K.H. v. Y.İ.

A business violated Turkey’s law, which prohibits the use of tobacco products in indoor areas such as shopping centers. In addressing whether employees of a business unreasonably obstructed health officials from enforcing the smoking law, the court noted that the business did not qualify for any of the law’s exemptions even though it had a stand-alone ventilation system.  As for the criminal violations, the court found that the business owner was not criminally liable and postponed its decision regarding the other two defendants: an employee and a patron of the business. 

K.H. v. Y.Y, Karsiyaka 4th Criminal Court of First Instance, File-Ruling No. 2008/476 - 2009/434.

  • Turkey
  • Nov 6, 2009
  • Karsiyaka 4th Criminal Court of First Instance
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff K.H.

Defendant

  • E.A.
  • T.O.
  • Y.İ.

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

None

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"In the law numbered 4207 for the prevention of tobacco related harm and control issued to protect community, child and youth health, and the prime ministry decree within this scope that was published in the Official Newspaper dated 06/05/2008 in which the application matters are specified, it is set forth that tobacco products cannot be consumed in closed areas such as commercial centers and shopping centers and it has been ruled that in areas where smoking is not allowed, where the areas have not been isolated and where the circulation of air has not been blocked like restaurants, cafes, cafeterias and pubs, tobacco products cannot be consumed. In this context, at the place of business called [REDACTED] owned by defendant Y.i. located insider the ege park shopping center it has been determined from the scope of the file, the pictures submitted during the hearing and the statements of the defense and witnesses that there are places to sit in front of this location and that the elements of isolation and blockage of air circulation are not applicable here and therefore does not constitute a place of work that is an exception to the non-smoking rule this the claims and defenses made to the effect that smoking is allowed in this workplace are void of legal basis."