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.
A court fined Les Echos magazine and its director, David Guiraud, for publishing a photograph of the 2005 Formula 1 champion whose uniform bore the logo and name of Mild Seven cigarettes. The magazine appealed the fine, claiming that print media was being disproportionately and unnecessarily targeted in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights. The magazine argued that both television and print media were distributing information, and, if televised car racing was permitted, printed publication of images of the same car races should be permitted as well. The magazine further argued that it was not intentionally advertising tobacco. The court of appeals upheld the fine, holding that the interest in promoting public health outweighed the magazine’s right to print the image. Moreover, the court held that the televised image was fleeting, whereas the printed image on the back cover of the magazine was fixed. The court accordingly observed that the magazine could have taken measures to remove the tobacco advertising on the image. Finally, the court held that that the intent to advertise was irrelevant.