Zagreb, 16 June 2025 – The Croatian government has proposed a punitive excise tax of €0.20 per millilitre on e-liquids, a measure that would dramatically increase prices for consumers who use vaping as a safer alternative to smoking. Even more concerning is the extremely short public consultation window—only seven days—severely limiting the ability of consumers, health experts, and advocacy organisations to respond.

The World Vapers’ Alliance (WVA) and the Croatian vapers association CHROM have condemned both the substance of the tax proposal and the rushed process that undermines democratic participation.

“This tax will push prices up, discourage smokers from switching to vaping, and ultimately cost lives,” said Alberto Gómez Hernández, Policy Manager at the World Vapers’ Alliance. “The government is not only moving in the wrong direction by treating vapers as a cash cow and prioritizing tax revenue over public health, but also denying citizens a fair opportunity to speak out. A seven-day consultation is unacceptable—it restricts proper engagement and makes a mockery of the democratic process,” Gómez Hernández added.

Numerous international studies have shown that vaping is significantly less harmful than smoking and that appropriate regulation, including taxation, should reflect this reduced risk. An excise tax of €0.20/ml would more than double the cost of many e-liquids, making it harder for smokers to afford switching and easier for the black market to thrive.

“Instead of supporting consumers who are trying to quit smoking, the government is punishing them,” said Filip Tokic, President of CHROM. “Croatia should be following countries like the UK or Sweden, which have embraced harm reduction. Imposing such a high tax, and doing so without proper consultation, sends the message that the government doesn’t care about evidence or the voices of Croatian citizens.”

The World Vapers’ Alliance and CHROM are calling on the Croatian government to:

• Extend the public consultation period to allow full and fair participation,
• Reconsider the tax proposal, and
• Engage with consumers and independent health experts before introducing measures that could harm public health.