Case C-160/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Rotterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 24 March 2020 — Stichting Rookpreventie Jeugd and Others v Staatssecretaris van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport
Date: 2020-03-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: World Health Organisation, health risk, international convention, international standard, marketing standard, smoking, tobacco industry








C_2020222EN.01001702.xml










6.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 222/17






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Rotterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 24 March 2020 — Stichting Rookpreventie Jeugd and Others v Staatssecretaris van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport
(Case C-160/20)
(2020/C 222/20)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Rotterdam

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Stichting Rookpreventie Jeugd and Others

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport

Other party to the proceedings: Vereniging Nederlandse Sigaretten- en Kerftakfabrikanten (VSK)

Questions referred







1.


Is the form of the measurement method provided for in Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/14/EU, (1) based on ISO standards which are not freely accessible, in accordance with Article 297(1) TFEU (and Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 (2)) and with the underlying principle of transparency?










2.


Must the ISO standards 4387, 10315, 8454 and 8243 referred to by Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/14/EU be interpreted and applied in such a way that, in the interpretation and application of Article 4(1) of that directive, emissions of tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide should not be measured (and verified) only by the prescribed method, but that those emissions may or must also be measured (and verified) in a different manner and with a different intensity?










3.








(a)


Is Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/14/EU contrary to the underlying principles of that directive and to Article 4(2) thereof as well as to Article 5(3) of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, given that the tobacco industry played a role in determining the ISO standards referred to in Article 4(1) of that directive?










(b)


Is Article 4(1) of Directive 2014/14/EU contrary to the underlying principles of that directive, to Article 114(3) TFEU, to the spirit of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and to Articles 24 and 35 of the Charter, in so far as the measurement method prescribed therein does not measure the emissions from filter cigarettes during their intended use since, with that method, no account is taken of the effect of the ventilation holes in the filter which are largely closed off during their intended use by the smoker’s lips and fingers?














4.








(a)


Which alternative measurement method (and verification method) may or must be used should the Court of Justice:






—


answer question 1 in the negative?










—


answer question 2 in the affirmative?










—


answer question 3(a) and/or question 3(b) in the affirmative?














(b)


[If the Court is unable to give an answer to question 4(a)]: Does the temporary unavailability of a measurement method give rise to a situation such as that referred to in Article 24(3) of Directive 2014/14/EU?










(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 2014 L 127, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 69, p. 1).