Tobacco advertising ban, harmonization and the internal market: Case C-380/03

The Court of Justice handed down an interesting and important judgment on using Article 95 EC as the legal basis for prohibiting tobacco advertising. In its judgment in Case C-380/03 Germany v. European Parliament and Council, the Court upheld the legality of two key provisions of Directive 2003/33/EC.

The judgment is both a classic one and a bit of surprise. Here's why.

Germany had been successful back in 2000 in its attempt to have annulled Directive 98/43/EC on the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products. The Court annulled Directive 98/43/EC by its judgment in Case C-376/98 Germany v. Parliament and Council. That was quite a complicated judgment but to simplify it outrageously, the Court had held that Article 95 EC (Article 100a EC as it was numbered at the time) could not be used as a legal basis for the outright ban of certain forms of tobacco advertising.

Then the European Parliament and Council adopted Directive 2003/33/EC to replace Directive 98/43/EC that had been annulled.

So Germany had a go at annulling the new Directive in Case C-380/03. And this time it failed.

In Case C-380/03 Germany sought the annulment of two articles prohibiting:
(i) the advertising of tobacco products in the press and other printed publications, in information society services and in radio broadcasts and
(ii) the sponsorship of radio programmes by tobacco companies. Only publications intended for professionals in the tobacco trade and publications from non-member countries which are not principally intended for the Community market are exempted.

Germany claimed that those prohibitions could not be adopted on the basis of Article 95 EC. That provision allows the EC to adopt measures for the approximation of national provisions which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market. But Germany claimed that neither of the two prohibitions in the new Directive contributes to eliminating obstacles to the free movement of goods or to removing appreciable distortions of competition and consequently the conditions justifying recourse to Article 95 EC were not met.

This time round, the Court of Justice dismissed the action by Germany and held that Directive 2003/33/EC was validly based on Article 95 EC.

The Court found that at the time of the Directive’s adoption, disparities existed between national rules on advertising and sponsorship in respect of tobacco products which justified action by the Community legislature. Those disparities were such as to impede the free movement of goods and the freedom to provide services. They also meant that there was an appreciable risk of distortions of competition(see Joined cases C-154/04 and C-155/04 Alliance for Natural Health and others at paragraph 30). The Court also held that held that, provided that the conditions for recourse to Article 95 EC as a legal basis are fulfilled, the Community legislature cannot be prevented from relying on that legal basis on the ground that public health protection is a decisive factor in the choices to be made (see Joined cases C-154/04 and C-155/04 Alliance for Natural Health and others at paragraph 31).

Interestingly, the Court held that the different national measures prohibiting or restricting the advertising of tobacco products are liable to impede access to the market by products from other Member States more than they impede access by domestic products. It also held that such measures restrict the ability of undertakings established in the member States where they are in force to offer advertising space in their publications to advertisers established in other member States, thereby affecting the cross-border supply of services (see, to this effect, Case C-405/98 Gourmet International Products, paragraphs 38 and 39).

In contrast to its judgment in Case C-376/98, the Court held in this case that because of the disparities in national laws likely to affect trade between member States, the EC could "approximate" national law on the basis of Article 95 EC by definitively prohibiting the marketing of the product in question.

The Court took the precaution of stating:

"Recourse to Article 95 EC as a legal basis does not presuppose the existence of an actual link with free movement between the Member States in every situation covered by the measure founded on that basis. As the Court has previously pointed out, to justify recourse to Article 95 EC as the legal basis what matters is that the measure adopted on that basis must actually be intended to improve the conditions for the establishment and functioning of the internal market (see, to this effect, Joined Cases C-465/00, C-138/01 and C-139/01 Österreichischer Rundfunk and Others, paragraphs 41 and 42, and Case C-101/01 Lindqvist, paragraphs 40 and 41).

For other cases on the use of Article 95 EC see our previous posts here and here.

Comments

[M Johnson]

You have an interesting site here, in fact it's good!

[Anders]

This blog is interesting to read.

