Federal Republic of Germany v. European Parliament

The Federal Republic of Germany sought annulment of a European Community directive that regulated advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products. The Court held that the Community legislature acted properly and within its authority when promulgating the Directive to remove obstacles to cross-border movement of goods by rectifying inconsistencies amongst the laws of Member-States while ensuring a high level of health protection. The Court further held that any indirect infringement by the Directive upon the freedom of expression was proportional to and justified by the purposes behind the Directive's adoption, noting that the restrictions did not compromise journalistic expression but applied only to commercial advertisements within journalistic media.

Federal Republic of Germany v. European Parliament, Case C-380/03, Court of Justice of the European Union (2006).

  • European Union
  • Dec 12, 2006
  • Court of Justice of the European Union
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff Federal Republic of Germany

Defendant

  • Council of the European Union
  • European Parliament

Third Party

  • Commission of the European Communities
  • French Republic
  • Kingdom of Spain
  • Republic of Finland

Legislation Cited

International/Regional Instruments Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"In addition, the reasons which determined the adoption of such measures are specified for each of the forms of advertising and sponsorship referred to in Articles 3 and 4 of the Directive. As regards, first, the prohibition on advertising in printed media and in certain publications, the fourth recital in the preamble to the Directive states that an appreciable risk exists of obstacles to free movement in the internal market as a result of Member States’ laws, regulations and administrative provisions and that, in order to ensure free circulation throughout the internal market for all such media, it is necessary to limit tobacco advertising therein to those magazines and periodicals which are not intended for the general public such as publications intended exclusively for professionals in the tobacco trade and to publications printed and published in third countries that are not principally intended for the Community market. So far as concerns, second, radio advertising and advertising transmitted via information society services, the sixth recital in the preamble to the Directive refers to the particular attraction and accessibility of these services for young people, whose consumption increases in line with the use of those media. Regarding, third, the prohibition on certain types of sponsorship such as that of radio programmes and activities or events having cross-border effects, the fifth recital in the preamble to the Directive explains that the prohibition in question is intended to prevent the possible circumvention of the restrictions placed on direct forms of advertising. These recitals clearly disclose the essential objective pursued by the Community legislature, namely the improvement of the conditions for the establishment and functioning of the internal market by the removal of obstacles to the free movement of goods or services which serve as a medium for advertising or sponsorship in respect of tobacco products."
"The United Kingdom Government challenges the applicant's assertion that the Directive is incorrectly based on Article 100a of the Treaty because its principal objective is not the elimination of obstacles to trade in advertising media and associated services but the protection of human health. 59. According to the case-law of the Court, the choice of the legal basis for a measure must be guided by objective factors which are amenable to judicial review, including, in particular, the aim and content of the measure. 60. Objectively, the Directive pursues objectives which are inseparably linked with the protection of human health and others linked with elimination of disparities in conditions of competition and liberalisation of trade. The applicant's approach of seeking to determine which of those objectives is most important is not only contrary to the objective test propounded by the Court but also unworkable."