Transcript(s) Sentence links Location Uruguay | Date argued February 19, 2010 | |
 | ||
Full case name ARB/10/7. Philip Morris Brand Sàrl (Switzerland), Philip Morris Products S.A. (Switzerland) v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay Decided 8 July de 2016 (6 years old) Judge(s) sitting Gary Born, James Crawford, Piero Bernardini Court International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes | ||
Talking disputes philip morris v uruguay
The Philip Morris v. Uruguay case (Spanish: Caso Philip Morris contra Uruguay) started on 19 February 2010, when the multinational tobacco company Philip Morris International filed a complaint against Uruguay. The company complains that Uruguay's anti-smoking legislation devalues its cigarette trademarks and investments in the country and is suing Uruguay for compensation under the bilateral investment treaty between Switzerland and Uruguay. (Philip Morris is headquartered in Lausanne.)
Contents
- Talking disputes philip morris v uruguay
- Tabacaleras
- Context
- Complaint
- Findings
- Supports
- Effects
- Sentence
- References
The treaty provides that disputes are settled by binding arbitration before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).
Uruguay had received accolades from the World Health Organization and from anti-smoking activists for its anti-smoking campaign.
On 8 July 2016, after 6 years, the ICSID ruled in favor of Uruguay, forcing the demandant to pay the expenses of the defendants and the court.
Tabacaleras
The history of tobacco companies in Uruguay begins with the creation of the Compañía Industrial de Tabacos Monte Paz S.A., founded in 1880. Represented the brands: Nevada, Coronado and California, among others. In 1945 the company Abal Hermanos S.A. appeared as representative of the brands: Marlboro, Benson & Hedges, Silver Mint, Philip Morris, Casino, Next and L&M. The British American Tobacco (BAT) was selling tobacco as well as cigarettes. He retired from Uruguay on 21 April 2010, when he represented brands: Kent, Kool, Lucky Strike and Pall Mall.
Context
On 19 June 2003, when the Uruguayan President was Jorge Batlle, the General Assembly of Uruguay approved the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, an agreement whereby Policies recommended by the World Health Organization.
In 2006, Uruguay under President Tabaré Vázquez, an oncologist by profession, began to enact comprehensive anti-smoking legislation. On 1 March 2006, Uruguay became the first country in Latin America to prohibit smoking in enclosed public spaces. In March 2008 the legislature approved Law 18.256 which includes six strategies of anti-smoking policy.
Some of the measures by the government were the ban on selling different types of presentations of the same brand of cigarettes, the dissemination of images warning about the risks of smoking and covering at least 80% of the cigarette pack, raising of taxes, banning cigarette advertising in the media, and banning sponsorship of sports events. In addition, smoking was banned in public places such as offices, student centers, bars, restaurants, dances and public places, among others.
The smokefree campaign "Libre de Humo de Tabaco" was gradually implemented by the "Ministerio de Salud Pública del Uruguay" (Ministry of Public Health of Uruguay).
Complaint
Philip Morris International is a multinational company, a leading producer of cigarettes, of which it owns seven out of twenty global brands.
The tobacco company initiated a claim in the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), a part of the World Bank seeking $25 million in compensation from Uruguay. In that forum, an arbitration tribunal was formed with one arbitrator appointed by each party and a third arbitrator elected by the arbitrators appointed by the parties. The plaintiffs are FTR Holding SA (Switzerland), Philip Morris Products SA (Switzerland) and Abal Hermanos SA (PMI representative in Uruguay) against Uruguay (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7).
"We have no choice but to litigate" said Rees. The company said it has sought to dialogue with the government without success.
"Philip Morris (which sued Uruguay for its anti smoking measures) wants to make an example to Uruguay and intimidate other countries."
Philip Morris has filed similar cases against Norway and Australia.
Findings
Supports
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) supports Uruguay. Uruguay's anti-smoking efforts also received support from past New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and from Bernard Borel, Swiss deputy from the Canton of Vaud.
Effects
According to Enrico Bonadio, Senior Lecturer in Law at City University London, the ruling in the case "may make it more difficult for tobacco companies to use lawsuits to produce a “chilling effect” and so discourage countries from introducing tobacco control policies."
Sentence
The resolution of the case, which settled jurisprudence international, took 6 years and ended on 8 July 2016. The World Bank [ICSID] ruled in favor of Uruguay, forcing the demandant to pay the costs of the defendants and the court. The final report established that Philip Morris had to pay 7 million dollars to the country for judicial expenses, in addition to paying different amounts for the fees and administrative expenses of the three arbitrators and the CADI. Gary Born emitted a discordant decision in two of the points of the judicial failure.
After its victory in the case, the government declared that from 2017 cigarettes in Uruguay will be sold in generic packaging.
"This decision is an acknowledgment of Uruguay's continued efforts to protect its population from tobacco use and tobacco smoke from others."