Court of Justice confirms validity of the new Tobacco Products Directive and rejects challenges to e-cigarette provisions and menthol cigarettes ban
Case C-547/14 R (Philip Morris Ltd and others) v Secretary of State for Health
Case C‑477/14 Pillbox 38 (UK) Ltd v Secretary of State for Health
Case C‑358/14 Poland v Parliament and Council
On 4 May 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its judgments in three cases concerning the Tobacco Products Directive (Directive 2014/40/EU). The revised Directive was adopted in April 2014 and provides for a wide range of restrictions concerning tobacco packaging, flavouring and e-cigarettes.
In Philip Morris, a preliminary reference from the Administrative Court, the Court held that the Article 24(2) of the Directive permitted Member States to maintain or introduce further requirements in relation to aspects of the packaging of tobacco products which were not harmonised by the Directive and that was consistent with Article 114 TFEU, which was to be regarded as the correct legal base for the Directive. The Court rejected arguments by the tobacco companies that the Directive was a disguised public health measure. It held that the EU Legislator was permitted to use the internal market approximation base under Article 114 TFEU whilst, at the same time, ensuring a high level of human health protection.
The Court also considered the legality and proportionality of several packaging restrictions imposed by the Directive. It upheld Article 13(1), which prohibits the display of any element or feature which might promote, or give a misleading impression with regard to, the product, including factual information about the product, its elements or characteristics, whether or not the information concerned is factually accurate. For example, the tobacco manufacturers had complained that this would prevent them referring to taste, smell, any flavourings or the fact that their product had improved biodegradability, organic or low tar or nicotine contents. The Court held that a high level of health protection requires that consumers should not be encouraged to consume tobacco products by means of information which, although factually accurate, they may interpret as meaning that the risks associated with their habits are reduced or that the products have certain benefits.
The Court also assessed the proportionality of other packaging requirements, including the ban on flavoured tobacco and the requirement that new combined visual and pictorial health warnings should cover at least 65% of the front and back of the packet. The Court rejected arguments that those requirements were manifestly inappropriate or went go beyond what was necessary to attain the objective of improving the internal market for tobacco and related products, taking as a base a high level of protection of human health, especially for young people. The Court also found that the other questions referred by the Administrative Court had disclosed no factors affecting the validity of certain other parts of the Directive.
In Pillbox 38, another preliminary reference from the Administrative Court, the Court considered whether the various requirements and restrictions imposed by Article 20 of the Directive on the construction, marketing and advertising of e-cigarettes were compatible with EU law. The Court again concluded that the question referred to it by the Administrative Court disclosed no factors affecting the validity of Article 20.
In Poland v Parliament and Council, the Polish government had brought an action to annul the provisions of the Directive which prohibited the use of flavouring in cigarettes, including menthol. The Court dismissed the application.
Ian Rogers QC and Eric Metcalfe appeared on behalf of the United Kingdom in all three cases. Anneli Howard appeared for Joh. Wilh. von Eicken GmbH, one of the tobacco manufacturers joined as an interested party in the Philip Morris case.