Nobleza Piccardo v. Provincia de Santa Fe

Nobleza Piccardo, a BAT affiliate, challenged the constitutionality of a sub-national law that established a complete ban on tobacco advertisement, promotion and sponsorship in the Province of Santa Fe. The tobacco company argued that this measure violated freedom of expression and commercial freedoms and that sub-national governments were not entitled to legislate in these matters. The Argentine Supreme Court ruled in favor of the sub-national tobacco control law, finding that this ban was a reasonable restriction of commercial freedoms. Considering the impact of tobacco use, the Court connected these measures to be obligations derived from the right to life and the right to health. With regards to freedom of expression, the Court found that commercial speech is not entitled the same level of protection as political or social speeches. The Court also understands that health is an area of concurrent power and thus shared by both the federal and the sub-national governments. Notably, even though Argentina has not ratified the FCTC, the Court uses it as an international standard for tobacco control policies. 

Nobleza Piccardo S.A.I.C. y F. c/ Provincia de Santa Fe, 188/2006 (42-N)/CS1, Corte Suprema de Justicia (2015)

  • Argentina
  • Oct 27, 2015
  • Supreme Court of Justice
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff Nobleza Piccardo S.A.I.C. y F.

Defendant Provincia de Santa Fe

Legislation Cited

International/Regional Instruments Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"The same attitude should be adopted with respect to the approach to Art. 8 of Law 12.432, concerning the prohibition of promotion and sponsorship of sports and cultural events, and of taking part in them with apparel containing advertising for companies and/or brands engaged in the production and/or distribution of tobacco and its derivatives. Although it differs from the letter of Art. 8 of the national regimen, prohibiting “manufacturers and merchants of products made from tobacco to engage in sponsorship and underwriting of brands at any type of public activity or event, and through any communications medium,” it appears to be an appropriate restriction as a curtailment of certain sporting activities, considering that it falls – for the reasons set forth heretofore – within the purview of the provinces to authorize them in the domain of their respective jurisdictions. In consequence, the complaint invoked on this score can also not be upheld."
"From the foregoing legal decisions cited by way of example, it can be gleaned that in comparative law there is a tendency towards upholding the prima facie validity of legislative measures aimed at restricting, and even banning – as in the case of the current proceedings – the commercial advertising of tobacco products. The common features of these different decisions are related to the admissibility of such restrictions, based on the public health effects caused by tobacco consumption; the possibility that for these constitutionally valuable purposes, restrictions can be imposed on business and on the protected domain of commercial speech; and the need to exercise a judgment of proportionality to determine the validity of the balancing of means and ends, in terms of the limitation imposed on advertising for tobacco and the discouragement of consumption, particularly in consideration of subjects of special protections."
"The Constitutional Court of the Federal Republic of Germany, for its part, in considering the different regulations in this field, characterized the obligation of the tobacco companies to place warnings on their products on the danger to health posed by smoking as a relatively mild interference. On the other hand, it found that a total ban of any kind of tobacco products would constitute a severe interference. On the side of contrary arguments bearing on the hazards of smoking, is the importance of the reasons that justify a high level of interference (BVerfGE 95, 173, decision of the Second Federal Constitutional Court, of January 22, 1997, Alexy Robert, "La construcción de los derechos fundamentales,” Ed. ADHoc, Buenos Aires, 2012, pages 27 and following)."
"In the framework of French constitutional oversight, in its Decision N° 90-283 DC of January 8, 1991, the Constitutional Council declared Art. 2 of the law for the control of tobacco and alcoholism, which prohibits any publicity or advertising, directly or indirectly, of alcohol or tobacco products, as well as any free distribution thereof, to be in accordance with the French Constitution. According to the Council, a legislative decision of this nature is constitutional, since it is based on (i) the state’s authority, also existing in French law, to regulate advertising of goods and services; and (ii) a limitation of this nature has a direct impact on the guarantee of the constitutional principle of protection of the public health. It was affirmed, moreover, that the ban could not be construed as impinging on free enterprise, inasmuch as restrictions can also be imposed on this right in connection with the public interest and, in any case, the legislation analyzed does not place restrictions on the production, distribution and sale of tobacco resources."
"With regard to the right to health, the Court has said that it is closely related to the right to life, and this is the first right of the individual that is recognized and guaranteed by the National Constitution; man is the axis and core of the entire legal system, and as an end in himself – over and above his transcendent character – his person is inviolable and constitutes a fundamental value, with respect to which the remaining values always have an instrumental character (Judgments: 329:4918). The guardianship of this right is responsibility enshrined by the National Constitution, and included in the provincial Constitution (Arts. 5 and 121), and by international treaties that have such a hierarchy (Art. 75, sub-paragraph 22, of the Constitution; Art. 12, sub-paragraph c of the International Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; sub-paragraph 1 of Arts. 4 and 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights –the Pact of San José, Costa Rica; sub-paragraph 1, of Art. 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and also Art. XI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, and Art. 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Judgments: 330:4647, and case CSJ 670/2006 (42-S)/CS1 "Sánchez, Elvira Norma v. Instituto Nacional de Servicios Sociales para Jubilados y Pensionados y otro,” judgment of May 15, 2007)."