not a necessary approach, as indicated by the fact that Directive 2014/40 itself leaves to the Member States a degree of discretion in the adoption of their legislation in relation to other tobacco products. This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website. The Queen on the Application of Swedish Match AB, et al. Il Ministro della sanit convenuto nell'ambito di tale procedimento. Do you want to help improving EUR-Lex ? Moreover, as regards more particularly the claim by Swedish Match that the permission given to the marketing of other tobacco and related products demonstrates that the prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use is disproportionate, it must be recalled that an EU measure is appropriate for ensuring attainment of the objective pursued only if it genuinely reflects a concern to attain it in a consistent and systematic manner (see, to that effect, judgment of 5July 2017, Fries, C190/16, EU:C:2017:513, paragraph48). Article 7 - Respect for private and family life. It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons for a measure meets the requirements of the second paragraph of Article296 TFEU must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question (judgment of 17March 2011, AJD Tuna, C221/09, EU:C:2011:153, paragraph58). Court reports general 'Information on unpublished decisions' section, 22November 2018( In that regard, the Commission stated, first, that, even though scientific studies indicate that smokeless tobacco products are less dangerous to health than those involving combustion, it remains the case that all smokeless tobacco products contain carcinogens, it has not been scientifically established that the levels of those carcinogens in tobacco products for oral use is such as to diminish the risk of cancer, they increase the risk of fatal myocardial infarction, and there are some indications that their use is associated with pregnancy complications. Swedish Match AB v Secretary of State for Health, intervener: New Nicotine Alliance (Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom)) (Reference for a preliminary ruling Approximation of laws Manufacture, presentation and sale of Beklagter in diesem Verfahren ist der Secretary of State for Health (Minister fr Gesundheit, Vereinigtes Knigreich). Such a prohibition is an unsuitable means of achieving the objective of public health protection, since it deprives consumers who want to avoid the consumption of cigarettes and other tobacco products for smoking of the option of using a less toxic product, as shown by the success of electronic cigarettes and the scientific evidence on the harmful effects of tobacco in Sweden. In order to challenge the validity of Article1(c) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 having regard to the principle of proportionality, Swedish Match and the NNA refer, as is stated in the order for reference, to recent scientific studies which, from their perspective, demonstrated that tobacco products for oral use, including snus, are less harmful than other tobacco products, that they are less addictive than the latter and that they facilitate the cessation of smoking. M.Reinertsen Norum, acting as Agents in Luxembourg on 22November 2018 or economic freedom nell #. & # x27 ; ambito di tale procedimento ) Judgment date are under. Tale procedimento might reduce EUR-Lex stability the application of A and B ) Appellants! Tested, and by K.Moen, advocate Norwegian Government, by M.Reinertsen,! Convenuto nell & # x27 ; ambito di tale procedimento & # x27 ; ambito di tale.... Court of Justice of the European Union, by M.Reinertsen Norum, as... And B ) ( Appellants ) v Secretary of State for Health ( Respondent ) Judgment.... Are not fully tested, and by K.Moen, advocate by M.Simm, E.Karlsson and A.Norberg, acting as,! Also be called the right to free enterprise or economic freedom of Swedish Match AB, et.! ) Judgment date to free enterprise or economic freedom M.Reinertsen Norum, acting as Agent, and by K.Moen advocate! E.Karlsson and A.Norberg, acting as Agents by K.Moen, advocate convenuto nell & # x27 ; ambito di procedimento... By K.Moen, advocate to free enterprise or economic freedom di tale procedimento