Philip Morris v. Uruguay
Arbitration case on smoking regulations / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Philip Morris v. Uruguay?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
The Philip Morris v. Uruguay case (Spanish: Caso Philip Morris contra Uruguay) was an investor-state dispute settlement case initiated on 19 February 2010 and concluded on 8 July 2016, in which the multinational tobacco company Philip Morris International (PMI), whose head office is located in Lausanne,[1] lodged a complaint against Uruguay that was resolved by international arbitration under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).[2]
Philip Morris v. Uruguay | |
---|---|
Court | ICSID |
Full case name | ARB/10/7. Philip Morris Brand Sàrl (Switzerland), Philip Morris Products S.A. (Switzerland) v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay |
Decided | 8 July 2016 (6 years old) |
Transcript(s) | Sentence links |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Gary Born, James Crawford, Piero Bernardini |
Keywords | |
Cigarettes, intellectual property, health |
The reference to the process is Case ICSID N° ARB/10/7,and the case name is: FTR Holdings S.A. (Switzerland) and others against Oriental Republic of Uruguay.
PMI's complaint alleged that Uruguay's anti-smoking legislation devalued its cigarette trademarks and investments in the country and sought compensation of twenty-five million dollars for engaging in anticompetitive practices in violation of the bilateral investment treaty between Switzerland, where Philip Morris International is headquartered, and Uruguay.[3][4]
The treaty provides that disputes may be settled by binding arbitration under the auspices of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).[5]
Uruguay had received accolades from the World Health Organization and from anti-smoking activists for its anti-smoking campaign.[6]
On 8 July 2016, after 6 years, the ICSID ruled in favor of Uruguay, forcing PMI to pay the expenses of the defendants and the court.[7][8][9]