Japan Tobacco International and Others v. Ministry of Health (plain packaging laws)
Legal challenges to the plain packaging of tobacco products laws dismissed.
On December 23, 2016 the Conseil d’Etat (the Council of State, the highest administrative jurisdiction in France) dismissed six legal challenges that were brought against the tobacco products plain packaging laws. Previously, in January 2016, the Constitutional Council had also upheld the law as in accordance with the constitution, on a referral from members of parliament.
In brief, six cases were brought challenging the regulations - four by the tobacco companies, one from the confederation of tobacco retailers, and one from a tobacco paper manufacturer. The Conseil d'Etat dismissed all the claims and held that:
1. The ban on using figurative, semi-figurative signs, and logos on packaging of tobacco products was valid because the brand and variant name is still permitted allowing the identification of the product.
2. Plain packaging constitutes an infringement of property rights, but that this infringement is justified in the light of the objective pursued (public health) and because the measure regulates the use of trademarks but does not completely ban them.
3. There was no 'deprivation' of property rights.
4. For the same reasons, the Conseil d'État held that the national legislation is a quantitative restriction on the importation of goods but this is in conformity with European Union law because the introduction of such restrictions is permitted where they are justified by a public health objective and the protection of human life. The court held that in this case, the challenged provisions must be considered as unable to do anything other than, over time, reduce the consumption of tobacco. The evidence in the case file also showed that neutral packaging would reduce the attractiveness of tobacco products. The measures were therefore proportionate and justified.
A summary of the decisions from the two separate courts is attached in French and English in the section on "Related Documents".
Japan Tobacco International et al. v. Ministry of Health, Nos. 399117, 399789, 399790, 399824, 399883, 399938, 399997, 402883, 403472, 403823, 404174, 404381, 404394, Conseil d'Etat (2016).
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.
"[T]he contested provisions do not deprive the applicants of their property rights on brands they own, but to regulate the use of those . Moreover, the provisions referred to Article L. 713-1 of the Code of
Intellectual Property, which have the object and effect of allowing the property right holder to ensure the protection of this right and prevent counterfeiting or fraudulent use of the brand he regularly filed, do not preclude government intervention to regulate the right to property, provided that such regulation is, as stated, in accordance with the principles governing protection. If regulation of property rights caused by the contested provisions constitutes an infringement of property rights enshrined in Article L. 713-1 of the Code of intellectual property, it is not less, and that noted above, justified by the objective pursued."
"Secondly, the applicants argue that the contested provisions are not likely to reduce tobacco consumption and is therefore not proportionate to the objective pursued. In support of their appeals, they produce several studies and expert reports, which state that the regulations requiring complete neutrality tobacco product packaging are ineffective if they ignore the springs of the act of smoking, they are likely to have consequences for the illicit trade of tobacco products and that they have no effect on tobacco consumption in the countries in which they were adopted. It is nevertheless clear from other studies and expert reports cited by the Minister of Health, as entirely
plain packaging may reduce the attractiveness of tobacco products and to change the perception of consumers. If the effects of regulations imposing a maximum standardization of packaging on tobacco use and illicit trade in tobacco products are difficult to quantify a priori, such regulations must nevertheless be regarded as being able only to help reduce forward consumption tobacco products and therefore as to guarantee the achievement of the objectives of protection of public health and control of health spending, pursued by the legislature. Thus, given the importance of these objectives, it does not appear from the records that the contested provisions would bear the
applicants, given their overall situation, excessive and disproportionate burden."
"It is up to the competent court, in assessing the conformity of such rules with the provisions of this article, firstly to consider all its effects, on the other hand, and according to the circumstances of the case , to determine whether there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the limitations noted in the exercise of property rights and public interest requirements which are at the origin of this decision.
First, the contested provisions aim, given the effects of the consumption of tobacco products, not disputed by the applicants, in terms of dependence and prevalence of serious diseases caused by toxic agents, mutagenic and carcinogenic content in these products, to reduce consumption. They pursue therefore an objective of protecting public health and also contribute to the achievement of the objective of controlling health spending."
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.
Legal challenges to the plain packaging of tobacco products laws dismissed.
On December 23, 2016 the Conseil d’Etat (the Council of State, the highest administrative jurisdiction in France) dismissed six legal challenges that were brought against the tobacco products plain packaging laws. Previously, in January 2016, the Constitutional Council had also upheld the law as in accordance with the constitution, on a referral from members of parliament.
In brief, six cases were brought challenging the regulations - four by the tobacco companies, one from the confederation of tobacco retailers, and one from a tobacco paper manufacturer. The Conseil d'Etat dismissed all the claims and held that:
1. The ban on using figurative, semi-figurative signs, and logos on packaging of tobacco products was valid because the brand and variant name is still permitted allowing the identification of the product.
2. Plain packaging constitutes an infringement of property rights, but that this infringement is justified in the light of the objective pursued (public health) and because the measure regulates the use of trademarks but does not completely ban them.
3. There was no 'deprivation' of property rights.
4. For the same reasons, the Conseil d'État held that the national legislation is a quantitative restriction on the importation of goods but this is in conformity with European Union law because the introduction of such restrictions is permitted where they are justified by a public health objective and the protection of human life. The court held that in this case, the challenged provisions must be considered as unable to do anything other than, over time, reduce the consumption of tobacco. The evidence in the case file also showed that neutral packaging would reduce the attractiveness of tobacco products. The measures were therefore proportionate and justified.
A summary of the decisions from the two separate courts is attached in French and English in the section on "Related Documents".