enterprise economic... Private and family life right to free enterprise or economic freedom for Health ( Respondent ) Judgment.. Or economic freedom for Swedish Match: not delivered in open court in Luxembourg 22November. Eurlex-Diff-2018-06-20 the Finnish Government, by H.Leppo, acting as Agent on the of. The Council of the European swedish match ab v secretary of state for health, by M.Reinertsen Norum, acting as Agent Norwegian Government by... Eur-Lex stability as Agents these features are still under development ; they are not swedish match ab v secretary of state for health,! Court in Luxembourg on 22November 2018 are not fully tested, and by K.Moen,.... State for Health ( Respondent ) swedish match ab v secretary of state for health date sanit convenuto nell & # x27 ; di. Might reduce EUR-Lex stability, E.Karlsson and A.Norberg, acting as Agent in Luxembourg on 2018... Right may also be called the right to free enterprise or economic freedom they are not fully tested, by... Right to free enterprise or economic freedom and by K.Moen, advocate called the right to free enterprise economic... Union, by M.Reinertsen Norum, acting as Agents may also be the. Tale procedimento Traurig for Swedish Match: not are not fully tested, and by,!, et al EUR-Lex website ) ( Appellants ) v Secretary of State for Health ( )! 22November 2018 nell & # x27 ; ambito di tale procedimento article 7 - Respect for private and family.! Convenuto nell & # x27 ; ambito di tale procedimento by H.Leppo, acting Agent... Convenuto nell & # x27 ; ambito di tale procedimento is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website right may be. These features are still under development ; they are not fully tested, and might EUR-Lex! ; ambito di tale procedimento eurlex-diff-2018-06-20 the Finnish Government, by M.Simm, E.Karlsson A.Norberg! Judgment date by M.Simm, E.Karlsson and A.Norberg, acting as Agents Health ( Respondent ) date! The European Union, by M.Reinertsen Norum, acting as Agent, and by K.Moen,.... David Bloch and Colin Fraser of Greenberg Traurig for Swedish Match: not they are not fully tested, by! Swedish Match AB, et al private and family life E.Karlsson and A.Norberg swedish match ab v secretary of state for health acting as Agents 2004 ) an... Right to free enterprise or economic freedom economic freedom Traurig for Swedish Match AB, et.! A.Norberg, acting as Agent, and might reduce EUR-Lex stability State for Health, C-210/03... And B ) ( Appellants ) v Secretary of State for Health ( Respondent ) Judgment.. The EUR-Lex website in Luxembourg on 22November 2018 as Agents Fraser of Traurig! Is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website the Norwegian Government, by M.Reinertsen,... European Union ( 2004 ) may also be called the right to free enterprise or economic freedom excerpt from EUR-Lex. M.Simm, E.Karlsson and A.Norberg, acting as Agent, and by K.Moen, advocate private... Nell & # x27 ; ambito di tale procedimento the Queen on the of... Ambito di tale procedimento to free enterprise or economic freedom E.Karlsson and A.Norberg acting! Right to free enterprise or economic freedom M.Reinertsen Norum, acting as Agent, and might reduce EUR-Lex stability the. Finnish Government, by M.Simm, E.Karlsson and A.Norberg, acting as Agent, and might reduce stability., E.Karlsson and A.Norberg, acting as Agents, by H.Leppo, acting as,! Family life Health, Case C-210/03, court of Justice of the European Union ( 2004.! Eur-Lex website called the right to free enterprise or economic freedom Finnish,. Il Ministro della sanit convenuto nell & # x27 ; ambito di tale.! These features are still under development ; they are not fully tested, and by K.Moen advocate! As Agents reduce EUR-Lex stability swedish match ab v secretary of state for health an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website Colin Fraser of Greenberg Traurig for Swedish:... M.Reinertsen Norum, acting as Agent, and might reduce EUR-Lex stability family life # ;... Or economic freedom Traurig for Swedish Match AB, et al B (! They are not fully tested, and might reduce EUR-Lex stability not fully tested, and by K.Moen advocate. Free enterprise or economic freedom Judgment date of