LANGUAGE

Type of Litigation: Challenge to Government Policies Relating to Tobacco Control/Public Health

Find decisions that have...

(E.g., Keywords, citations, decision titles, or parties)
Or Or

... but don't show pages that have:

Search Criteria:

from:to:
 

Search Results Results 1-10 of 352

Tabacalera Sarandí S.A. v. Argentine Tax Authority (AFIP) [Argentina] [May 13, 2021]

Tabacalera Sarandí S.A. had obtained a preliminary injunction to suspend the application of the minimum amount of a tax established for the commercialization of tobacco. Thus, the company could apply the tax rate (70%) on the retail price without considering the minimum amount. The company argued that this minimum put it at a disadvantage with other multi-national tobacco companies. The Argentine Tax Authority appealed the decision, saying that the ruling affected the public interest and the extra-fiscal purpose of the tax, which is the protection of public health. The Supreme Court ruled that the tobacco company had not sufficiently demonstrated its injury and did not prove the requirements to be granted with the injunction. Thus, the Court revoked the injunction.

BAT Uganda Ltd. v. Attorney General and the Minister of Health [Uganda] [February 01, 2021]

British American Tobacco Uganda (BATU) challenged Uganda's Tobacco Control Regulations, 2019. BATU's court submissions raised a number of substantive and procedural claims, including the insufficient time to implement warnings, size of warnings, ban on some misleading descriptors, and flavoring ban. BATU sought and was granted a temporary injunction suspending implementation of Regulations 3, 4, 5, and 6. However, BAT subsequently withdrew its complaint and the injunction was lifted. 

Confederação Nacional do Turismo et. Confederacao Nacional do Comercio de Bens, Servicos e Turismo v. Paraná [Brazil] [August 24, 2020]

The National Confederation of Tourism, together with the National Confederation of Commerce of Goods, Services, and Tourism, filed a lawsuit against the Paraná (state-level) tobacco control law, which prohibits smoking in public or private collective environments in the state of Paraná. The Court unanimously held that state legislative assembly did not exceed its competence to legislate public health. The Court concluded that the state law did not offend fundamental freedoms since it did not prohibit the exercise of the individual's right to consume tobacco products. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the restriction of using tobacco products in collective enclosed environments respected the rights of non-smokers and the adequate protection of health.

Confederacao Nacional do Comercio de Bens, Servicos e Turismo v. Paraná [Brazil] [August 24, 2020]

The National Confederation of Commerce of Goods, Services, and Tourism filed a lawsuit against the Paraná (state-level) tobacco control law, which prohibits smoking in public or private collective environments in the state of Paraná. The Court unanimously held that the state legislative assembly did not exceed its competence to legislate public health. The Court also concluded that the state law did not offend fundamental freedoms since it did not prohibit the exercise of the individual's right to consume tobacco products. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the restriction of using tobacco products in collective enclosed environments respected the rights of non-smokers and the adequate protection of health.

Cubacigar Benelux NV v. State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport) [Netherlands] [June 30, 2020]

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.

Australia - Tobacco Plain Packaging Final Ruling [Australia] [June 09, 2020]

The Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) issued its final ruling affirming that Australia’s pioneering law requiring plain packaging for tobacco products and finding it entirely consistent with WTO agreements. In particular, the WTO appeal ruling confirmed the original finding that the evidence shows that tobacco plain packaging laws "are apt to, and do in fact, contribute to Australia's objective of reducing the use of, and exposure to, tobacco products."

The appeal ruling also confirmed that:

  • Tobacco plain packaging is not more trade-restrictive than is necessary to meet its legitimate public health objective.
  • Trademark owners do not have a positive right to use their trademarks under WTO TRIPS agreement, but only the right to prevent third parties from using them.
  • Tobacco plain packaging is a justified restriction on the use of trademarks and does not violate trademark protections.

Korea Electronic Cigarette Association v. Ministry of Health and Welfare [Republic of Korea] [March 17, 2020]

The Korea Electronic Cigarette Association challenged the constitutionality of the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s guidance urging the public to stop using e-cigarettes at least until a safety management system could be put into place and research into human toxicity was completed. The Constitutional Court ruled in favor of the Ministry of Health and Welfare, holding that the guidance did not infringe on e-cigarette companies' constitutional rights. The ministerial guidance did not amount to an "exercise of government power" because it had no direct legal effect on the rights and duties of the people and is, therefore, not subject to adjudication on a constitutional complaint.

Confederacao Nacional do Comercio de Bens, Servicos e Turismo v. Rio de Janeiro [Brazil] [December 20, 2019]

The National Confederation of Commerce of Goods, Services, and Tourism filed a lawsuit against Rio de Janeiro's tobacco control law on smoke-free environments, which banned smoking in public or private collective environments. The Court unanimously held that the state legislative assembly did not exceed its competence to legislate public health. The Court noted that local regulations could be more restrictive than the federal regulation. Further, the judges established that (i) freedom of commerce must be interpreted together with the principle of consumer protection and (ii) restrictions on products that are potentially dangerous are legitimate.

British American Tobacco Belgium v. Belgium [Belgium] [December 18, 2019]

Tobacco manufacturers requested both the annulment of and, in the interim, a suspension in the implementation of plain (or standardized) packaging. The court denied their request for a suspension, finding that there would be no irreversible damage to the manufacturers' reputations since they are still permitted to use their brand names on the new package format. The court also concluded that the transition period allotted by the legislation was sufficient in length. Finally, the manufacturers failed to prove that they would incur financial consequences large enough to justify suspension of implementation.

Confederação Nacional do Turismo v. São Paulo [Brazil] [December 03, 2019]

The National Confederation of Tourism filed a lawsuit against a São Paulo (state-level) tobacco control law regulating smoke-free places. The judge considered that the action was impaired because, after the claim was filed, a federal law was enacted which regulated smoke-free places in a more comprehensive manner. The newly enacted federal law banned smoking lounges, which the challenged state law had already done.