| Summary: | (Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2016 1(2), 741-749 | European Forum Insight of 20 August 2016 | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - II. The facts. - III. Legal analysis. - III.1. Art. 114 TFEU as a legal ba-sis: business as usual. - III.2. The Tobacco Products Directive and fundamental rights: the balance tilts in favour of the protection of human health. - III.3. Are measures mani-festly inappropriate? The proportionality test applied to tobacco products. - IV.4. The ob-ligation to motivate under EU law: what is the approach followed by the Court of Justice? - IV. Conclusions. | (Abstract) On 4 May 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its judgment in the case Philip Morris. For the first time, the reasoning of the Court does not focus exclusively on internal market issues but, instead, includes an analysis on fundamental rights and the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity. Following the approach adopted by Advocate General Kokott in December 2015, the Court of Justice considers the Tobacco Products Directive to be in accordance with EU law. A new approach towards the Tobacco Products Directive seems to be emerging in which the protection of human health is increasingly taken into account. This judgment was delivered in the same period as the European institutions made public their decision not to renew the anti-smuggling deal with Philip Morris and the ICSID Arbitral Tribunal delivered its award of 8 July 2016 in the case Philip Morris and Abal Hermanos v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, in which Uruguay won a complaint brought against its tobacco regulations. From this perspective, there seems to be a common understanding that effective measures have to be taken to combat tobacco consumption.
|
|---|
