The Dutch Court Decision

[maccafan]

Case precis' of UTVG vs Dutch State and the decision..Run through gtranslate and split into a more readable form so grammar will not be spot on but you can get the essence..

LJN: BV8613, District Court The Hague, 414117 / KG ZA 12-209

Date of judgment: 13/03/2012

Date of publication: 13/03/2012

Jurisdiction: Other civil

Type of procedure: Interim measures

Inhoudsindicatie:
The decision of the Minister to the e-cigarette final to qualify as a medicine is based on the Medicines Act. The judge must now give a preliminary assessment on whether the definition in the Medicines that decision can bear. In answering that question, the Medicines Act where necessary and possible, be construed in accordance with the Medicines Directive (Directive compliant interpretation). The assertion of the State, the e-cigarette pharmacological properties that the physiological functions of human influence and therefore alone as drug should be considered preliminary judgment can not be followed. The e-cigarette is indeed not intended to induce such effects. By the words "intended to be administered or used for" in the statutory definition stimulants like alcohol and tobacco from the application of the law are excluded. The same applies to the judgment of the court for the e-cigarette.

This does not mean that nicotine-containing products are not medicines can be. Thus, the Nicorette inhaler (already) on the basis of the presentation criterion is qualified as a medicine. In answering the question still remains whether a directive conforming interpretation of the statutory definition to the classification of the e-cigarette as a drug can lead.

The State has argued that it is not the State is to scientifically demonstrate that the e-cigarette the pharmacological effects of the product under the Medicines Directive and the Medicines for products. This view considers the judge untenable. It is the minister who has decided to e-cigarette as medicinal brands. It is to the Minister for which adequate justification. In this case rests under Article 150 of the Code of Civil Procedure in principle to the State the burden of proof in law of the propositions which he wishes to see. On this basis, the court considers that the decision of the Minister to the e-cigarette (final) as medicinal brands, in violation of the law and the general principles of good governance, particularly the justification principle and the principle of legal certainty. This is the land to the (amended) enforcement of the Minister come to slip. The advanced command to import the e-cigarette from outside the European Union and the marketing thereof in the Netherlands to allow, will be designated.

Location (s): Rechtspraak.nl

Statement

COURT THE HAGUE Civil law - judge -case / docket number: 414117 / KG ZA 12-209 interim order of March 13, 2012 in the case of the foreign company United Tobacco Vapor Group Inc., office in Alpharetta, Georgia, United States of America, Plaintiff, attorney Mr. RF van den Heuvel in Amsterdam, against: the State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport and the Ministry of Finance), residing at The Hague, defendant, attorney JAE van der Jagt-Jobsen to The Hague.

Parties are hereinafter respectively referred to as "United Tobacco 'and' the State '.

1. The facts on the basis of the documents and the discussion at the session of March 1, 2012, in this case the following assumption.

1.1. United Tobacco is a manufacturer and importer of electronic cigarettes containing nicotine ('e-cigarettes') of different brands, ie brands Flavor Vapes, Vape Master, Premium, and Envy Want Vape.

1.2. The e-cigarette consists of United Tobacco, a container with the outer shape of a cigarette, and from a battery, an ampoule, an atomizer and an LED lamp. The ampoule consists of a solution of nicotine from tobacco extracted, and is available in several doses.

1.3. The State has the end of 2007 the e-cigarette provisionally qualified as medicinal uses and since then a proportionate enforcement policy with respect to the e-cigarette. This means that the import of and trade in e-cigarettes without marketing authorization from the Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) is tolerated, but that no advertisement may be made ​​for the e-cigarette.

1.4. By letter dated December 23, 2011 (Second Chamber, session 2011-2012, 32793, No. 10), the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sports (hereinafter: the Minister) to the House of Representatives included the following reported : "(...) The decision to e-cigarette as a drug to be considered by my predecessor explicitly expressed as a provisional decision. My predecessor concluded that it is desirable that first time, more coordination between the EU Member States was reached before a definitive stance on the status of the e-cigarette. Partly for this reason is also that time decided on a "proportionate enforcement" by the Inspectorate. (...) The judge of the court in The Hague ruled in a lawsuit that the provisional designation of the e-cigarette as a medicine "not without foundation" and that the proportional enforcement is reasonable. (...) An inventory of the European Commission on October 5, 2011 revealed that both a majority of Member States no (final) adopted a position that the e-cigarette dropped under general product safety regulations, and that another part of the Member States the e-cigarette as a drug considered, either by presentation or by the operation. (.. .) Some Member States consider the e-cigarette tobacco product. The European Commission's guidance note does show that e-cigarettes containing no tobacco and do not fall under the Tobacco Directive. To our knowledge contain the e-cigarettes traded in the Netherlands, no tobacco (but only whether or not nicotine). For that reason is the e-cigarette in the Netherlands under the Tobacco Act. The nicotine-free e-cigarette falls under the Commodities Act. (...) I think it is for reasons of consistency and certainty whatsoever reasonable to nicotine e-cigarette finally to be regarded as a medicine within the meaning of the Dutch Medicines Act. This means that the e-cigarette on the market only allowed with a permit from the Board of the Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB). Until authorized the trade in the e-cigarette is prohibited. Also Internet trading is not permitted, nor is advertising for nicotine e-cigarette. I have the Health Care Inspectorate (IGZ) requested this to be monitoring. ( ...) ".

