A Moldovan national complained of violations of his human rights during his detention and imprisonment by the Moldovan government. The plaintiff alleged that the overcrowded, unsanitary and smoke-filled facilities constituted inhumane and degrading treatment. The plaintiff’s asthma was significantly aggravated by being held in a non-ventilated room with smokers for 23 hours per day. He was further denied any medication for his condition. He also alleged that he was denied contact with his family and access to an effective remedy for his complaints during his imprisonment. The court ultimately held that his treatment, including his exposure to cigarette smoke, amounted to violations of the Human Rights Convention and assessed damages owed to the plaintiff of 4,500 euros.
Ostrovar v. Moldova, Application no. 35207/03, European Court of Human Rights (Feb. 15, 2006).
An individual or organization may seek civil damages against a tobacco company based on the claim that the use of tobacco products causes disease or death. Some of these cases will relate to general tobacco products, while others will relate to specific subcategories of tobacco products--for example, light or low products, menthol or other flavored products. Additionally, there may be cases relating to exposure to secondhand smoke.
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.
A violation of the right to live in a safe and healthy environment.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
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 further notes that the Government do not deny that the applicant was kept in a cell with prisoners who were permitted to smoke in the cell. At the same time it is an undisputed fact that the applicant was suffering from asthma and that the prison authorities were aware of his condition but did not take any steps to separate him from smokers. In its decision on admissibility of 22 March 2005 the Court held, in respect of the Government's contention that the applicant should have requested a transfer to a non-smoking cell, that that remedy was not effective. Accordingly, the Court considers that the Government did not fulfil their obligation to safeguard the applicant's health and instead allowed him to be exposed to cigarette smoke, which was dangerous in view of his medical condition, particularly, since the applicant was kept in the cell twenty-three hours a day."
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.
A Moldovan national complained of violations of his human rights during his detention and imprisonment by the Moldovan government. The plaintiff alleged that the overcrowded, unsanitary and smoke-filled facilities constituted inhumane and degrading treatment. The plaintiff’s asthma was significantly aggravated by being held in a non-ventilated room with smokers for 23 hours per day. He was further denied any medication for his condition. He also alleged that he was denied contact with his family and access to an effective remedy for his complaints during his imprisonment. The court ultimately held that his treatment, including his exposure to cigarette smoke, amounted to violations of the Human Rights Convention and assessed damages owed to the plaintiff of 4,500 euros.