SHARE

The Netherlands were the first Member State to start working on the regulation of vaping products in November 2014 after a ministerial law was published dealing with some aspects addressed by TPD’s Article 20. Almost everything was there, except details on the notification procedure and notification fees that were missing as the EU had not yet published notification templates at that time.

As of May 20 2016, the notification fees are published and amount to € 44.85 per new or substantially modified product, with no upper limit. The fee is asked to manufacturers and importers who aim at marketing vaping products on the NL market. Nevertheless, for products notified before November 20, 2016, a derogation exempts manufacturers and importers from this cost (Article 7.3-7).

Manufacturers an importers are also invited to introduce, on a yearly basis and before the 15th of June of the following year, a detailed report on their sales of products by brand and type. The first one, for the year 2016, is due before June 15, 2017.

Packages will particularly mention that the use of the product is not recommended for young people and non-smokers and show alerts for the following risk groups: pregnant women, lactating women and individuals with a disease of the lungs, cancer or heart disease. It will also bear the warning: “This product contains the highly addictive substance nicotine. Use is not recommended to non-smokers.”

November 20, 2016 is the deadline for selling products without mandatory warnings. Beyond this date, non-compliant products will have to be removed.

  • Martijn Voncken

    November 2014 was not the TPD, it was a temporary ministerial law in the name of “consumer safety”, they did use a subset of the TPD as inspiration, but it was never formally an implementation of the TPD.

    • Jerome Harlay

      Thanks, Martijn, for your comment and for reading us. The first paragraph has been corrected accordingly.

      • Martijn Voncken

        Great, Your correction is spot on.

      • Martijn Voncken

        The confusion is understandable.
        Discussion with the Ministry where like being trapped in a Monty python comedy. “No we are not implementing the TPD”, followed shortly by “This item is not under discussion, it’s in the TPD”