Report 2011 - EFTA Court

III qUESTIONS
7. The following questions were thus 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 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?
IV LEGAL BACkGROUND
EEA law
8. Article 11 EEA reads as follows:
Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having
equivalent effect shall be prohibited between the Contracting Parties.
9. Article 13 EEA reads as follows:
The provisions of Articles 11 and 12 shall not preclude prohibitions or
restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds
of public morality, public policy or public security; the protection
of health and life of humans, animals or plants; the protection of
national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological
value; or the protection of industrial and commercial property. Such
prohibitions or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means of
arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between the
Contracting Parties.
National law 1
10. in Norway, the total prohibition on the advertising of tobacco
products was established in the Law of 9 March 1973 No 14
1 Translations of national provisions are unofficial and are based on translations contained
in the documents of the case.
CASE E-16/10 Philip Morris Norway xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx AS v The Norwegian State 398 364