Philip Morris Baltic v. Department of Drug, Tobacco and Alcohol Control
Philip Morris Baltic ("Philip Morris") appealed a decision by the Department of Drug, Tobacco and Alcohol Control ("the Department") fining the manufacturer and distributor 2,896 Euros for illegal tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. The violations and fines resulted from Philip Morris' "Lemiamas Metimas" campaign (the "Campaign"), which claimed to encourage individuals to quit smoking and presented heated tobacco and IQOS devices as an alternative product for those who were unable to quit. Philip Morris argued that the Campaign amounted to "social advertising" to inform smokers but not encourage the purchase of alternative products. Therefore, they claimed the tobacco control law did not prohibit the Campaign. Philip Morris also claimed that their right to disseminate the Campaign was within their right to freedom of expression under the Lithuanian Constitution. The court upheld the Department's decision and found that the Campaign amounted to the unlawful advertising, promotion and sponsorship of tobacco products and that the Campaign was designed to mislead consumers. Further, the court rejected Philip Morris' claim that their right to freedom of expression was violated, holding that social advertising should not be used to promote certain goods and services, including tobacco products and related products.
Philip Morris Baltic v. Department of Drug, Tobacco and Alcohol Control, Ruling of 15 September 2020, Vilnius Regional Administrative Court (2020).
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 Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania has repeatedly emphasized that when interpreting the prohibitions laid down in the Law, it is first necessary to pay attention to the purpose of the Law, e.g. the ruling in the Administrative Case No a-556-433/2009 of 1 April 2009, stated that, according to Article 1(1) of the Law, this Law shall regulate relations incidental to the manufacture, trade, storage, transportation, entry, import, advertising, consumption, promotion
and sponsorship of the purchase and/or consumption of tobacco products, and shall establish the framework for state control of tobacco, tobacco products and related products in the Republic of Lithuania; since individual and public health constitute one of the most important values of society, the provisions of this Law shall aim to reduce the consumption of tobacco products and related products in the Republic of Lithuania, their accessibility (particularly to minors) and harmful
effects of the use of tobacco products and related products on human health and the economy (Article 1[2] of the Law); the prohibitions laid down in the Law on the basis of these provisions, according to the Panel of Judges, should normally be interpreted in a broad sense, taking into account the purpose of maximising the protection of individual and public health, reducing the consumption of tobacco products, and in general, inter alia, reducing the consumption of cigarettes of the same type."
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.
Philip Morris Baltic ("Philip Morris") appealed a decision by the Department of Drug, Tobacco and Alcohol Control ("the Department") fining the manufacturer and distributor 2,896 Euros for illegal tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. The violations and fines resulted from Philip Morris' "Lemiamas Metimas" campaign (the "Campaign"), which claimed to encourage individuals to quit smoking and presented heated tobacco and IQOS devices as an alternative product for those who were unable to quit. Philip Morris argued that the Campaign amounted to "social advertising" to inform smokers but not encourage the purchase of alternative products. Therefore, they claimed the tobacco control law did not prohibit the Campaign. Philip Morris also claimed that their right to disseminate the Campaign was within their right to freedom of expression under the Lithuanian Constitution. The court upheld the Department's decision and found that the Campaign amounted to the unlawful advertising, promotion and sponsorship of tobacco products and that the Campaign was designed to mislead consumers. Further, the court rejected Philip Morris' claim that their right to freedom of expression was violated, holding that social advertising should not be used to promote certain goods and services, including tobacco products and related products.