WRITTEN QUESTION No. 862/98 by Ursula SCHLEICHER to the Council. Implications of the ban on tobacco advertising
Date: 1998-03-31
Institutions: European Parliament, SCHLEICHER
Subjects: advertising, application of EU law, approximation of laws, competence of the Member States, directive (EU), product designation, public health, single market, tobacco industry, trade mark

21. 10. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 323/87

Although the fourth recital places particular emphasis on the protection of young people, why is not a single
provision devoted specifically to their protection?

Why is the advertising of less harmful (cid:145)light(cid:146) cigarettes also prohibited, thus preventing them from competing for
market shares with the more harmful brands?

(98/C 323/120)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0861/98

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) to the Council

(31 March 1998)

Subject: Implications of the ban on tobacco advertising

Within the meaning of the directive (where the term is defined very widely as (cid:145)commercial communication(cid:146)),
does  (cid:145)advertising(cid:146)  also  include  such  events  as  a  general  meeting  or  press  conference  held  by  a  cigarette
manufacturer (or even the manufacturer of non-tobacco products with the same brand name)?

How consistent is the ban on poster advertising › a purely domestic exercise › with the intention of removing
trade barriers?

(98/C 323/121)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0862/98

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) to the Council

(31 March 1998)

Subject: Implications of the ban on tobacco advertising

Does the directive mean that using the names or trademarks of tobacco products in any way for other products is
in principle to be regarded as (cid:145)circumventing(cid:146) the advertising ban?

If so, does this also apply in cases where names are coincidentally the same (e.g. (cid:145)St Moritz(cid:146) is the name of a
health resort and of a brand of cigarettes) and where the brand name of the non-tobacco product is older than that
of the tobacco product?

If not, who decides or is required to prove that contravention is intentional?

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(cid:146)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(cid:146)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.