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.
Three tobacco businesses and a tobacco association challenged an amendment to the Canton of Valais’ health law that banned the sale of disposable e-cigarettes.
The appellants argued that the ban violated the primacy of federal law because federal legislation on tobacco products and on the environment already regulated disposable e-cigarettes. The tobacco groups also argued that the Valais disposable e-cigarette ban breached the internal market rules, guarantees of economic freedom, and constituted a technical barrier to trade.
The Federal Court dismissed the appeal, noting that the disposable e-cigarette ban did not conflict with federal law because the canton pursued a distinct environmental objective that reinforced, rather than contradicted, the Tobacco Products Act. The Court further held that federal environmental legislation permitted cantons to prohibit the sale of single-use products until such time as the Federal Council exercised its own power to regulate. The court concluded that the ban was a proportionate restriction on market access and economic freedom, which was applied equally to all suppliers and which was justified by environmental protection and public health. Therefore, the ban on the sale of disposable e-cigarettes did not constitute an unlawful barrier to trade.
The appeals were dismissed and costs were imposed on the appellants.