CELEX: 62020CN0452
Language: en
Date: 2020-09-23 00:00:00
Title: Case C-452/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 September 2020 — PJ v Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio dei monopoli per la Toscana and Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

7.12.2020   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 423/29
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 September 2020 — PJ v Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio dei monopoli per la Toscana and Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze
      (Case C-452/20)
      (2020/C 423/43)
      Language of the case: Italian
      
         Referring court
      
      Consiglio di Stato
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Appellant: PJ
      
         Respondents: Agenzia delle dogane e dei monopoli — Ufficio dei monopoli per la Toscana and Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze
      
         Question referred
      
      Does the second paragraph of Article 25 of regio decreto 24 dicembre 1934, n. 2316 (Royal Decree No 2316 of 24 December 1934), as replaced by Article 24(3) of decreto legislativo n. 6 del 2016 (Legislative Decree No 6 of 2016) (transposing Directive 2014/40/EU (1) 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) — inasmuch as it provides that ‘anyone who sells or supplies tobacco products or electronic cigarettes or refill containers containing nicotine or novel tobacco products to minors under the age of 18 shall be liable to a financial administrative penalty of EUR 500 to EUR 3 000 and a 15-day trading licence suspension’ — infringe the EU principle of proportionality and the precautionary principle, as set out in Article 5 TEU, in Article 23(3) of Directive 2014/40, and in recitals 21 and 60 of that directive, by giving precedence to the precautionary principle without mitigating it with the principle of proportionality, and thus disproportionately sacrificing the interests of economic operators to the protection of the right to health, thereby failing to ensure that a proper balance is struck between the different fundamental rights and, what is more, doing so by means of a penalty that, contrary to recital 8 of the directive, does not effectively pursue the objective of discouraging smoking prevalence among young people?
      
         (1)  OJ 2014 L 127, p. 1.