Report 2011 - EFTA Court

to pursue an occupation of his own choosing and a person’s right
to freedom of opinion and belief as prescribed in the icelandic
Constitution. Consequently, an amendment to the law establishing
the visual display ban was adopted authorising special tobacco
shops to have tobacco products visible to customers.
120. The icelandic Government supports the arguments advanced by
the Defendant in the present case. Therefore, it takes the view that
the visual display ban on tobacco products is compatible with
EEA law and that it does not go further than necessary in order to
attain the objective pursued.
The Portuguese Government
The first question
121. The Portuguese Government is of the opinion that the display ban
restricts the free movement of goods. it argues further that, in
conjunction with the general advertising ban, the visual display
ban will create an insurmountable obstacle for any manufacturer
of tobacco products to introduce a new product successfully.
122. The Portuguese Government emphasises the need for competition
in the tobacco market, noting that the ECJ recently struck
down minimum price requirements implemented in ireland,
France and Austria, all of which were based on public health
grounds, because those measures were capable of undermining
competition. 84 The Government observes further that the
European Commission has acknowledged the importance of
brand communication within the context of competition and
introduction of new brands. 85
123. The Portuguese Government argues that a total ban on all brand
communication restricts the free movement of goods and is
84 Reference is made to Case C-197/08 Commission v France, Case C-198/08 Commission v
Austria, paragraph 30, and Commission v Ireland, paragraph 41, all cited above.
85 The Portuguese Government refers to Case COMP/M.2779 – Imperial Tobacco/Reemtsma,
paragraph 54, and Case COMP/M.4581 – Imperial Tobacco/Altadis.
CASE E-16/10 Philip Morris Norway xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx AS v The Norwegian State 474 402