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 petitioners filed an appeal for legal protection, challenging the constitutionality of two administrative decrees that implemented Article 8 and Article 11 of the FCTC. One of the decrees provided warning and labeling requirements for tobacco products, and the other one established that enclosed public places, workplaces, and public transportation were 100% smoke-free places.
The Court held that, even though the FCTC had become legally binding to Paraguay upon its ratification, the provisions implementing the treaty needed to be adopted first by a law enacted by Congress. According to the Court, the FCTC contained only “programmatic” clauses and not “self-enforcing” provisions. The Court stated that the Executive Branch’s decrees established duties, obligations, and restrictions not allowed under the National Constitution, the law ratifying the FCTC, or the Sanitary Code. Further, one of the decrees established infractions and penalties, violating the principle of criminal legality, and was enacted in ignorance of a previous law that protected non-smokers, which was entirely in force. Therefore, both administrative decrees were declared unconstitutional, as the Executive Branch had issued them in violation of the separation of powers, among other principles.