| 英文摘要 |
Article 6 of the “Draft Amendment to the Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act” adopted by the Executive Yuan at the end of 2017 hopes to increase the current warning graphic area from 35% to 85%. At the end of May 2020, the National Health Administration of the Ministry of Health and Welfare proposed an “announcement amendment” to the Tobacco Hazards Prevention Act and attached a draft amendment. They also hope to increase the current 35% area to 85%. Tobacco merchants have filed lawsuits in various countries around the world, against the control of cigarette containers, especially the increasing area of warning graphics, even the so-called plain packaging,and claim to violate the freedom of speech or property rights guaranteed by the constitutions. In 2012, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., ruled that the warning graphic area be raised to 50% unconstitutional, and based on the review standard of commercial speech. In contrast, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2007 that the provision to increase the area of warning graphics to 50% was constitutional and did not violate freedom of speech. Australia passed the plain packaging law in 2011, and the country’s High Court ruled in the following year that the law does not constitute the acquisition of property. The aforementioned constitutional controversies that have occurred in major countries of the world, as well as the judgment opinions and discussion and analysis methods of these courts, are worthy of reference as Taiwan may face the relevant litigation in the future. Finally, This research concludes by returning to similar issue in Taiwan and discuss its possible constitutional review.
|
