Independently, the Applicants sought orders annulling various sections of a law prohibiting tobacco product advertising and sponsorship. The court combined these claims. 

The Applicants alleged the law exceeded jurisdictional limits, violated the Belgian Constitution, and violated various international legal instruments. 

The court found that the law did not exceed federal jurisdiction or violate international law.. 

Regarding the Belgian Constitution, the Court identified two narrow constitutional violations. First, the Court extended the same exceptions in the law which existed for tobacco products to tobacco-related branded products as well, noting that not granting an exception for tobacco-related branded products would unduly discriminate. Second, the court delayed the application of the law's provision to the sponsorship of global sporting events, deeming this specific provision disproportionate. The court noted that the ability to delay the application of tobacco sponsorship prohibitions to global sporting events was noted under Article 6 (3) of European Parliament Directive 98/4/EC. Accordingly, if Belgium did not exercise its right to delay the law's application to global sporting events specifically, then, the court noted, such events could simply move to another European country, resulting in disproportionate economic, financial, and social harm.  

On this basis, the Court annulled Article 6 of the Law of December 10, 1997 and Article 7 (2)(3) of the Law of January 24, 1977, while upholding all other provisions and dismissing all other claims.