Secretary of State for Health, Tobacco for Oral Use (Safety) Regulations 1992. In this case, it must be observed that Directive 2014/40 pursues, according to Article1 thereof, a twofold objective of facilitating the smooth functioning of the internal market for tobacco and related products while taking as a base a high level of protection of human health, especially for young people (judgment of 4May 2016, Poland v Parliament and Council, C358/14, EU:C:2016:323, paragraph80). That being the case, since that information ensures that the reasons for the prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use can be ascertained and that the court with jurisdiction can exercise its power of review, Directive 2014/40 satisfies the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article296 TFEU. That is not a necessary approach, as indicated by the fact that Directive 2014/40 itself leaves to the Member States a degree of discretion in the adoption of their legislation in relation to other tobacco products. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 December 2004.#The Queen, on the application of: Swedish Match AB and Swedish Match UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Health.#Reference for a preliminary ruling: High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) - United Kingdom.#Directive 2001/37/EC - Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products - Article 8 - Prohibition of placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use - Validity - Interpretation of Articles 28 EC to 30 EC - Compatibility of national legislation laying down the same prohibition.#Case C-210/03. eurlex-diff-2018-06-20 Swedish Match AB engages in the manufacture and trade of lighters and tobacco products. Accordingly, Article1(c) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 do not lead to disadvantages that are manifestly disproportionate to the aims pursued. Moreover, Swedish Match claims that there is no evidence to support the idea that the consumption of tobacco products for oral use is a gateway that leads to smoking tobacco. This is a list of experimental features that you can enable. A violation of the right to carry on trade, business, or profession of a persons choice. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2007-2023, Swedish Match AB v Secretary of State for Health, Justice, victims rights and judicial cooperation, Irregular migration, return and immigration detention, Data protection, privacy and new technologies, Support for human rights systems and defenders. 4 . Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Depending on the circumstances, the measures referred to in Article114(1) TFEU may consist in requiring all the Member States to authorise the marketing of the product or products concerned, subjecting such an obligation of authorisation to certain conditions, or even provisionally or definitively prohibiting the marketing of a product or products (judgment of 4May 2016, Philip Morris Brands and Others, C547/14, EU:C:2016:325, paragraph64). This is a list of experimental features that you can enable. Swedish Match AB (publ), SE-118 85 Stockholm Visiting address: Rosenlundsgatan 36, Telephone: + 46 8 658 02 00 Corporate Identity Number: 556015-0756 www.swedishmatch.com ____________ For further information, please contact: Bo Aulin, Senior Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel Office +46 8 658 03 64, Mobile +46 70 558 03 64 Consequently, that provision cannot, per se, demonstrate that the objectives of that directive could be adequately achieved by the Member States. *1 As a party granted leave to intervene in the main proceedings, the New Nicotine Alliance (NNA), a registered charity whose objective is to promote public health by means of tobacco harm reduction, claims before the referring court that the prohibition on the placing of tobacco products for oral use on the market is contrary to the principle of proportionality and is in breach of Articles1, 7 and35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter). The Queen, on the application of: Swedish Match AB and Swedish Match UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Health. It must be recalled that the principle of subsidiarity is set out in the second paragraph of Article5(3) TEU, which provides that the Union, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, is to act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Union. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional. Case C-151/17 Swedish Match AB v Secretary of State for Health Page contents Details Description Files Details Publication date 22 November 2018 Author Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety Description Judgment of the Court Files Case C-151/17 Swedish Match AB v Secretary of State for Health English (219.72 KB - HTML) Download composed of R.Silva de Lapuerta, Vice-President, acting as President of the First Chamber, J.-C.Bonichot, E.Regan, C.G. Swedish Match I: Case C-210/03, R (Swedish Match AB) v Secretary of State for Health ( "Swedish Match I") EU:C:2004:802 was a challenge to Directive 2001/37/EC, which prohibited the sale of oral tobacco in UK, couldn't buy or sell unless it's Sweden. The request has been made in proceedings between Swedish Match AB and the Secretary of State for Health (United Kingdom) concerning the legality of a prohibition on the production and supply of tobacco for oral use in the United Kingdom. 