Find decisions by:

One or more of these keywords

36 decisions

Netherlands

Jun 30, 2020

Cubacigar Benelux NV v. State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport)

Cubacigar Benelux NV (Cubacigar) appealed a lower court decision upholding packaging restrictions contained in the Tobacco and Smoking Regulations. Specifically, Cubacigar had challenged restrictions limiting the use of metallic foils and embossing (“glitter and glamor” elements) on cigar boxes. The lower court held that these restrictions in the Tobacco and Smoking Regulations did not conflict with the EU Tobacco Products Directive. The court also determined that although the packaging requirements restricted the free movement of goods, the requirements were justified from a public health point of view because they are aimed at reducing the attractiveness of tobacco products. Further, the requirements of the principle of proportionality were also met.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision that the packaging requirements under the Tobacco and Smoking Regulations are in line with the EU Tobacco Products Directive. The Court concluded that the government presented sufficient evidence demonstrating that the measures are justified on grounds of public health protection and are proportionate.

Netherlands

Dec 6, 2018

Dutch Youth Smoking Prevention Foundation, Van Veen, Breed v. PMI, BAT, JTI, IT

Anne Marie van Veen and Lia Breed, two patients who suffer from lung cancer and respiratory disease, and the Dutch Youth Smoking Prevention Foundation filed a complaint in 2016 with the Dutch public prosecutor’s office against tobacco makers Philip Morris International Inc., British American Tobacco Plc, Japan Tobacco International and Imperial Tobacco Benelux. The complaint alleged that the tobacco manufacturers are, in short, guilty of attempted manslaughter and/or murder, attempted severe and premeditated assault and/or attempted premeditated harm to health with intent.  It also alleged that tobacco companies used deliberately misleading laboratory tests to gauge levels of tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide. The complaint described that the tobacco companies were liable because of “the large-scale, decades-long and ongoing production and sale of addictive tobacco products in the Netherlands.” The Dutch public prosecutor’s office declined to pursue a case against tobacco makers finding that "[a] successful prosecution of the tobacco manufacturers -- one resulting in a conviction -- is not possible within the current regulations and parameters."

The Appellate Court upheld the Dutch public prosecutor's decision. The Appellate Court found that "the cigarettes of the tobacco producers are made and tested according to stringent Dutch and European laws and regulations. As long as the tobacco producers comply with these European and national rules, the Member States (and therefore also the Netherlands) must not prohibit the trade in cigarettes according to the same European rules. The (European) regulator can only decide overriding measures against tobacco producers."

Netherlands

Feb 13, 2018

Dutch Non-Smokers Association CAN v. Netherlands

A public health organization (CAN) challenged a provision of the Tobacco and Smoking Products Act that permitted the establishment of smoking rooms in catering facilities. CAN argued that Article 8(2) of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) has direct effect and, therefore, this exception to the smoking ban should be considered non-binding because it conflicts with a higher law - the FCTC. The District Court ruled that FCTC Article 8(2) did not have direct effect and, therefore, could not be invoked in this case. CAN appealed this ruling.

On appeal, the Court concluded that FCTC Article 8(2) has direct effect and rejected the State's argument that the exception in the law is intended as a transitional measure. The Court stipulated that the FCTC Article 8 Guidelines "must be taken into account when interpreting Article 8 paragraph 2 of the WHO FCTC." Taking the Guidelines into account, the Court concluded that it is clear that separate smoking rooms "do not provide adequate protection against exposure to tobacco smoke" and, therefore, the exemption for smoking rooms in catering establishments is "contrary to Article 8(2) of the WHO FCTC."

Netherlands

Nov 9, 2015

Dutch Youth Smoking Prevention Foundation v. Netherlands

A non-governmental organization sued the Dutch government for violating Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). Article 5.3 of the FCTC requires Parties to the Convention to protect tobacco control policies from the commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry.  The court ruled that the NGO cannot require the Dutch government to take action in furtherance of Article 5.3 because the Article does not have a direct effect on the Dutch government. Additionally, the court found that Article 5.3’s requirements are not sufficiently clear. However, as a result of the lawsuit, the government created a document clarifying how it will implement Article 5.3. 

