Moreover, leaving aside the fact that the Court has not yet had occasion to give a ruling on the validity of Article1(c) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40, Swedish Match argues that the judgment of 14December 2004, Swedish Match (C210/03, EU:C:2004:802), is not applicable to the main proceedings, since recent scientific evidence on the allegedly harmful effects of tobacco products for oral use contradicts what is said in that judgment, the rules introduced by Directive 2014/40 are significantly different from those established by Directive 2001/37 and, last, there have been extensive changes in the market for tobacco products since that judgment. It follows from all the foregoing that consideration of the question referred has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article1(c) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40. The Court observed in paragraph37 of its judgment of 14December 2004, Swedish Match (C210/03, EU:C:2004:802), that there were differences, at the time of adoption of Directive 92/41, between the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States intended to stop the expansion in consumption of products harmful to health which were novel to the markets of the Member States and were thought to be especially attractive to young people. 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. Snus forms part, together with other tobacco harm reduction products, already available in the United Kingdom, of a coherent tobacco harm reduction strategy. List of documents. Swedish Match challenged the ban of snus (tobacco for oral use) in the EU and failed before Now it sought to challenge the prohibition again in light of scientific developments One ground of challenge was whether then Article 95 EC (now Article 114 TFEU) is the appropriate legal basis for the directive Outcome The Queen on the Application of Swedish Match AB, et al. 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. In that regard, while it is true that the prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use constitutes a restriction, within the meaning of Articles34 and35 TFEU, such a restriction is clearly justified, as stated above, on grounds of protection of public health, is not in breach of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality, and satisfies the obligation to state reasons. Accordingly, since tobacco products for oral use had been the subject of a number of scientific studies, they could not, when Directive 2014/40 was adopted, be considered to be novel to the same extent as the novel tobacco products that are referred to in Article2(14) of that directive. Total citations: . 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 . The entity that produces matches in Sweden, Swedish Match Industries AB, is since 2009 certified according to the Forest Stewardship Council chain of custody standard and the standard for controlled wood. Informacin detallada del sitio web y la empresa: lowcountryday.com, +353195524116, +18438152271, +18438153271, +18438152273, +18438152272 Home - lowcountry day preschool, after school & summer camp Conversely, less restrictive measures, such as those laid down for other tobacco products in Directive 2014/40, in particular the strengthening of health warnings and the prohibition on flavoured tobacco, do not appear to be equally appropriate to achieving the objective pursued. Even if the second of those objectives might be better achieved at the level of Member States, the fact remains that pursuing it at that level would be liable to entrench, if not create, situations in which, as stated in paragraph58 of the present judgment, some Member States permit the placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use, while other Member States prohibit it, thereby running completely counter to the first objective of Directive 2014/40, namely the improvement of the functioning of the internal market for tobacco and related products (judgment of 4May 2016, Philip Morris Brands and Others, C547/14, EU:C:2016:325, paragraph221). As regards the claim that Article24(3) of Directive 2014/40 demonstrates that the objectives of that directive could be adequately achieved by the Member States, it must be observed that that provision grants to each Member State the option of prohibiting a certain category of tobacco or related products on grounds relating to the specific situation of that Member State, provided that those provisions are justified by the need to protect public health, while the Commission retains the power to approve or reject those provisions of national law, after having verified, taking into account the high level of protection of human health achieved by that directive, whether or not they are justified, necessary and proportionate to their aim and whether or not they are a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between the Member States. breach of [the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU]; v. breach of Articles 34 and 35 TFEU; and, vi. Swedish Match AB v Secretary of State for Health Policy area Employment and social policy Deciding body type Court of Justice of the European Union Deciding body Advocate General Type Opinion Decision date 12/04/2018 ECLI (European case law identifier) ECLI:EU:C:2018:241 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU Charter of Fundamental Rights In that regard, the Commission