Four prisoners who were smokers alleged that a smoking ban in Estonian prisons violated their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. 

Specifically, the Applicants alleged that the smoking ban infringed on their rights under Article 3 (freedom from torture and inhumane treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for family and private life).

The Supreme Court of Lithuania upheld the prison smoking ban as constitutional noting that any rights infringement was proportionate as the smoking ban furthered public health and was accompanied by supports for nicotine withdrawal. The prisoners appealed to the European Court of Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights considered the Applicants’ Article 3 claims regarding torture and inhumane treatment and concluded that the Applicants were not treated in a manner which rose to the threshold for an Article 3 violation. 

In considering Article 8, the European Court of Human Rights noted that, in certain circumstances “member States have an obligation under the Convention to take positive measures to protect prisoners against the harmful effects of passive smoking.” The Court also noted that the Estonian authorities are afforded a “considerable margin of appreciation” to address smoking in prisons and affirmed that this “considerable margin of appreciation” is afforded to all member State domestic authorities. 

Despite these positive considerations, the Court ultimately concluded that, in this specific prison case, a complete prohibition was not proportionate because: 

1. The ban was adopted through a Ministerial regulation and local prison house rules, rather than through Parliament (and its accompanying review and debate); and 
    

2. The supporting analysis underpinning the regulation did not consider the impact of a complete prison smoking ban on the personal autonomy of prisoners who smoke. 

The Applicant’s financial claims for personal injury were dismissed.