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).
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
A violation of the right to carry on trade, business, or profession of a person’s choice. This right may also be called the right to free enterprise or economic freedom. The industry may argue that a business should be able to conduct its business without government regulation, including whether or not to be smoke free.
A claim of an infringement of any international trade agreement, including General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), or bilateral treaties.
The WHO FCTC Guidelines are not mandatory for Parties and merely suggest policies, or a discussion on the effect of the Guidelines on national legislation.
A discussion on whether the regulations impose an undue burden on the tobacco industry. This argument may involve the costs of implementing regulatory measures.
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.
"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."
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 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.