No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The scope of EC harmonising powers revisited?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
Extract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Judgement of the CJEC in Case C-491/01, The Queen and the Secretary of State for Health ex parte British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd and Imperial Tobacco Ltd (Tobacco Manufacturing Directive Case)
- Type
- European & International Law
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2003 by German Law Journal GbR
References
1 Japan Tobacco had already sought the annulment of the Directive before the CFI. Its application was rejected as inadmissible due to lack of direct concern (Case T-223/01).Google Scholar
2 Case C-50/00P, Union de Pequeños Agricultores, see on this D. Hanf, “Kicking the ball into the Member States’ field: the Court's response to Jégo-Quéré“ in 3 (2002) German Law Journal 8 (http://www.germanlawjournal.com/past_issues.php?id=171).Google Scholar
3 Point 87.Google Scholar
4 Case C-376/98, Germany v. Parliament and Council.Google Scholar
5 Point 94.Google Scholar
6 In the case of, for example, a packet of cigarettes, the warnings - depending on the number of official languages used - should cover up to 35% of the front of the packet, 50% of the back with 15% of the sides being taken up with tar, nicotine and tobacco yields.Google Scholar
7 Article 295 states that the provisions of the Treaty “shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing teh system of property ownership”.Google Scholar
8 Point 191. Emphasis added.Google Scholar
9 See above note 4Google Scholar
You have
Access