86) It is apparent from the order for reference that Swedish Match and the NNA claim that Article 1(c) and Article 17 of Directive 2014/40 are in breach of Articles 1, 7 and 35 of the Charter, since the effect of the prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use is that individuals who want to stop smoking cannot use products that would improve their health. Those provisions, as stated in paragraph63 of the present judgment, are also not in breach of the principle of proportionality. On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby rules: Consideration of the question referred has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article1(c) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC. Registrar: M.Ferreira, Principal Administrator. In order to challenge the validity of Article1(c) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 having regard to the principle of proportionality, Swedish Match and the NNA refer, as is stated in the order for reference, to recent scientific studies which, from their perspective, demonstrated that tobacco products for oral use, including snus, are less harmful than other tobacco products, that they are less addictive than the latter and that they facilitate the cessation of smoking. Article151 of the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden [the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 1994 C241, p.21, and OJ 1995 L1, p.1] grants Sweden a derogation from the prohibition. It is apparent from the order for reference that Swedish Match and the NNA claim that Article1(c) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 are in breach of Articles1, 7 and35 of the Charter, since the effect of the prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use is that individuals who want to stop smoking cannot use products that would improve their health. Consequently, the prohibition on the placing of tobacco products for oral use on the market does not manifestly exceed what is necessary in order to attain the objective of ensuring a high level of protection of public health. *1 Il Ministro della sanit convenuto nell'ambito di tale procedimento. UKSC 2015/0220. It follows that Article1(c) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 are not in breach of the principle of subsidiarity. The Queen on the Application of Swedish Match AB, et al. Mire ejemplos de health state traduccin en oraciones, escuche la pronunciacin y aprenda gramtica. Nor can the prohibition be justified by the novelty of snus, since novel tobacco products are not prohibited by Directive 2014/40, under Article2(14) thereof, notwithstanding that there is no scientific track record and that those products may have potential adverse health effects. Article19(1) of Directive 2014/40, headed Notification of novel tobacco products reads as follows: Member States shall require manufacturers and importers of novel tobacco products to submit a notification to the competent authorities of Member States of any such product they intend to place on the national market concerned. INTRODUCTION Join now Sign in Dr. Suwanna Gauntlett's Post Dr. Suwanna Gauntlett Chief Executive Officer at Wildlife Alliance . In that context, it remains likely that Member States may be led to adopt various laws, regulations and administrative provisions designed to bring to an end the expansion in the consumption of tobacco products for oral use. . Don't forget to give your feedback! Further, according to Swedish Match, such an approach was not necessary, as demonstrated by the fact that Article24(3) of that directive grants to each Member State the option of prohibiting, on grounds relating to its specific situation, this or that category of tobacco or related products. The industry may argue that a business should be able to conduct its business without government regulation, including whether or not to be smoke free. Check 'state of health' translations into English. In this instance, even if it were the case, as claimed by Swedish Match and the NNA, that Article1(c) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 limit fundamental rights, such a limitation is provided for by law, respects the essence of those rights and is compatible with the principle of proportionality. Consequently, the EU legislature has not complied with the obligation to state reasons, laid down in the second paragraph of Article296 TFEU. Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 November 2018.#Swedish Match AB v Secretary of State for Health.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court).#Reference for a preliminary ruling Approximation of laws Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products Directive 2014/40/EU Article 1(c) and Article 17 Prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use Validity.#Case C-151/17. The Commission further observed that the studies which suggest that snus may facilitate the cessation of smoking predominantly rely on empirical data and, therefore, cannot be regarded as being conclusive. ), Reference for a preliminary ruling Approximation of laws Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products Directive 2014/40/EU Article1(c) and Article17 Prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use Validity), REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article267 TFEU from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queens Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom), made by decision of 9March 2017, received at the Court on 24March 2017, in the proceedings. Do you want to help improving EUR-Lex ? This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the validity of Article1(c) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (OJ 2014 L127, p.1). The validity of Article1(c) and Article17 of Directive2014/40 having regard to Articles1, 7 and35 of the Charter. ob. eurlex-diff-2018-06-20 ! A violation of the right to equal protection under the law, or another form of discrimination. the Council of the European Union, by M.Simm, E.Karlsson and A.Norberg, acting as Agents. 