Dutch Youth Smoking Prevention Foundation, van Veen, Breed v. PMI, BAT, JTI, IT
Anne Marie van Veen and Lia Breed, two patients who suffer from lung cancer and respiratory disease, and the Dutch Youth Smoking Prevention Foundation filed a complaint in 2016 with the Dutch public prosecutor’s office against tobacco makers Philip Morris International Inc., British American Tobacco Plc, Japan Tobacco International and Imperial Tobacco Benelux. The complaint alleged that the tobacco manufacturers are, in short, guilty of attempted manslaughter and/or murder, attempted severe and premeditated assault and/or attempted premeditated harm to health with intent. It also alleged that tobacco companies used deliberately misleading laboratory tests to gauge levels of tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide. The complaint described that the tobacco companies were liable because of “the large-scale, decades-long and ongoing production and sale of addictive tobacco products in the Netherlands.” The Dutch public prosecutor’s office declined to pursue a case against tobacco makers finding that "[a] successful prosecution of the tobacco manufacturers -- one resulting in a conviction -- is not possible within the current regulations and parameters."
The Appellate Court upheld the Dutch public prosecutor's decision. The Appellate Court found that "the cigarettes of the tobacco producers are made and tested according to stringent Dutch and European laws and regulations. As long as the tobacco producers comply with these European and national rules, the Member States (and therefore also the Netherlands) must not prohibit the trade in cigarettes according to the same European rules. The (European) regulator can only decide overriding measures against tobacco producers."
Stichting Rookpreventie Jeugd [Dutch Youth Smoking Prevention Foundation], van Veen, and Breed v. Philip Morris International Inc., British American Tobacco Plc, Japan Tobacco International and Imperial Tobacco Benelux, Gerechtshof Den Haag [Hague Court of Appeal], 06 December 2018, Case Number: K18220231
An individual or organization may seek civil damages against a tobacco company based on the claim that the use of tobacco products causes disease or death. Some of these cases will relate to general tobacco products, while others will relate to specific subcategories of tobacco products--for example, light or low products, menthol or other flavored products. Additionally, there may be cases relating to exposure to secondhand smoke.
A violation of the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health. Public health advocates may claim the public’s right to health is violated by weak tobacco control measures, industry tactics, or an organization’s or smokers’ actions.
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 complainants have chosen to place a societal problem regarding public health in the framework of criminal law. The Court of Appeal shares the opinion of the Dutch Public Prosecution Service that criminal law cannot provide a solution in this matter. Radical measures, such as a ban on the production and sale of tobacco that has been manufactured according to the Directives, can only be decided by the legislator - after due consideration of all interests. The ultimate goal pursued by the complainants, specifically to eradicate cigarettes and create a smoke-free generation, will not be achieved through criminal law, regardless of how societally relevant that pursuit is. To pursue that goal, they will have to appeal to the national and European legislators."
"The Advocates General have concluded that the stated interests have been formulated in such general and broad terms that they do not fulfil the specific interest requirement as demanded by the current proceedings. Societal interests, the interests of public policy, medical interests or a collection of interests of a particular group of patients or clients cannot automatically be considered the equivalent of an interest under criminal law or an interest in prosecuting the defendants. The Court of Appeal agrees with this view. The Court of Appeal holds the opinion that these complainants have not been affected by an interest that specifically affects them as a result of the lack of prosecution of the defendants. However, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal, it is possible to deduce from certain objectives of some of the legal entities amongst the complainants that the relevant legal entities do have interests that would appear to be directed against the tobacco industry and/or the consumption of smoking products, specifically complainants 3 and 51. In contrast to the Advocates General, the Court of Appeal holds the opinion that their objectives are sufficiently distinctive and that they have complied with the specific interest requirement of Section 12 DCCP. The preceding leads to the conclusion that only complainants I (A.M. van Veen), 2 (L. Breed), 3 (the foundation Stichting Rookpreventie Jeugd, B (C.B.E.J. van Pelt), 9 (J. Walraven), 51 (the association Vereniging Clean Air Nederland) and 59 (M.H.F.E de la Haye) are admissible in their complaint. In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, the other complainants are inadmissible. This inadmissibility does not preclude a consideration of the substance of the case."
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.
Anne Marie van Veen and Lia Breed, two patients who suffer from lung cancer and respiratory disease, and the Dutch Youth Smoking Prevention Foundation filed a complaint in 2016 with the Dutch public prosecutor’s office against tobacco makers Philip Morris International Inc., British American Tobacco Plc, Japan Tobacco International and Imperial Tobacco Benelux. The complaint alleged that the tobacco manufacturers are, in short, guilty of attempted manslaughter and/or murder, attempted severe and premeditated assault and/or attempted premeditated harm to health with intent. It also alleged that tobacco companies used deliberately misleading laboratory tests to gauge levels of tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide. The complaint described that the tobacco companies were liable because of “the large-scale, decades-long and ongoing production and sale of addictive tobacco products in the Netherlands.” The Dutch public prosecutor’s office declined to pursue a case against tobacco makers finding that "[a] successful prosecution of the tobacco manufacturers -- one resulting in a conviction -- is not possible within the current regulations and parameters."
The Appellate Court upheld the Dutch public prosecutor's decision. The Appellate Court found that "the cigarettes of the tobacco producers are made and tested according to stringent Dutch and European laws and regulations. As long as the tobacco producers comply with these European and national rules, the Member States (and therefore also the Netherlands) must not prohibit the trade in cigarettes according to the same European rules. The (European) regulator can only decide overriding measures against tobacco producers."