Limitations regarding the use of quotes
The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
The plaintiff, a tobacco distributor and supplier, brought an application to the High Court of Ireland (Commercial), which sought to refer three legal questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). If successful, the CJEU action would invalidate Ireland’s Public Health (Standardized Packaging of Tobacco) Act 2015.
The plaintiff claimed that Article 24 (2) of the EU’s Tobacco Products Directive (2014) was invalid as it permitted EU Member States to take further measures on tobacco packaging and labeling. The plaintiff alleged that, apart from transposing the EU Tobacco Products Directive (2014), Member States did not have the jurisdiction to legislate on the packaging and labelling of tobacco products.
As the CJEU was already considering these questions (by way of an English court referral), the Irish High Court (Commercial) refused to refer the questions to the CJEU, deeming such a referral “unnecessary, premature and wasteful of costs.”
The claim was stayed. In November 2016, the claim was struck out after the CJEU denied the English referral.