Philip Morris (Thailand) Limited et al. v. Ministry of Public Health

Tobacco manufacturers brought case to stop the Minister of Public Health from implementing a rule that would expand the size of the combined picture and text health warnings from 55% to 85% of the front and back of cigarette packaging. The tobacco companies argued, among other things, that the Minister lacked the legal authority to make the rule, the rule infringed on their property rights, and that the rule did not meet necessity and proportionality standards under administrative law.  The court granted a temporary injunction, preventing implementation of the larger health warnings until the court issues a final decision on the merits of the case.  

Philip Morris (Thailand) Limited et al. v. Ministry of Public Health, Central Administrative Court, Black Case No. 1324/2556, Aug. 23, 2013.

  • Thailand
  • Aug 23, 2013
  • Central Administrative Court
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff

  • JT International Company (Thailand), Ltd.
  • JT International, SA
  • Philip Morris (Thailand) Limited

Defendant

  • Minister of Public Health
  • Ministry of Public Health

Legislation Cited

International/Regional Instruments Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"Whether the setting of these rules exceeded the lawful scope of authority, whether the rules conformed to the principles of necessity and proportionality, and whether the rules infringe rights in trademarks are matters which the Court must decide later. At this stage, we note that the requirements have problems with legality in several areas, such as expansion of the images from an area of 55 percent of the front and back of the pack to 85 percent. The two Defendants claim that the expansion is on the authority of World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control of 2003 (FCTC) without regard to impacts or damages that may occur, without regard to whether the said requirements are an excessive burden upon the two Plaintiffs, without regard to whether the requirements will actually achieve their goals or confer benefits on consumers commensurate with the damage suffered by the two Plaintiffs."