TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS

Landewyck France v. National Committee for Tobacco Control

In 2017, the National Committee for Tobacco Control (CNCT) brought a claim alleging that the three defendants manufactured, imported and distributed tobacco products in France with packaging that violated the French Public Health Code. The illicit packaging was manufactured in Luxembourg (by one defendant) and was imported and distributed in France (by the two other defendants). 

The illicit packaging was available in six camouflage edition colors to create the effect of a “collection.” The packages also contained words with positive connotations, such as “environmental,” “young” and “revolutionary” and a pictogram of a man disposing of an object in a garbage can (indicating the package should be put in the garbage). The defendants contested the facts and argued that the images on the packages were merely informative commercial communications and were not tobacco advertisements.

The trial court concluded that the defendants were guilty of direct advertising in favor of tobacco – fining Landewyck 75 000 euros, Heintz Van Landewyck 75 000 euros and Logista 50,000 euros, while concluding that the image of the person placing something in the garbage was not an offense. The defendants were further responsible for civil damages payable to the CNCT totaling 75,000 euros. 

The Paris Court of Appeal affirmed much of the trial court decision, determining the packaging was not merely informative but was intended to promote tobacco in violation of the French Public Health Code. However, similar to the trial court, the Court of Appeal concluded that the pictogram did not violate the Public Health Code, as it was intended to inform consumers that the packaging should be placed in the garbage. Therefore, Logista was fined 50,000 euros and Landewyck France was fined 75,000 euros. In addition, civilly, for harm caused, both Defendants were ordered to jointly pay the CNCT 75,000 in damages and 1,500 euros each to cover the CNCT’s costs. The third defendant, based in Luxembourg, avoided conviction on jurisdictional grounds.

DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT

Landewyck France v. National Committe for Tobacco Control, Paris Court of Appeal, 4th Division, Chamber 11, File Number 17/07731, Order 819 (2019)

  • France
  • Dec 20, 2019
  • Paris Court of Appeal

Parties

Plaintiff

  • Société Landewyck France (Appellant)
  • Société Logista France (Appellant)
  • Société Manufacture de Tabacs Heintz Van Landewiyck (Appellant)

Defendant

  • CNCT (Cross-Appellant)
  • Public Minister (Cross-Appellant)

Legislation Cited

Code of Public Health

French Criminal Code

French Code of Criminal Procedure

Related Documents

None

Type of Litigation

Enforcement Action by a Private Individual or Private Entity
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.

Tobacco Control Topics

Packaging and Labeling Measures
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)
Advertising, Promotion and Sponsorship
Measures restricting any form of direct or indirect tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. (See FCTC Art. 13)

Substantive Issues

Right to Freedom of Expression
A violation of the right to expression, free speech or similar right to express oneself without limitation or censorship. The industry may claim that a regulation infringes on their right to communicate with customers and the public. Similarly, they may claim that mandated warnings infringe on their freedom to communicate as they desire.
Right to Access to Information
A violation of the public’s right to information. The tobacco industry may claim that advertising, promotion or sponsorship, or packaging regulations limit the industry’s ability to communicate information to their customers and therefore infringes on the customer’s right to receive information, and to distinguish one product from another. Alternatively, public health advocates may claim that tobacco industry misinformation violates their right to accurate information or that government must be transparent in its dealings with the tobacco industry.

Type of Tobacco Product

None

1400 I Street N.W.,
Suite 1200,
Washington, DC 20005
United States of America

Phone: (202) 296-5469

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is a BBB-accredited charity and a
Guidestar Exchange Gold Participant.

© 2025 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids | Trademarks | Copyright | Privacy

Site created and maintained by