"There is nothing to prevent the Commission from determining whether there is a ‘substantial change of circumstances’ of a specific category of tobacco products by calculating the sales volume of that category on the basis of either the number of units of the product concerned sold or the quantity of tobacco present in that product by weight."
PJ Carroll and Nicoventures Trading v. Minister of Health
PJ Carroll & Co. Ltd. et al. v. Minister for Health, Ireland, et al., Case C-759/23, Court of Justice of the European Union (Second Chamber), 2025 (ECLI:EU:C:2025:477)
- European Union
- Jun 26, 2025
- Court of Justice of the European Union
Parties
Legislation Cited
International/Regional Instruments Cited
Related Documents
Type of Litigation
Tobacco Control Topics
Substantive Issues
Type of Tobacco Product
“By adopting Delegated Directive 2022/2100 in order to withdraw, for novel tobacco products that are heated tobacco products, the benefit of the exemptions provided for in Article 7(12) and Article 11(6) of Directive 2014/40, the Commission acted in compliance with the regulatory framework summarised in paragraphs 28 to 31 above and did not make any political choice falling within the EU legislature’s own responsibilities”
PJ Carroll & Company Ltd and Nicoventures Trading Ltd, both part of the British American Tobacco group, challenged the validity of Ireland’s 2023 regulations transposing Commission Delegated Directive (EU) 2022/2100, which prohibited characterizing flavors in and imposed labeling requirements on heated tobacco products (HTPs). The companies argued that the Commission had exceeded its delegated powers under Directive 2014/40/EU and had improperly assessed whether there was a “substantial change of circumstances” sufficient to justify withdrawing HTPs from the exemptions to the flavor ban.
The Irish High Court referred the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling. The CJEU upheld the validity of Delegated Directive 2022/2100, holding that the Commission had acted within its delegated powers in defining HTPs and extending the flavor ban and labeling requirements, and that its methodology for determining a substantial change of circumstances was consistent with the directive.