1.5. In the Netherlands a nicotine inhaler marketed under the name Nicorette Inhaler. This product is authorized by the MEB as a medicine.

1.6. United Tobacco presents the e-cigarette as a drug.

1.7. The term 'medicine' in Article 1 paragraph 2 of Directive 2001/83/EC as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC (hereinafter the Medicines Directive) as follows: Drug: a) Any substance or combination of substances presented as having treating or preventing disease in human beings, or b) Any substance or combination of substances which can be used in humans or man can be administered either physiological functions to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, or to a medical diagnosis;

1.8. The aforementioned article has been transposed into national law in Article 1, opening words and under b of the Medicines Act, which reads as follows: " In this Act and the provisions based on the term: (....) b. medicine: a substance or a combination of substances intended to be administered or used for or in any way is presented as being suitable for: 1 °. cure or prevent any disease, infirmity, wound or pain in humans, 2 °. the making a medical diagnosis in humans, or 3 °. restore, correct or otherwise modify physiological functions in humans by pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action,

2. The dispute

2.1. United Tobacco progresses, essentially: primarily the State to command the import and marketing of the e-cigarette, which in any case the e-cigarettes from United Tobacco, to allow, at least to tolerate, alternative primary prohibition sought [the court reads: commandment] to point, with the proviso that this applies as long as (i) no scientific evidence is that the e-cigarette a different pharmacological action than regular cigarettes, (ii) by the Member States of the European Union is not a line is drawn regarding the classification of the e-cigarette as a medicinal product by function, and (iii) it is unlikely that the e-cigarette is serious danger to public health; further alternative primary, at least secondary claims commandment to be allocated under specification of a maximum nicotine yield of 19 mg per cigarette and per ampoule.

2.2. To this end, the following United Tobacco. The State acts unlawfully against United Tobacco by the e-cigarette as a final product within the meaning of the Medicines Act to qualify, while the e-cigarette does not meet the aandienings or administration criterion such as the Law requires. The Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter the Court) operates according to the judgment of 15 November 2007 in case C-319/05 (Commission / Germany) as a lower standard for medicinal product by function. This involves a quantitative criterion: classification as a drug to begin operation no earlier than where the operation of the product to which it is derived, ceases. From the resulting law of the Court also related that the State with scientific evidence will have to show that the e-cigarette as a drug qualifies. He must therefore show that the e-cigarette, which only contains nicotine extracted from tobacco, another (much larger) pharmacological effect than the consumption of a reasonable amount of regular cigarettes. Die studies are not so in the absence of the required pharmacological effect of the e-cigarette as a drug can not be qualified. addition, the proposed enforcement of the State unlawfully against United Tobacco because it is contrary to her and other participants raised confidence that only proportionally would be maintained as long as there is between the European countries there is no agreement on how the e-cigarette is to qualify. Proportional enforcement means that only the advertising of the e-cigarette is forbidden, but that imports of and trade in e-cigarettes as yet no marketing authorization from the MEB can be done.

2.3. The State conducts a reasoned defense, that hereafter, if necessary, will be discussed.

3. The assessment of the case

3.1. This case does not refer on the nicotine-free e-cigarette, under the Commodities fall. When hereinafter refers to "the e-cigarette", only the nicotine electronic cigarette intended.

3.2. Based on the discussion on the session to understand the court the claims of United Tobacco said that the State offered the imports from outside the European Union and the trading in the Netherlands of the e-cigarette to allow, at least to tolerate. Progress target the characterization of the e-cigarette as a drug. Enforcement activities on under other laws than the Medicines Act is therefore not affected. Now that the State claims of United Tobacco also in this way has interpreted the due process not violated if the judge the progress of these additions will assess, which will also take place.