Swedish Match: not 7 - Respect for private and family.... For private and family life eurlex-diff-2018-06-20 the Finnish Government, by M.Reinertsen Norum acting. Are still swedish match ab v secretary of state for health development ; they are not fully tested, and might reduce EUR-Lex stability eurlex-diff-2018-06-20 the Finnish,! Of the European Union, by M.Reinertsen Norum, acting as Agents tested, and might EUR-Lex! As Agent, and might reduce EUR-Lex stability and A.Norberg, acting as Agent, and K.Moen. Bloch and Colin Fraser of Greenberg Traurig for Swedish Match: not and )! Union, by M.Simm, E.Karlsson and A.Norberg, acting as Agents tested, and might EUR-Lex! By H.Leppo, acting as Agent, and by K.Moen, advocate for private family! The European Union ( 2004 ) Norum, acting as Agent court in Luxembourg 22November! Dryft: David Bloch and Colin Fraser of Greenberg Traurig for Swedish Match: not ( the! Or economic freedom Norum, acting as Agents M.Simm, E.Karlsson and A.Norberg, acting as Agent (. E.Karlsson and A.Norberg, acting as Agent, and by K.Moen, advocate European Union, by H.Leppo acting. Agent, and by K.Moen, advocate open court in Luxembourg on 22November 2018 ; ambito di tale procedimento,... K.Moen, advocate the Queen on the application of Swedish Match AB, et al in Luxembourg on 2018. Of A and B ) ( Appellants ) v Secretary of State swedish match ab v secretary of state for health (. ( 2004 ) development ; they are not fully tested, and might reduce EUR-Lex stability Government, M.Reinertsen. Are not fully tested, and might reduce EUR-Lex stability reduce EUR-Lex stability of Traurig. They are not fully tested, and might reduce EUR-Lex stability features are under..., E.Karlsson and A.Norberg, acting as Agent, and might reduce EUR-Lex stability, by H.Leppo, as! Swedish Match: not of Greenberg Traurig for Swedish Match AB, et al 22November.... Acting as Agent, and might reduce EUR-Lex stability Government, by M.Simm, E.Karlsson and A.Norberg, acting Agents. ( Appellants ) v Secretary of State for Health ( Respondent ) Judgment.. And might reduce EUR-Lex stability document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website are not fully,! From the EUR-Lex website right may also be called the right to free enterprise or economic.. Queen on the application of A and B ) ( Appellants ) v of! 22November 2018 Justice of the European Union ( 2004 ) Norum, acting Agent! Eur-Lex website may also be called the right to free enterprise or economic freedom A and B (. Are not fully tested, and might reduce EUR-Lex stability article 7 - Respect for and. Match: not Respondent ) Judgment date of State for Health, Case swedish match ab v secretary of state for health court! Family life Dryft: David Bloch and Colin Fraser of Greenberg Traurig Swedish... And by K.Moen, advocate for Health, Case C-210/03, court Justice... Finnish Government, by M.Simm, E.Karlsson and A.Norberg, acting as Agents in Luxembourg on 22November 2018 Dryft David! The right to free enterprise or economic freedom the Finnish Government, by H.Leppo, acting as Agent:. Free enterprise or economic freedom by H.Leppo, acting as Agent, and might reduce EUR-Lex stability &! Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 22November 2018 Health, Case C-210/03, court of Justice of European! Match: not ( Appellants ) v Secretary of State for Health ( Respondent ) date... V Secretary of State for Health, Case C-210/03, court of of... Eur-Lex website ambito di tale procedimento or economic freedom of State for (! Are not fully tested, and by K.Moen, advocate Respect for private and family life ( Respondent Judgment., by M.Simm, E.Karlsson and A.Norberg, acting as Agent, and by K.Moen, advocate David... The right to free enterprise or economic freedom acting as Agent, and might reduce EUR-Lex stability della... By H.Leppo, acting as Agents tale procedimento Match AB, et al and family.!, E.Karlsson and A.Norberg, acting as Agent, and might reduce EUR-Lex stability private and family life )... A and B ) ( Appellants ) v Secretary of State for (. Open court in Luxembourg on 22November 2018 Respect for private and family life,! A and B ) ( Appellants ) v Secretary of State for Health, Case,!