Netherlands

Oct 10, 2014

Dutch Non-Smokers Association CAN v. Netherlands

The Netherlands is a Party to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).  In 2008, the Netherlands enacted a ban on smoking in public places.  In 2011, the government added a limited exception for small cafes with a floor area less than 70 square meters and no staff.  A tobacco control organization challenged the small cafe exception as a violation of Article 8 of the FCTC, which requires FCTC Parties to prohibit smoking in all indoor public places. In this decision, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court that law's small cafe exception violated the FCTC and was illegal. Significantly, the court found that smoke-free requirements of the FCTC were sufficiently detailed to be supreme over a contradictory national law and directly binding within the country.

Netherlands

Mar 13, 2014

Customs v. X [company importing and distributing tobacco products]

Information about this decision coming soon. 

Netherlands

Feb 5, 2014

BAT The Netherlands B.V. v. The Netherlands

Information about this decision coming soon. 

Netherlands

Sep 20, 2013

Customs v. X [company importing and distributing tobacco products]

Information about this decision coming soon. 

Netherlands

Mar 26, 2013

Dutch Non-Smokers Association CAN v. Netherlands

A public health organization challenged a government decree that allowed smoking in small cafes and bars that are less than 70 square meters.  In this decision the Court applied FCTC Article 8 to the Dutch law.  The court found the exception for smoking in small bars to be inconsistent with Article 8.2 of the FCTC requiring legislation to provide effective protection from exposure to tobacco smoke in indoor public places, without exception.  The court held this section to have direct effect on Dutch regulations despite the flexibility contained in other parts of the FCTC.  The court ultimately set aside the ruling of the lower court and ordered the government to enforce their ruling.

Netherlands

Mar 19, 2013

Public Prosecution Service v. X [cafe owner, De Kachel]

Information about this decision coming soon. 

Netherlands

Mar 19, 2013

Public Prosecution Service v. X [cafe owner, Victoria]

Information about this decision coming soon. 

Netherlands

Dec 12, 2012

Public Prosecution Service v. X [cafe owner, De Kachel]

Information about this decision coming soon. 

Netherlands

Jun 26, 2012

The Netherlands v. United Tobacco Vapor Group Inc.

Information about this decision coming soon. 

Netherlands

May 16, 2012

Dutch Non-Smokers Association CAN v. Netherlands

Information about this decision coming soon. 

Netherlands

Mar 13, 2012

United Tobacco Vapor Group Inc. v. The Netherlands

Information about this decision coming soon. 

Netherlands

Dec 12, 2011

Public Prosecution Service v. X [cafe owner, Victoria]

Information about this decision coming soon. 

Netherlands

Nov 25, 2011

Agio Sigarenfabrieken N.V. et al. [tobacco companies] v. The Netherlands

Information about this decision coming soon. 

Netherlands

Jun 17, 2010

Public Prosecution Service v. X [cafe owner, De Kachel]

Information about this decision coming soon. 

Netherlands

Jun 17, 2010

Public Prosecution Service v. X [cafe owner, Victoria]

Information about this decision coming soon. 

Netherlands

Feb 23, 2010

Public Prosecution Service v. X [cafe owner, De Kachel]

Information about this decision coming soon. 

Netherlands

Feb 23, 2010

Deputy Attorney-General v. Caterer

The Deputy Attorney-General appealed the dismissal of a criminal action filed against the owner of a catering business for failure to comply with the sections of the Tobacco Act requiring that workplaces, restaurants, and other places be smoke-free. The Court overturned the dismissal, finding that the regulations of smoke-free places in the Tobacco Act applied to the catering business.

Netherlands

Jul 3, 2009

Public Prosecution Service v. X [cafe owner, De Kachel]

Information about this decision coming soon. 

Netherlands

May 12, 2009

Public Prosecution Service v. X [cafe owner, Victoria]

Information about this decision coming soon. 

Netherlands

Apr 3, 2009

Public Prosecution Service v. X [café owner, Victoria]

Information about this decision coming soon. 

One moment. Loading results.

  • 1
  • 2