K
KulrMeStoopid
Guest
[h=1]EU tobacco directive and e-cigarettes: maladministration complaint to European Ombudsman[/h]
http://www.clivebates.com/?p=1818
[h=2]Why complain?[/h]There are two ways to criticise the proposals for regulating nicotine containing products, such as e-cigarettes:substance and process.
First, on the substance of the proposals themselves… I made a start on that in my reaction to the trilogue announcement: Making sense of the proposed new e-cigarette regulations. Dr Farsalinos has also hacked away at the scientific foundations used by the Commission: The European Commission has misinterpreted my scientific research on nicotine in e-cigarettes. And I have in mind a more unforgiving critique of the actual measures over the next few days. Within a month, I believe this proposal will be well and truly exposed for what it is… a mess, and a mostly unlawful and counterproductive mess. This type of complaint is usually settled in court as the measures are tested against the requirements of the treaties. The treaties allow for the European Court of Justice to examine the lawfulness of the measures [see TFEU Article 263] and my post on Making bad law legal vulnerabilities in the tobacco products directive .
Second, on the process followed to get to the proposals. Regular readers will know that I think the EU institutions have gone rogue on this directive and seem oblivious to their responsibilities under the EU treaties that provide stabilising constraints on what they can do. The current proposals for regulating e-cigarettes have been hatched between October and December entirely behind closed doors driven by a rush to get it done, not to get it right. What should have happened is when the European Parliament rejected the Commission proposal to regulate these products as medicines, they should have paused and formulated a new proposal, and subject it to proper evidence based justification, impact assessment, consultation and scrutiny by national parliaments. This kind of complaint can be settled through an Ombudsman or in court.
So with the support of a group of European associations, I have made a complaint to the European Ombudsman, alleging maladministration on the part of the European Commission, in its role as guardian of the treaties and upholder of EU law. It is hard (at least for me) to tell whether an Ombudsman can require a change in process, but their involvement could either be decisive, or persuade European or domestic politicians that they need to do a proper job, and start a new legislative proposal.
http://www.clivebates.com/?p=1818
[h=2]Why complain?[/h]There are two ways to criticise the proposals for regulating nicotine containing products, such as e-cigarettes:substance and process.
First, on the substance of the proposals themselves… I made a start on that in my reaction to the trilogue announcement: Making sense of the proposed new e-cigarette regulations. Dr Farsalinos has also hacked away at the scientific foundations used by the Commission: The European Commission has misinterpreted my scientific research on nicotine in e-cigarettes. And I have in mind a more unforgiving critique of the actual measures over the next few days. Within a month, I believe this proposal will be well and truly exposed for what it is… a mess, and a mostly unlawful and counterproductive mess. This type of complaint is usually settled in court as the measures are tested against the requirements of the treaties. The treaties allow for the European Court of Justice to examine the lawfulness of the measures [see TFEU Article 263] and my post on Making bad law legal vulnerabilities in the tobacco products directive .
Second, on the process followed to get to the proposals. Regular readers will know that I think the EU institutions have gone rogue on this directive and seem oblivious to their responsibilities under the EU treaties that provide stabilising constraints on what they can do. The current proposals for regulating e-cigarettes have been hatched between October and December entirely behind closed doors driven by a rush to get it done, not to get it right. What should have happened is when the European Parliament rejected the Commission proposal to regulate these products as medicines, they should have paused and formulated a new proposal, and subject it to proper evidence based justification, impact assessment, consultation and scrutiny by national parliaments. This kind of complaint can be settled through an Ombudsman or in court.
So with the support of a group of European associations, I have made a complaint to the European Ombudsman, alleging maladministration on the part of the European Commission, in its role as guardian of the treaties and upholder of EU law. It is hard (at least for me) to tell whether an Ombudsman can require a change in process, but their involvement could either be decisive, or persuade European or domestic politicians that they need to do a proper job, and start a new legislative proposal.
