failed suit in Finland

[Robert Weissman <rob@essential.org>]

>From Antti Rautiainen:

Court of appeal has rejected demands against tobacco companies in Finland

(after Helsingin Sanomat 2.1.1999)

Suomen tupakka Oy (nowadays British American Tobacco Nordic Oy) and Oy
Rettig Ab weren't obliged to pay compensation to relatives of mr. Pentti
Aho. Pentti Aho started court process against companies more than then years
ago and died because of lung and throat cancer 1992, soon after the similar
decision of magistrates court. Companies were accused for felony
maltreatment because of claims by the companies that tobacco causes no harm. 
 Court of appeal didn't change the decision of magistrates court but it did
find mistakes from the basis of the decision of the latter. Magistrates
court decided that there is no way companies would have broken the law
because selling of tobacco is legal business. However, court of appeal wrote
that also legal business may commit crime if regulations have been broken.
It accused companies for giving a contary picture about harmfullness of
tobacco during the court process compared with statements of doctors and
officials. Court of appeal also stated that it has been shown that companies
have misleaded consumers about harmfulness of tobacco. Court of appeal also
stated that companies have broken the law on consumer protection, because
they haven't spontaneously told about harmfulness of tobacco. However,
companies weren't given any punishment.
 Professor of medical sciences, mr. Ismo Virtanen, who witnessed in
magistrates court for companies was fined 12 500 FIM (2500 $) for tax fraud
because he didn't reported to tax officials the compensation of 280 000 FIM
(56 000 $) companies had given to him after witnessing. Professor was also
accused for perjury since he claimed that medical science hasn't proved that
tobacco causes throat cancer nor lung cancer, both magistrates court and
court of appeal liberated him from these charges.
 Lawyer of BAT, mr. Robert Liljeström claimed that "decision of the court
was partly right and partly wrong, it is right that connection between
tobacco and these diseases haven't been scientifically proved... Magistrates
court decided that among the consumers, there is 100% knowledge that tobacco
causes health risks, thus decision of court of appeal is strange. Only
change to present situation by the decision is that industry should be more
precise with it's public comments."... "Tobacco companies have had another
opinion than officials and majority of the doctors. Has industry really
misleaded people, that's a good question. I think that in a world of free
speech it is not misleading to say your own opinion."
 mr. Erkki Auejärvi, who represented widow of Pentti Aho at court thinks
that decision is important in the European scale. "The decision of court
ensures that industry is obliged to compensation. We are not yet this far in
other countries of Europe, but there is court processes coming. In USA
industry has given compensation to tobacco users worth of 1260 million FIM.
In Finland the compensations will be much fewer than this, maybe 200 000 or
300 000 FIM for each case, and few dozens of cases would happen on each
year. Industry can survive this. And if compensations will be paid in
Finland, they will be paid in other European countries as well". Relatives
will make an appeal to highest court.

**************************'

Some notes: In Finland this kind of processes are more difficult than in US
because due to industry lobbying, planned law on mass action (I don't know
the correct legal term) has collapsed many times. Thus costs of process are
far from reach of average smoker, expecially if they are lost.
 Auejärvi's views are quite optimistic, it's also very possible that all the
coming cases are routinely rejected in magistrates court and not given
change of appeal because there is one decision already. We can do nothing
but wonder the logic of the court - "If everyone knows the truth, lying is
not a crime." Anyway, final word is said only after the decision of highest
court, this my take more 5 years if the speed is as slow as before this.
This is the first case like this in Finland. 

Antti Rautiainen