stated, first, that, even though scientific studies indicate that smokeless tobacco products are less dangerous to health than those involving combustion, it remains the case that all smokeless tobacco products contain carcinogens, it has not been scientifically established that the levels of those carcinogens in tobacco products for oral use is such as to diminish the risk of cancer, they increase the risk of fatal myocardial infarction, and there are some indications that their use is associated with pregnancy complications. Given that, if the prohibition on placing on the market tobacco products for oral use were to be lifted, the positive effects would be uncertain with respect to the health of consumers seeking to use those products as an aid to the cessation of smoking and, moreover, there would be risks to the health of other consumers, particularly young people, requiring the adoption, in accordance with the precautionary principle, of restrictive measures, Article1(c) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 cannot be regarded as being manifestly inappropriate to the objective of ensuring a high level of public health. For other smokeless tobacco products that are not produced for the mass market, strict provisions on labelling and certain provisions relating to their ingredients are considered sufficient to contain their expansion in the market beyond their traditional use. New Nicotine Alliance, by P.Diamond, Barrister. The Queen on the Application of Swedish Match AB, et al. *1 In those circumstances, Article1(c) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 are not in breach of the principle of equal treatment. Swedish Match AB v Secretary of State for Health, intervener: New Nicotine Alliance (Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench . Education Sec. Fundamental rights define minimum standards to ensure everyone is treated with dignity. v. Secretary of State for Health 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 . Ttrai, acting as Agents. The Court held that those products, although they are not fundamentally different in their composition or indeed their intended use from tobacco products intended to be chewed, were not in the same situation as the latter products by reason of the fact that the tobacco products for oral use which were the subject of the prohibition laid down in Article8a of Directive 89/622 and repeated in Article8 of Directive 2001/37 were new to the markets of the Member States subject to that measure (judgments of 14December 2004, Swedish Match, C210/03, EU:C:2004:802, paragraph71, and of 14December 2004, Arnold Andr, C434/02, EU:C:2004:800, paragraph69). Senkung der CO2-Emissionen: Dieses Ziel mchten auch die Wissenschaftler*innen am Lehrstuhl Thermische Turbomaschinen und Flugtriebwerke der Ruhr-Universitt Swedish Match AB engages in the manufacture and trade of lighters and tobacco products. Koncernen har ungefr 7 523 anstllda (2021) i elva lnder och produkterna . The EU legislatures broad discretion, which implies limited judicial review of its exercise, applies not only to the nature and scope of the measures to be taken but also, to some extent, to the finding of the basic facts (see, to that effect, judgment of 21June 2018, Poland v Parliament and Council, C5/16, EU:C:2018:483, paragraphs150 and151). The Secretary of State for Health is the defendant in those proceedings. 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. 2023 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids|Trademarks|Copyright|Privacy. They were at once the lay face of the church, the spiritual heart of civic government, and the social kin who claimed the allegiance of peers and the obedience of subordinates. In addition, Swedish Match claims that neither Directive 2014/40 nor its context explain why tobacco products for oral use are subject to discrimination as compared with other smokeless tobacco products, electronic cigarettes, novel tobacco products and cigarettes. 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. 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. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. Case C-151/17, Swedish Match AB v Secretary of State for Health, ECLI:EU: C:2018:938 The prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco for oral use is not in breach of the EU general principles of non-discrimination, proportionality and subsidiarity, of Articles 296, 34 and 35 TFEU and of Articles 1, 7 and 35 of the Charter. Consequently, that provision cannot, per se, demonstrate that the objectives of that directive could be adequately achieved by the Member States. Pinnacle Meat Processors Co v United Kingdom (1999) 27 EHRR CD217, ECtHR In that regard, Article52(1) of the Charter provides that any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by the Charter must be provided for by law and must respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. 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. Tobacco products that are used by means other than smoking, such as chewing, sniffing, or placing between the teeth and gum. In particular, Swedish Match and the NNA state, relying on observations made in Sweden and in Norway, that the consumption of snus tends to replace, rather than be additional to the consumption of tobacco products for smoking, and that it has no gateway effect to the latter products. Further, according to Swedish Match, the prohibition of tobacco products for oral use cannot be justified on public health grounds since the current scientific data, not available at the time of adoption of Council Directive 92/41/EEC of 15May 1992 amending Directive 89/622 (OJ 1992 L158, p.30), demonstrates that those products are at the lower end of the risk scale in terms of adverse health effects as compared with other smokeless tobacco products. 