In this case applicants argued that the no-smoking policy of the Waitemata District Health Board (WDHB)and the consequent prohibition of smoking in hospitals and surrounding grounds violated their right not to be subjected to torture or cruel treatment, the right to be treated with humanity, the right to respect private life, and the right to …Read more

The applicants, three individuals representing companies in the clove cigarette industry, alleged that the Government’s requirements for pictorial and written health warnings on cigarette packaging violated their rights under the 1945 Constitution (the “Constitution”). Article 114 of Law Number 36 of 2009 Concerning Health (the “Health Act”) classified nicotine as an addictive substance of tobacco, …Read more

Australia’s Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 (“TPP Act”) imposed restrictions on the color, shape and finish of retail packaging for tobacco products. It prohibited the use of trade marks on such packaging other than the use of a brand, business or company name for the relevant tobacco product. Preexisting regulatory requirements for health messages and …Read more

The Plaintiffs challenged Indonesian legislative provisions regulating health warnings on cigarette packaging. The impugned provision, Article 114 of Law No. 36 of 2009 Concerning Health (the Law), required health warnings on all cigarette packaging. The Explanation Provision in the legislation defined such a health warning as one that was easily readable, and one that “may” …Read more

This case was heard together with case 70/2009-0-0. The Petitioners, Miroslav Grcev and Stamen Filipov, challenged the constitutionality of the Anti-Smoking Law (the Law). The Law banned smoking in public premises, advertising cigarettes, and selling cigarettes to persons under the age of 16. Public premises included institutions for education, health, state administration,  public transport, and …Read more

This case was heard together with case 261/2008-0-0. The Petitioners, Miroslav Grcev and Stamen Filipov, challenged the constitutionality of the Anti-Smoking Law (the Law). The Law banned smoking in public premises, advertising cigarettes, and selling cigarettes to persons under the age of 16. Public premises included institutions for education, health, state administration,  public transport, and …Read more

The Canadian Parliament enacted the Tobacco Act (the Act) and the Tobacco Products Information Regulations (the Regulations) in response to the decision of the Court in RJR-Macdonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, which struck down a previous version of the Act. The new legislation permitted information and brand-preference advertising but prohibited …Read more

The defendant was the editor of the weekly magazine VSD (Vendredi, Samedi, Dimanche). In this case, VSD appealed a decision of the court of appeals in which the defendant was fined 200,000 francs by the Paris Court of Appeals on 24 February 1995 for complicity in illegal advertisement of tobacco as defined by the laws …Read more

Applicant Joseph Eryau made a motion to be heard in opposition to Application No. 39/2001. The declarations being sought in the motion of Application No. 39/2001 would state that “smoking in a public place constitutes a violation of the rights of the non-smoking members of the public to a clean and healthy environment as prescribed …Read more

Applicant Joseph Eryau made a motion to be heard in opposition to Application No. 39/2001. Of the five declarations proposed in the motion of Application No. 39/2001, all but two were struck down (including those orders which criminalized smoking in public places). The remaining two proposed that “smoking in a public place constitutes a violation …Read more