Advertising, promotion & sponsorship. - Archive
Access the current page here
The ASH Archive contains information that is no longer current but is useful reference material. The information is held in a separate archive of each page.
Documents in the Archives can be accessed by a link on each page or by the ASH Archives page or by using the advanced search.
For details on Use/Copyright please read the ASH Archives page.
United Kingdom
ASH response to the consultation on the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion regulations
Submission by ASH to the consultation on the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion regulations
Department of Health consultation on draft regulations relating to brand-sharing, sponsorship and point of sale materials (External Web Page)
On 30 May 2001 the European Commission presented its revised proposal for a Directive on tobacco advertising and sponsorship. In August 2001 the Government issued a consultation document in respect of this proposal.
The proposal initially concerned tobacco products, defined as 'all products intended to be smoked, sniffed, sucked or chewed'. However during discussions on the proposal, other Member States have suggested that any restrictions on the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products should also include cigarette papers.
ASH response to the consulation on the inclusion of Cigarette Papers
ASH Submission to the Department of Health Consulation on the inclusion of cigarette papers within the scope of the proposed EU Directive on tobacco advertising and sponsorship
Department of Health Consultation on inclusion of cigarette papers (External Web Page)
Consultation by the Department of Health on the inclusion of cigarette papers within the scope of the proposed EU Directive on tobacco advertising and sponsorship.
EC Directive 98/48/EC (External Web Page)
A previous EC directive to ban tobacco advertising 98/43/EC was struck down by a European Court of Justice ruling (Case C-376/98) on account of its legal base.
The court argued that the Directive must contribute to "eliminating appreciable distortions of competition" and "eliminating obstacles to the free movement of good and to the freedom to provide services." The Court found the Directive had failed these tests.
