HorecaClaim Europe

H/T Wiel Maessen for this press release pdf from  HorecaClaim Europe:

Investigations carried out by various prominent specialists in constitutional law throughout Europe indicate that the smoking ban for HoReCa in Europe can no longer stand. “This is good news,” indicates Frederick Matthaei, President of Horecaclaim Netherlands and Vice President of Horecaclaim Belgium…

If the State of the Netherlands will not agree to a compensation payment for HoReCa, enough resources are available through the Private Investment Fund Horecaclaim for a claim against the State. A professional claim organization has been created. “The authorities win almost all the battles against citizens, because citizens don’t have the time nor the resources to successfully engage in the struggle. We have the resources, so the authorities cannot ‘fumigate’ us,” says Frederick Matthaei…

HoReCa traders are invited through a mass mailing to inform us regarding the damage to their businesses caused by the smoking ban. The registration and inventory of thousands of claims in The Netherlands will take another two to three months. After verification by an accountant, the State will be summoned in order to start the claim procedure, unless it is ready to agree to an arrangement.

HoReCa is a business term which refers to a sector of the food service industry, to establishments which prepare and serve food and beverages. The term is a syllabic abbreviation of the words Hotel/Restaurant/Café.

So what’s happening is that a bunch of rich investors are putting up the money needed to claim compensation from the state for losses in the hospitality industry resulting from smoking bans. This is something that no individual bar owner, with limited financial resources, would be able to do.

If they win compensation, the investors will get a fraction of the damages paid out. So for them it’s a straightforward business proposition. There is, of course, the risk (as there is in any business venture) that the claims for damages will be thrown out by the courts, or that the damages awarded will be small, and they won’t make any return on their capital investment. But if the claims are accepted by the courts, and the damages are substantial, then they could do very well for themselves. Clearly the participants believe that they can make a very strong case. And this time it will be heard in court, rather than in the propagandised mass media.

And if they win in one country – say, Holland or Belgium -, then that will lead to an avalanche of claims from all over Europe. Which is probably why they’ve already moving onto a European footing. They will want to be able to cash in before any competitors start offering a better deal.

I must say that I like the logic of this a very great deal. This isn’t an emotional appeal or anything: it’s a business enterprise. And when the investors have won (or lost), they’ll go and put their money into some other, completely different venture. They’re not philanthropists. They’re just looking for a good return on their capital. And they think they’ve found one.

It could be said that Tobacco Control is a business venture too, which makes a lot of money for its shareholders, mostly in the form of tobacco taxes. Tobacco Control claims that its antismoking measures increase longevity, and improve productivity, etc, etc. And that the world will be a better place once its measures are enacted. Those are the supposed benefits from investing in Tobacco Control Inc.

But I think Tobacco Control is actually a purely predatory organisation that does no good whatsoever, and an enormous amount of harm. It’s like a herd of animals feeding off a defenceless tobacco crop (or off tobacco revenue), while claiming that their feeding promotes plant growth, and keeps the plants fit and healthy, and they’re really just doing a bit of much-needed weeding. But they’re essentially just a bunch of thieves. And their numbers have been multiplying seemingly exponentially in recent years. And HorecaClaim might be seen as a tiger that aims to feed off the multiplying, rampaging animals. If it can succeed in bringing down one, the rest will be at its mercy.

Tobacco Control is quite likely to be rather worried about this development. For if HorecaClaim is successful, and it’s proven in court that smoking bans do considerable damage to hospitality industries, then governments are going to think twice about imposing further bans. They may even revoke existing ones. And Tobacco Control will become a pariah, and its tax funding dry up, as a wave of court actions sweeps the world.  TC will scream blue murder if that happens.

Which will be a very good thing. We need a bit of blue murder.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to HorecaClaim Europe

  1. Tim Paton says:

    Spain have hit their second recession. Unemployment is over 25%. They are now the no.1 concern in the eurozone. They imposed a comprehensive smoking ban in Jan 2011. Is it a coincidence?

  2. jaxthefirst says:


    Of course not. Pretty much everywhere that excessive smoking bans have been imposed, economic difficulties have followed swiftly in their wake. The onward economic ripples from such bans, although consistently ignored by the MSM, have been well documented on here and other similar blogs, and they don’t just affect the hospitality industry either, which is why they have such a far-reaching negative impact. But it’s common sense, really, though, isn’t it? After all, if you deliberately force businesses to make their product (or service) less attractive or enjoyable for the majority of their customers (i.e. smokers and tolerant non-smokers), then those businesses are going to suffer financially, aren’t they? And with the business world being so inter-connected and inter-linked, the effect on one large sector of industry must inevitably have an effect on several smaller ones, which will in turn affect others, which will then affect others – and so on, ad infinitum.

    Keep us posted, Frank and Wiel. There are many on here who will be watching progress on this with bated breath. And even if the court case isn’t successful (and, quite frankly, I think only extreme corruption of an entire legal system would result in that outcome), it will at least give the anti-smoking movement (and possibly other anti movements who are now mimicking them) pause for thought …

  3. Ratzan Law Group Announces Plaintiff Emmon Smith Was Awarded $10 Million Verdict in Compensatory Damages and $20 Million in Punitive Damages in Trial Against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
    March 29, 2012 04:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time

    Notice they dont say CAUSES!

    Tobacco companies have known since 1953 of a causal relationship between smoking and lung disease but did not acknowledge a connection until 2000.


