09.12.2012 Views

Report 2011 - EFTA Court

Report 2011 - EFTA Court

Report 2011 - EFTA Court

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

is linked to traditional social practices and to local habits and<br />

customs.<br />

110. The Finnish Government does not accept the arguments advanced<br />

by the Plaintiff to the effect that the visual display ban impedes<br />

the market access of new products from other EEA States to<br />

the benefit of brands that are already established. Noting that<br />

no tobacco products are produced in Norway, it argues, first,<br />

that, as a consequence, consumers cannot be more familiar with<br />

any domestic products. 80 Second, the display ban affects the<br />

market access of new domestic products in a similar manner to<br />

the market access of new products from other Member States.<br />

Similarly, it rejects the argument that the display ban implies the<br />

prevention of market access and argues that the case-law referred<br />

to by the Plaintiff is not relevant. 81<br />

111. Accordingly, the Finnish Government proposes that the <strong>Court</strong><br />

should answer the first question as follows:<br />

A general prohibition against the visible display of tobacco products<br />

does not constitute a measure having equivalent effect to a<br />

quantitative restriction on the free movement of goods within the<br />

meaning of Article 11 of the EEA Agreement.<br />

The second question<br />

112. As the Finnish Government has concluded that the answer to the<br />

first question must be that the contested measure does not have<br />

equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction for the purposes of<br />

Article 11 EEA, it considers it unnecessary to answer the second<br />

question.<br />

113. if, however, the <strong>Court</strong> concludes that a general prohibition on<br />

the visible display of tobacco products constitutes a measure<br />

having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on the free<br />

movement of goods, the Finnish Government considers that the<br />

restriction is justifiable on grounds of protection of health and life<br />

of humans in accordance with Article 13 EEA.<br />

80 Reference is made to De Agostini and TV-Shop, cited above<br />

81 Reference is made to Mickelsson and Roos, cited above.<br />

CASE E-16/10 Philip Morris Norway xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx AS v The Norwegian State 468 399

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!