Keywords
Summary

Keywords

1. Approximation of laws — Directive 2001/37 concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products — Legal basis — Article 95 EC — Improvement of the conditions for the functioning of the internal market — Protection of public health a decisive factor in the choices involved in the harmonising measures — Not relevant — (Art. 95 EC; Directive 2001/37 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

2. Approximation of laws — Directive 2001/37 concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products — Legal basis — Article 95 EC — Improvement of the conditions for the functioning of the internal market — Prohibition of manufacture intended to prevent the circumvention of the marketing rules in the internal market — Included — (Art. 95 EC; Directive 2001/37 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Art. 3(1))

3. Acts of the institutions — Directive 2001/37 concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products — Choice of legal basis — Criteria — Community measure pursuing a twofold basis or having a twofold component — Reference to the main or predominant purpose or component — Incorrect reference to Article 133 EC as a second legal basis — Not relevant to the validity of the directive — (Arts 95 EC and 133 EC; Directive 2001/37 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

4. Approximation of laws — Directive 2001/37 concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products — Harmonising measures — No breach of the principle of proportionality — (Directive 2001/37 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Arts 3, 5 and 7)

5. Approximation of laws — Directive 2001/37 concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products — Respect of the right to property — Trade mark — Proportionate restrictions not impairing the very substance of that right — (Directive 2001/37 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Arts 5 and 7)

6. Community law — Principles — Principle of subsidiarity — Application to acts adopted for the purpose of establishing the internal market — Review of observance of the principle of subsidiarity — Criteria — (Art. 95 EC)

7. Approximation of laws — Directive 2001/37 concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products — Article 7 — Prohibition of the use of descriptors likely to mislead consumers — Applicable only to tobacco products marketed within the Community — (Art. 95 EC; Directive 2001/37 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Arts 3, 5 and 7)

Summary

1. Directive 2001/37 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products genuinely has as its object the improvement of the conditions for the functioning of the internal market and it was, therefore, possible for it to be adopted on the basis of Article 95 EC, and it is no bar that the protection of public health was a decisive factor in the choices involved in the harmonising measures which it defines.

The market for tobacco products, especially cigarettes, in the Community is one in which trade between Member States represents a relatively large part. Moreover, national rules laying down the requirements to be met by products, in particular those relating to their designation, composition or packaging, are in themselves liable, in the absence of harmonisation at Community level, to constitute obstacles to the free movement of goods.

The Community harmonisation measures already adopted in this sphere, namely, Directive 89/622 concerning the labelling of tobacco products and Directive 90/239 concerning the maximum tar yield of cigarettes, containing only limited requirements concerning the manufacture and labelling of tobacco products, the Member States were free to adopt national rules in respect of those aspects not covered by those directives.

Having regard to the fact that the public is increasingly conscious of the dangers to health posed by consuming tobacco products, it is likely that obstacles to the free movement of those products would arise by reason of the adoption by the Member States of such national rules reflecting that development and intended more effectively to discourage consumption of those products by means of warnings and information appearing on their packaging or to reduce the harmful effects of tobacco products by introducing new rules governing their composition. Certain of the Member States had, moreover, already adopted provisions to that effect.

In that context, a new harmonising directive makes it possible to prevent the appearance of impediments to the free movement of tobacco products within the Community, which would be caused by the adoption of national rules fixing differing requirements concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products.

see paras 64-75

2. Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/37 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products lays down a prohibition on manufacturing, within the Community, cigarettes that do not comply with the maximum tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide levels fixed by that article. Although the prohibition of manufacture at issue is not a provision aimed directly at improving the conditions for the functioning of the internal market, the fact remains that a measure adopted on the basis of Article 95 EC may incorporate such a provision so long as its purpose is to ensure that certain prohibitions concerning the internal market and imposed in pursuit of that object are not circumvented, such as the prohibitions of placing cigarettes which do not comply with the requirements of Article 3(1) in free circulation or of marketing them in the Member States.

see paras 82, 90

3. In the context of the organisation of the powers of the Community the choice of a legal basis for a measure must rest on objective factors which are amenable to judicial review. Those factors include in particular the aim and the content of the measure. If examination of a Community act shows that it has a twofold purpose or twofold component and if one of these is identifiable as main or predominant, whereas the other is merely incidental, the act must be founded on a sole legal basis, that is, the one required by the main or predominant purpose or component.

The objective linked to the implementation of the common commercial policy under Article 133 EC is, in relation to the aim and content of Directive 2001/37 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products as a whole, merely secondary to the principal objective pursued by the directive, which is the improvement of the conditions for the functioning of the internal market. Article 95 EC therefore constitutes the only appropriate legal basis for the Directive and it is incorrect for the Directive to cite Article 133 EC also as a legal basis.

However, that incorrect reference to Article 133 EC as a second legal basis for the Directive does not of itself mean that the latter is invalid. Such an error in the legal basis relied on for a Community measure is no more than a purely formal defect, unless it gave rise to irregularity in the procedure applicable to the adoption of that act.

see paras 93-98

4. Directive 2001/37 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products, the objective of which is to eliminate the barriers raised by differences which still exist between those provisions and impede the functioning of the internal markets, is not invalid by reason of infringement of the principle of proportionality.

