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.
On December 2, 2022, the State Consumer Rights Protection Service imposed a fine of EUR 1600 on UAB Litrades Didmena, an e-cigarette importer and wholesaler. The fine was for failing to provide product safety data sheets and for violations of packaging and labelling laws when the company sold its Whoop e-cigarettes. The company appealed to the Regional Court to annul the decision.
The company alleged that the fine was improper as they placed their e-cigarettes on the market only after the e-cigarette had been inspected by customs. The company further alleged that, when selling an identical e-cigarette, the company received a decision that the e-cigarette could be offered for sale. On this basis, the company submitted that the State Consumer Rights Protection Service took contradictory positions which the company had relied on to its detriment. The State Consumer Rights Protection Service noted that the second product was selected for random inspection for marking compliance while the first product had not been, and, therefore, the positions were not contradictory.
The Court dismissed the company's appeal noting that no actions of any government office could create a reasonable expectation that it was permissible to violate the law. The Regional Court upheld the EUR 1600 fine, finding it fair and proportionate in light of the packaging and labelling violation.