Explore the vast range of titles available.

[...]the principle of proportionality was raised in relation to the period needed to plan and order new packaging to meet the timeline of the Directive. Any challenge to the suggestion that flavourings were “traditional” (ie referring to mentholated tobacco product) and that such perception of the product should therefore lead to relaxed rules regarding it had already been rejected in Poland v Parliament & Council.6 It was determined by the Court that prohibition of flavoured products was appropriate within the scope of the internal market for tobacco and related products, and ensured the “high level of protection of human health, especially for young people”.7 The importance of the protection of the health of citizens from tobacco-related harm was re-emphasised. Information regulation had previously been judged in R v Secretary of State for Health, ex p British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd and Imperial Tobacco Ltd 11 to effectively discourage the harmful effects of tobacco products,12 and in Poland v Parliament and Council and Philip Morris Brands and Others the Court found that there was a balance struck between economic consequences and protections of human health.13 The World Health Organisation (WHO) has also noted clear links between tobacco usage and declining health.14 The WHO even categorised tobacco usage as a specific hindrance to meeting sustainable health targets globally on an annual basis.15 Therefore, the tobacco manufacturers do not now challenge the question of the health effects of tobacco products, but have repeatedly focused on perceived flaws in the Directive itself. The CJEU must clarify vagueness in EU legislation in the event of uncertainty on the part of the national court, but made clear in Srl CILFIT v Ministry of Health that national courts are not obliged to seek such clarification if the “community provision in question has already been interpreted by the Court of Justice or that the correct application of community law is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt”.21 This is important because cases are often brought by collections of tobacco manufactures acting with common purpose.