11). Match words . C-547/14 Philip Morris Brands SARL v Secretary of State for Health, EU:C:2016:325, [2016] ETMR 36, CJEU. This button displays the currently selected search type. that the Commission considered the various policy options with respect to various tobacco products, including those for oral use. the Norwegian Government, by M.Reinertsen Norum, acting as Agent, and by K.Moen, advocate. It is not necessary for the reasoning to go into all the relevant facts and points of law, since the question whether the statement of reasons for a measure meets the requirements of the second paragraph of Article296 TFEU must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question (judgment of 17March 2011, AJD Tuna, C221/09, EU:C:2011:153, paragraph58). Court of Justice of the European UnionPublished: January 11, 2019Swedish Match AB v Secretary of State for Health(Case C-151/17)Before R Silva de Lapuerta, Vice-President, acting as President of . Swedish Match is a public limited liability company established in Sweden which primarily markets smokeless tobacco products and, in particular, snus. A snus manufacturer challenged on several bases the validity of a provision in Directive 2001/37/EC that directs member states to prohibit the marketing of any tobacco products designed for oral use, except those tobacco products designed to be smoked or chewed. Crowley remained in his tent, and on the same evening wrote a letter printed in The Pioneer on September 11, 1905, from which the following is an extract: "As it was I could do nothing more than send out Reymond on the forlorn hope. The validity of Article1(c) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 having regard to the principle of equal treatment. Just as the Court stated in that same judgment that the legislative context had not changed at the time of adoption of Directive 2001/37, which had also prohibited the placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use (see, to that effect, judgment of 14December 2004, Swedish Match, C210/03, EU:C:2004:802, paragraph40), it must be observed that that context remained the same at the time of adoption of Directive 2014/40. C-477/14 Pillbox 38 (UK) Ltd v Secretary of State for Health EU:C:2016:324, [2016] 4 WLR 110, CJEU. In particular, recital 32 of Directive 2014/40 states that the prohibition on the sale of tobacco for oral use should be maintained in order to prevent the introduction in the Union (apart from Sweden) of a product that is addictive and has adverse effects on human health, and refers to the reasons stated in Directives 89/622 and2001/37, which clearly set out, as previously held by the Court (see, to that effect, judgment of 14December 2004, Swedish Match, C210/03, EU:C:2004:802, paragraph65), the grounds that gave rise to that prohibition. Fernlund and S.Rodin (Rapporteur), Judges. Swedish Match AB v Secretary of State for Health. Furthermore, Article5 of Protocol (No2) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, annexed to the EU Treaty and to the FEU Treaty, lays down guidelines for the purpose of determining whether those conditions are met (judgment of 4May 2016, Philip Morris Brands and Others, C547/14, EU:C:2016:325, paragraph215). 3 European Communities - Certain Measures Affecting Poultry Meat and Poultry Meat Pro- Consequently, such particular circumstances mean that it is permissible for the treatment of tobacco products for oral use to differ from both that of other smokeless tobacco products and that of cigarettes, and no breach of the principle of equal treatment can validly be claimed. Tobacco products that are used by means other than smoking, such as chewing, sniffing, or placing between the teeth and gum. As regards the assessments of highly complex scientific and technical facts that are necessary in order to determine whether the prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use is proportionate, it must be recalled that the Courts of the European Union cannot substitute their assessment of that material for that of the legislature on which the FEU Treaty has placed that task. It was thus open to the EU legislature, in the exercise of that discretion, to proceed towards harmonisation only in stages and to require only the gradual abolition of unilateral measures adopted by the Member States (judgment of 4May 2016, Philip Morris Brands and Others, C547/14, EU:C:2016:325, paragraph63). Such a prohibition is an unsuitable means of achieving the objective of public health protection, since it deprives consumers who want to avoid the consumption of cigarettes and other tobacco products for smoking of the option of using a less toxic product, as shown by the success of electronic cigarettes and the scientific evidence on the harmful effects of tobacco in Sweden. Then a 2 = ab a2 + a 2 = a 2 + ab 2a 2 = a 2 + ab 2a 2 2ab = a2 + ab 2ab 2a 2 2ab = a2 ab 2(a 2 ab) = 1(a 2 ab). Verifique las traducciones de 'health state' en ingls. 4 - Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, 9 - Right to marry and right to found a family, 10 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion, 11 - Freedom of expression and information, 12 - Freedom of assembly and of association, 15 - Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work, 19 - Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition, 22 - Cultural, religious and linguistic diversity, 26 - Integration of persons with disabilities, 27 - Workers' right to information and consultation within the undertaking, 28 - Right of collective bargaining and action, 29 - Right of access to placement services, 30 - Protection in the event of unjustified dismissal, 32 - Prohibition of child labour and protection of young people at work, 34 - Social security and social assistance, 36 - Access to services of general economic interest, 39 - Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament, 40 - Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at municipal elections, 45 - Freedom of movement and of residence, 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, 48 - Presumption of innocence and right of defence, 49 - Principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties, 50 - Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence, EU Fundamental Rights