Guatemala Chamber of Commerce v. Guatemala (Docket 2158-2009)
The Guatemala Chamber of Commerce challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions contained in Guatemala's smoke free law. The petitioner claimed that, among other things, the challenged provisions, which prohibit smoking in any enclosed space except for hotels and motels and establish pecuniary penalties for offenders, violate the freedom of industry and commerce. Referencing the FCTC and emphasizing that the Guatemala Constitution recognizes health as a fundamental right of every person, the Court upheld the law. Among other reasons for its decision, the Court concluded that the purpose of the challenged provisions is to regulate tobacco consumption to protect the right to health, not to limit the sale of tobacco products.
Guatemala Chamber of Commerce v. Guatemala (Docket 2158-2009), Corte de Constitucionalidad [Constitutional Court of the Republic of Guatemala, C.A.] (2009).
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
A violation of the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health. Public health advocates may claim the public’s right to health is violated by weak tobacco control measures, industry tactics, or an organization’s or smokers’ actions.
A violation of the right to carry on trade, business, or profession of a person’s choice. This right may also be called the right to free enterprise or economic freedom. The industry may argue that a business should be able to conduct its business without government regulation, including whether or not to be smoke free.
A violation of the right to not be killed by another person. Arguments may also be similar or tied to right to health arguments.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"With respect to the first grounds of the challenge, this Court considers that the alleged violation of Article 43 of the Constitution does not exist, inasmuch as the establishing of limits on smoking in certain places does not imply, as alleged by the claimant in its brief, that the State has promoted a limitation of the freedom of industry and commerce of the entities manufacturing, producing, distributing and marketing tobacco products, as the purpose of the challenged norm is not to regulate such activities, but to regulate their consumption to protect the right to health of the consumers themselves, and that of non smokers."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
The Guatemala Chamber of Commerce challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions contained in Guatemala's smoke free law. The petitioner claimed that, among other things, the challenged provisions, which prohibit smoking in any enclosed space except for hotels and motels and establish pecuniary penalties for offenders, violate the freedom of industry and commerce. Referencing the FCTC and emphasizing that the Guatemala Constitution recognizes health as a fundamental right of every person, the Court upheld the law. Among other reasons for its decision, the Court concluded that the purpose of the challenged provisions is to regulate tobacco consumption to protect the right to health, not to limit the sale of tobacco products.