Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-05T23:24:38.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The CJEU Assesses Another Minimum Pricing Measure Without Properly Contextualising it

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Oliver Bartlett
Oliver Bartlett*
Affiliation:
School of Law and Social Justice, University of Liverpool
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Case C-221/15 Criminal proceedings against Etablissements Fr. Colruyt NV [2016] ECLI:EU:C: 2016:704

Type
Case Notes
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 810 - 813
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1- For background, see: Katikireddi, Srinivasa et al, “Understanding the Development of Minimum Unit Pricing of Alcohol in Scotland: A Qualitative Study of the Policy Process” (2014) 9(3) Plos One e91185Google ScholarPubMed. The legitimacy of the Scottish policy was recently upheld in The Scotch Whisky Association and Others v Lord Advocate [2016] CSIH 77.

2- See Anderson, Peter and Baumberg, Ben, Alcohol in Europe: A Public Health Perspective (Institute of Alcohol Studies 2006), p. 75 Google ScholarPubMed.

3- See for example: Hilton, Shona et al, ‘Implications for alcohol minimum unit pricing advocacy: What can we learn for public health from UK newsprint coverage of key claim-makers in the policy debate’ (2014) 102 Social Science and Medicine 157 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4- See for example: Case C-13/7 GB-INNO-BM [1977] ECLI:EU:C:1977:185, Case C-216/98 Commission v Greece [2000] ECLI:EU:C:2000:571, Case C-197/08 Commission v France ECLI:EU:C:2010:111.

5- Case C-221/15 Criminal proceedings against Etablissements Fr. Colruyt NV [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:704.

6- See: WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2008: The MPOWER package (World Health Organisation 2008). See also Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (21 May 2003, entered into force 27 February 2005) 2303 UNTS 166.

7- Directive 2003/33 on the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products [2003] OJ L 152, 20.6.2003, p16.

8- Chapman, Simon and Freeman, Becky, ‘Regulating the tobacco retail environment: beyond reducing sales to minors’ (2009) 18 Tobacco Control 496 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

9- Dionysis Spanopoulos, et al, ‘Retail Price and Point of Sale Display of Tobacco in the UK: A Descriptive Study of Small Retailers’ (2012) 7(1) PLoS ONE e29871Google Scholar.

10- Slater, Sandy et al, ‘The Impact of Retail Cigarette Marketing Practices on Youth Smoking Uptake’ (2007) 161 Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 440Google Scholar.

11- See further support for the evidential effectiveness of minimum unit pricing in tackling price promotions in Henriksen, Lisa, ‘Comprehensive tobacco marketing restrictions: promotion, packaging, price and place’ (2012) 21 Tobacco Control 147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12- Council Directive 2011/64/EU on excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco [2012] OJ L 176, 5.7.2011, p. 24.

13- See for example: Case C-197/08 Commission v France ECLI:EU:C:2010:111,para. 37.

14- Opinion of Advocate General Wahl in Case C-221/15 Criminal proceedings against Etablissements Fr. Colruyt NV [2016] ECLI:EU:C:2016:288, para. 24.

15- supra, note 5, paras. 27 to 29.

16- Case C-267/91 Keck and Mithouard [1993] ECLI:EU:C:1993:905.

17- ibid, para. 16.

18- See for example Case C-34/95 De Agostini [1997] ECLI:EU:C:1997:334, para. 42; Case C-405/98 Gourmet [2001] ECLI:EU:C:2001:135, para. 21.

19- supra, note 14, para. 36.

20- supra, note 14, para. 49.

21- See Chaloupka, Frank et al, ‘Tax, price and cigarette smoking: evidence from the tobacco documents and implications for tobacco company marketing strategies’ (2002) 11 (Suppl 1) Tobacco Control i62Google Scholar.

22- For instance, see the cases of: C-1/90 Aragonesa [1991] ECLI:EU:C:1991:327, para. 10; Case C-333/14 Scotch Whisky [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:845, para. 32; Case C-405/98 Gourmet [2001] ECLI:EU:C:2001:135, para. 21.

23- supra, note 14, para. 56.

24- See for example: Ailawadi, Kusum et al, ‘Market power and performance: A cross-industry analysis of manufacturers and retailers’ [1995] 71(3) Journal of Retailing 211 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kuo, C et al, ‘Pricing Policy in a Supply Chain: Negotiation or Posted Pricing’ (2013) 22(3) Production and Operations Management 626 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25- Case C-333/14 Scotch Whisky [2015] ECLI:EU:C:2015:845, para. 44. See also: Bartlett, Oliver, ‘Minimum Unit Pricing for Alcohol May Not be a Proportionate Public Health Intervention’ [2016] 1 European Journal of Risk Regulation 218 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26- supra, note 5, para. 39.

27- See the case law cited above, in addition to cases which demonstrate that restrictions post-importation may have an effect on market access, for example: Case C-142/05 Mickelsson and Roos [2009] ECLI:EU:C:2009:336.

28- GB-INNO-BM, supra note 4, para. 54.

29- supra, note 14, para. 63.

30- supra, note 5, para. 45.

31- WHO Report on the global tobacco epidemic 2013: Enforcing bans on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship (World Health Organization 2013), p. 140.

32- See: Guidelines for the implementation of Article 13 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, available online at http://www.who.int/fctc/guidelines/article_13.pdf (last accessed 1 November 2016).

33- Scotch Whisky Association v Lord Advocate, supra, note 1.

34- See Bartlett, supra, note 25.