275 / 391
HEALTH LAW
261
The Council of State Ruled that the Smoking Ban in Coffee
Houses is Unconstitutional and Applied to the Constitutional
Court for Annulment of the Legal Provisions Introducing the
Interdiction
*
The Izmir Chamber of Coffee House Owners’ lawsuit for the
annulment and stay of execution of the 1
st
article of the Prime Ministry
Circular concerning the application of the provisions of the Prevention
and Control of the Consumption of Tobacco Products Law no. 4207, was
discussed in the Plenary Session of the Chambers for Administrative Cases
and the issue was resolved by the 13
th
Chamber.
The Chamber of Coffee House Owners had argued that the interdictions
in the Act no 4207 violate the freedom of private enterprises and the
property right guaranteed by the Constitution, and constitute a violation of
the principles of equality, proportionality, and necessity.
The 10
th
Chamber stated in its judgment numbered 2009/13450
“Taking into consideration the fact that the consumption of tobacco
products is a widespread habit and a serious problem for public health,
that it also affects the passive smokers, that the children and the youth
being together with smoker adults and taking them as models put the
next generations in danger; in brief, due to big problems concerning the
public health caused by smoking and the environmental effects of tobacco
product consumption, taking legal measures for protection against the
damages caused by tobacco and tobacco products is an obligation resulting
from article 56 of the Constitution and the World Health Organization
Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.”
Additionally, in the following part of the judgment, the court also
states that, “in this context, to protect the public health and to form a
healthy environment, in the other business enterprises and also in coffee
houses, there is no hesitation that some prohibitions and limitations can
be introduced by the legislature against tobacco product consumption.
However, it is necessary that the imposed limitations and prohibitions do
not obstruct disproportionally the survival of these enterprises and do not
subject their liberty of work to some severe requirements. As a matter
*
Article of June 2010