Manif' virtuelle pour soutenir le Vapemeet de Bruxelles

Franck a écrit:Par contre, peut-on obliger mayannick à ferme boutique ou à déposer une AMM pour ses tubes ? Un mod, c'est quoi ? Un tube avec ou non de l'électronique dedans. En quoi cela correspond-t-il à la définition du médicament ?  

eSmoker-inc a écrit:Voici un petit pavé, c'est un rapport venant de Sir Francis Jacob QC, avocat général à la cour européenne de justice, qui explique pourquoi la e-cig ne peut et ne doit ni être considéré comme un produit du tabac ni un médicament. Le document est en anglais, mais je pense que ce document va faire mal à ce projet de loi, je copie juste 3 paragraphes qui sont les plus intéresants. J'ai le document original en entier. Si la loi passe, on a vraiment nos chances devant la cour européenne de justice!

Il devait rester secret pour un moment pour qu'on s'en serve mais une télé britannique l'a publié, donc on peut le rendre public.

23. Before addressing this question it is necessary to clarify a point of interpretation of the revised TPD, namely whether Article 18(1) is intended to render electronic cigarettes automatically eligible for regulation as medicinal products under the MPD (at least to raise a presumption that they are so eligible). In our view it would be wrong to read the revised TPD in that way, for a number of reasons.


(1) First, there is no explicit suggestion in the revised TPD or the accompanying materials that the legislation is intended to have that effect. Article 18(1) simply distinguishes between NCPs that have been authorised under the MPD and those
which have not: it therefore appears to be intended that whether any particular NCP falls within the definition of a medicinal product should continue to be dealt with under the MPD itself.

(2) Secondly, the decision as to whether a product should be classified as medicinal has been specifically entrusted under the MPD to the competent authorities of the Member States. It would not be lawful for the EU institutions to appropriate that right with respect to electronic cigarettes, at any rate without an express legislative basis for doing do.

(3) Thirdly, as already noted, the test for determining whether the MPD applies to a particular product requires an intense focus on the characteristics of the product itself, the uses to which it is put, its perception by consumers and so on. The Commission is not in a position to make any generalised assumption that all electronic cigarettes will, on a proper analysis, fulfil the definition of a medicinal product.

28. In this regard, we are not persuaded by the Commission’s argument, made in paragraph 3.7 of its proposal document, that subjecting NCPs to regulation under the MPD would have the beneficial effect of removing the current differential treatment between NCPs and Nicotine Replacement Therapies (“NRTs”). It is inherent in the scheme of the MPD that products which are marketed as having therapeutic properties
(such as NRTs) must be authorised as medicinal products by claim, even if they are pharmacologically similar to other products which do not make medicinal claims and are therefore not subject to regulation. This makes sense, because it would be wrong to allow products to be marketed as having health benefits, and thereby to gain a commercial advantage, without those claims being subject to proper scrutiny and without verifying that such products are safe. The same considerations do not apply to products which do not claim to have any health benefits. Any differential treatment between these two categories of products is therefore objectively justified by reference to the aims of the MPD and does not need to be eliminated.

29. For all these reasons, while we do not overlook the fact that this an area in which any system of regulation involves complex political, economic and social choices, and where the EU legislature therefore enjoys a relatively broad margin of discretion,7 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.

mayannick a écrit:


  où as tu vues que je faisais des ecig ? je suis fabricant de lampe torche à douille M7x0,5, et fabricant de diffuseur de parfum d'ambiance. Le seul truc qui me désolerait c'est de ne plus pouvoir utiliser de nicotine pour pouvoir tuer les insectes

eSmoker-inc a écrit:Ben ma lionne on a séché les cours d'anglais à l'école??

fran74 a écrit:bon  bin du coup on fait quoi là ???

vap85 a écrit:bonjour
le mieux c'est d'attendre et surtout ne pas faire de provocation ,sinon on risque de tout perdre

RICO 73 a écrit:

vap85 a écrit:bonjour
le mieux c'est d'attendre et surtout ne pas faire de provocation ,sinon on risque de tout perdre

Je suis pas d'accord, il n'y a pas eu d'évolution dans notre société en restant dans son coin.
ne laissons pas les lobbys diriger NOTRE démocratie (gagnée par le peuple à l'époque qui n'était pas resté "en mode mouton assis", je crois)

RICO 73 a écrit:commençons par Paris..