Case C-547/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (England and Wales) (United Kingdom) made on 1 December 2014 — Philip Morris Brands SARL, Philip Morris Limited, British American Tobacco UK Limited against Secretary of State for Health
Date: 2014-12-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, flavouring, labelling, legal basis, marketing standard, packaging product, principle of proportionality, principle of subsidiarity, tobacco, tobacco industry








C_2015056EN.01000602.xml










16.2.2015   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 56/6





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (England and Wales) (United Kingdom) made on 1 December 2014 — Philip Morris Brands SARL, Philip Morris Limited, British American Tobacco UK Limited against Secretary of State for Health
(Case C-547/14)
(2015/C 056/09)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (England and Wales)

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Philip Morris Brands SARL, Philip Morris Limited, British American Tobacco UK Limited

Defendant: Secretary of State for Health

Other parties: Imperial Tobacco Limited, British American Tobacco UK Limited, JT International SA, Gallaher Limited, Tann UK Limited and Tannpapier GmbH, V. Mane Fils, Deutsche Benkert GmbH & Co. KG and Benkert UK Limited, Joh. Wilh. Von Eicken GmbH

Questions referred

The following questions relating to Directive 2014/40/EU (1) (the ‘Directive’ or ‘TPD2’) are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (the ‘CJEU’ or the ‘Court’) for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU:

Legal basis









1.


Is the Directive invalid in whole or in part because Article 114 TFEU does not provide an adequate legal basis? In particular:






(a)


In relation to Article 24(2) of the Directive:






(i)


on its proper interpretation, to what extent does it permit Member States to adopt more stringent rules in relation to matters relating to the ‘standardisation’ of the packaging of tobacco products; and,










(ii)


in light of that interpretation, is Article 24(2) invalid because Article 114 TFEU does not provide an adequate legal basis?














(b)


Is Article 24(3) TPD2, which allows Member States to prohibit a category of tobacco or related products in specified circumstances, invalid because Article 114 TFEU does not provide an adequate legal basis?










(c)


Are the following provisions invalid because Article 114 TFEU does not provide an adequate legal basis:






(i)


the provisions of Chapter II of Title II TPD2, which relate to packaging and labelling;










(ii)


Article 7 TPD2, insofar as it prohibits menthol cigarettes and tobacco products with a characterising flavour;










(iii)


Article 18 TPD2, which allows Member States to prohibit cross-border distance sales of tobacco products; and,










(iv)


Articles 3(4) and 4(5) TPD2, which delegate powers to the Commission in relation to emission levels?













Proportionality and Fundamental Rights









2.


In relation to Article 13 TPD2:






(a)


on its true interpretation, does it prohibit true and non-misleading statements about tobacco products on the product packaging; and,










(b)


if so, is it invalid because it violates the principle of proportionality and/or Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights?
















3.


Are any or all of the following provisions of TPD2 invalid because they infringe the principle of proportionality:






(a)


Articles 7(1) and 7(7), insofar as they prohibit the placing on the market of tobacco products with menthol as a characterising flavour and the placing on the market of tobacco products containing flavourings in any of their components;










(b)


Articles 8(3), 9(3), 10(l)(g) and 14, insofar as they impose various pack standardisation requirements; and,










(c)


Articles 10(l)(a) and (c), insofar as they require health warnings to cover 65 % of the external front and back surface of the unit packaging and any outside packaging?









Delegation/Implementation









4.


Are any or all of the following provisions of TPD2 invalid because they infringe Article 290 TFEU:






(a)


Articles 3(2) and 3(4) concerning maximum emission levels;










(b)


Article 4(5) relating to measurement methods for emissions;










(c)


Articles 7(5), 7(11) and 7(12) concerning the regulation of ingredients;










(d)


Articles 9(5), 10(l)(f), 10(3), 11(6), 12(3) and 20(12) concerning health warnings;










(e)


Article 20(11) concerning the prohibition of electronic cigarettes and/or refill containers; and/or,










(f)


Article 15(12) concerning data storage contracts?
















5.


Are Articles 3(4) and 4(5) TPD2 invalid because they breach the principle of legal certainty and/or impermissibly delegate powers to external bodies that are not subject to the procedural safeguards required by EU law?












6.


Are any or all of the following provisions of TPD2 invalid because they infringe Article 291 TFEU:






(a)


Article 6(1) concerning reporting obligations;










(b)


Article 7(2)-7(4) and 7(10) concerning implementing acts relating to the prohibition of tobacco products in certain circumstances; and/or,










(c)


Articles 9(6) and 10(4) concerning health warnings?









Subsidiarity









7.


Is TPD2 and in particular Articles 7, 8(3), 9(3), 10(l)(g), 13 and 14 invalid for failure to comply with the principle of subsidiarity?






(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 L 127, p. 1.