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 State Consumer Rights Protection Service fined UAB Litrades Didmena, an e-cigarette wholesaler and distributor, EUR 1,600 for violating packaging and labelling requirements when selling its Whoop e-cigarettes and for failing to provide product safety data sheets. The company appealed to the Vilnius Chamber of the Regional Court to annul the decision.
On appeal, the company argued the State Consumer Rights Protection Service had created a reasonable expectation that the products were being lawfully sold due to its prior approval of similar products and its delays in enforcement. The Vilnius Chamber of the Regional Court concluded that it was not possible to create a reasonable expectation that it is permissible to violate the law and dismissed the company’s appeal.
The company then appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania. On appeal, the State Consumer Rights Protection Service noted that the process for inspecting products for customs approval, and the process for reviewing packaging and labelling requirements, were separate.
The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania concluded that there was both a factual and legal basis for the fine, as the company violated the law. The Court also decided that the fine did not unduly restrict the company’s economic activities more than necessary to meet the important objective set by lawmakers: making sure tobacco packaging and labels protect consumers.