The Constitutional Court (CC) recognized the constitutionality of the norms limiting the addition of flavorings to electronic smoking devices.
Two companies, "Pro Vape," a manufacturer of electronic cigarettes under the brand "Salt," and LLC "MASS Industry," have approached the court. The complaints were filed before the restrictions came into force.
Sellers of electronic smoking devices challenged the amendments to the law that prohibit the release of liquids for electronic smoking devices and tobacco substitutes containing flavorings, except for flavorings that imitate the smell or taste of tobacco. It is also prohibited to market tobacco products if they contain additives that facilitate the inhalation or absorption of nicotine, including menthol, its analogs, and geraniol.
The court combined the two applications into one case and examined whether the amendments comply with the first three sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court (CC) stated that the contested norms represent an interference in the commercial activities of the plaintiffs and thus limit their constitutionally guaranteed right to property.
The court also noted that nicotine is one of the most potent addictive substances. According to several studies, the increase in electronic cigarette smoking in Latvia since 2020 has been significantly stronger than in other European Union member states, and this increase has been particularly high among children and youth.
The CC recognized that the contested norms are aimed at protecting the right to health for people, particularly children and youth, by introducing stricter regulation of nicotine-containing products. Therefore, the legitimate aim of the restriction of rights is the protection of public health. Public health is a matter of state importance, and thus this restriction also serves to protect public welfare.
The contested norms reduce the future burden on the healthcare system and the associated disease risks for future generations, concluded the court.
The court emphasized that the contested norms provide a fair balance between the restriction of property rights and public health, serving a broader and long-term goal of protecting society as a whole. Thus, the benefit to society from restricting one of the fundamental rights outweighs the harm caused to traders, the court ruled.
