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 July 21, 2023, UAB Litrades Didmena, an e-cigarette wholesaler, filed a complaint with the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court seeking to annul an Inspection Report issued by the State Consumer Rights Protection Service. The Inspection Report had determined that the company’s “Whoop disposable e-cigarette” did not provide a list of all chemical substances contained in the product, as required by law. A notification was then issued by the State Consumer Rights Protection Service to retail sellers of the company’s e-cigarette and the sellers were required to withdraw the e-cigarettes from trade.
Before the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the company alleged that the notifications caused financial damage and damage to the company’s business reputation, as retailer sellers lost trust in the company. On July 26, 2023, the Vilnius Administrative Court denied the company’s request to annul the Inspection Report. The Court held that the Inspection Act (under which the Report was issued), was an interim, procedural, document only. The Court held that the Act did not have material legal consequences for the company and therefore could not be the subject of administrative review by the court.
The company appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, which concluded that the Regional Court unreasonably decided that the Inspection Act does not have legal consequences for the company. The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania ordered the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court to re-examine the matter.