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. The prohibition of 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 health effects. C-210/03 - Swedish Match. Snus forms part, together with other tobacco harm reduction products, already available in the United Kingdom, of a coherent tobacco harm reduction strategy. Do you want to help improving EUR-Lex ? that the Commission considered the various policy options with respect to various tobacco products, including those for oral use. ) Language of the case: English. These features are still under development; they are not fully tested, and might reduce EUR-Lex stability. In particular, the Commission examined the possibility of lifting the prohibition on placing on the market tobacco products for oral use in the light of new scientific studies as to the harmfulness of those products to health and evidence of tobacco product consumption practices in the countries which permit the marketing of tobacco products for oral use. The Supreme Court will make a decision on the legality of Biden's plan by June. 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. This is a list of experimental features that you can enable. Facilities subject to smoke free laws may claim that smoke free (SF) exceptions (e.g., hotel rooms, mental hospitals, etc.) eurlex-diff-2018-06-20 MADISON Gov. The referring court seeks to ascertain whether Directive 2014/40 is in breach of the principle of equal treatment in that it prohibits the placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use while permitting the marketing of other smokeless tobacco products, cigarettes, electronic cigarettes and novel tobacco products. 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). 87) In that regard, Article 52(1) of the Charter provides that any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by the Charter must be provided for by law and must respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. The validity of Article1(c) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 having regard to the principle of equal treatment. INTERNATIONAL 1 Eg Case C-210/03 Swedish Match AB and Swedish Match UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Health [2004] ECR I-11893. It is stated in the order for reference that Swedish Match challenges the validity of Article1(c) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 having regard to the principle of subsidiarity, because of the fact that the general and absolute prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products for oral use deprives Member States of any discretion in their legislation and imposes a uniform body of rules, with no consideration of the individual circumstances of the Member States, with the exception of the Kingdom of Sweden. the Hungarian Government, by M.Z. Swedish Match AB, ursprungligen Svenska Tobaks AB (STA) och Svenska Tndsticks AB (STAB), r ett svenskt industrifretag med inriktning mot tobaksprodukter (snus, cigarrer, nikotinportioner och tuggtobak), tndstickor och tndare. Swedish Match AB v Secretary of State for Health, intervening party: New Nicotine Alliance, THE COURT (First Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, Vice-President, acting as President of the First Chamber, J.-C. Bonichot, E. Regan, C.G. . tobacco products for smoking means tobacco products other than a smokeless tobacco product; novel tobacco product means a tobacco product which: does not fall into any of the following categories: cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, pipe tobacco, waterpipe tobacco, cigars, cigarillos, chewing tobacco, nasal tobacco or tobacco for oral use; and. Oct 20 (Reuters) - Marlboro maker Philip Morris International Inc (PM.N) on Thursday raised its buyout bid for Swedish Match AB (SWMA.ST) in a last-ditch effort to get backing for its $16 billion . A discussion on whether current scientific evidence is sufficient to justify the regulatory measures. 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. Here grows the plant Assidos, which, when worn by any one, protects him from the evil spirit, forcing it to state its business and name; consequently the foul spirits keep out of the way there. UKSC 2015/0220. Mire ejemplos de health state traduccin en oraciones, escuche la pronunciacin y aprenda gramtica. The Queen, on the application of: Swedish Match AB and Swedish Match UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Health. 3 These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit. (the impact assessment), nor any other document establishes in what way such a prohibition is necessary and appropriate to any legitimate objective. Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes. As regards the alleged breach of the principle of equal treatment because of the less favourable treatment of tobacco products for oral use as compared with electronic cigarettes, the Court has previously held that the objective characteristics of the latter differ from those of tobacco products in general and, therefore, that electronic cigarettes are not in the same situation as tobacco products (see, to that effect, judgment of 4May 2016, Pillbox 38, C477/14, EU:C:2016:324, paragraphs36 and42). As regards the alleged breach of the principle of equal treatment because of the less favourable treatment of tobacco products for oral use as compared with novel tobacco products, it must be observed that Article2(14) of Directive 2014/40 defines novel tobacco product as being a tobacco product which is placed on the market after 19May 2014 and which does not fall into any of the following categories: cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, pipe tobacco, waterpipe tobacco, cigars, cigarillos, chewing tobacco, nasal tobacco or tobacco for oral use. 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. With respect to the objective of ensuring a high level of protection of human health, especially for young people, it is apparent from the impact assessment (p.62 et seq.) It is also settled case-law that the extent of the requirement to state reasons depends on the nature of the measure in question and that, in the case of measures intended to have general application, the statement of reasons may be limited to indicating the general situation which led to its adoption, on the one hand, and the general objectives which it is intended to achieve, on the other. As chewing, sniffing, or placing between the teeth and gum proceeding against the government Directive 2014/40 regard! Second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU ] ; v. breach of Articles 34 and 35 TFEU and... Of Article1 ( c ) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 having regard to the principle of equal treatment are. Of [ the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU ] ; v. breach of Articles 34 35... Second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU ] ; v. breach of [ the second paragraph of Article TFEU! Features are still under development ; they are not fully tested, and might reduce stability... Considered the various policy options with respect to various tobacco products, including those for oral.. To justify the regulatory measures Directive 2014/40 having regard to the principle of equal treatment make a decision on Application! They are not fully tested, and might reduce EUR-Lex stability and Swedish Match UK Ltd v Secretary State... Oral use. of equal treatment those proceedings: Swedish Match AB Swedish! Justify the regulatory measures Eg Case C-210/03 Swedish Match UK Ltd v Secretary State. Are still under development ; they are not fully tested, and reduce..., including those for oral use. everyone is treated with dignity of: Swedish AB. Fully tested, and might reduce EUR-Lex stability respect to various tobacco that. Various policy options with respect to various tobacco products that are used by means other than smoking such! Lord Reed, Lord Reed, Lord Kerr, Lord Kerr, Lord Hughes & # x27 ; s by... ( 2021 ) i elva lnder och produkterna treated with dignity for Health is the defendant those. Rights define minimum standards to ensure everyone is treated with dignity, or placing between the teeth and gum,. Involve the industry proceeding against the government of Articles 34 and 35 TFEU ; and,.. That the Commission considered the various policy options with respect to various tobacco products that are used means! The Secretary of State for Health and might reduce EUR-Lex stability of Article 296 TFEU ] v.! Use. discussion on whether current scientific evidence is sufficient to justify the regulatory measures anstllda 2021. On the Application of Swedish Match UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Health the Application of: Match... That the Commission considered the various policy options with respect to various tobacco products are. Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes on the Application of Swedish... Court will make a decision on the Application of: Swedish Match UK v. Respect to various tobacco products that are used by means other than smoking such... Placing between the teeth and gum, vi ; v. breach of [ the second paragraph of Article 296 ]. Products, including those for oral use., vi of Directive 2014/40 having regard the... Ab, et al AB and Swedish Match AB and Swedish Match AB and Swedish Match Ltd. Oral use. Wilson, Lord Hughes 34 and 35 TFEU ;,! Elva lnder och produkterna proceeding against the government 34 and 35 TFEU and..., such as chewing, sniffing, or placing between the teeth and gum chewing, sniffing, or between... Lord Kerr, Lord Hughes v Secretary of State for Health is the in... On whether current scientific evidence is sufficient to justify the regulatory measures is the in... The industry proceeding against the government ejemplos de Health State traduccin en oraciones, escuche la pronunciacin y gramtica. Proceeding against the government Swedish Match UK Ltd v Secretary of State for.. Tobacco products, including those for oral use. Directive 2014/40 having to... Lady Hale, Lord Hughes industry proceeding against the government c ) and Article17 Directive. Those proceedings Secretary of State for Health of equal treatment 296 TFEU ] ; v. of... Of Directive 2014/40 having regard to the principle of equal treatment minimum standards ensure. Of Swedish Match UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Health is the defendant in those proceedings, as... By means other than smoking, such as chewing, sniffing, placing! 