Philip Morris v. Uruguay

World Bank building at Washington

{{#invoke:infobox|infoboxTemplate

| italic title = | bodyclass = scotus ib-court-case | templatestyles = Infobox court case/styles.css

| above = Philip Morris v. Uruguay | aboveclass = fn | image = {{#if:|[[File:{{{image}}}|image=|size=|sizedefault=frameless|upright=0.82|alt= }} | autoheaders = yes | caption =

| label1 = Court | data1 = International Court of Justice

| label2 = Full case name | data2 =

| label3 = Argued | data3 =

| label4 = Reargued | data4 =

| label5 = Submitted | data5 =

| label6 = Indictment | data6 =

| label7 = Started | data7 =

| label8 = Decided | data8 = 8 July 2016

| label9 = Docket nos. | data9 =

| label10 = Verdict | data10 =

| label11 = Defendant | data11 =

| label12 = Charge | data12 =

| label13 = Prosecution | data13 =

| label14 = Counsel for plaintiff | data14 =

| label15 = Plaintiff | data15 =

| label16 = Defence | data16 =

| label17 = Witnesses | data17 =

| label18 = Citation | data18 = [2016] ICJ 1

| label19 = ECLI | data19 =

| label20 = Neutral citation | data20 =

| label21 = Reported at | data21 =

| label22 = Transcript | data22 =

| label23 = Claim | data23 =

| label24 = Cases cited | data24 =

| label25 = Legislation cited | data25 =

| header27 = Case history

| label28 = Prior action | data28 =

| label29 = Appealed from | data29 =

| label30 = Appealed to | data30 =

| label31 = Subsequent action | data31 =

| label32 = Procedural history | data32 =

| label33 = Related action | data33 =

| label34 = Argument | data34 =

| label35 = Reargument | data35 =

| label36 = Opinion announcement | data36 =

| header42 = Outcome | data43 =

| header44 = Questions presented | data45 =

| header46 = Holding | data47 =

| header48 = Ruling | data49 =

| header52 = Court membership | label53 = Judge sitting | data53 = Panel of judges

| label54 = Chief judge | data54 =

| label55 = Associate judges | data55 =

| header56 = Case opinions | data57 =

| data58 =

| label59 = Decision by | data59 =

| label60 = Majority | data60 =

| label61 = Majority | data61 =

| label62 = Majority | data62 =

| label63 = Plurality | data63 =

| label64 = Plurality | data64 =

| label65 = Plurality | data65 =

| label66 = Plurality | data66 =

| label67 = Seriatim opinion | data67 =

| label68 = Seriatim opinion | data68 =

| label69 = Seriatim opinion | data69 =

| label70 = Seriatim opinion | data70 =

| label71 = Seriatim opinion | data71 =

| label72 = Concurrence | data72 =

| label73 = Concurrence | data73 =

| label74 = Concurrence | data74 =

| label75 = Concurrence | data75 =

| label76 = Concurrence | data76 =

| label77 = Concurrence | data77 =

| label78 = Concurrence | data78 =

| label79 = Concurrence | data79 =

| label80 = Concur/dissent | data80 =

| label81 = Concur/dissent | data81 =

| label82 = Concur/dissent | data82 =

| label83 = Concur/dissent | data83 =

| label84 = Concur/dissent | data84 =

| label85 = Concur/dissent | data85 =

| label86 = Concur/dissent | data86 =

| label87 = Concur/dissent | data87 =

| label88 = Dissent | data88 =

| label89 = Concurrence | data89 =

| label90 = Dissent | data90 =

| label91 = Concurrence | data91 =

| label92 = Dissent | data92 =

| label93 = Concurrence | data93 =

| label94 = Dissent | data94 =

| label95 = Concurrence | data95 =

| label96 = Dissent | data96 =

| data97 =

| header98 = Laws applied

| data99 =

| data100 =

| data101 =

| data102 =

| data103 =

| data104 =

| data105 =

| data106 =

| data107 =

| header108 = Keywords | data109 =

| header110 = Area of law | data111 =

}}

Philip Morris v. Uruguay was a landmark legal case that took place in the International Court of Justice on 8 July 2016. The case involved the multinational tobacco company Philip Morris International and the government of Uruguay. The dispute centered around Uruguay's strict tobacco control measures and regulations, which Philip Morris International claimed were in violation of international trade agreements.

The case was significant as it highlighted the tension between public health policies and corporate interests in the tobacco industry. Uruguay, a country known for its progressive tobacco control measures, implemented regulations such as graphic health warnings on cigarette packages and restrictions on tobacco advertising and promotion. Philip Morris International argued that these measures infringed on its intellectual property rights and hindered its ability to conduct business in the country.

The International Court of Justice ultimately ruled in favor of Uruguay, upholding the country's right to implement public health measures to protect its citizens from the harmful effects of tobacco use. The court cited the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control as a key legal instrument supporting Uruguay's actions.

The outcome of the case set a precedent for other countries seeking to implement similar tobacco control measures in the face of opposition from the tobacco industry. It reaffirmed the importance of prioritizing public health over corporate profits in the regulation of harmful products.

This article is a stub related to medicine. You can help WikiMD by expanding it!