Scroll To Top
Home \Litigation \  Advanced Search

Country: Peru

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

Inversiones Eivissa S.A.C. v. Ministry of Health et al. [Peru] [October 05, 2015]

A company that owns two stores located in Barranco Municipality challenged the validity of a city ordinance and Ministry of Health regulation which define enclosed public spaces. The company argued that the definition contained in the city ordinance and in the Ministry of Health regulation is stricter than the one established by Law No. 29517. In addition, it argued that this definition implied an illegal bureaucratic barrier which affects its commercial freedom. The Lima Superior Court agreed with the plaintiff and authorized the company not to comply with the ordinance or the regulation.

British American Tobacco of Peru S.A.C. v. Congress of the Republic [Peru] [July 22, 2015]

British American Tobacco of Peru had sued the Congress of the Republic, challenging the prohibition on sales of tobacco packages containing less than 10 cigarettes alleging that such a prohibition violates the freedom of enterprise and industry. This decision, from a Civil Chamber, rejects British American Tobacco’s appeal of the initial decision which had rejected the lawsuit. The Chamber agrees with the first decision and finds that the measures comply with the proportionality principle.

British American Tobacco of Peru S.A.C. v. Congress of the Republic [Peru] [July 24, 2014]

British American Tobacco of Peru sued the Congress of the Republic, challenging the prohibition on sales of tobacco packages containing less than 10 cigarettes alleging that such a prohibition violates the freedom of enterprise and industry. This decision, from the Specialized Constitutional Court of Lima, rejects British American Tobacco’s claim, after performing a proportionality test of the measure.

British American Tobacco of Peru S.A.C. v. Congress of the Republic [Peru] [January 17, 2012]

British American Tobacco of Peru sued the Congress of the Republic, challenging the prohibition on sales of tobacco packages containing less than 10 cigarettes alleging that such a prohibition violates the freedom of enterprise and industry. This decision, from the Specialized Constitutional Court of Lima, rejects British American Tobacco’s claim.  Significantly, the Court observed that the FCTC is a human rights treaty that ratifies the idea that economic freedoms should be limited in order to protect other rights, such as economic and social rights.

5000 Citizens v. Article 3 of Law No. 28705 [Peru] [July 19, 2011]

Five thousand Peruvian citizens brought action before the Constitutional Court challenging the constitutionality of an article of the tobacco control law that completely prohibits smoking in certain public places, including outdoor areas of educational facilities.  They argued that these limits infringed on the right to personal autonomy, right to commerce, and right to economic freedom and that smoking should be allowed in outdoor areas of institutions for higher learning for adults and in special smoking areas. The Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit and confirmed the constitutionality and legality of the law. The Court held that the law was strictly proportional, placing the right to health above the alleged violated rights, and that the smoking ban was the ideal means to comply with provisions of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) that require protection from exposure to tobacco smoke. 

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