CTS Statement on the acquisition of Vectura Group by Philip Morris International

Author(s):  
Paul Hernandez
Keyword(s):  
1992 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-67
Author(s):  
D.S. Nava

The EEC Treaty contains no specific provisions for the control of concentrations. Only the competition rules. Articles 85 and 86 EEC, could be considered as possible legal instruments for regulating concentrations. The Commission has had to examine whether and to what extent these provisions could be used to this end.The Commission's view has been that Article 85 does not apply to operations resulting in structural change, as is the case of concentrations and concentrative joint ventures. Cooperative operations, such as cooperative joint ventures, on the other hand fall to be assessed under Article 85. The Philip Morris case has made this position uncertain. According to the extensive interpretation of this judgement Article 85 is now applicable to certain concentrations and thus to concentrative joint ventures.There is no such uncertainty regarding the role of Article 86 in controlling concentrative joint ventures, for the Court has established in the Continental Can case that concentrations can be caught by Article 86.With the adoption in 1989 of the Regulation on concentration control the Commission finally has a legal instrument specifically designed to regulate concentrations. However, only concentrations and concentrative joint ventures which comply with certain turnover thresholds (the so-called concentrations or concentrative joint ventures with a Community dimension) can be assessed by the Commission under the Regulation. This means that the provisions of the Regulation can not be applied to concentrative joint ventures beneath the threshold.Because of the difficulty in distinguishing concentrative operations from cooperative ones, the Commission published the Notice regarding the concentrative and cooperative operations under the Regulation on the control of concentrations.


The Lancet ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 371 (9625) ◽  
pp. 1644-1646
Author(s):  
Alan Blum
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
pp. tobaccocontrol-2020-056316
Author(s):  
Lauren Kass Lempert ◽  
Stella Bialous ◽  
Stanton Glantz

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued orders in July 2020 authorising Philip Morris Products S.A. to market its heated tobacco product (HTP) IQOS inside the USA with claims that it reduces exposure to some dangerous substances. FDA’s ‘reduced-exposure’ orders explicitly prohibit the marketing of IQOS with claims that IQOS will reduce harm or the risk of tobacco-related diseases. Under US law, FDA’s IQOS orders are problematic because FDA disregarded valid scientific evidence that IQOS increases exposure to other dangerous toxins and that Philip Morris Products S.A. failed to demonstrate that consumers understand the difference between reduced-exposure and reduced-harm claims. Unfortunately, both ‘reduced-exposure’ and ‘reduced-harm’ are classified as ‘modified risk tobacco products’ under US law. Exploiting this confusion, Philip Morris International used the FDA decision as the basis for marketing and public relations campaigns outside the USA to press governments to reverse policies that ban or regulate the sales and marketing of HTPs, including IQOS. Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control should reject tobacco companies’ unsubstantiated explicit or implied claims of reduced harm associated with HTPs and resist Philip Morris International’s and other companies’ calls to relax HTP regulations based on the FDA’s actions. Instead, parties should adopt policies aligned with the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control when dealing with HTPs and other novel tobacco products.


2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana Harrington ◽  
Deborah Lalor
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document