  4. And check this out Frank from CDC director thomas friedimen:

    Goldstein says the disease is likely similar to lung cancer in that certain people are predisposed to it, but environmental factors—like smoking, for lung cancer—can trigger the disease.

    Thats a long haul from CAUSES!

    CDC: Autism Affects 1 in 88 Children

  5. michaeljmcfadden says:

    Back in 2005 Dave Kuneman and I did a very straightforward analysis of the economic impact of smoking bans on US States. The nice thing about the analysis is that it can be followed and understood by anyone, it looks at longer term effects, it corrects for any charges of cherry-picking by clearly explaining the rational for state selection based upon the data that was available, and the data that was used is all open for public examination and verification.

    A bit different than your average antismoking study, eh?

    See it (and others) at:


    One notable figure from our research: If our figures and extrapolations are correct, it’s quite possible that just the single state of California has had its economy hit to the tune of ONE HUNDRED BILLION dollars by its smoking ban activity! Full explanation in the study.

    You might also want to check out this collection that was put together by Bill Hannegan, an activist who’s been fighting bans in Missouri for a number of years at this point:


    Go Get ‘Em HoReCaClaim!


  6. It is no coincidence in my opinion that Spain is going down one year and three months into its draconian smoking ban that prohibits smoking in all bars and restaurants and near hospitals, parks and schools. I for one no longer spend any money on anything (including bars and restaurants) except bare necessities and even some of those I buy abroad (articles like clothing are ludicrously expensive in comparison to other countries). I took that decission when the smoking ban came into effect and I finally realized that the State is my enemy, wielding bans and massive taxation against me. Only money can protect me from this monster and I will not give that money away easily. Money talks and the very smart guys at HorecaClaim know that very well.

    Indeed, go get’em HorecaClaim!

  7. nisakiman says:

    Nothing would give me more pleasure than to see the anti-smoking lobby shot down in flames by HoReCa winning in the courts. It would be sweet revenge indeed for all they have done to us over the last decade or so.

    I have my doubts, however, that it will happen. A win for HoReCa would not only prove cripplingly expensive for the governments concerned, but more to the point would mean them having to admit that they were wrong (or lying), and that all their “health experts” were wrong (or lying). For this reason I feel that the EU mandarins and national governments alike will lean heavily on the courts to dismiss the case as having no merit. They will use every trick in the book, and they will play dirty.

    • nisakiman says:

      Pity I don’t understand Romanian!

      I really wish you luck, Wiel, and I hope this succeeds. As I stated above, I fear for the (well funded) dirty tricks department in the EU. The outcome all depends on whether or not you get a truly independent judge, like Lord Nimmo Smith, who presided over the McTear case.

      By the way, Frank, I couldn’t get the PDF link above to work – I just get a blank PDF page.

  8. michaeljmcfadden says:

    Getting the right judge makes all the difference in such things at times. The judge that led to the downfall of Big T here in the US (I forget her name at the moment, but it was in either Michigan or Minnesota) looked at the economics of tobacco use and declared that while it was perfectly fine to accept the Antismokers’ claims about the EXTRA costs from smokers being sick that it was NOT ok to accept the flip side of the coin: the savings incurred if the Antis’ claims about early deaths were true. Her claim of moral grounding *might* possibly have had some legal basis but it clearly had no economic basis, and when the tobacco companies saw how the ultimate decision was going they simply capitulated in order to keep their heads off the executioner’s block.

    I believe that we have often seen judges in this area making their rulings based upon what they perceived as the “intent” of the laws rather than the actual “wording” of the laws — something that has been, I believe, usually frowned upon in other areas.

    Judges are human beings, and even though they are SUPPOSED to adhere to the law in making their decisions, they’re often swayed by the social atmosphere they’re working in and by whatever that atmosphere has done to their own subconscious motivations and beliefs.

    – MJM

  9. Rose says:

    When you discover that democratic governments have signed up to things like this.

    24.”No exemptions are justified on the basis of health or law arguments”

    Click to access art%208%20guidelines_english.pdf

    Silencing anyone who raises an objection however moderate.
    11.”The measures recommended in these guidelines aim at protecting against interference not only by the tobacco industry but also, as appropriate, by organizations and individuals that work to further the interests of the tobacco industry.”

    Click to access article_5_3.pdf


    You realise that you are seeing circumstances that you could never previously have imagined.

  10. fredrikeich says:

    Frank, the IARC now has an online tool for cancer stats. It’s a bit flakey some times but quite quick. I am not quite sure how long it has been available but I have been playing around with it and looking at Mexico again.

  11. beobrigitte says:

    Tobacco Control is quite likely to be rather worried about this development. For if HorecaClaim is successful, and it’s proven in court that smoking bans do considerable damage to hospitality industries, then governments are going to think twice about imposing further bans. They may even revoke existing ones. And Tobacco Control will become a pariah, and its tax funding dry up, as a wave of court actions sweeps the world. TC will scream blue murder if that happens.

    Which will be a very good thing. We need a bit of blue murder.

    Tobacco Control and all it’s tentacles will be worried, indeed. The first (and to them the most important) thing they will lose is any government’s funding of their filthy habit. As already mentioned, we can expect their european wide dirty department to spring into action. And we all know them well enough to know that they will. Therefore we have more reason to even more vehemently to stick to our guns.

    Which will be a very good thing. We need a bit of blue murder.

    Indeed, we do.

    And if they win in one country – say, Holland or Belgium -, then that will lead to an avalanche of claims from all over Europe.

    Indeed; Go Get ‘Em HoReCaClaim!

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.