Information System - EFRIS, Promising practices: equality data collection, Civil society and the Fundamental Rights Platform, NHRIs, Equality Bodies and Ombudsperson Institutions, UN, OSCE and other international organisations, From institutions to community living for persons with disabilities: perspectives from the ground, Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey Main results, Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey (EU-MIDIS II) Muslims, Together in the EU: Promoting the participation of migrants and their descendants, Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey (EU-MIDIS II) Roma, Child-friendly justice perspectives and experiences of professionals: Press pack, Jewish peoples experiences and perceptions of hate crime, discrimination and antisemitism, Child-friendly justice perspectives and experiences of children, Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language), Justice, victims rights and judicial cooperation. ) Language of the case: English. Article24(3) of Directive 2014/40 therefore concerns an aspect which is not covered by the harmonisation measures in that directive (judgment of 4May 2016, Philip Morris Brands and Others, C547/14, EU:C:2016:325, paragraph90). On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby rules: Consideration of the question referred has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article 1(c) and Article 17 of Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC. By the question referred for a preliminary ruling, the referring court raises the issue of the validity of Article1(c) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40, having regard to the principles of equal treatment, proportionality and subsidiarity, the obligation to state reasons laid down in the second paragraph of Article296 TFEU, Articles34 and35 TFEU and Articles1, 7 and35 of the Charter. In those circumstances, it must be held that Article1(c) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 are not invalid having regard to Articles1, 7 and35 of the Charter. Snus forms part, together with other tobacco harm reduction products, already available in the United Kingdom, of a coherent tobacco harm reduction strategy. It follows that Article1 ( c ) and Article17 of Directive2014/40 having regard to Articles1, 7 and35 of right!, [ 2016 ] ETMR 36, CJEU and gum ; translations into English the right to equal under. Trade of lighters and tobacco products, including those for Oral Use Health State traduccin en oraciones, escuche pronunciacin... Of Article1 ( c ) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 having regard to the principle of proportionality,.. Tobacco products and, in particular, snus paragraph63 of the right to equal protection under the,. De & # x27 ; ambito di tale procedimento tobacco for Oral Use ( Safety Regulations. Article17 of Directive 2014/40 having regard to Articles1, 7 and35 of the right to equal protection under law. In particular, snus the aims pursued under swedish match ab v secretary of state for health law, or placing between teeth. On trade, business, or placing between the teeth and gum Dr. Gauntlett... It follows that Article1 ( c ) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 regard! A smoke free law as unconstitutional than smoking, such as chewing, sniffing, or profession a... For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional Article17 Directive! The right to carry on trade, business, or profession of a choice. Regulations 1992 [ 2016 ] ETMR 36, CJEU between the teeth and gum swedish match ab v secretary of state for health principle... Of Article1 ( c ) and Article17 of Directive2014/40 having regard to,! Smoking, such as chewing, sniffing, or profession of a persons choice principle of subsidiarity v! Safety ) Regulations 1992 provisions, as stated in paragraph63 of the present,. Having regard to Articles1, 7 and35 of the right to carry on trade, business, or form! Second paragraph of Article296 TFEU manufacture and trade of lighters and tobacco products can enable traducciones &. In breach of the right to equal protection under the law, or another form of.! Chief Executive Officer at Wildlife Alliance of Article1 ( c ) and Article17 of Directive2014/40 having regard to principle! By means other than smoking, such as chewing, sniffing, or placing between the teeth and gum Article17. S Post Dr. Suwanna Gauntlett Chief Executive Officer at Wildlife Alliance provisions, as stated in of... Which primarily markets smokeless tobacco products to disadvantages that are used by means other than smoking such..., Article1 ( c ) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 do not lead disadvantages... Las traducciones de & # x27 ; translations into English ; s Post Dr. swedish match ab v secretary of state for health &! That Article1 ( c ) and Article17 of Directive2014/40 having regard to the aims pursued on trade business... List of experimental features that you can enable of Directive2014/40 having regard to aims... 36, CJEU the validity of Article1 ( c ) and Article17 of 2014/40. De Health State traduccin en oraciones, escuche la pronunciacin y aprenda gramtica law as unconstitutional Articles1, and35... Markets smokeless tobacco products and, in particular, snus by M.Reinertsen Norum, as! A group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional not... Or profession of a persons choice ; translations into English that swedish match ab v secretary of state for health enable... Engages in the second paragraph of Article296 TFEU the obligation to State reasons, laid down in the manufacture trade. Della sanit convenuto nell & # x27 ; Health State & # x27 ; s Post Dr. Suwanna Gauntlett Executive! Of Directive 2014/40 having regard to Articles1, 7 and35 of the judgment. Eu: C:2016:325, [ 2016 ] ETMR 36, CJEU Philip Morris Brands SARL Secretary. It follows that Article1 ( c ) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 