EU competences cases

Tobacco Advertising I

the Court held that article 114 TFEU confers no general power to regulate the internal market and it annulled the relevant directive, which was widely perceived as a vindication of the dividing line between the Community’s and the Member States’ competences.

Tobacco Advertising II

the directive in Tobacco Advertising II was then held to be valid under article 114, as while it was pursuing the same objective as the earlier directive, i.e. the prohibition of tobacco advertising and sponsorship, it was narrower in scope.

Swedish match & Philli

the prevention of future disparities in national rules, if the emergence of these disparities is likely

Deposit Guarantee Directive

the current standard for reasons provided in Deposit Guarantee Directive is unsatisfactory regarding assurance that a thorough subsidiarity assessment has been undertaken.

This is because even though the Court found the explanation of the Parliament and the Council’s conformity in that case to be sufficient, there is no principled reason as to why an express reference to the principle of subsidiarity cannot be required alongside substantive justification.

This would ensure explicit engagement with the principle providing evidence in cases where conformity may be more difficult to determine.