Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62017CN0425

Case C-425/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 July 2017 — Günter Hartmann Tabakvertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v Stadt Kempten

OJ C 347, 16.10.2017, p. 8–8 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

16.10.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 347/8


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 July 2017 — Günter Hartmann Tabakvertrieb GmbH & Co. KG v Stadt Kempten

(Case C-425/17)

(2017/C 347/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Günter Hartmann Tabakvertrieb GmbH & Co. KG

Defendant: Stadt Kempten

Intervening party: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern

Questions referred

1.

Must Article 2(8) of Directive 2014/40/EU (1) be interpreted as meaning that only chewing tobacco products in the traditional sense constitute ‘products intended to be chewed’?

2.

Must Article 2(8) of Directive 2014/40/EU be interpreted as meaning that ‘products intended to be chewed’ are synonymous with ‘chewing tobacco’ within the meaning of Article 2(6) of the directive?

3.

Must the question of whether a tobacco product is ‘intended to be chewed’ within the meaning of Article 2(8) of Directive 2014/40/EU be determined on the basis of an objective consideration of the product and not on the basis of the information supplied by the manufacturer or the actual use by consumers?

4.

Must Article 2(8) of Directive 2014/40/EU be interpreted as meaning that, in order for a tobacco product to be intended to be chewed, that product must in terms of its consistency and firmness be objectively suitable for being chewed and chewing it must result in the ingredients in the product being released?

5.

Must Article 2(8) of Directive 2014/40/EU be interpreted as meaning that, in order for a tobacco product to be intended ‘to be chewed’, it is additionally necessary, but also sufficient, for the repeated exertion of light pressure on the tobacco product using the teeth or tongue to cause more of the ingredients in the product to be released than if the product is simply kept in the mouth?

6.

Or, in order for a tobacco product to be ‘intended to be chewed’, is it necessary that merely keeping the product in the mouth or sucking it does not cause ingredients to be released?

7.

Can the suitability of a tobacco product ‘to be chewed’, within the meaning of Article 2(8) of Directive 2014/40/EU, also be imparted by the method of dispensation outside the processed tobacco, such as a cellulose sachet?


(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