British American Tobacco v. Tobacco and Alcohol Markets Regulatory Authority
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.
B.A.T. v. Tobacco and Alcohol Markets Regulatory Authority, 2009/5805, Thirteenth Court Circuit, Turkey (2009).
By-Law Regarding Principles and Procedures for Methods of Production, Labeling and Inspection of Tobacco Products in View of Protection against Their Harms.
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.
Measures to regulate the marketing on tobacco packages. This includes both bans on false, misleading, deceptive packaging, as well as required health warnings on packaging.
(See FCTC Art. 11)
Subsequent regulations exceed the scope of the originating law.
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.
"As it can be seen from the regulations mentioned above, with regard to the minimum space for warnings which need to be put on packets of tobacco products produced in Turkey or imported, a lower limit has been set and no limit has been set for the upper limit. However, regulations provide that combined warnings shall cover not less than forty percent of the outer surface remaining from the outer surface covered by the general warning. In this regard, the rule introduced in Paragraph 3 of the Article 3 of the Decree of TAPDK providing that the surface area of combined warnings, including their black border, must cover not less than sixty five percent (65 %) of the total area of the surface they are placed on, is found to be in contradiction of the Law No. 4207 as it obliterates the lower limit set out in the Law and in the By‐Law. The other paragraphs of Article 3 of the Decree of TAPDK do not contain any provisions which are found to be in contradiction of the law. For the reasons explained above, the court has decided unanimously to reject the request of stay of execution of Paragraph 10 of Article 7 of the By‐Law Regarding Principles and Procedures for Methods of Production, Labeling and Inspection of Tobacco Products in View of Protection against Their Harms, as well as the request of stay of execution of the paragraphs of Article 3 of the Decree of TAPDK dated 13 May 2009 and numbered 4721, with the exception of Paragraph 3, and the court has decided by majority vote for stay of
execution of Paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the aforesaid Decree of TAP."
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.
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.