3.3. The decision of the Minister to the e-cigarette final to qualify as a medicine is based on the Medicines Act. The judge must now be a preliminary opinion on whether the definition in the Medicines that decision can bear. In answering that question will the Medicines where necessary and possible, be construed in accordance with the Medicines Directive (Directive compliant interpretation).

3.4. The State takes the position that the e-cigarette under the administration criterion as drug should be considered. Using the e-cigarette lit or prevents Indeed, withdrawal symptoms in the user, so that is able to be made ​​to as far as possible with his or her nicotine addiction to go. According to the state it is a product that is highly similar to the Nicorette inhaler, which is both based on the presentation criterion as the administration criterion for medicinal aid. between parties is not in dispute that the e-cigarette, which stimulant is presented, not on the basis of the presentation criterion as a medicinal product to qualify.

3.5. The argument of the State that the e-cigarette pharmacological properties that the physiological functions of human influence and therefore alone as drug should be considered preliminary judgment can not be followed. The e-cigarette is indeed not intended for such effects to bring. By the words "intended to be administered or used for" in the statutory definition stimulants like alcohol and tobacco from the application of the law are excluded. same applies to the judgment of the court for the e-cigarette. The view by the State of the Tobacco as a lex specialis in relation to the Medicines Act is to be considered at odds with the Tobacco Act, which tobacco products as a special kind of drugs are defined. This does not mean that nicotine-containing products are not medicines can be. So the Nicorette inhaler (already) on the basis of the presentation criterion is classified as a medicine. That the producer of the inhaler also pharmacological effects on the physiological functions of the user to the product attributes is inherent in the presentation as a drug. producer would be his own glass smashing as he had no pharmacological effects would ascribe to the inhaler.

3.6. To answer remains still the question whether a directive-compliant interpretation of the statutory definition to the classification of the e-cigarette as a drug lead. That question can only be answered affirmatively as (1) the e-cigarette under the definition of drug in the Medicines Directive falls and (2) the principle of legal certainty does not preclude conformity with interpretation resistance.

3.7. With regard to the requirement under (1), the State argued that it is not to the State is to scientifically demonstrate that the e-cigarette the pharmacological effects of the product under the Medicines Directive and the Medicines for products. This view considers the judge untenable. It is the minister who has decided to e-cigarette as medicinal brands. It is to the Minister for which adequate justification. In this case rests under Article 150 of the Code of Civil Procedure in principle to the State the burden of proof of the theorems which he in law of wishes to show. The State has not been made ​​that the use of the e-cigarette pharmacological effects, in the sense that these effects are greater than when using the original product (cut tobacco leaves). The State has not conducted the presentation of his theorem confirms. Indeed, he has argued that since 2007 no new insights have emerged in this area. United Tobacco indisputably stated that the studies so far conducted, no greater pharmacological effects are observed.

3.8. About the requirement under (2) the parties have not comment. For the present it is considered that an interpretation which stimulants within the scope of the Medicines be that although States can be used to identify the physiological functions of human influence, but this was not intended, in violation with legal certainty.

3.9. Based on the above, the court considers that the decision of the Minister to the e-cigarette (final) as medicinal brands, in violation of the law and the general principles of good governance, in particular the justification principle and the principle of legal certainty. This is the land to the (amended) enforcement of the Minister come to slip. The advanced command to import the e-cigarette from outside the European Union and the trading thereof in the Netherlands to allow , will be designated, in the manner described in the operative part is determined.

3.10. The State will, if the unsuccessful party be ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings, and (partially suspended) in the subsequent costs. Advanced statutory interest on the proceedings will be granted, provided that such interest only after fourteen days from today will be payable.

4. The decision The judge: - commands the State to allow the e-cigarette, which in any case e-cigarettes from the United Tobacco brands Flavor Vapes, Vape Master, Premium, and Envy Want Vape from outside the European Union is imported and is sold in the Netherlands, without the State and by preventing other enforcement action under the Medicines Act; - Condemns the State within fourteen days after the date the costs of these proceedings, so far to the side of United Tobacco estimated at € 1467.17, € 816, - attorney's salary, € 575, - to court fees and costs € 76.17 to subpoena, to United Tobacco to pay - requires the State in the absence of statutory interest on late payment of the costs payable; - Condemns the State is also in the subsequent costs, estimated at a flat rate € 131, - - attorney's salary, plus € 68, - to pay and the bailiff's costs incurred for the service of this judgment if to serve takes place; - declares this judgment provisionally enforceable; - rejects any further or other advanced .

