煙草在線據(jù)悉尼先驅(qū)晨報(bào)報(bào)道編譯　　在離岸法院發(fā)起打擊政府平裝法的訴訟后，大煙草公司菲莫公司被迫發(fā)布與聯(lián)邦政府沉重打擊有關(guān)的文件。

　　在政府立法規(guī)定卷煙包裝上不能顯示品牌后，盡管在澳大利亞高等法院被擊敗，但是煙草巨頭正繼續(xù)起訴政府，聲稱這是違反知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)。

　　菲莫亞洲稱，澳大利亞的煙草平裝法違反了1993年香港政府和澳大利亞政府為促進(jìn)和保護(hù)投資而達(dá)成的協(xié)議。該案是在國(guó)際常設(shè)仲裁法庭上審理的。

　　該公司試圖使法院提交有關(guān)的意見書，但是政府已經(jīng)成功地發(fā)布了所有文件。

　　司法部長(zhǎng)尼古拉·羅克松表示，這是“非常重要和有點(diǎn)不同尋常的一步”，國(guó)際法院下令，在申請(qǐng)程序中，每一方都可以發(fā)布它自己的文件。

　　據(jù)費(fèi)爾法克斯媒體此前披露，政府認(rèn)為菲莫公司的企業(yè)重組是一個(gè)“詭計(jì)”。

　　當(dāng)該公司通過菲莫亞洲提出了賠償要求時(shí)，它認(rèn)為法律不利于該公司的澳大利亞分支機(jī)構(gòu)的投資，它應(yīng)該受到貿(mào)易條約的保護(hù)。但政府稱，此訴訟是虛假的，因?yàn)榉颇獌H在澳大利亞政府宣布平裝之后一年后收購(gòu)了澳大利亞業(yè)務(wù)的，是在“完全了解”未來政策的情況下進(jìn)行的。

　　政府宣布有意在2010年引入平裝。剝奪了卷煙上的所有品牌，迫使它們采取涂綠色，展示大的令人不快的健康警語圖片的該法案，是在2011年11月通過的。

　　菲莫公司尋求聯(lián)合國(guó)國(guó)際貿(mào)易法委員會(huì)暫停該法律，而與其他三個(gè)煙草公司一起在澳大利亞的最高法院挑戰(zhàn)該法律。

　　在去年8月，在高等法院的訴訟被擊敗。

　　司法部長(zhǎng)羅克松表示：“盡管菲莫亞洲試圖保持這些過程保密，但是法庭決定發(fā)布這些命令，并允許各方發(fā)布他們自己的文件，反映了澳大利亞增加透明度的努力。”

Australia: Tobacco Giant Won't Quit Fight on Plain Packaging

　　BIG tobacco company Philip Morris has been forced to release documents relating to a stoush with the federal government, after taking its fight against the government's plain-packaging legislation to an offshore court.

　　Despite being defeated in the Australian High Court, the tobacco giant is continuing to pursue the government over what it claims is a breach of intellectual property rights, after the government legislated that no branding can be shown on cigarette packets.

　　Philip Morris Asia alleges that Australia's Tobacco Plain Packaging Act breaches the 1993 agreement between the Hong Kong government and the Australian government for the Promotion and Protection of Investments. The case is being heard in the international Permanent Court of Arbitration.

　　The company tried to have court submissions relating to the case suppressed, but the government has succeeded in an application to have all documents released.

　　In what the Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, said was a ''very significant and somewhat unusual step'', the international court ordered that each party be allowed to publish its own documents filed in the proceedings.

　　As previously revealed by Fairfax Media, the government believed Philip Morris engaging in corporate restructuring as a ''trick''.

　　When the company launched its compensation claim through Philip Morris Asia, it argued the laws were detrimental to its investment in the company's Australian arm, which was supposed to be protected by the trade treaty. But the government said the challenge was spurious because Philip Morris Asia only acquired a stake in the Australian operation a year after the government's plain-packaging plans was announced, in "full knowledge" of what was to come.

　　The government announced its intention to introduce plain packaging in 2010. The legislation, which strips all branding from cigarettes, forces them to be a drab green colour and to display large, unpleasant health warning pictures, was passed in November 2011.

　　Philip Morris sought a suspension of the laws from the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, and joined with three other tobacco companies to challenge the laws in Australia's High Court.

　　The High Court challenge was defeated in August last year.

　　Attorney-General Nicola Roxon said: "Despite Phillip Morris Asia's attempts to keep these proceedings under wraps, the tribunal's decision to publish these orders, as well as allowing parties to publish their own documents, reflects Australia's efforts to increase transparency.

　　"We expect big tobacco to try to hide what they do from the public, but they can't hide from the fact that smoking kills." Enditem