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 May 12, 2023, the State Consumer Rights Protection Service completed an unscheduled inspection of an e-cigarette seller, UAB Litrades Didmena. The inspection resulted in an Inspection Report. The Inspection Report established that the labelling of the company's Whoop disposable e-cigarette did not comply with packaging requirements. The company applied to the Regional Administrative Court to annul the Inspection Report.
On October 9, 2023, the Regional Administrative Court refused to accept the company's complaint. The Regional Administrative Court noted that, on its own, the Inspection Report did not impose a fine and did not cause material consequences for the company. Rather, the Inspection Report was an intermediate, procedural, document which was not subject to review. The Regional Administrative Court noted that while the Inspection Report could not be appealed, if a fine was eventually issued via a Final Report, then that Final Report could be appealed.
Subsequently, the company appealed the Regional Administrative Court’s conclusion. On November 22, 2023, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania held that the Regional Administrative Court provided sufficient reasons for its decision determining the Inspection Report was not reviewable. The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the company's appeal and held that the company's financial losses were not a direct result of the Inspection Report, but rather arose from the actions of the company itself, or the actions of third parties which decided to return the e-cigarettes, which violated the law.