Several members of the Lithuanian parliament, the Seimas, petitioned the Constitutional Court to investigate whether the ban on advertising of tobacco under the Law on Tobacco Control (and of alcohol) was in compliance with the Constitution, specifically the rights of expression, information, commerce, and equality. 

The Court upheld the advertising ban, distinguishing advertisements — which are one-sided and omit product harms — from information generally, which remained unrestricted. The Court also rejected petitioners’ argument that the ban would violate the right to commerce, stating that the state does not have a duty to “decisively support any economic efforts or activity,” and that it would be unfair and immoral to “seek material welfare in such a way which is harmful to people’s health.” Similarly, the Court dismissed the claim regarding right to equal protection on the basis that the ban on advertising alone did not constitute discrimination, as it concerned the whole of society and not particular groups of people.

However, the Court did find that the specific provision within the advertising ban which regulated products and articles “not directly linked with tobacco products and their consumption” was too broad in scope and violated the constitutional right to expression. The Court also struck down the provision allowing the government to define "advertisement" at a later date, holding that restrictions on freedom of expression must be established by law.