Italy and Greece oppose the Irish bill on nicotine products

Under the TRIS notification procedure, Italy and Greece have each submitted a detailed opinion to the European Commission opposing the Irish draft law aimed at strengthening the regulation of e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches. Both Member States invoke the free movement of goods to challenge measures justified by the need to protect public health, even as the Commission prepares a revision of the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD).

Notified on 2 April 2026 in accordance with the procedure provided for by Directive (EU) 2015/1535, the Irish bill The amendment amends the Public Health Act 2023 relating to tobacco products and nicotine-containing inhalants. It notably includes a ban on non-tobacco flavorings in e-cigarettes, a ban on using names that evoke a flavor, and the introduction of plain packaging. In addition, it prohibits the display of products in retail outlets and online, and also imposes positive obligations regarding specific color requirements for e-liquids containing nicotine. This regulatory framework is also expected to be extended to nicotine pouches. Dublin justifies these measures by the desire to reduce the appeal of these products, particularly to minors.

The Italian perspective, between economic reservations and health support

L'detailed Italian opinion The document was prepared by the Ministry of Enterprise and Made in Italy (Directorate General for Consumers and Markets), in conjunction with the Ministry of Health. It outlines several observations. The first concerns the risk of interference with the ongoing European harmonization process: as the Commission has already begun preparatory work for a revision of Directive 2014/40/EU, Rome believes that anticipatory national regulations could jeopardize this process, given the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union. Italy is also concerned about the new national definitions introduced by the Irish text, which it believes could create uncertainties in interpretation and establish divergent regulatory conditions between Member States.

In substance, the opinion challenges the ban on flavorings, deeming it insufficiently justified compared to other measures more specifically aimed at protecting minors. Similarly, the plain packaging and the ban on displaying products on shelves are contested. Italy fears that these measures will complicate the distinction between genuine and counterfeit products, thus encouraging illicit trade. Rome more broadly contests the overall proportionality of the system, citing the lack of an individualized assessment of each measure and a comparison with less restrictive alternatives, the strengthening of age verification, market surveillance, and conformity checks. Finally, the opinion assesses the impact of the text on the internal market with regard to Article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and points to a possible lack of coordination with the CLP Regulation concerning the labeling of hazardous products.

The Italian government explicitly acknowledges that protecting public health and preventing nicotine initiation among young people are legitimate objectives. However, it requires Ireland to demonstrate, for each measure, the existence of sufficient scientific evidence and the absence of less restrictive alternatives.

Athens: an opposition based on economic considerations

The detailed Greek opinion The opinion, submitted by the General Secretariat for Industry and signed by its Secretary General, Dr. Eleftherios Kritikos, challenges the same provisions of the Irish text. The argument is based on Articles 34 and 36 TFEU. Greece considers that these measures have a substantial impact on the composition, presentation, packaging, trade names, and marketing of the products concerned, and could force operators to develop versions specifically for the Irish market, or even to withdraw products legally marketed elsewhere in the Union. This divergence would increase compliance costs, particularly for cross-border companies. The opinion highlights the existence in Greece of a significant manufacturing and exporting sector for tobacco products, e-cigarettes, and other nicotine products (including nicotine pouches), whose access to the Irish market could be jeopardized by divergent technical requirements. He also criticizes the Irish supporting documents for not demonstrating that each requirement has been individually assessed for its necessity, appropriateness and proportionality, nor that less restrictive means for trade have been considered.

Like Italy, Greece notes the announcement of an upcoming revision of Directive 2014/40/EU and requests the examination of Article 6, paragraphs 3 and 4, of Directive (EU) 2015/1535, which allows for an extension of the status quo when the Commission prepares legislation in the same area.

When commercial interests take precedence over public health

In both cases, it was the trade and industry administrations, not the health authorities, that brought the challenge before the Commission; the Italian Ministry of Health even supported the Irish text. Neither opinion directly challenges Ireland's objective of protecting public health; both rely on the free movement of goods and the principle of proportionality, while questioning the very soundness of the scientific arguments supporting the Irish decision.

This situation is far from insignificant. Italy and Greece are among the European countries where the tobacco industry has a dense industrial presence and a documented capacity to influence regulatory processes. In Italy, Philip Morris International has transformed its Crespellano site, near Bologna, into the world's first factory entirely dedicated to its IQOS heated tobacco products. The tobacco manufacturer has committed to investing several hundred million euros in the Italian tobacco agricultural sector between 2023 and 2027. In Greece, Papastratos, a Philip Morris subsidiary located in Aspropyrgos, received an investment of approximately 300 million euros to convert its facilities into a production site for IQOS sticks, with an annual capacity of around twenty billion units.

This industrial presence is accompanied, in both countries, by a history of repeated interventions against stricter regulatory projects. A report[1] The organization STOP and Counter-Fire notes that during a previous European initiative to ban oral nicotine products, several tobacco-producing countries, including Greece, Hungary, and Italy, opposed the measure, slowing down the Commission's authorization process. These same countries also opposed a Spanish decree regulating the sale of nicotine pouches. Furthermore, in Italy, the International Tobacco Industry Interference Index indicates that the government allows industry representatives to defend their interests without respecting the rules governing such representation, and in areas far exceeding what the WHO treaty considers strictly necessary. In addition, there are partnerships established with the Ministry of Economic Development around programs presented as agricultural innovation, which constitute direct violations of the provisions of the same treaty.

This context sheds light on the nature of the two opinions submitted to the Commission: far from being an isolated disagreement on a national text, they are part of a pattern in which states with a strong tobacco and nicotine industry repeatedly intervene to block, or at least slow down, more ambitious measures. Both opinions extend the status quo period applicable to the Irish bill until October 7, 2026, thus delaying its entry into force.

©Generation Without Tobacco

AE

[1] Behind closed doors: how the tobacco lobby influences the European Union and beyond, STOP / Counter-fire, December 2025, accessed July 24, 2026