TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS

Employee, et al. v. Bank San Paolo di Torino

The trial court of Turin petitioned the Constitutional Court to declare certain tobacco control laws unconstitutional.  The trial court observed that the federal government's failure to ban smoking in enclosed workplaces undermined the level of health protection guaranteed by the Constitution's right to health and the principle of reasonableness.  The Court held that the constitutional question was unfounded, finding that the lack of a complete ban on smoking did not violate the Constitution.  The Court noted that, under existing regulations, employers were required to take adequate steps to reduce the risk from secondhand smoking in the workplace to a level so low as to prevent jeopardizing the health of workers.

Employee, et al. v. Bank San Paolo di Torino, Judgment 399/1996, G. U. 28/12/1996, Corte Costituzionale [Constitutional Court of Italy] (1996).

  • Italy
  • Dec 20, 1996
  • Constitutional Court of Italy (Corte Costituzionale)
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff 300 Employees

Defendant Bank San Paolo di Torino

Legislation Cited

Law No. 584 of November 11, 1975, Ban on smoking in determined sites and on public means of transport (as amended)

Related Documents

None

Type of Litigation

Enforcement Action by a Private Individual or Private Entity
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.
Action against Government to Advance the Public Interest
An individual or organization may sue their own government in order to advance or protect the public interest. For example, an NGO may sue the government claiming the government’s weak tobacco control laws violated their constitutional right to health.

Tobacco Control Topics

Smoke Free Measures
Measures to reduce or eliminate exposure to tobacco smoke. (See FCTC Art. 8)

Substantive Issues

Right to Health
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.
Right to Equal Protection
A violation of the right to equal protection under the law, or another form of discrimination. The industry may claim that regulations discriminate against tobacco companies or tobacco products. Smokers may claim that addiction is a health condition, so regulations discriminate against them based on their health condition. Facilities subject to smoke free laws may claim that smoke free (SF) exceptions (e.g., hotel rooms, mental hospitals, etc.) unfairly discriminate against SF businesses because the law should apply to all locations equally.
Right to a Healthy and Safe Environment
A violation of the right to live in a safe and healthy environment.
Reactionary Regulation
Regulatory measures consisting of political actions designed to punish the tobacco industry or tobacco users. The industry may argue such arbitrary and capricious regulations will fail to achieve the stated objective. They may also argue that the measures are too extreme, prohibitively expensive, and violate the principle of proportionality.

Type of Tobacco Product

None

View Limitations
1400 I Street N.W.,
Suite 1200,
Washington, DC 20005
United States of America

Phone: (202) 296-5469

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is a BBB-accredited charity and a
Guidestar Exchange Gold Participant.

© 2025 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids | Trademarks | Copyright | Privacy

Site created and maintained by