Germany v. Parliament and Council (Tobacco Advertising II)
Also See: Tobacco Advertising I
FACTS
-Art. 3 of the directive allowed some advertisements in publications having to do with professionals in the tobacco business. Art. 4 of the directive prohibited all forms of radio advertising of tobacco. Germany attacked directive. Court upheld the directive.
ISSUE Was it alright for the EU directive banning tobacco on all forms of radio and television? HOLDING Yes, here it had to do with improving the conditions of the internal market as a whole. EU can legislate. ANALYSIS → Court says that many states already prohibited tobacco advertising, others would follow.
-Disparities existed between the Member States’ national laws and those disparities were such as to impede the free movement of goods and the freedom to provide services.
-The risk that new barriers to trade or to the freedom to provide services would emerge as a result of the accession of new Member States was real.
-What matters when justifying recourse to Art. 95 EC as the legal basis is that the measure adopted on that basis must actually be intended to improve the conditions for the establishment and functioning of the internal market.
-While Art. 152 EC excludes any harmonization of laws and regulations of the Member States designed to protect and improve human health, that provision does not mean, however, that harmonising measures adopted on the basis of other provisions of the treaty cannot have any impact on human health.
FACTS
-Art. 3 of the directive allowed some advertisements in publications having to do with professionals in the tobacco business. Art. 4 of the directive prohibited all forms of radio advertising of tobacco. Germany attacked directive. Court upheld the directive.
ISSUE Was it alright for the EU directive banning tobacco on all forms of radio and television? HOLDING Yes, here it had to do with improving the conditions of the internal market as a whole. EU can legislate. ANALYSIS → Court says that many states already prohibited tobacco advertising, others would follow.
-Disparities existed between the Member States’ national laws and those disparities were such as to impede the free movement of goods and the freedom to provide services.
-The risk that new barriers to trade or to the freedom to provide services would emerge as a result of the accession of new Member States was real.
-What matters when justifying recourse to Art. 95 EC as the legal basis is that the measure adopted on that basis must actually be intended to improve the conditions for the establishment and functioning of the internal market.
-While Art. 152 EC excludes any harmonization of laws and regulations of the Member States designed to protect and improve human health, that provision does not mean, however, that harmonising measures adopted on the basis of other provisions of the treaty cannot have any impact on human health.
No comments:
Post a Comment