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 Sociedad Uruguaya de Tabacologia (SUT) filed a lawsuit to nullify Executive Resolution No. 87/2021.
Executive Resolution No. 87/2021 removed heated tobacco products from the electronic smoking commercialization ban. This meant heated tobacco products were subject to the same rules as traditional tobacco products.
The plaintiff argued that the nullification of the resolution represented a setback in tobacco control policy, which violated the non-regression principle in the ICESCR as well as the right to health protected under Uruguay's Constitution.
The Ministry defended the nullification noting that it did not weaken Uruguay's tobacco control policy, but instead applied the existing tobacco control policies for cigarettes to heated tobacco products. The Ministry also challenged plaintiff's standing to bring the claim.
The Court did not address the merits of the claim, but instead dismissed the claim on the basis the plaintiff lacked standing as it did not have a direct, personal, and legitimate interest.