Concerning the special rules for e-cigarettes, Advocate General Kokott states that those rules differ appreciably in several respects from the rules for conventional tobacco products. For example, the special rules for e-cigarettes provide for, inter alia, a duty to submit a notification with a six-month standstill period, specific warnings, a maximum nicotine content of 20 mg/ml, a leaflet requirement, a separate prohibition on advertising and sponsorship and annual reporting obligations. Those special rules are, however, relatively moderate, both in comparison with the rules for conventional tobacco products and by international standards, and are ultimately not disproportionate. Advocate General Kokott emphasises in that regard that e-cigarettes are a novel and — for large parts of the population at least — still relatively little known product for which there is a rapidly developing market. In addition, it is not manifestly wrong or unreasonable to accept, in adopting internal market harmonisation measures, that e-cigarettes possibly cause risks to human health and that that product could — above all in the case of adolescents and young adults — develop into a gateway to nicotine addiction and, ultimately, traditional tobacco consumption. Also in the case of e-cigarettes, the EU legislature was entitled to take the view, having regard in particular to the fundamental differences between the Member States’ rules and the cross-border dimension of the problem, that rules at Union level are required. With regard to compliance with the principle of subsidiarity in adopting the new tobacco directive, Advocate General Kokott takes the view that it is adequately documented that the EU legislature had comprehensive material on which it could base its evaluation of compliance with the principle of subsidiarity. Nevertheless, she strongly advises the Union legislature to avoid in future empty formulas on the principle of subsidiarity like the one contained in the directive and instead to enhance the preamble to the EU measure in question with sufficiently substantial statements regarding the principle of subsidiarity which are tailored to the measures in question. NOTE: The Advocate General’s Opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice. It is the role of the Advocates General to propose to the Court, in complete independence, a legal solution to the cases for which they are 5Until now the requirement has been 30% for the front surface of the unit packet and 40% for the back surface of the unit packet.
www.curia.europa.eu responsible. The Judges of the Court are now beginning their deliberations in this case. Judgment will be given at a later date. Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice