Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62017CN0220

Case C-220/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 27 April 2017 — Planta Tabak-Manufaktur Dr. Manfred Obermann GmbH & Co. KG v Land Berlin

OJ C 239, 24.7.2017, pp. 25–26 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

24.7.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/25

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 27 April 2017 — Planta Tabak-Manufaktur Dr. Manfred Obermann GmbH & Co. KG v Land Berlin

(Case C-220/17)

(2017/C 239/31)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Planta Tabak-Manufaktur Dr. Manfred Obermann GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Land Berlin

Questions referred

1.

(a)

Is Article 7(1) and (7) of Directive 2014/40/EU (1) in conjunction with Article 7(14) of Directive 2014/40/EU invalid on the ground of breach of the principle of legal certainty because it requires Member States to prohibit the placing on the market of particular tobacco products even though it is not clear precisely which of those tobacco products are to be prohibited from as early as 20 May 2016 and which only from 20 May 2020?

(b)

Is Article 7(1) and (7) of Directive 2014/40/EU in conjunction with Article 7(14) of Directive 2014/40/EU invalid on the ground of breach of the principle of equal treatment because it differentiates, as regards the prohibitions to be adopted by Member States, on the basis of sales volumes, without any valid reason for doing so?

(c)

Is Article 7(1) and (7) of Directive 2014/40/EU invalid on the ground of breach of the principle of proportionality and/or infringement of Article 34 TFEU because it requires Member States to prohibit, from as early as 20 May 2016, the placing on the market of tobacco products with a characterising flavour whose Union-wide sales volumes represent less than 3 % in a particular product category?

(d)

If the answers to Question 1(a) to 1(c) are in the negative, how is the term ‘product category’ in Article 7(14) of Directive 2014/40/EU to be construed? Must assignment to ‘product categories’ be based on the type of characterising flavour, on the type of (flavoured) tobacco product, or on a combination of both criteria?

(e)

If the answers to Question 1(a) to 1(c) are in the negative, how is it to be ascertained whether the 3 % limit in Article 7(14) of Directive 2014/40/EU has been reached, in the absence of any official and publicly accessible figures and statistics in that regard?

2.

(a)

When transposing Articles 8 to 11 of Directive 2014/40/EU into national law, are Member States allowed to adopt supplementary transitional arrangements?

(b)

If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the negative:

(1)

Are Article 9(6) and point (f) of the second sentence of Article 10(1) of Directive 2014/40/EU invalid on the ground of breach of the principle of proportionality and/or infringement of Article 34 TFEU because they delegate the determination of certain labelling and packaging requirements to the Commission without setting it a time limit in that respect and without providing for more extensive transitional arrangements or time limits to ensure that affected undertakings have adequate time to adapt to the requirements of that directive?

(2)

Are the second sentence of Article 9(1) (text of the warning); the second sentence of point (a) of Article 9(4) (font size); point (b) (smoking cessation information) and point (e) (positioning of the warnings) of the second sentence of Article 10(1); and the first sentence of Article 11(1) (labelling) of Directive 2014/40/EU invalid on the ground of breach of the principle of proportionality and/or infringement of Article 34 TFEU because they confer on Member States various rights of selection and design without setting them a time limit in that respect and without providing for more extensive transitional arrangements or time limits to ensure that affected undertakings have adequate time to adapt to the requirements of that directive?

3.

(a)

Must Article 13(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 13(3) of Directive 2014/40/EU be interpreted as meaning that Member States are required to prohibit the use of information referring to taste, smell, flavourings or other additives even where that information is not promotional information and the use of the ingredients is still permitted?

(b)

Is Article 13(1)(c) of Directive 2014/40/EU invalid on the ground that it infringes Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

(1)  Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 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 (OJ 2014 L 127, p. 1).

Top