1 By decision of 2 February 1999, received at the Court on 2 March 1999, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office,) referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) a question on the validity of Directive 98/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products (OJ 1998 L 213, p. 9, hereinafter the Directive).
2 That question was raised in connection with proceedings in which, on 21 September 1998, Imperial Tobacco Limited, Gallaher Limited, Rothmans (UK) Limited and British American Tobacco Investments Limited or their subsidiaries (hereinafter Imperial Tobacco and Others) sought leave to apply for judicial review of, inter alia, the intention and/or obligation on the part of the United Kingdom to give effect to the requirements of the Directive. They also requested that a preliminary ruling be sought from the Court of Justice under Article 177 of the Treaty.
3 In the main proceedings Imperial Tobacco and Others allege that the Directive is invalid on six grounds: (i) inadequate legal basis, (ii) infringement of the fundamental right of freedom of expression, (iii) breach of the principle of proportionality, (iv) breach of the principle of subsidiarity, (v) infringement of the obligation to state reasons and (vi) infringement of Article 222 of the EC Treaty (now Article 295 EC) and/or infringement of the fundamental right to property.
4 The national court has taken the view that the grounds of invalidity relied on by Imperial Tobacco and Others are arguable and has decided to seek a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice on the validity of the Directive, in the following terms: Is Council Directive 98/43 invalid, in whole or in part, by reason of: (a) the inadequacy of Articles 57(2), 66 and 100a as a legal basis; (b) infringement of the fundamental right to freedom of expression; (c) infringement of the principle of proportionality; (d) infringement of the principle of subsidiarity; (e) infringement of the duty to give reasons; (f) infringement of Article 222 EC and/or the fundamental right to property?
5 By judgment delivered today in Case C-376/98 Germany v Parliament and Council [2000] ECR I-8419, the Directive was annulled in its entirety. There is therefore no need to answer the question submitted.