Scroll To Top
Home \Litigation \  Advanced Search

Country: Panama

Litigation SearchRefine/Modify Search

Find decisions that have...

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

But don't show pages that have...

Other Search Criteria:

from:to:

Search Results Results 1-5 of 5

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

Decree 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 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 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.

The materials and analysis available at this website are for informational and educational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice.