“The Community legislature was thus able, without exceeding the limits of its discretion in the matter, to consider that a prohibition of the marketing of tobacco products for oral use was necessary, and in particular that there was no alternative measure which allowed that objective to be achieved as effectively.”
The Queen on the application of Swedish Match, Swedish Match UK Ltd v. Secretary of State for Health
- European Union
- Dec 14, 2004
- 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
“Community legislature must be allowed a broad discretion in an area such as that concerned in the present case, which involves political, economic and social choices on its part, and in which it is called on to undertake complex assessments. Only if a measure adopted in this field is manifestly inappropriate in relation to the objective which the competent institutions are seeking to pursue can the lawfulness of such a measure be affected.”
“Moreover, like all other tobacco products, those for oral use contain nicotine, which causes addiction and whose toxicity is not disputed.”
Swedish Match, a Swedish tobacco company, wished to market snus (an oral tobacco product) in the United Kingdom. The company brought a case in UK court against the Tobacco for Oral Use (Safety) Regulations 1992, which transposed EU Council Directive 2001/37 to prohibit the placement of tobacco products for oral use on the market. Sweden derogated from this provision. The CJEU found that the UK national implementation of the ban on oral tobacco products was justified under Article 95 EC on internal market harmonization. The derogation of Sweden from the banning of oral tobacco products does not take away the obligation under Article 8 of Directive 2001/37 to prevent oral tobacco products from being placed on the market in other Member States. The CJEU cited to evidence of the health harms of oral tobacco products as part of the UK’s obligation to protect health matters in accordance with Article 95(3) EC. In addition, the CJEU found that the EU directive banning the supply of oral tobacco products in powder form does not violate the principles of proportionality, non-discrimination, or fundamental rights.