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 Department of Drug, Tobacco and Alcohol Control received a complaint from a tobacco manufacturer (House of Prince S/A and British American Tobacco Brands Limited) regarding another tobacco manufacturer’s operations (UAB Kordula). The Department investigated UAB Kordula and issued a €1,158 fine, for producing nicotine pouches which imitated tobacco products.
The nicotine pouches in question had packaging containing the words “Grant” and “Grant Extreme” and were found to imitate “Snus.” The products also contained a plastic box in the form of a roll paper, square shaped bags and instructions for use. These products were not sold in Lithuania but were exported to the European Union.
The Appellant unsuccessfully challenged the fine at the Regional Administrative Court, before appealing to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania.
The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that, despite the Appellant’s permits to manufacture nicotine pouches, the manufacture of the specific products in question violated the Law on the Control of Tobacco, Tobacco Products and Related Products because these specific products imitated a tobacco product – “Snus.”
The appeal was dismissed.