LANGUAGE

Country: Panama

Find decisions that have...

(E.g., Keywords, citations, decision titles, or parties)
Or Or

... but don't show pages that have:

Search Criteria:

from:to:
 

Search Results Results 1-6 of 6

La Prensa S.A. v. General Directorate of Public Health of the Ministry of Health [Panama] [March 05, 2020]

An amparo remedy was filed against Resolution No. 0573 of February 27, 2019, issued by the General Directorate of Public Health of the Ministry of Health. The resolution sanctioned La Prensa S.A. with a fine of B$ 10,000.00 for publishing a news article on IQOS sponsored by Philip Morris. The article was titled "NEW ALTERNATIVES COMING FOR ADULT SMOKERS". La Prensa was fined as a result of non-compliance with the total ban on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship. La Prensa objected to the fine on the basis that its constitutional rights to be heard, to offer evidence, and to due process were violated. However, the Court declined to grant the amparo and upheld the sanction since the Ministry of Health acted according to its legal powers.

British American Tobacco Panama v. Panama [Panama] [August 03, 2016]

Decree No. 611 establishes that Panama's ban on the advertising, promotion and sponsorship of tobacco products includes a ban on tobacco product display at the point of sale. BAT Panama SA and other tobacco companies filed suit requesting an order declaring Decree No. 611 illegal, arguing that it violated the right to property including intellectual property and consumers’ right to access information. The Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Panama upheld the decree finding that there was no violation of trademark rights as trademark registration and use still were allowed.  The court also found that consumers’ right to access information was assured through the use of the textual listing of products and their prices and through health warnings on packages. Notably, the court used FCTC guidelines to interpret FCTC obligations with regard to tobacco advertisement, promotion and sponsorship.

British American Tobacco Panama v. Executive Decree No. 611 [Panama] [May 28, 2014]

Decree No. 611 establishes that Panama's ban on the advertising, promotion and sponsorship of tobacco products includes a ban on tobacco product display at the point of sale. BAT Panama filed an unconstitutionality claim requesting an order from the court declaring the Decree void. BAT Panama argued that the Decree violated the rights to freedom of expression and private property, among other rights. The Supreme Court upheld the Decree, noting, among other things, that even freedom of expression could be restricted if needed to protect public health.

Philip Morris Panama v. Government of Panama [Panama] [March 16, 2011]

Decree 611 interprets Panama's ban on the advertising, promotion and sponsorship of tobacco products to include a ban on tobacco product display at the point of sale.  Philip Morris Panama filed suit in the Contentious Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court requesting a preliminary injunction against the implementation of Decree 611 and ultimately an order declaring the Decree void. In this decision, the Court denied the preliminary injunction.

British American Tobacco v. Government of Panama [Panama] [December 30, 2010]

Decree 611 interprets Panama's ban on the advertising, promotion and sponsorship of tobacco products to include a ban on tobacco product display at the point of sale.  British America Tobacco Panama filed suit in the Contentious Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court requesting a preliminary injunction against the implementation of Decree 611 and ultimately an order declaring the Decree void. In this decision, the Court denied the preliminary injunction.

British American Tobacco v. Government of Panama [Panama] [June 03, 2010]

The Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice upheld Executive Decree 230, which had been challenged by British American Tobacco (BAT) Panama. According to BAT Panama, Decree 230 illegally expanded the scope of Law 13 in areas relating to: smoke-free environments; the ban on tobacco advertisement, promotion and sponsorship; and enforcement mechanisms. Based on the constitutional right to health and on the objectives of FCTC, the tribunal upheld Executive Decree 230.