Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA) v. Souza Cruz S/A
Souza Cruz, a tobacco company, brought action against the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) for shutting down smoking points in the International Airport of Rio de Janeiro-Galeão. ANVISA had the authority to shut down "smoking points" that were not in compliance with tobacco control laws. Souza Cruz argued that there was no illegality in the designated smoking areas and that the areas were in full compliance with the law. Souza Cruz was granted temporary legal protection and allowed to reopen these areas until the lower court issued its final decision. The lower court ruled in favor of ANVISA and the smoking areas were again shut down. Souza Cruz filed an appeal with the appeals court, claiming that it had fully complied with the law and that the tests performed proved that no smoke escaped from the smoking areas. ANVISA argued that the tests were to be performed by authorized federal personal, in accordance with tobacco control law. The Public Prosecutor's Office intervened in favor of ANVISA. The appeals court ruled in favor of Souza Cruz, who was allowed to re-open the smoking areas. ANVISA filed a special appeal to the Superior Court of Justice. Finding that Souza Cruz was in violation of the law, the Court ruled in favor of ANVISA, annulling the decision of the decision of the higher court.
Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitria v. Souza Cruz, No. 829.456 - RJ, Superior Tribunal de Justica - STJ [Superior Court of Justice] (2007).
Brazil
Mar 20, 2007
Superior Court of Justice (Superior Tribunal de Justica)
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
Government, through its agencies and officials including prosecutors, may seek to enforce its health laws. For example, the government may revoke the license of a retailer that sells tobacco products to minors. These cases may also directly involve the tobacco industry, for example, a government might impound and destroy improperly labeled cigarette packs.
A violation of the right to procedural fairness. For example, a party may claim that a government agency did not consult with public or stakeholders when issuing regulations.
Any violation of a law designed to ensure fair trade, competition, or the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue.
Tobacco is a legal product and the tobacco industry is a legal industry.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"The circumstance that the images are shocking, strong, repulsive, and aversion-provoking, in effect, represents the strict compliance with the existing constitutional and legal commands on the subject. There is an indication of the conducting of dense works, studies and researches around the greater efficiency of the images and words provided for in Resolution No. 54/08, as stated in the petition to file the interlocutory appeal, bringing together INCA, ANVISA itself, UFF, UFRJ and PUC-RJ in a multidisciplinary group that since 2006 has been dedicated to the analysis of the theme. The need to update the images and warnings, obviously, stems from the existing time of dissemination of those contained in Resolution No. 335/03 and, during the period, surveys were conducted regarding the impacts caused in terms of reducing tobacco consumption. At first, metaphorical images are used to inform the recipient of the warning about the magnitude of the risks inherent in the consumption of tobacco products. Impact images prove to be essential especially to convey a clear and direct message, including and especially to the general population, and not to an expert in Medicine."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
Souza Cruz, a tobacco company, brought action against the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) for shutting down smoking points in the International Airport of Rio de Janeiro-Galeão. ANVISA had the authority to shut down "smoking points" that were not in compliance with tobacco control laws. Souza Cruz argued that there was no illegality in the designated smoking areas and that the areas were in full compliance with the law. Souza Cruz was granted temporary legal protection and allowed to reopen these areas until the lower court issued its final decision. The lower court ruled in favor of ANVISA and the smoking areas were again shut down. Souza Cruz filed an appeal with the appeals court, claiming that it had fully complied with the law and that the tests performed proved that no smoke escaped from the smoking areas. ANVISA argued that the tests were to be performed by authorized federal personal, in accordance with tobacco control law. The Public Prosecutor's Office intervened in favor of ANVISA. The appeals court ruled in favor of Souza Cruz, who was allowed to re-open the smoking areas. ANVISA filed a special appeal to the Superior Court of Justice. Finding that Souza Cruz was in violation of the law, the Court ruled in favor of ANVISA, annulling the decision of the decision of the higher court.