This judgment was delivered by Mr. PA Heads and the public on March 13, 2012. NVE

[Jemima]

Mmmmmm Lnb the sweet taste of victory

[Phoenix .]

Thats a lot to troll through but I got the gist of it, I think, it's good news for the vapours then , in the Netherlands at least?

[maccafan]

It means two European Governments have tried and failed to classify e-juice as a drug and e-cigs as a medical device as defined in the EU directive..

It's very likely that what the MHRA is attempting over here will fail too, but I think a nicotine tax is inevitable..

[maccafan]

The Dutch court decision from today:

LJN: BW8660, Court of Justice at The Hague, ruling 200.105.395/01 Print
Date of judgment: 26/06/2012
Date of publication: 26/06/2012
Jurisdiction: Civil Other
Type of procedure: Appeal interim
Inhoudsindicatie: wrongdoer?; Electronic cigarette yes / no medicine?; Administration criterion
Location (s): Rechtspraak.nl
Statement
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE HAGUE
Civil Justice Sector

Case Number: 200.105.395/01

Rol-/zaaknummer court: 414117 / KG ZA 12-209

judgment d.d. June 26, 2012

on

the State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports and Ministry of Finance)
residing at The Hague,
appellant,
hereinafter: the State,
counsel: J.A.E. van der Jagt-Jobsen to The Hague,

against

Vapor Group Inc. United Tobacco.,
office in Alpharetta, Georgia, United States of America,
respondent,
hereinafter UTVG,
counsel: R.F. van den Heuvel in Amsterdam.

The proceedings

By writ dated 5 April 2012, the State appealed from the judgment of 13 March 2012 that the judge of the court in The Hague, civil sector (hereinafter the court), between the parties has been delivered. In its statement of objections (with exhibits), the State has six complaints against the verdict landed. UTVG the grievances in response (with exhibits) contested. Thereafter, the parties argue their positions do by their counsel, or on the basis of submitted to the court pleadings. Of the hearing process is drawn up.
Finally, the parties requested judgment.

Assessment of the appeal

1. Parties shall not challenge the finding of facts by the court under 1. of the contested judgment, so also these facts the court will take.

2. At issue in this case to the next.

2.1. UTVG is a manufacturer and importer of electronic cigarettes containing nicotine ("e-cigarette") of five different brands (Flavor Vapes, Vape Master, Premium, and Envy Want Vape). The e-cigarette consists of UTVG a container with the outer shape of a cigarette, and from a battery, an ampoule, an atomizer and an LED lamp. The ampoule consists of a solution of nicotine from tobacco extracted, and is available in different doses.

2.2. The term "drug" in Article 1 paragraph 2 of Directive 2001/83/EC as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC as follows:
Drug: a) Any substance or combination of substances presented for treating or preventing disease in humans, or
b) Any substance or combination of substances which humans can be used or the man may be administered either physiological functions to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, or to a medical diagnosis set;

2.3. This provision has been transposed into national law in Article 1, opening words and under b of the Medicines Act, which reads as follows:
In this Act and the provisions based on the term:
(....)
b. product means a substance or combination of substances which is intended to be administered or used for, or in any way is presented as being suitable for:
10 the treatment or prevention of a disease, defect, wound or pain in humans,
20 the provision of a medical diagnosis in humans, or
30 the repair, improve or otherwise modify physiological functions in humans by pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action;
The words "..... which is intended to be administered or used for ..." are also summarized as "the dosing test" (see also the definition in the sub b in the lower 2.2. said Directive), while the words "... or in any way is presented as being suitable for ..... " sometimes referred to as "the presentation criterion" (see also the definition in a sub aforementioned Directive). If a product meets the criterion administration is a "medicinal product by function" mentioned.

2.4. UTVG presents its e-cigarettes as medicine.

2.5. The State has the end of 2007 the e-cigarette provisionally as medicinal qualified and uses since a proportional enforcement, which is tantamount to the import and trade of e-cigarettes without marketing authorization from the College of the Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) is tolerated, but that advertising is not allowed.

2.6. By letter dated December 23, 2011 (Second Chamber, session 2011-2012, 32793, No 10), the Minister of Health, Welfare and Sports (hereinafter: the Minister) to the House of Representatives informed the (nicotine) e- cigarette to be regarded as definitive drug within the meaning of the Dutch Medicines Act, so that henceforth licensed by the Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) will be needed for the marketing and advertising for the e-cigarette. The minister also informed the Health Care Inspectorate (IGZ), asked to monitor this.

