Philip Morris Norway v. The Ministry of Health and Care Services

Philip Morris Norway challenged Norway's ban on the display of tobacco products at retail establishments.  A European court, ruling on European law, determined that the domestic Norwegian court must decide whether "the measure is necessary to achieve the stated goal, and that goal cannot be reached using less extensive prohibitions or restrictions or prohibitions or restrictions that affect trade within [Europe] less."  The Norway court determined that the display ban is necessary and that no alternative, less intrusive measure could produce a similar result.  The court upheld the ban and ordered Philip Morris to pay legal fees.  

Philip Morris Norway v. The Ministry of Health and Care Services, Civil Action No. 10-041388TVI-OTIR/02, Oslo District Court (2012).

  • Norway
  • Sep 14, 2012
  • Oslo District Court

Parties

Plaintiff Philip Morris Norway AS

Defendant Staten v/Helse Og omsorgsdepartementet (Ministry of Health and Care Services)

Third Party

  • The Norwegian Cancer Society

Legislation Cited

International/Regional Instruments Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"Even if such campaigns contribute to de-normalisation, the absence of visible tobacco in the shops will in the District Court’s opinion reinforce the effect and operate in the same direction. Contrariwise, continued influence by visibly displayed tobacco products could weaken the de-normalisation effect of the mass media campaigns. The District Court refers in this context to Rt. 2009 page 839, Pedicel, paragraph (36) on the indirect effect of advertising, the normalising effect, and where the Supreme Court refers to an example that can also illuminate the issue in our case – transferred to the influence of a visible display of tobacco: “An example of such a connection is referred to in the European Commission’s proposed tobacco directive of 19 January 2001 (COM(22001) 283) page 6 (501PC0283): “As regards the subtle implications of the advertising of a product such as tobacco, the United Kingdom example is significant. In this Member State two thirds of the adult smokers say they want to stop, but half agreed with the statement that smoking cannot be all that dangerous, or the government would not allow tobacco to be advertised.” ” Nor will a limited display ban remove the advertising and normalising effect of a visible tobacco display. The government has in this context referred to the WHO Guidelines, where it is emphasised that the effect of a partial advertising ban is limited. This was also emphasised by the government’s expert witnesses Lund, Chaloupka and Hastings. The District Court also refers to Rt. 2009 page 839, Pedicel, paragraph (61), where it is found that a less comprehensive measure, a quantitative restriction in the total prohibition, must be presumed to weaken the effect of the measure. The Supreme Court found it clear that such an alternative measure cannot lead to the total ban on alcohol advertising not being deemed necessary. This must apply correspondingly in our case as regards a limited display ban. The District Court therefore considers that the Display Ban is necessary and that there are no other alternative, less interventionist measures that could yield a corresponding result."