The Claimant, a Swiss corporation (M Meerapfel Sohne AG), was the majority shareholder in a tobacco cultivation joint venture in the Central African Republic. In 2003, amidst political unrest, the venture paused operations. In response, the CAR government imposed an export ban on the venture’s tobacco which resulted in the layoff of local employees.
In 2006, to enable its operations, the venture reached a Protocol Agreement with the CAR government. The Agreement contained an arbitration clause which referred future disputes to ICSID.
During the 2006 tobacco harvest, the venture’s assets were seized and the CAR government repudiated the Agreement. The Claimant alleged that the CAR government expropriated property without compensation, in violation of the Agreement, and referred the dispute to ICSID.
ICSID concluded that tobacco cultivation was an “investment” which triggered ICSID jurisdiction and that the government’s expropriation of the land rendered the company’s tobacco cultivation investment valueless. Compensatory damages were awarded to the Claimant, while moral damages sought by the Claimant were dismissed.
M. Meerapfel Söhne AG v. Central African Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/10 (2011).
Central African Republic
May 12, 2011
International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes
Governments may bring complaints before intergovernmental bodies on tobacco-related issues. For example, one country may complain that another country’s tax regime discriminates against its exported tobacco products. In some cases, a treaty may allow a private party to file a complaint against a government before an intergovernmental body.
A violation of property rights, sometimes in the form of an expropriation or a taking by the government. The tobacco industry may argue that regulations amount to a taking of property rights because they prevent the use of intellectual property such as trademarks.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
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 Claimant, a Swiss corporation (M Meerapfel Sohne AG), was the majority shareholder in a tobacco cultivation joint venture in the Central African Republic. In 2003, amidst political unrest, the venture paused operations. In response, the CAR government imposed an export ban on the venture’s tobacco which resulted in the layoff of local employees.
In 2006, to enable its operations, the venture reached a Protocol Agreement with the CAR government. The Agreement contained an arbitration clause which referred future disputes to ICSID.
During the 2006 tobacco harvest, the venture’s assets were seized and the CAR government repudiated the Agreement. The Claimant alleged that the CAR government expropriated property without compensation, in violation of the Agreement, and referred the dispute to ICSID.
ICSID concluded that tobacco cultivation was an “investment” which triggered ICSID jurisdiction and that the government’s expropriation of the land rendered the company’s tobacco cultivation investment valueless. Compensatory damages were awarded to the Claimant, while moral damages sought by the Claimant were dismissed.