[Anders]

Any advertisement about tobacco products should prohited worldwide. EU countries are on right track to fight smoking applying ban on cigarette smoking at any public places.

[Marcia]

Thank you so much this is an excellent breakdown of the case. Thank you!

[viagra online]

Great blogsite! I saw one of Spurlocks show last week and knew beforehand his ineptitude on getting the facts down pat. Just wanted to see what it was like.

[cheap cialis]

Directly own more than 10 shares of stock or have any direct ownership interest beyond 10 shares in any tobacco product manufacturer, wholesaler, or importer (except shareholdings through general mutual funds or similar arrangements where I do not havecontrol over the selection of shares), and I have not done so for at least two years;

[Paul Drury]

I was just wondering why the Treaties do not have a legal base that can permit regulation of the internal market with the specified aim of protecting public health?

[M]

Article 95 EC (114 TFEU) is arguably the legal base attributing competence to the Commission to regulate the internal market with the aim of protecting public health. However, this can only be done when there are disparities in national laws which might impede on the objectives laid out in article 26 TFEU.
The European Union was not designed to regulate everything. The original aim was an economic community. It is only thanks to the Single European Act 1986 that it now can, in certain situations, regulate on public health.
Public health is generally a justification for Member States to be allowed to keep laws that conflict with the Treaties. For example, Article 28 EC (Article 34 TFEU) says that national measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restriction on trade between Member States UNLESS (Article 30 EC; Article 36 TFEU) they are justified on grounds of public health (among others).

[M]

article 28... says that.. between MS *** are not valid *** ... unless justified...

sorry

[new louis vuitton belt]

recognised, without restriction, to anyone who has been charged,situations, regulate on public health.
Public health is generally a justification for Member States to be allowed to keep laws that conflict with the Treaties. For example, Article 28 whatever kind of proceeding is concerned. However, the presumption of innocence is sometimes seen as a guarantee by society

[buy jeans]

The judgment is both a classic one and a bit of surprise. Here's why.

[cheap designer handbags]

I can't believe how much of this I just wasn't aware of. Thank you for bringing more information to this topic for me. I'm truly grateful and really impressed. http://www.taobao-trade.com.

[cheap cigarettes]

The ABA Sections on Antitrust Law and International Law made some interesting comments, available here, shortly before the new Notice was published.

[sleep]

ban smoking advertisement. future generations will thank us.

[anti cellulite treatment]

I have been looking good information about this matter for a while and I gotta say you publish offers me some general concept about my paper I'm gonna write for my assignment. I would love copy some of your phrases here and I hope you don't mind. Thanks. I'll reference your work of course. Thank you.Preserve updating the great posts. will come back.

[treat cellulite]

Time is money as the outdated saying goes, and by studying this put up, I spotted that I saved myself a whole lot of valuable time, which might have been in any other case spent on reading low consistency data all around the almighty web. Thank you for the straight to the point, beneficial input!

[singapore escort]

There's no doubt, the guy is certainly right.

[Invertir en franquicias]

Great job sharing and crediting information. Nothing better in this industry as along with many. :)

[Hogan]

One important thing I enjoy about blog articles is that they provoke a thought in my mind. As soon as that happens, I feel like I must comment wishing it's valuable to others.there are manyherself/himself I find myself returning to your weblog mainly because you have plenty of tremendous insightsare actually at this a long time, that's very exciting.imagination in others

[バーバリー]

毎日新聞には、こうした記事がちりばめられています。読者の知る権利に応え、健全な民主主義社会の形成に寄与することを社会的使命に、ニュースをいち早く、正確かつ冷静に報道しています。記者が書いた記事ばかりではありません。各界の有識者の発言、読者から送っていただいたご意見。多様な意見を紙面に載せるとともに、分かりやすさにこだわり、さまざまな生活情報をより早くより詳しく紙面化し、暮らしに直結する新聞づくりを進めています。

[ティンバーランド]

このティンバーランド通販店のブーツはデザインもよれば色も良いです。そして、ブーツは大人用のもなれば子供用のもあります。