The prohibition laid down in Article 3 of the Directive on releasing for free circulation or marketing within the Community cigarettes that do not comply with the maximum levels of tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide, together with the obligation imposed on the Member States to authorise the import, sale and consumption of cigarettes which do comply with those levels, in accordance with Article 13(1) of the Directive, is a measure appropriate for the purpose of attaining the objective pursued by the Directive and one which, having regard to the duty of the Community legislature to ensure a high level of health protection, does not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective.

The prohibition, also laid down in Article 3 of the Directive, on manufacturing cigarettes which do not comply with the maximum levels fixed by the Directive is especially appropriate for preventing at source deflections in trade affecting cigarettes manufactured in the Community for export to non-member countries. Such deflections amount to a form of fraud which it is not possible to combat as efficiently by means of an alternative measure such as reinforcing controls on the Community's frontiers.

In addition, the requirements laid down in Article 5 of the Directive to show information on cigarette packets as to the levels of harmful substances and warnings concerning the risks to health are appropriate measures for attaining a high level of health protection when the barriers raised by national laws on labelling are removed, in relation to which the Community legislature has not overstepped the bounds of the discretion which it enjoys in this area.

The ban, laid down in Article 7 of the Directive, on the use on tobacco product packaging of certain texts, such as "low-tar" , "light" , "ultra-light" , "mild" , and certain names, pictures and figurative or other signs likely to mislead consumers, is appropriate for attaining a high level of health protection. That provision has the purpose of ensuring that consumers are given objective information concerning the toxicity of tobacco products. It is also necessary, having regard in particular to the fact that it is not clear that merely regulating the use of those descriptors would have ensured that consumers received objective information, having regard to the fact that those descriptors are in any event likely, by their very nature, to encourage smoking.

see paras 124-141

5. The right to property forms part of the general principles of Community law. Its exercise may be restricted, provided that those restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of general interest pursued by the Community and do not constitute a disproportionate and intolerable interference, impairing the very substance of the rights guaranteed.

Article 5 of Directive 2001/37 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products requires cigarette packets to carry indications of the levels of harmful substances and warnings concerning the risks to health. The only effect produced by Article 5 is to restrict the right of manufacturers of tobacco products to use the space on some sides of cigarette packets or using packets of tobacco products to show their trade marks, without prejudicing the substance of their trade mark rights, the purpose being to ensure a high level of health protection when the obstacles created by national laws on labelling are eliminated. In the light of this analysis, this article constitutes a proportionate restriction on the use of the right to property compatible with the protection afforded that right by Community law.

Article 7 of the Directive is intended to ensure, in a manner in keeping with the principle of proportionality, a high level of health protection on the harmonisation of the provisions applicable to the description of tobacco products. While that article entails prohibition, in relation only to the packaging of tobacco products, on using a trade mark incorporating one of the descriptors referred to in that provision, the fact remains that a manufacturer of tobacco products may continue, notwithstanding the removal of that description from the packaging, to distinguish its product by using other distinctive signs. The restrictions on the trade mark right which may be caused by Article 7 do in fact correspond to an objective of general interest pursued by the Community and do not constitute a disproportionate and intolerable interference, impairing the very substance of that right.

see paras 149-153

6. The principle of subsidiarity applies where the Community legislature makes use of Article 95 EC, inasmuch as that provision does not give it exclusive competence to regulate economic activity on the internal market.

In this respect, there are two levels to the review of observance of the principle of subsidiarity. It must first be considered whether the objective of the proposed action can be better achieved at Community level, and second, whether the intensity of the action undertaken does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objective pursued.

see paras 179-184

7. Article 7 of Directive 2001/37 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products, which prohibits the use on the packaging of tobacco products of descriptors liable to mislead consumers as to their toxicity, is to be construed as applying only to tobacco products marketed within the European Community.

The chief objective of the Directive being to improve the conditions for the functioning of the internal market in the tobacco products sector while ensuring a high level of health protection, the Directive in principle concerns only tobacco products which are to be placed on the internal market.

Admittedly, with regard to Article 3 of the Directive, fixing maximum levels of harmful substances in cigarettes, the risk of adverse effects for the internal market may justify the adoption, on the basis of Article 95 EC, of a provision relating to goods exported to non-member countries, as a measure intended to prevent the circumvention of the internal market provisions. Nevertheless, in that case the Community legislature expressly provided for Article 3 to apply to tobacco products for export to non-member countries, having regard to its evaluation of the risks that the Directive's provisions on maximum yields of harmful substances in cigarettes might be circumvented, by reason of illicit reimports into the Community or deflections of trade within it.

By contrast, Article 7, like Article 5, concerns the presentation of tobacco products and not their composition. The risks of adverse consequences for the internal market posed by the illicit marketing of, on the one hand, cigarettes that do not comply with the Directive's requirements concerning maximum yields of harmful substances or, on the other, of tobacco products that do not comply with its requirements concerning labelling and the information appearing on packaging, are not necessarily of the same severity or of the same kind and do not necessarily entail the adoption of the same measures.

Accordingly, in the absence of any indication to that effect in Directive 2001/37, there is no reason to suppose that the Community legislature intended to supplement the prohibition on marketing tobacco products that do not comply with the requirements of Article 7 of the Directive within the Community with a similar prohibition concerning tobacco products packaged in the Community and intended to be marketed in non-member countries.

see paras 211-217, operative part 2