This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014CN0468
Case C-468/14: Action brought on 13 October 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark
Case C-468/14: Action brought on 13 October 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark
Case C-468/14: Action brought on 13 October 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark
IO C 439, 8.12.2014, p. 25–25
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
8.12.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 439/25 |
Action brought on 13 October 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark
(Case C-468/14)
(2014/C 439/34)
Language of the case: Danish
Parties
Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Clausen. C. Cattabriga, acting as Agents)
Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark
Form of order sought
|
— |
Declare that, by maintaining a legal situation in which the sale of loose snuff is permitted contrary to Article 8, read in conjunction with Article 2(4) of Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products (1), the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
|
— |
the order Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Directive 2001/37/EC by prohibiting only sales of snuff in porous portion sachets, but not loose snuff, in Denmark. Denmark has not disputed that its national rules do not comply with EU law in so far as regards the prohibition of marketing of tobacco for oral use. A legislative proposal which would have introduced a complete prohibition on the sale of snuff in Denmark was, however, rejected by the Danish Parliament (Folketing).
Denmark has not given any further commitments that it will bring Danish rules into line with EU law. The Commission must accordingly conclude that Denmark has still failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of the Directive, read in conjunction with Article 2(4) thereof.