Smoking prohibition in gambling venues complies with the Constitution
On Monday, 30 June, the Constitutional Court delivered a judgement in case No. 2024-23-01. The Court declared that the provision which prohibits smoking in gambling venues complies with the Constitution. The Court emphasised that the prohibition ensured a fair balance between the restriction of the right to own property of the individual and public health, thus serving a broader and long-term objective, specifically, protection of society as a whole.
The case was initiated before the Constitutional Court on the basis of the application submitted by a merchant whose commercial activity is related to the organisation of gambling activities. As of 1 January 2025, the contested provision prohibits the use of designated smoking areas within gambling venues, which had been lawfully established by the applicant. The contested provision infringes the right of the applicant to own property as stipulated in the first three sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution and violates the principle of protection of legitimate expectations provided for in Article 1 of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court concluded that the range of persons affected by the contested provision was broader and covered not only active smokers, but also other persons exposed to the effects of smoking, i.e. staff members and non-smokers. The prohibition in gambling venues aims to protect the physical health of both visitors and staff members, as it prevents the health risks associated with the inhalation of tobacco smoke and exposure thereto. The Constitutional Court highlighted that the health of both individuals and society ought to be regarded as a value contributing to the well-being of society.
At the same time, the Constitutional Court concluded that the prohibition of smoking in gambling venues was aimed at changing gambler behaviour, as they are given the opportunity to reflect on their behaviour and make a decision to quit gambling or to maintain the previous course of action. Hence, the smoking prohibition also serves as a mechanism to prevent gambling addiction, helping gamblers in regaining control over their actions. However, designated smoking areas within a gambling venue would not constitute a suitable alternative, as they would not provide a break from gambling. The smoking prohibition in gambling venues also serves the public interest – the goal is to mitigate addiction and reduce social tension.
In view of the above, the Constitutional Court recognised that the restriction of the right to own property was justified by the benefits gained by society as a whole. The contested provision seeks to protect all persons present in gambling venues, both active smokers and persons exposed to smoking, including staff members, from disease risks and also to lower the risk of gambling addiction among certain gamblers.
The Constitutional Court concluded that in the present case, the transition to the new legal framework was ensured in a manner consistent with the principle of protection of legitimate expectations. Given that the contested provision was adopted on 11 January 2024 and entered into force only on 1 January 2025, gambling operators had almost a full year to adapt their business practices to the new legal framework. The Constitutional Court also pointed out that the prohibition contained in the contested provision affected only those merchants who, on the basis of Section 10, Paragraph four of the Law on the Handling of Tobacco Products, Tobacco Substitute Products, Herbal Products for Smoking, Electronic Smoking Devices and Their Liquids, had chosen to establish designated smoking areas within gambling venues owned by them. The establishment of such designated smoking areas was not mandatory if the gambling operator had initially prohibited smoking within the premises.
Moreover, neither the contested provision nor the Law as a whole prohibits merchants from modifying the premises at their own discretion or from using the premises for non-smoking purposes. Adapting designated smoking areas for other purposes may require a certain financial investment from gambling operators, for example, if they choose to relocate the premises, offer new services for visitors, or even close them down. However, such a financial restriction is also to be regarded as proportionate in relation to the benefit derived from the contested provision by gambling venue visitors, staff members, and society as a whole.
In the light of the above, the Constitutional Court declared that Section 12 of the law “Amendments to the Law on the Handling of Tobacco Products, Tobacco Substitute Products, Herbal Products for Smoking, Electronic Smoking Devices and Their Liquids”, insofar as it supplements Section 10, Paragraph two of the Law with Clause 17, complies with Article 1 and the first three sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution.
The judgement of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal; the judgment shall enter into force as of the date of its publication in the official gazette Latvijas Vēstnesis.
Linked case: 2024-23-01