91998E0856

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0856/98 by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) to the Council (31 March 1998)

Subject: Implications of the ban on tobacco advertising

In principle - unless special rules laid down by the Member States provide otherwise - the directive prohibits the use of a tobacco brand name for other products.

1. Does this ban apply only to the advertising of non-tobacco products bearing this name or to the naming itself?

2. The Member States are to be permitted to lay down special rules only if the tobacco brand name has previously been used for other products in 'good faith'. To what must this 'good faith' relate?

3. If a Member State failed to take advantage of the possibility of laying down special rules, would the ban apply to the continued use of a name which had hitherto been legally used for a non-tobacco product and which was also a tobacco brand name? (Example: Would the health resort of St Moritz no longer be permitted to advertise its products and services under its own name even though it has nothing to do with the brand of cigarettes of the same name?)

4. At any event, the 'same name' of the non-tobacco product may not be used except in a 'manner clearly distinct' from that used to advertise the tobacco product. Does this mean that the brand name as such must be changed for the non-tobacco product? How will it be ensured that differences in the application of this provision by the Member States do not lead to new trade barriers?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-0856/98, E-0857/98, E-0858/98, E-0859/98, E-0860/98, E-0861/98 and E-0862/98 (13/14 July 1998)

As the Honourable Member is aware, following a detailed debate in second reading on 13 May 1998, the European Parliament approved the Council's common position on the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products without making any amendments to it. The Council consequently adopted the Directive at its meeting on 22 June 1998.

With particular reference to the questions raised by the Honourable Member, it should be emphasized that, when discussing the Commission proposal, the Council took great pains to produce a text which took into account both the efficient operation of the internal market and the requirements of ensuring a high level of health protection.

The reasoning which guided the Council's work on the proposal for a Directive was explained in detail in the recitals and in the statement of reasons which were sent to the European Parliament before its second reading. It will be for the Member States to adopt appropriate provisions to ensure that the Directive is so implemented as to enable the desired objectives to be attained.

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that it is for the Commission to ensure application of the measures adopted by the Institutions pursuant to the Treaty and that the Court of Justice is competent to interpret them and to ensure that they comply with the Treaty.