Netherlands retains smoking ban exemptions: Horecaclaim press release translated

PRESS RELEASE (follow link for original), 28 March 2013
 
The Supreme Court in The Hague held on Tuesday, March 26, 2013 that exemptions to the ban on smoking in small pubs are in conflict with the WHO Framework Convention on tobacco control (FCTC) and thus invalid. However, the State has the opportunity to appeal against this judgment, and it is very doubtful whether this Supreme Court ruling will be ratified. It  is also important to note that this statement in principle only applies between the parties in the action, namely the State and the Non-Smokers Association CAN. The last word has absolutely not been said about this case.

Application for enforcement of the smoking ban in small pubs rejected

CAN’s claim that the Dutch State must enforce this decision was rejected in the court. The State is not obliged by the court to enforce a ban on smoking in small cafés. The court in its verdict stressed the broad discretion of the State in this regard.

European court

In recent years various, sometimes contradictory, verdicts have been decided in different courts. There is still no final decision regarding the smoking ban in small hospitality businesses.

Depending on the further course of proceedings between the State and CAN, Horecaclaim Netherlands will consider taking this case towards the European courts.

Advice and call to action for small pubs

Hospitality entrepreneurs should not be fooled by this verdict of the court in The Hague. As long as the State does not once again order the small pubs to comply with the smoking ban – which is not expected – pubs can still allow smoking on their premises. Those pubs that have not yet joined Horecaclaim Netherlands are invited to join the organisation, which was set up to claim damages for the economic consequences of smoking bans. Members benefit from the services of Horecaclaim’s legal team, which can provide legal support for appeal procedures when (unlawful) fines are imposed.

Supreme Court hearing for tobacco display ban, Scotland

The latest hearings in the appeal of Imperial Tobacco against the tobacco display ban will be heard next month at the Supreme Court in London. ASH Scotland describes the scene thus:

The UK Supreme Court has set a date to hear the legal challenge by Imperial Tobacco against the Scottish Government’s legislation to ban unstaffed tobacco vending machines and tobacco displays at point of sale. In response Sheila Duffy, Chief Executive of ASH Scotland, said: 

'These public health measures were passed overwhelmingly by our democratically elected Parliament and have twice been upheld by the Scottish courts. 

This is part of a growing international problem. We have heard from partner organisations from Australia to Uruguay that, having lost the battles over scientific evidence and public support, tobacco companies are resorting to delaying valid public health measures in the courts. 

Tobacco kills half of its long-term consumers and Imperial Tobacco should accept the public, political and legal judgements that it cannot be treated like an ordinary product.

I am looking for the Supreme Court to rule against Imperial Tobacco and clear the way for Scotland to implement these important public health measures.' 

She seems to be making a fuss because the courts are being used exactly the way they should be designed to be used: for a company to challenge what it perceives as unfair legislation. But in the eyes of tobacco control a tobacco company that uses the courts in this way is somehow perverse and unreasonable. Her reasoning that tobacco cannot be seen like an 'ordinary product' misses the point that campaigns against other products will gain strength if this one prospers, as we see in the latest embarrassing escapade in the campaign to denormalise alcohol.

She clearly expects a court victory, but one is tempted to conclude that she requires a vote against the tobacco companies in principle, rather than on the legal case presented. That would certainly not be a conclusion that reflected the purpose of the courts: victory should be on legal grounds, not on the basis of whether either side represents tobacco interests.

Bid for court hearing on smoking ban: Chris Carter appeal

Chris Carter has been fighting to bring the smoking ban before the courts for many years now. Last week he was denied a hearing before the Supreme Court. The story is here, and Pat Nurse has more.

Chris's case is complex and involved citing some powerful witnesses. The courts have denied him the opportunity to present it.

If you wish to assist him to minimise his impending gaol term, please go here. Fines and costs added up to £1,250. Cheques can be made payable to P & P Productions, and sent to P & P Productions at 37 Windley Road, Leicester LE2 6QX.

Stop press: the target has now been reached.

Imperial Tobacco threatens appeal to Supreme Court

The story is here. The writer speculates that an appeal to the Supreme Court could cause trouble, if the Supreme Court ruled against the Scottish Government.

However the Supreme Court has already rejected an appeal from Sinclair Collis (vending machine company owned by Imperial Tobacco) on the legislation that will ban vending machines this year.

Much as I would like to see the courts overturning the legislation, I fear that they have already been lent on by legislators, and they are not providing the impartial service that they should be providing.

Legislators are not minded to heed appeals from what they perceive as tobacco interests – even though the results of a recently published European consultation on tobacco regulations revealed that ordinary citizens argued against the display ban in the same terms as the tobacco industry (para 6.6.4).

Such prejudice should not even register with the courts.

Supreme Court refuses to hear appeal on vending machine ban

Isn't it nice that the Supreme Court will avoid wasting court time by refusing to hear a manifestly unjust case, thus avoiding the clear obligation to vote against the government?

There is clearly an alternative option to a vending machine ban: mandating effective age-verification, and using equipment that allows only one sale each time a machine is activated following age verification. Yet the Supreme Court will not allow this case to be made.

I suspect it may be for the same kind of reason that the Scottish Parliament refused to allow a trial of radio-controlled vending machines – that it would put them behind in the tobacco control league tables. Juvenile or what?