On April 8, 2019, the Constitutional Court upheld the Tobacco Control Law’s provision banning tobacco sales from commercial establishments that are smaller than 20 m^2 (i.e., kiosks) and are located within 200 meters of educational and healthcare facilities. This provision was adopted in May 2015 and came into force on September 17, 2015, but the Moldovan Parliament passed an amendment delaying the effective date to January 1, 2019 for commercial establishments that were in existence before July 1, 2016.
A Member of Parliament filed a complaint alleging that the provision violated several articles of the Constitution, including equal protection, freedom of commerce and entrepreneurial activity, and protection of fair competition, among others.
In upholding the measure, the court concluded that the policy serves a legitimate aim – limiting access by minors and protecting the health of minors and patients – and there were no less restrictive alternative measures that would be as effective in achieving the objectives. The court also cited the four-year delay in implementation given to existing commercial establishments, concluding that this time period provided sufficient time to adapt to the new sales restrictions. The decision is final and cannot be appealed.
Grişciuc, Simion v. Republic of Moldova, Decision no. 9 of 08.04.2019, Constitutional Court of Moldova (Moldova 2019).
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 Court is of the opinion that the regulation of the distance which must exist between commercial establishments wishing to market tobacco products and educational institutions and healthcare facilities may be regarded as a "buffer zone.” The density of commercial establishments that sell tobacco products generates the accessibility of these products, and accessibility in turn leads to the habit of smoking. Furthermore, the density of commercial establishments that sell tobacco products near educational institutions is linked to the high prevalence of smoking among students (see Wing C. Chan, Scott T. Leatherdale, Tobacco retailer density surrounding schools and youth smoking behaviour: a multi-level analysis, Tobacco Induced Diseases, vol. 9, no. 9, 2011, pp. 1 and 2)."
"Furthermore, the Court acknowledges that the alternative measures do not ensure that the purpose aimed at is achieved as effectively (see §§ 55-62 of this Judgment). On the contrary, eliminating the "buffer zone" between establishments marketing tobacco products and the protected groups undermines the coherence of measures to discourage the consumption of tobacco products (see § 61 of this Judgment). At the same time, the legislative body granted sufficient time to the temporary commercial establishments to adapt to the new conditions regarding the marketing of tobacco products (see §§ 74-76 of this Judgment).
The Court therefore notes that the ban on the marketing of tobacco products by temporary commercial establishments in the vicinity of educational institutions and healthcare facilities is not against the constitutional provisions on free competition [Articles 9 para. (3) and 126 para. (2) letter b)], nor against those relating to the restriction of the exercise
of certain rights or freedoms [Article 54]."
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.
On April 8, 2019, the Constitutional Court upheld the Tobacco Control Law’s provision banning tobacco sales from commercial establishments that are smaller than 20 m^2 (i.e., kiosks) and are located within 200 meters of educational and healthcare facilities. This provision was adopted in May 2015 and came into force on September 17, 2015, but the Moldovan Parliament passed an amendment delaying the effective date to January 1, 2019 for commercial establishments that were in existence before July 1, 2016.
A Member of Parliament filed a complaint alleging that the provision violated several articles of the Constitution, including equal protection, freedom of commerce and entrepreneurial activity, and protection of fair competition, among others.
In upholding the measure, the court concluded that the policy serves a legitimate aim – limiting access by minors and protecting the health of minors and patients – and there were no less restrictive alternative measures that would be as effective in achieving the objectives. The court also cited the four-year delay in implementation given to existing commercial establishments, concluding that this time period provided sufficient time to adapt to the new sales restrictions. The decision is final and cannot be appealed.