This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/17/court-condemns-tobacco-giant-philip-morris-over-secret-bid-to-sue-australia

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Court condemns tobacco giant Philip Morris over secret bid to sue Australia Court condemns tobacco giant Philip Morris over secret bid to sue Australia
(35 minutes later)
An international tribunal has unveiled a secret ruling confirming it rejected a bid by tobacco giant Philip Morris to sue Australia over its plain packaging laws, calling the attempt “an abuse of rights”.An international tribunal has unveiled a secret ruling confirming it rejected a bid by tobacco giant Philip Morris to sue Australia over its plain packaging laws, calling the attempt “an abuse of rights”.
In its heavily-redacted 186-page ruling dating from 17 December 17 2015, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) said it had no jurisdiction over the case brought by Philip Morris. In its heavily redacted 186-page ruling dating from 17 December 2015, the permanent court of arbitration said it had no jurisdiction over the case brought by Philip Morris.
Related: Australia wins international legal battle with Philip Morris over plain packagingRelated: Australia wins international legal battle with Philip Morris over plain packaging
In 2012, Australia became the first country to mandate that cigarettes must be sold in plain packages, in a bid to reduce smoking rates. This initiative has since been followed by other nations including France and Britain. In 2012 Australia became the first country to mandate that cigarettes must be sold in plain packages, in an attemp to reduce smoking rates. This initiative has since been followed by other nations including France and Britain.
But big tobacco firms including Philip Morris have launched legal challenges against such laws, arguing the new rules impinge on their trademark intellectual property. But big tobacco firms including Philip Morris have launched legal challenges against such laws, arguing the rules impinge on their trademark intellectual property.
Philip Morris, manufacturers of some of the world’s most recognisable brands, including Marlboro, lodged the challenge with the arbitration court based in The Hague in 2011 after the plain-packaging legislation was first passed, using a 1993 trade deal between Australia and Hong Kong that included foreign investment protections. Philip Morris, manufacturers of some of the world’s most recognisable brands, including Marlboro, lodged the challenge with the arbitration court based in The Hague in 2011 after the plain-packaging legislation was passed, using a 1993 trade deal between Australia and Hong Kong that included foreign investment protections.
But the PCA found in its animous ruling that “the main and determinative, if not sole, reason” for a restructuring of the company as far back as 2005 was to enable it “to bring a claim under the treaty, using an entity from Hong Kong” after it received ample warnings that such legislation was being considered. But the permanent court of arbitration found in its animous ruling that “the main and determinative, if not sole, reason” for a restructuring of the company as far back as 2005 was to enable it “to bring a claim under the treaty, using an entity from Hong Kong” after it received ample warnings that such legislation was being considered.
“The record indeed shows that the principal, if not sole, purpose of the restructuring was to gain protection under the treaty in respect of the very measures that form the subject matter of the present arbitration,” the court ruled.“The record indeed shows that the principal, if not sole, purpose of the restructuring was to gain protection under the treaty in respect of the very measures that form the subject matter of the present arbitration,” the court ruled.
“The tribunal cannot but conclude that the initiation of this arbitration constitutes an abuse of rights,” the court added. It added: “The tribunal cannot but conclude that the initiation of this arbitration constitutes an abuse of rights.”
The court therefore found that Philip Morris’s claims were “inadmissible” and it was “precluded from exercising jurisdiction over this dispute”.The court therefore found that Philip Morris’s claims were “inadmissible” and it was “precluded from exercising jurisdiction over this dispute”.
The ruling came after a closed-door hearing held in Singapore in February 2015.The ruling came after a closed-door hearing held in Singapore in February 2015.
Canberra had welcomed the decision saying “plain packaging is a legitimate public health measure”.Canberra had welcomed the decision saying “plain packaging is a legitimate public health measure”.