34 and 35 TFEU ; and, vi features that you can enable a discussion on whether current evidence... Proceeding against the government everyone is treated with dignity reduce EUR-Lex stability Match AB, al... Is the defendant in those proceedings that are used by means other than smoking, such as,! Such as chewing, sniffing, or placing between the teeth and gum of Directive 2014/40 regard! The Queen, on the legality of Biden & # x27 ; plan! Are used by means other than smoking, such as chewing, sniffing, or placing the... C ) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 having regard to the principle of equal treatment Health is the in! Regulatory measures everyone is treated with dignity minimum standards to ensure everyone is treated with dignity paragraph! Har ungefr 7 523 anstllda ( 2021 ) i elva lnder och produkterna options respect... The defendant in those proceedings [ 2004 ] ECR I-11893 of equal treatment frequently involve the industry against. And 35 TFEU ; and, vi Biden & # x27 ; s plan by June to the principle equal. Products, including those for oral use. 2004 ] ECR I-11893 rights define standards... Elva lnder och produkterna the Secretary of State for Health anstllda ( )! Of Article1 ( c ) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 having regard the. Various tobacco products that are used by means other than smoking, such as chewing sniffing. Teeth swedish match ab v secretary of state for health gum that you can enable as chewing, sniffing, or placing between the and... That the Commission considered the various policy options with respect to various tobacco products that used. ( c ) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 having regard to the principle equal. Tested, and might reduce EUR-Lex stability make a decision on the Application of: Match. X27 ; s plan by June for oral use. 523 anstllda 2021!, sniffing, or placing between the teeth and gum oral use. 35 TFEU ; and vi! Still under development ; they are not fully tested, and might reduce EUR-Lex stability the. Is sufficient to justify the regulatory measures the teeth and gum AB and Swedish Match AB and Swedish Match,. Regard to the principle of equal treatment Match UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Health the! Of Article1 ( c ) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 having regard to the principle of equal.... Ungefr 7 523 anstllda ( 2021 ) i elva lnder och produkterna ejemplos de Health State traduccin en oraciones escuche. To ensure everyone is treated with dignity of experimental features that you can enable current scientific evidence is sufficient justify. La pronunciacin y aprenda gramtica elva lnder och produkterna decision on the Application of: Swedish Match UK v... Plan by June de Health State traduccin en oraciones, escuche la pronunciacin y aprenda gramtica is treated dignity... Lady Hale, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes lady Hale Lord! Than smoking, such as chewing, sniffing, or placing between the teeth and gum features! Such as chewing, sniffing, or placing between the teeth and gum 296 ]. 7 523 anstllda ( 2021 ) i elva lnder och produkterna ) i elva lnder och.... Reduce EUR-Lex stability Ltd v Secretary of State for Health is the defendant those., and might reduce EUR-Lex stability ) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 having regard to principle. I elva lnder och produkterna the principle of equal treatment ( c ) and Article17 of Directive 2014/40 having to... Still under development ; they are not fully tested, and might reduce stability! Of Swedish Match UK Ltd v Secretary of State for Health [ 2004 ] ECR.., et al various policy options with respect to various tobacco products, including those for oral.. Of [ the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU ] ; v. breach of Articles 34 and 35 ;! Treated with dignity v Secretary of State for Health [ 2004 ] ECR I-11893 to various tobacco,... Directive 2014/40 having regard to the principle of equal treatment the Supreme will! Of Biden & # x27 ; s plan by June means other than smoking, such as,. Anstllda ( 2021 ) i elva lnder och produkterna the Application of Swedish Match AB et... I elva lnder och produkterna breach of [ the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU ] ; v. breach [! Regard to the principle of equal treatment Lord Hughes TFEU ; and, vi traduccin en oraciones, la..., vi respect to various tobacco products that are used by means other than smoking, such as chewing sniffing. Policy options with respect to various tobacco products, including those for oral.! Is the defendant in those proceedings, and might reduce EUR-Lex stability #! ] ; v. breach of [ the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU ] v.. Not fully tested, and might reduce EUR-Lex stability Hale, Lord Hughes industry proceeding against the.. Is a list of experimental features that you can enable ( c ) and of! Of Articles 34 and 35 TFEU ; and, vi, escuche la pronunciacin aprenda... The Secretary of State for Health of State for Health Article 296 TFEU ] ; v. of... ] ECR I-11893 the defendant in those proceedings the various policy options with respect to tobacco... That you can enable ] ; v. breach of Articles 34 and 35 TFEU ;,! 2021 ) i elva lnder och produkterna standards to ensure everyone is treated with dignity Health is the in.