Report 2011 - EFTA Court

ecause of its incompatibility with the EEA Agreement. The
Plaintiff argued that the new legislation, which introduced the
visual display ban on tobacco products, established a restriction
which was unlawful pursuant to Article 11 EEA. The Defendant
denied this, arguing, in contrast, that the new legislation was
compatible with the EEA Agreement.
6 On 25 June 2010, Oslo District Court decided to refer certain
questions to the Court for an Advisory Opinion, in particular,
concerning the interpretation of Articles 11 and 13 EEA. in its
request for an Advisory Opinion, Oslo District Court acknowledged
that there is relevant caselaw of the Court and the Court of
Justice of the European Union (“ECJ”) with regard to traditional
marketing. However, it considered it necessary to obtain
additional guidance from the Court concerning the lawfulness of
a general prohibition on the visible display of tobacco products
within the context of Articles 11 and 13 EEA.
7 The following questions were referred to the Court:
1. Shall Article 11 of the EEA Agreement be understood to mean
that a general prohibition against the visible display of tobacco
products constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a
quantitative restriction on the free movement of goods?
2. Assuming that there is a restriction, which criteria would be
decisive to determine whether a display prohibition, based on
the objective of reduced tobacco use by the public in general
and especially amongst young people, would be suitable and
necessary having regard to public health?
II LEGAL BACkGROUND
EEA law
8 Article 11 of the EEA Agreement reads:
Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having
equivalent effect shall be prohibited between the Contracting States.
9 Article 13 of the EEA Agreement reads:
CASE E-16/10 Philip Morris Norway xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx AS v The Norwegian State 340 335