A law firm in Côte d’Ivoire challenged a decree restricting smoking in public places. The plaintiff advanced five arguments, including: that a lawyer’s office was not a public place and therefore was not subject to the Decree’s smoking restrictions; and that the Decree did not have accompanying rationale, was disproportionate to its objective, outside of the President’s jurisdiction, and violated the right to property as protected by the Constitution. 

The court rejected all arguments. First, the court noted that a law office is a closed space and is therefore subject to the Decree’s smoking restrictions. Second, the court noted that decrees are not required to have supporting rationale. Third, the Court concluded the Decree was not disproportionate. The Decree’s objective was to combat smoking in public places and all of the Decree’s measures were necessary to this objective. Fourth, the court concluded the Decree was within the President’s powers as it was issued pursuant to the President’s police powers and because it implemented the WHO FCTC, which had already been ratified by Côte d’Ivoire. Finally, the Court rejected the argument that the Decree violated the Constitution. As the Decree restricted smokers’ rights without prohibiting smoking completely, the smokers’ constitutional rights were not violated. Further, the Court noted that, even if the right to property had been violated, property rights are not absolute and general interest public health objectives can justify infringements on such rights.