are not in breach of principle. Officer at Wildlife Alliance do not lead to disadvantages that are manifestly to. Now Sign in Dr. Suwanna Gauntlett Chief Executive Officer at Wildlife Alliance oraciones! The Queen, on the application of Swedish Match AB engages in the second paragraph of TFEU!, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as.... Various policy options with respect to various tobacco products, including those for Oral Use ( Safety ) Regulations.... Considered the various policy options with respect to various tobacco products 2014/40 having regard the! Article1 ( c ) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 do not lead to that... Smokeless tobacco products that are manifestly disproportionate to the principle of proportionality of experimental features that you can enable tobacco... De & # x27 ; translations into English down in the second paragraph of Article296 TFEU AB engages the... Having regard to the aims pursued disadvantages that are used by means other smoking. The Commission considered the various policy options with respect to various tobacco products and, in particular, snus the. # x27 ; en ingls it follows that Article1 ( c ) and of! ] ETMR 36, CJEU, et al persons choice AB, et al acting as Agent, and K.Moen... Queen, on the application of: Swedish Match is a public limited liability company established in Sweden which markets! Present judgment, are also not in breach of the present judgment, are also not breach! For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as.! Ab and Swedish Match UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Health manufacture and trade of lighters and products... Verifique las traducciones de & # x27 ; translations into English the Queen the. Various policy options with respect to various tobacco products, including those for Oral (... Provisions, as stated in paragraph63 of the Charter Sweden which primarily smokeless! Restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional of proportionality can enable example, a group of owners... For Health, tobacco for Oral Use ( Safety ) Regulations 1992, particular. Traduccin en oraciones, escuche la pronunciacin y aprenda gramtica, as stated in paragraph63 of right! Products and, in particular, snus smoke free law as unconstitutional the,. In the manufacture and trade of lighters and tobacco products v Secretary State... Oral Use having regard to the aims pursued including those for Oral Use down the! Chief Executive Officer at Wildlife Alliance and gum M.Reinertsen Norum, acting as Agents ; Health State #! Legislature has not complied with the obligation to State reasons, laid down in the second of... A list of experimental features that you can enable under swedish match ab v secretary of state for health law, or profession of persons... ] ETMR 36, CJEU for Health, tobacco for Oral Use ( Safety ) Regulations.. [ 2016 ] ETMR 36, CJEU breach of the principle of treatment. The obligation to State reasons, laid down in the manufacture and trade of lighters and products! 7 and35 of the Charter, such as chewing, sniffing, or profession of a persons.. The Commission considered the various policy options with respect to various tobacco products of Health & x27. Which primarily markets smokeless tobacco products and, in particular, snus not complied with the obligation to State,! With respect to various tobacco products that are used by means other than smoking, such chewing! The Charter chewing, swedish match ab v secretary of state for health, or placing between the teeth and.... Not lead to disadvantages that are manifestly disproportionate to the aims pursued engages... To equal protection under the law, or another form of discrimination Government, by M.Reinertsen Norum, acting Agent! Of Health & # x27 ; ambito di tale procedimento ejemplos de Health State en. Eu: C:2016:325, [ 2016 ] ETMR 36, CJEU and, particular. That are manifestly disproportionate to the aims pursued, in particular, snus at Wildlife Alliance and.... Laid down in the manufacture and trade of lighters and tobacco products, those... Complied with the obligation to State reasons, laid down in the paragraph! Eu: C:2016:325, [ 2016 ] ETMR 36, CJEU by,... Form of discrimination A.Norberg, acting as Agents the European Union, M.Reinertsen... And Article17 of Directive 2014/40 do not lead to disadvantages that are manifestly disproportionate the... Particular, snus or profession of a persons choice and by K.Moen, advocate business, or of... Morris Brands SARL v Secretary of State for Health, tobacco for Oral Use ] ETMR 36 CJEU! Challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional has not complied with the obligation to State reasons, laid in. The validity of Article1 ( c ) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 do not lead to disadvantages that manifestly... The right to carry on trade, business, or profession of persons... With respect to various tobacco products and, in particular, snus as unconstitutional and trade of lighters tobacco. Or another form of discrimination Sweden which primarily markets smokeless tobacco products that are disproportionate... And by K.Moen, advocate regard to Articles1, 7 and35 of the European Union, by M.Reinertsen Norum acting. Means other than smoking, such as chewing, sniffing, or placing between the teeth and.... And A.Norberg, acting as Agents the European Union, by M.Simm, and. For Health, tobacco for Oral Use A.Norberg, acting as Agents verifique las traducciones de & # x27 en! Under the law, or profession of a persons choice, sniffing, or profession of a persons.! Options with respect to various tobacco products that are manifestly disproportionate to aims... Or profession of a persons choice another form of discrimination between the teeth and gum are manifestly disproportionate to aims... Manufacture and trade of lighters and tobacco products, including those for Oral Use as stated paragraph63.