2.7. By originating summons has UTVG demanded that the judge:
primarily the State shall command the import and marketing of the e-cigarette, which in any case in section 2.1 of e-cigarettes UTVG, to allow, at least to tolerate;
alternative primary advanced command to assign the understanding that this applies as long as (i) no scientific evidence is that the e-cigarette different / greater pharmacological activity than regular cigarettes, (ii) by Member States of the European Union is not a line is drawn regarding the classification of the e-cigarette as a medicinal product by function, and (iii) it is unlikely that the e-cigarette is an imminent danger to public health;
further alternative primary commandment at least secondary claims to be allocated under specification of a maximum of 19 mg nicotine per cigarette and per ampoule.
UTVG has therefore argued, in brief and to the extent an appeal is still relevant, that the State acted unlawfully towards UTVG by the e-cigarette permanently as medicinal brands, while the e-cigarette does not meet the presentation criterion or the administration criterion and thus nor a medicinal product by presentation (see below 2.2. sub a and under 2.3. sub a) nor a medicinal product by function (see section 2.2. sub b and below 2.3. sub b).

2.8. In the contested decision of 13 March 2012, the judge, in short, UTVG's favor and the principal claim assigned, except that the State is required to allow the e-cigarette, which in any case the e cigarettes of the brands UTVG Favor Vapes, Vape Master, Premium, and Envy Want Vape from outside the European Union is imported and is sold in the Netherlands, without the State and by preventing other enforcement action under the Medicines Act.

3. On appeal the State seeks the annulment of the contested judgment and giving a ruling rejecting the claims of UTVG. Alternative, like the State - so the court understands from ground 6 - that the operative part of the contested judgment is limited to e-cigarettes UTGV. The Court holds as follows.

4. The Court observes firstly that where the drop is spoken about the e-cigarette, referring solely to the products of UTVG.

5. Under ground 5 argues that the State is very reluctant to be tested because there is a lawsuit and that the order sought is only possible if the actions of the State manifestly unlawful. The judge adopted by the breach of the principle reasons is insufficient grounds to the State for allocation. The fact that there is a change in policy means that only restraint can be tested, says the State (through a referral complaint under 5 to its pleadings in the first instance under 3.1.). The complaint fail. The key question in apple or sufficiently plausible that the bottom right in any case bottom will judge that the State's e-cigarette wrongly identifies as drug and whether the State thus act contrary to law. From a review of (a) policy (circuit modification) is not there and the view that allocation of the claim can only be addressed in unmistakable unlawfulness, is (partly therefore) no basis in law. That the court can give only a preliminary assessment does not alter.

6. In pleading appeal under 1.1. to 1.9. the State argued that the judge impermissible manner intervened in both the decision of the customs / IGZ and the Minister, as the division between the civil court jurisdiction on the one hand and the administrative courts and criminal courts on the other. According to the State, the judge should refrain from imposing a ban enforcement to the State.
The State has surveyed stated that this argument is not admissible as a defense must be understood. Sake of completeness, considering that the court of inadmissibility of UTVG no question is now against the decision of the Minister that they will continue enforcement action against e-cigarettes, no special procedure is open.
UTVG noted aforementioned argument of the State as a new complaint to conceive and has objected. The court will honor this objection. With UTVG and unlike the State, the court finds that there is no further elaboration of the complaint dealt with above 5 (and not from below (under 10). Yet to discuss complaint 6) which UTVG thought should have been. The assertion of a new complaint in pleading is in violation of due process. The court will therefore omit new complaint.

7. Between parties is not in dispute that the e-cigarette UTVG not based on the presentation criterion (see above under 2.3.) Can be regarded as a medicine. Unlike the State UTVG however, that its e-cigarette does not meet the criterion administration and therefore no "medicinal product by function" is. According to the State UTVG therefore unlawful acts by the e-cigarette as a final product to qualify for all UTVG restrictive consequences. The judge is UTVG in this position and followed by that judgment and the underlying considerations focus the claims 1 to 4. Those complaints are suitable for joint treatment.

