The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Portrait of Xavier Groussot. Photo.

Xavier Groussot

Professor

Portrait of Xavier Groussot. Photo.

New Directions in Judicial Review? Proportionality, Subsidiarity and Impact Assessment in the Tobacco Product Directive Case

Author

  • Julian Nowag
  • Xavier Groussot

Editor

  • Mats Tjernberg
  • Pernilla Rendahl
  • Henrik Wenander

Summary, in English

In this essay in honour of Christina Moëll, we focus on one particular recent case: the Philip Morris case delivered in May 2016 where the European Court of Justice (ECJ) rules on the validity of the Tobacco Product Directive case.1 It is a key case on the application of the principle of proportionality but not only since it connects this principle with other constitutional principles putting limits to the regulatory action such as fundamental rights and the principle of subsidiarity. This case constitutes a
perfect illustration of ‘administrative constitutionalism’, a doctrine which encapsulates the academic work of Christina Moëll in a nutshell.

Department/s

  • EU Law
  • Department of Law

Publishing year

2017

Language

English

Pages

83-101

Publication/Series

Festskrift till Christina Moell

Document type

Book chapter

Publisher

Juristförlaget i Lund

Topic

  • Law

Keywords

  • Proportionality principle
  • Subsidiarity
  • Impact assessment
  • EU law
  • Proportionalitetsprincipen
  • EU-rätt

Status

Published

Research group

  • EU Law

ISBN/ISSN/Other

  • ISBN: 9789154405725