Cubacigar Benelux NV v. State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport)

Cubacigar Benelux NV (Cubacigar) appealed a lower court decision upholding packaging restrictions contained in the Tobacco and Smoking Regulations. Specifically, Cubacigar had challenged restrictions limiting the use of metallic foils and embossing (“glitter and glamor” elements) on cigar boxes. The lower court held that these restrictions in the Tobacco and Smoking Regulations did not conflict with the EU Tobacco Products Directive. The court also determined that although the packaging requirements restricted the free movement of goods, the requirements were justified from a public health point of view because they are aimed at reducing the attractiveness of tobacco products. Further, the requirements of the principle of proportionality were also met.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision that the packaging requirements under the Tobacco and Smoking Regulations are in line with the EU Tobacco Products Directive. The Court concluded that the government presented sufficient evidence demonstrating that the measures are justified on grounds of public health protection and are proportionate.

Cubacigar Benelux NV v. State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport), Hague Court of Appeal, 30 June, Case Number: 2020. 200.269.353 / 01.

  • Netherlands
  • Jun 30, 2020
  • The Hague Court of Appeal
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff Cubacigar Benelux NV

Defendant State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport)

Legislation Cited

International/Regional Instruments Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

"In this context, the Court also considers important what is said in the guidelines for the implementation of the WHO Framework Convention on the packaging of tobacco products. In these guidelines, the Contracting Parties are called upon to prescribe generic packaging for tobacco products, because this can increase the visibility of health warnings and prevent them from diverting attention from those warnings or put the harmfulness of tobacco products into perspective (see above under 2.6 ). As long as generic packaging is not yet prescribed, the contracting parties are called upon to prohibit “glitter and glamor” elements (see 2.7 above: “If plain packaging is not yet mandated, the restriction should cover as many as possible of the design features that make tobacco products more attractive to consumers, such as animal or other figures, “fun” phrases, colored cigarette papers, attractive smells, novelty or seasonal packs. ") In the context of the WHO Framework Convention, it is therefore also assumed that the prohibition of "glitter and glamor elements" of packaging can contribute to the protection of public health."
"...if generic packaging can reduce the attractiveness of tobacco products, it is reasonable to assume that banning specific packaging elements that aim to make tobacco products more attractive will have the same effect. This effect may be less, because distinguishing features are not completely prohibited. At the same time, such measures also have less far-reaching consequences for the ability of tobacco product suppliers to differentiate their products. That banning of specific elements of packaging has less effect than prescribing generic packaging."