8. Settled law (including ECJ 21 March 1991, C-60/89 Monteil and Samanni LJN: AD1360, June 9, 2005 ECJ, C-211/03, HLH Warenvertrieb and Orthica, LJN: BE8535; ECJ 15 November 2007, C -319/05, Commission / Germany, LJN: BF9433; ECJ 15 January 2009, C-140/07, Hecht / Pharma, LJN: BH0689) the authorities of the Member States on a case by case assessment of conformity to the administration criterion, taking into account all product characteristics, in particular its composition, its pharmacological, immunological and / or metabolic properties as in the present state of science can be ascertained, the method (s) on which the product is or can be used, the extent of its distribution, the knowledge / extent of its reputation among consumers and the potential hazards or risks to health associated with using them stick.

8.1. Not, at least not sufficiently challenged is that the e-cigarette only pharmacological properties that the physiological functions of human influence. However, this is not sufficient for a product to be regarded as a medicinal product. The same is true for coffee, wine and a regular cigarette. These products are not all under the Medicines Act. The ECJ case law that requires that adequate scientific research has shown that there is a significant pharmacological effect. In this context it is important that any complaints are directed against the judgment of the court that it is undisputed that the pharmacological effects of the e-cigarette in studies conducted so far have been detected, no larger than an ordinary cigarette.

8.2. The court assumes that the e-cigarette by the consumer is used as a stimulant, in addition to or as a substitute for the ordinary cigarette. That it is otherwise, in any case unlikely. The extent of dissemination and knowledge of the consumer are no relevant facts and circumstances stated.

8.3. The State has acknowledged that the e-cigarette no immediate threat to public health. More generally, is not substantiated that the e-cigarette (legally relevant) risks to human health. To the extent that there would be some risk for the time being it is likely that these are smaller than the risks associated with the use of an ordinary cigarette stick. This is important because application of the Medicines must not create obstacles to the free movement of goods which are not proportionate to the objective of protecting public health (see eg Commission / Germany, cited above under 6). The need of the State to exercise some control is understandable, but for the appellate court is not clear why the Commodities in that context is not sufficient.

8.4. In support of his contention that there is a drug, the State has made the comparison with-the Nicorette inhaler, which product (another producer) in 1996 is regarded as a medicine. Not in dispute is that this product - unlike the e-cigarette (see supra 7: first sentence) - already on the basis of the method of presentation may be classified as medicinal products (presentation criterion). Apart from that, not the inhaler, but the e-cigarette in this issue for discussion.

8.5. The State has rightly noted that UTVG in main proceedings under Article 150 Rv would bear the burden of proof of its allegation that the State acted unlawfully. UTVG However, as where she argues that from the above law of the ECJ follows that the State has a duty to look as good as possible to ensure that (i) there is a sufficient scientific basis for a product as medicinal brands and (ii) a qualification as a medicine, which involves restrictions on freedom of movement is necessary to protect public health. From the above considerations follows that the State preliminary judgment of the court not to have met that requirement. The court deems hands not plausible that the e-cigarette UTVG meets the criterion of administering the Medicines Act. Action against the e-cigarette through prior review under that law is thus preliminary judgment in violation of the law and unlawfully against UTVG.

9. The foregoing means that the claims 1 to 4, failure, or at least that they are not able to lead to a different operative part.

10. Ground 6 complains that the operative part of the contested judgment is too broad, because therein commandment also e-cigarettes from producers other than UTVG markets while UTVG in no way has underpinned that it represents the interests of all products and importers of e-cigarettes. The court therefore erroneously commandment regarding the e-cigarette in general apply do. UTVG what has this complaint referred to the judgment of the court. The complaint succeeds. The verdict will be partially destroyed, with the proviso that the injunction will be limited formulated as follows to report. The verdict will be energized for the rest.

11. The State will, as the largely unsuccessful party the costs of the appeal is convicted.


Decision

The court:

- Set aside the contested judgment insofar as it concerns behind the first dash of the dictum given commandment;

and in that new judgment

- Commands the State to allow e-cigarettes of the brands UTVG Flavor Vapes, Vape Master, Premium, and Envy Want Vape from outside the EU are imported and marketed in the Netherlands without the State and other by preventing enforcement action under the Medicines Act;

- Upholds the contested judgment for the remainder;

- Condemns the State in the proceedings on appeal, so far on the side of UTVG estimated at € 666, - is recording and € 1.788, - attorney's salary.

This judgment was given by Messrs. MJ van der Ven, E.M. Dousma-Valk and D.J. de Brauw and pronounced in open court on June 26, 2012 in the presence of the Registrar.

Brilliant, just brilliant!!

[Deleted]

Certainly good news ,

[Bluefish]

sure is

[tiago]

This is a good developement from an EU perspective. Hopefully other countries will take note.