Philip Morris versus Uruguay
Philip Morris v Uruguay was a dispute between the tobacco company Philip Morris International and the Republic of Uruguay before an arbitration tribunal under the rules of the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Philip Morris demanded $ 25,000,000 from Uruguay in compensation for damage caused by the tightening of Uruguay's tobacco laws. In July 2016, the arbitration tribunal ruled Uruguay and dismissed the lawsuit.
background
Uruguay had Philip Morris originally waived taxes in the millions as well as the import fees for production facilities.
In 2006, under the presidency of Tabaré Vázquez , a practicing oncologist , Uruguay tightened its tobacco laws in the face of 13 tobacco deaths a day. Among other things, each brand was only allowed to be sold in one variant - a juxtaposition of variants such as "Filter", "Gold" or "Light" was no longer permitted. In addition, instead of the previous 50%, at least 80% of the packaging area now had to be provided with warning notices. Philip Morris took legal action against these provisions on the basis of the bilateral investment protection agreement between Switzerland and Uruguay before an ICSID arbitration tribunal, arguing that Uruguay had violated the protection of investments and intellectual property .
Since the introduction of stricter smoking laws in 2005, the rate of smokers in the Uruguayan population has fallen from 40% to 23%; of those aged 12 to 17, only 13% smoke instead of the previous third (33%) (as of 2014).
procedure
The lawsuit was filed on February 19, 2010. The total claim was $ 25 million. Earlier there was talk of $ 2 billion - about one sixth of the Uruguayan budget.
On July 3, 2013, the ICSID court declared itself responsible.
During the trial, Philip Morris closed its Uruguayan factory and laid off 40 workers.
In July 2016, the court ruled that Uruguay's actions were lawful and dismissed the lawsuit.
criticism
It was alleged that Philip Morris had deliberately chosen a "small" country to bring to its knees in order to make an example. In particular, countries with growing tobacco consumption such as Indonesia should be discouraged from taking measures to reduce tobacco consumption. The procedure is often cited as an example of the excesses of investor-state dispute settlement .
Other lawsuits from Philip Morris
In addition to the proceedings against Uruguay, Philip Morris has also initiated investment arbitration proceedings against plain packaging legislation in Australia and threatened Great Britain with a lawsuit if plain packaging was also introduced there. The arbitration claim against Australia has since been dismissed because the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
Individual evidence
- ↑ a b c litigation for money or life. In: Deutsche Welle . Retrieved September 26, 2014 .
- ↑ Uruguay Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) Litigation. (No longer available online.) In: Philip Morris International. Archived from the original on September 20, 2014 ; accessed on September 25, 2014 (English). Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.
- ↑ a b Big Tobacco puts countries on trial as concerns over TTIP deals mount , The Independent , October 22, 2014
- ↑ ITA Law: Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products SA and Abal Hermanos SA v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB / 10/7. Retrieved September 25, 2014 .
- ↑ Uruguay Pedira ayuda a su juicio con Obama s Philip Morris. In: El País . April 15, 2014, Retrieved September 25, 2014 (Spanish).
- ↑ Victory before arbitration tribunal: Uruguay is allowed to ban smoking. In: FAZ . July 9, 2016. Retrieved July 9, 2016 .
- ↑ Ireland wants to introduce cigarette packets with shock pictures , Zeit.de of February 27, 2015
- ↑ Phillip Morris - Tobacco company loses arbitration proceedings against Australia , faz.net, December 23, 2015
