Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/36 |

---

Action brought on 29 June 2018 — ITSA v Commission

(Case T-396/18)

(2018/C 352/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: International Tax Stamp Association Ltd (ITSA) (Sunbury-on-Thames, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Scanvic, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Annul Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/573 of 15 December 2017 on key elements of data storage contracts to be concluded as part of a traceability system for tobacco products, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/574 of 15 December 2017 on technical standards for the establishment and operation of a traceability system for tobacco products and Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/576 of 15 December 2017 on technical standards for security features applied to tobacco products. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8 of the WHO Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products adopted in Seoul on 12 November 2012, prohibiting the tobacco industry from being responsible for activities relating to the marking of tobacco products. In that regard, the applicant claims that, although the Protocol has not yet come into force, it has been agreed and signed by the European Union, which may not take measures that do not comply with it.

Furthermore, it states that 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](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:L:2014:127:TOC)), on the basis on which the contested regulation in the present case was adopted, can and must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Protocol referred to, regardless of the fact that that protocol does not expressly prohibit the activities at issue from being responsible for the tobacco industry.

Finally, should such an interpretation be precluded, the Directive itself will be contrary to the Protocol and, therefore, the European Treaties.

---

[Top](#document1)