The Administrative Court of Vienna ruled on an appeal by Mr. M. E. against a penalty issued by the Magistrate of the City of Vienna for violating Austria's Tobacco and Non-Smokers Protection Act (TNRSG). The case involved an online shop that advertised electronic cigarettes, with language such as “modern alternative,” “maximum vaping pleasure,” “products that know how to inspire with their variety of flavors,” which was deemed a form of prohibited advertising under the TNRSG.
The court considered the severity of the violation, its impact on consumer and youth protection, and the appellant’s prior clean administrative record, and a fine of €700 was deemed appropriate to deter future violations.
M. E. v City of Vienna, Vienna Administrative Court, Case No. VGW-021/014/13613/2016-5 (2017)
Government, through its agencies and officials including prosecutors, may seek to enforce its health laws. For example, the government may revoke the license of a retailer that sells tobacco products to minors. These cases may also directly involve the tobacco industry, for example, a government might impound and destroy improperly labeled cigarette packs.
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.
Any violation of a law designed to ensure fair trade, competition, or the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue.
Electronic and/or battery-operated devices designed to deliver an inhaled dose of nicotine or other substances. Examples include electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), electronic cigars, electronic cigarillos, electronic hookah, vaporizers, and vape pens. ENDS does not include any device or medication approved by the government as nicotine replacement therapy.
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.
"From the above transcription, it is evident that the placement of tobacco products through shelves, counters, showcases, inside the establishments and points of sale, is deemed a commercial activity of advertising and promotion; therefore, the claim that it is wrong for the Judge to base its decision on point 13 of the "Framework Convention of the World Health Organization for Tobacco Control" because it overlooks that the complainant does not promote or advertise tobacco, is considered groundless."
"The provisions of article 15 of the Code of Children and Adolescents are of special importance as it provides: "(Special Protection). The State has the obligation to especially protect children and adolescents from all forms of:.. E) Encouragement to the consumption of tobacco, alcohol, inhalants and drugs". There is a breach of the related regulations, inasmuch as, as can be seen from art. 5 of the WHO Framework Convention ratified by Law 17,793, the States committed to act in order to protect policies on public health related to tobacco control against the commercial interests of the tobacco industry. It should not be overlooked that from the considerations of the challenged Decree, it can be seen that the reasons that led to the modification of the previous decree are the possibility of competing with the boxes that enter the country through smuggling and the severe impact on the collection of taxes, both of which affects the Administration's public policies. But there is no mention of the possible impact on the right to health...Studies in more than 5 countries show that plain or neutral packaging is less attractive to all populations and in particular to young populations who report that cigarettes with plain packaging are less satisfying, less attractive and of lower quality than those with traditional packaging" ..."
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 Administrative Court of Vienna ruled on an appeal by Mr. M. E. against a penalty issued by the Magistrate of the City of Vienna for violating Austria's Tobacco and Non-Smokers Protection Act (TNRSG). The case involved an online shop that advertised electronic cigarettes, with language such as “modern alternative,” “maximum vaping pleasure,” “products that know how to inspire with their variety of flavors,” which was deemed a form of prohibited advertising under the TNRSG.
The court considered the severity of the violation, its impact on consumer and youth protection, and the appellant’s prior clean administrative record, and a fine of €700 was deemed appropriate to deter future violations.