M. Meerapfel Sohne AG v Central African Republic

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
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff M Meerapfel Sohne AG (Claimant)

Defendant Central African Republic

Legislation Cited

Finance Act

Code of Central African Investments

International/Regional Instruments Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

None

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"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" ..."