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.
Two retail stores and two tobacco manufacturers challenged the constitutionality of a Belgian law regulating tobacco sales based on a store's size. The retail plaintiffs alleged that the law violated equal rights protections as the law banned tobacco sales in stores larger than 400 m² while still permitting tobacco sales in stores smaller than 400 m² .
The Council of Ministers defended the law by noting that larger stores were more frequented by the general public, including by families with children. The Council also noted that the law was merely a first step towards further reducing the number of tobacco sale points.
The Constitutional Court concluded that the size-based sales restrictions violated equality rights protections. While acknowledging the broad discretion of the Council to pursue public health goals, the Court held that a store size-based sale restrictions was not rationally linked to the health risk of products it sold. However, given public health objectives, the court allowed the ban to remain in effect until December 31, 2026, to permit amendments.
The two tobacco manufacturer plaintiffs also challenged the law’s tobacco manufacturer sale restrictions, display bans, age checks and bans on temporary sale points. The Court dismissed all of these challenges, as each was a reasonable public health measure.