The full text of Sir Francis Jacobs QC’s Opinion on the legality of medicines regulat

[KulrMeStoopid]

http://www.ecita.org.uk/blog/?p=679

ECITA Opinion
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" src="http://www.scribd.com/embeds/157268029/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" data-auto-height="false" data-aspect-ratio="undefined" scrolling="no" id="doc_94137" width="100%" height="600" frameborder="0"></iframe>

 

[SouthernVaper]

so in a nut shell what does all that mean as tbh I dont quite understand it if im honest

 

[KulrMeStoopid]

so in a nut shell what does all that mean as tbh I dont quite understand it if im honest

Some parts of the TPD can be challenged in court... I havent read through the whole thing and as I am not as familiar with UK law as US law, its still a bit misunderstood on my part.

 

[SouthernVaper]

well thats good then...........

 

[steffijade]

The final point in this erm... article? is the bit I find most interesting:



"we are of the opinion that by effectively excluding a significant proportion of electronic cigarettes from the EU market Article 18(1) is manifestly inappropriate to the objective of removing barriers to intra-state trade and thus contrary to the principle of proportionality, and is also unjustifiably discriminatory towards manufacturers of electronic cigarettes by comparison with manufacturers of tobacco cigarettes. This provision of the revised TPD would therefore be likely to be invalidated by the Court of Justice on a reference under Article 267 TFEU"

Basically, I read it as follows.

It's likely if the regulation was challenged in the european courts, that challenge would be likely to succeed.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer and versed in the deliberately complex language they use to baffle plebs like me, so it's entirely possible I could be talking utter shyte.

 

[Mawsley]

Of course, I'm not a lawyer and versed in the deliberately complex language they use to baffle plebs like me, so it's entirely possible I could be talking utter shyte.

You aren't.

 

[steffijade]

You aren't.

Aren't what? Aren't a lawyer or aren't talking shyte?

Not being a lawyer is pretty much a given but not talking shyte?... the odds are slim on that one I'd guess.

 

[Colonelboom]

Interesting read, essentially it would seem that the grounds for classification on medicinal grounds is quite wide for interpretation and does not specifically look to restrict things as much as we expect but could do if they found a reason they should (if that makes sense)

Then going into the case law there are cases that have shown to be dismissed as ecigs are clearly not medicinal but rather a recreational substitute and as such could not be blocked in each particular case.

Further down as Steff says, because the restrictions on the ecig industry is disproportionate to those found on an alternative product it would discriminate against the industry too much to be considered lawful and would be challengable in a court with very good basis to be overturned.

basically what we already thought, they are not as bad as stinkies, the tobacco industry is not being as harshly hammered, there is an opening for them to place ecigs under the tpd and mpd but if it is put into place in the way they intend it could potentially be dropped under discrimination and proportionality law.

(i think)