The Constitutional Court has ruled that provisions restricting the addition of flavours to electronic smoking devices comply with the Constitution.
Two companies—Pro Vape, which operates under the Salt brand, and MASS Industry SIA—brought applications challenging the state-imposed flavour restrictions for electronic smoking devices. The complaints were filed before the restrictions entered into force.
The businesses contested amendments stipulating that it is prohibited to place on the market e-liquids for electronic smoking devices and tobacco substitute products that contain flavourings, except for flavourings that produce a tobacco smell or taste. It is likewise prohibited to place on the market tobacco products if smoking tobacco products—including newly introduced tobacco products—contain additives that facilitate inhalation or nicotine intake, including menthol, its analogues, and geraniol.
The Court consolidated the two applications into a single case and examined whether the amendments to the Law on the Circulation of Tobacco Products, Tobacco Substitute Products, Herbal Smoking Products, Electronic Smoking Devices and the Liquids Thereof, adopted by the Saeima at the beginning of 2024 and, from the start of 2025, banning the marketing of flavoured e-liquids and tobacco substitute products, are compatible with the first three sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution.
The Court found that the contested regulation interferes with the applicants’ commercial activities
as previously conducted and thus restricts their constitutionally guaranteed property rights.
Citing available research, the Court noted that nicotine is among the most addictive substances known and poses serious health risks. Several studies indicate that since 2020 the prevalence of e-cigarette use in Latvia has grown significantly faster than in other EU member states, with an especially sharp increase among children and adolescents.
Despite a ban on the sale of e-cigarettes to minors, many young people have tried or used them; moreover, research shows that adolescents require less nicotine and a shorter period than adults to develop addiction.
The Court stated that the purpose of the contested regulation is to protect the right to health, especially of children and young people, by setting stricter rules for nicotine-containing products. The legitimate aim of the fundamental rights restriction is therefore to protect public health, particularly that of children and adolescents, and to prevent the risk of developing nicotine addiction. Public health is a matter of national importance, so the restriction also serves the protection of societal welfare.
At the same time,
the Court concluded that the legislature has adopted a comprehensive approach to reducing
the availability of nicotine-containing products in the interest of public health and welfare, and the contested regulation is part of a broader package of measures to achieve this aim. The legitimate objectives of restricting fundamental rights could not be achieved as effectively through any single measure alone. The regulation reduces the future burden on the health-care system and disease risks for future generations, the Court found.
The Court stressed that the regulation ensures a fair balance between restrictions on individual property rights and public health, serving a broader, long-term goal—the protection of society as a whole. Given the rapid increase in consumption of these products in Latvia and the associated health risks, the lawful interests of individual businesses cannot be placed above public health interests. Thus, the benefit to society from the restriction outweighs the harm to the businesses, the Court held.
At the same time, taking into account developments in the illicit market and businesses’ attempts to offer new solutions for nicotine products at points of sale, the Court drew the legislature’s attention to the need for ongoing monitoring to ensure that measures aimed at reducing consumption of nicotine-containing products effectively protect the health and welfare of society—especially children and adolescents.
The Court also pointed out that businesses distributing tobacco-free nicotine pouches and those distributing other products defined in the Law on the Circulation of Tobacco and its Substitute Products, or
nicotine-containing medicines, are not comparable within the meaning of the principle of legal equality.
In light of the above, the Court found that Section 3, Paragraph one, Clause 8; Section 3, Paragraph 5¹, Clause 3; and the Annex of the Law on the Circulation of Tobacco Products, Tobacco Substitute Products, Herbal Smoking Products, Electronic Smoking Devices and the Liquids Thereof conform to the first sentence of Article 91 and the first three sentences of Article 105 of the Constitution; and that Section 3, Paragraph two, Clause 4 (insofar as it concerns e-liquids) and Section 3, Paragraph five, Clause 3 (insofar as it concerns the additives referred to in Section 3, Paragraph two, Clause 4) conform to the first three sentences of Article 105.
As previously reported, on 11 January 2024 the Saeima adopted extensive amendments to the Law on the Circulation of Tobacco Products, Tobacco Substitute Products, Herbal Smoking Products, Electronic Smoking Devices and the Liquids Thereof, including a ban from 2025 on placing on the market e-liquids and tobacco substitute products that contain flavourings. As exceptions, the flavourings listed in the Annex that produce a tobacco smell or taste are permitted for e-liquids and tobacco substitute products.
Various other restrictions on the distribution of tobacco substitute products were introduced earlier. The law also prohibits the sale to consumers and purchase by consumers of tobacco products, tobacco substitute products, electronic smoking devices and their refill containers via distance communication (including from outside the EU/EEA).
The law restricts the manufacture and marketing of tobacco and other smoking products that visually resemble sweets,
snacks, or toys. The amendments also set requirements that tobacco substitute products must meet to be placed on the market, including composition standards, packaging design conditions, and mandatory product information.
Existing sales, advertising, sponsorship and packaging restrictions already applicable to tobacco products, e-devices and refill containers are now extended to tobacco substitute products and tobacco heating devices. Monetary penalties are set for violations of the rules on the circulation of tobacco substitute products, such as purchasing them online. Previously, tobacco heating devices and tobacco substitute products were not regulated by law.
The maximum nicotine concentration in a tobacco substitute product is set at four milligrams per gram.
A tobacco substitute product is defined in law as a product that contains or does not contain nicotine
(excluding medicinal products, tobacco products, herbal smoking products, electronic smoking devices and their refill containers) and is intended to be used similarly to tobacco products, herbal smoking products, smoke-free tobacco products, electronic smoking devices and their refill containers, regardless of nicotine content or mode of use.
The State Revenue Service (VID) is empowered to confiscate tobacco products, tobacco substitute products, electronic smoking devices and their refill containers sent in commercial postal consignments from third countries where the recipient is a natural person. The State Police and municipal police already had powers under the law to monitor compliance with bans on sales of tobacco products, herbal smoking products, electronic smoking devices and refill containers in specified places; these powers are now extended to tobacco substitute products as well.
Penalties have been increased for violations related to tobacco product circulation. For selling tobacco products, tobacco substitute products, herbal smoking products, electronic smoking devices or their refill containers to persons under 20 years of age, the seller may be fined €280–€700, and the legal entity €700–€7,100. Previously, selling these products to persons under 18 could result in fines of €280–€350 for the seller and €700–€1,400 for the legal entity.
Read also: Data breach in 42 Latvian municipalities: DVI imposes 300,000 euro fine on ZZ Dats