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.
Showing posts with label small bars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label small bars. Show all posts
Friday, 29 March 2013
Wednesday, 16 May 2012
Dutch smoking ban warded off in court
Dutch anti-smoking ban campaigners were successful yesterday in maintaining the advantage they have gained in exemptions to the smoking ban. This report says that not only is smoking in small bars legal, but smoking is largely carried out in larger bars too.
No doubt ban enthusiasts would say that this is because there is an exemption in small bars, and that only a comprehensive ban can be fully enforced. But the exemption was gained in the first place because of widespread and well organised opposition.
Sorry for Marc Willemsen, who wishes to turn the tide back in the antis' favour. (But not very sorry.)
No doubt ban enthusiasts would say that this is because there is an exemption in small bars, and that only a comprehensive ban can be fully enforced. But the exemption was gained in the first place because of widespread and well organised opposition.
Sorry for Marc Willemsen, who wishes to turn the tide back in the antis' favour. (But not very sorry.)
Sunday, 16 January 2011
Professor in Public Health claims Dutch government swayed by tobacco lobby
Thousands of licensees united to campaign against the smoking ban in the Netherlands, which was never fully enforced before recently being scrapped for bars without employees. The change to the law was made by the incoming Coalition government in the Netherlands, and endowed Professor Marc Willemsen blames the tobacco interests of the Defence Minister for the policy change. Over twelve hundred publicans voice their opposition to the ban in campaigns, and yet the tobacco industry's influence on a single cabinet minister over-rides all other considerations.
To Professor Willemsen, Minister Hillen's presence on the Cabinet as a lobbyist tobacco undermines Dutch compliance with Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. This is meant to protect health policy from tobacco industry influence. Or, perhaps, to ensure that anybody with any (alleged) interest in tobacco, however peripheral, is excluded from discussions of tobacco policy. The fact is that no lobbying interest should dictate government policy, and while it might not be unreasonable to have laws or guidelines on lobbying, excluding interests from lobbying at all is not reasonable or rational.
Professor Willemsen alleges that 'the tobacco industry has strategic connections in government circles', although it isn't clear that he has evidence of financial interests in tobacco for anyone other than Hillen. No other minister is specified in his blog post. It's arguable whether Mr Hillen's presence on the Cabinet made any difference to the outcome of the Dutch licensees' rebellion. No one asks which Cabinet ministers get freebees from Big Tobacco's rivals in the nicotine market: Big Pharma, or whether such influence is improper.
Professor Willemsen's solution? He 'argues for confrontational campaigns which clearly show the damage smoking causes to the body. He also favours higher duties on tobacco and a less prominent location for tobacco products in supermarkets'. None of which has much relevance to smoking ban policies. As for tobacco in shops, its position behind the counter means that it is out of the reach of pilferers and easily accessible to shop staff. Nothing could be more sensible.
More on the Dutch story here.
Professor Willemsen's recipe for success
To Professor Willemsen, Minister Hillen's presence on the Cabinet as a lobbyist tobacco undermines Dutch compliance with Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. This is meant to protect health policy from tobacco industry influence. Or, perhaps, to ensure that anybody with any (alleged) interest in tobacco, however peripheral, is excluded from discussions of tobacco policy. The fact is that no lobbying interest should dictate government policy, and while it might not be unreasonable to have laws or guidelines on lobbying, excluding interests from lobbying at all is not reasonable or rational.
Professor Willemsen alleges that 'the tobacco industry has strategic connections in government circles', although it isn't clear that he has evidence of financial interests in tobacco for anyone other than Hillen. No other minister is specified in his blog post. It's arguable whether Mr Hillen's presence on the Cabinet made any difference to the outcome of the Dutch licensees' rebellion. No one asks which Cabinet ministers get freebees from Big Tobacco's rivals in the nicotine market: Big Pharma, or whether such influence is improper.
Professor Willemsen's solution? He 'argues for confrontational campaigns which clearly show the damage smoking causes to the body. He also favours higher duties on tobacco and a less prominent location for tobacco products in supermarkets'. None of which has much relevance to smoking ban policies. As for tobacco in shops, its position behind the counter means that it is out of the reach of pilferers and easily accessible to shop staff. Nothing could be more sensible.
More on the Dutch story here.
