Litigation SearchRefine/Modify Search
Search Results Results 1-5 of 5
TAPDK v. Dagli [Turkey] [May 31, 2011]
A tobacco control advocate made statements in the news that were critical of the national tobacco regulatory agency and its relationship with tobacco companies. The government agency sued for defamation and libel. The court decided that the statements in the news article in question were made in concurrence with the rights to report news and to criticize and inform the public. They were in compliance with apparent reality, constituted current news, and could not be considered as personal tort. The court further maintained that the publication of the news article was for public good and for public interest. Based on the above, the court decided to dismiss the libel case of TAPDK.
Izmir Association of Coffeehouses v. Prime Minister [Turkey] [February 26, 2011]
Coffeeshops owners challenged a national smoke-free law which applied to all restaurants including coffeehouses. The owners claimed the law violated the constitutional guarantees of private enterprise, property rights, freedom, equality, as well as the principles of proportionality and necessity. The court rejected the owner's arguments, and upheld the smoke-free law.
British American Tobacco v. Tobacco and Alcohol Markets Regulatory Authority [Turkey] [December 01, 2009]
British American Tobacco (BAT) requested the cancellation and stay of execution of a by-law giving the Turkish tobacco regulatory agency the authority to regulate warning labels. BAT also challenged the agency's regulation requiring combined warnings to cover not less than sixty-five percent of the surface on which they are placed. The Court upheld the agency's authority to determine packaging and labeling regulations, but granted the stay of execution of the regulation requiring combined warnings to cover not less than sixty-five percent of the area since it contradicts another law setting the lower limit at thirty to forty percent.
K.H. v. Y.İ. [Turkey] [November 06, 2009]
A business violated Turkey’s law, which prohibits the use of tobacco products in indoor areas such as shopping centers. In addressing whether employees of a business unreasonably obstructed health officials from enforcing the smoking law, the court noted that the business did not qualify for any of the law’s exemptions even though it had a stand-alone ventilation system. As for the criminal violations, the court found that the business owner was not criminally liable and postponed its decision regarding the other two defendants: an employee and a patron of the business.
Turkish Constitutional Decision 1999 [Turkey] [April 13, 1999]
In this decision, the constitutional court upholds a provision of the tobacco control law that prohibits advertising and promotion of tobacco products.