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 Department of Drug, Tobacco and Alcohol Control fined British American Tobacco Lietuva UAB (BAT Lithuania) €2,896 for illegally advertising tobacco products in violation of Article 17(1) of the Tobacco Control Law.
The Department alleged that BAT Lithuania, through contracted partners, conducted promotional activities in front of a catering establishment in Vilnius, at a car show in Palanga, and the Karklė music festival. During the promotions "Glo" heating device was presented and sold alongside information that “Glo” could only be used with the "Neo" heated tobacco product.
BAT Lithuania challenged the fine before the Regional Administrative Court, arguing that advertising restrictions in Lithuania’s tobacco control law did not apply to tobacco-related devices. BAT Lithuania also took the position that it was not advertising, but instead merely providing consumers with factual product information.
The Regional Administrative Court, and, on appeal, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, rejected BAT Lithuania’s arguments. The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the Regional Court decision that promoting a device designed exclusively for consuming tobacco products inevitably constitutes promotion of those products. The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the fine in full.