Professor Willemsen's recipe for success
Wednesday, 29 September 2010
Dutch ban for small pubs lifted again (what happened to Scotland?)
Dutch small bars are celebrating the lifting of a smoking ban that was first imposed in 2008. The ban still applies to any outlet that employs staff, but any enterprise in the hospitality sector without staff is free to allow smoking.
Since the ban was ostensibly imposed on the grounds of protecting staff, one-man operators fought it on the grounds that they had no staff needing protection. Partial success in the courts last year led to a temporary lifting of the ban on such operations, but these judgements were overturned and the ban became general once again, but it has never been effectively enforced. This week's change has come from a new Dutch government – only just formed several weeks after the general election on 9 June.
Dutch bar owners, apart from not enforcing the ban, have also made their feelings known in other ways. They are well organised, and in a sensible way: i.e. the small bars have banded together as they have had a specific campaign regarding the smoking ban.
What has happened in Scotland and the UK? Dominated by chains and breweries, the fight for licensees since the ban struck their pockets has focussed on tied licences and (happily for the government) supermarket prices. It is never easy to get the powers that be to admit that the licensed trade, rendered unfit for purpose to up to half its customers by the smoking ban, has suffered thereby. And since some venues have stood to gain at the expense of their smaller neighbours, the trade has itself been divided.
In reports on the recent study that demonstrated the damage done by the smoking ban (in Scotland as well as the rest of the UK) the response from Paul Waterson of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association is lukewarm if not downright disappointing. Here, he says that pubs have been hit by the smoking ban, but not what an absolute travesty the ban is, and he does not recommend a review.
Even before the ban became law, the SLTA's stance was conciliatory rather than defiant. They declared they had compromise proposals on the table. Regrettably this proves to have been too genteel an approach to the enemies that were pushing at the door. What kind of bargaining counter is a 'compromise proposal'? Now that the Scottish Government's anti-smoking agenda has proved anything but genteel, bodies like the Scottish Licensed Trade Association must grow teeth and defend their members' choice of customers be respected. How is it to any licensee's advantage to be forced to put customers outside?
Weil Maessen, who represents the Dutch small bar umbrella organisation KHO, reminds us that the fight is not over until the whole hospitality sector regains choice. Brilliant: not just defiant but intelligent and prepared to deploy strategy and keep fighting!
Since the ban was ostensibly imposed on the grounds of protecting staff, one-man operators fought it on the grounds that they had no staff needing protection. Partial success in the courts last year led to a temporary lifting of the ban on such operations, but these judgements were overturned and the ban became general once again, but it has never been effectively enforced. This week's change has come from a new Dutch government – only just formed several weeks after the general election on 9 June.
Dutch bar owners, apart from not enforcing the ban, have also made their feelings known in other ways. They are well organised, and in a sensible way: i.e. the small bars have banded together as they have had a specific campaign regarding the smoking ban.
What has happened in Scotland and the UK? Dominated by chains and breweries, the fight for licensees since the ban struck their pockets has focussed on tied licences and (happily for the government) supermarket prices. It is never easy to get the powers that be to admit that the licensed trade, rendered unfit for purpose to up to half its customers by the smoking ban, has suffered thereby. And since some venues have stood to gain at the expense of their smaller neighbours, the trade has itself been divided.
In reports on the recent study that demonstrated the damage done by the smoking ban (in Scotland as well as the rest of the UK) the response from Paul Waterson of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association is lukewarm if not downright disappointing. Here, he says that pubs have been hit by the smoking ban, but not what an absolute travesty the ban is, and he does not recommend a review.
Even before the ban became law, the SLTA's stance was conciliatory rather than defiant. They declared they had compromise proposals on the table. Regrettably this proves to have been too genteel an approach to the enemies that were pushing at the door. What kind of bargaining counter is a 'compromise proposal'? Now that the Scottish Government's anti-smoking agenda has proved anything but genteel, bodies like the Scottish Licensed Trade Association must grow teeth and defend their members' choice of customers be respected. How is it to any licensee's advantage to be forced to put customers outside?
Weil Maessen, who represents the Dutch small bar umbrella organisation KHO, reminds us that the fight is not over until the whole hospitality sector regains choice. Brilliant: not just defiant but intelligent and prepared to deploy strategy and keep fighting!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)