Estonia’s prison smoking ban ashed by top European rights court

(CN) — Estonia wanted cleaner, safer prisons when it outlawed smoking behind bars. But that blanket ban, Europe’s top human rights judges said Tuesday, turned a health measure into a rights problem.

The European Court of Human Rights found that Estonia failed to strike a fair balance between protecting health and respecting prisoners’ autonomy. Banning smoking altogether, the judges said, went further than necessary and stripped inmates of a personal choice that falls within private life. Even in prison, the court stressed, people retain some control over their own bodies and routines.

The case was brought by four inmates who said the sudden ban left them struggling with withdrawal and stress in an already restrictive environment. Introduced in 2017, the rule prohibited smoking anywhere in prisons, indoors or out.

The government argued the policy aimed to protect health, prevent fires and keep nonsmokers safe from secondhand smoke. The judges agreed those goals were legitimate but said Estonia crossed the line by removing even limited smoking areas. As the court put it, “from the prisoners’ perspective, smoking may be viewed not only as a mere unhealthy habit but also as a means of relieving anxiety and tension.”

The court said Estonia never fully considered how the ban affected inmates’ ability to make everyday decisions for themselves. While protecting health is legitimate, the judges noted, authorities must still weigh that goal against individual freedom and consider less restrictive options — for example, allowing smoking in limited outdoor areas.

The judges, however, dismissed the inmates’ argument that the ban was cruel or degrading, finding that the withdrawal symptoms they described, while clearly uncomfortable, didn’t reach the level of severity needed to qualify as inhumane treatment. The measure, they said, was tough but fell short of cruelty.

The judgment came down to a razor-thin majority. By a 4-3 vote, the court found that Estonia’s total prison smoking ban violated the right to private life. Since one of the four applicants had their complaint dismissed, the Estonian government was ordered to pay the remaining three 1,500 euros (about $1,720) each in legal costs and expenses, but no additional compensation.

The close split reflected deep disagreement within the bench. Three judges partly dissented. Judges Peeter Roosma and Úna Ní Raifeartaigh argued jointly that Estonia acted lawfully to protect health, safety and order in prisons, noting that the restrictions had been phased in gradually and paired with counseling support for inmates.

Judge Darian Pavli went a step further, warning that “if everything becomes a ‘fundamental right,’ it tends to cheapen incrementally the main currency of the convention.” He dismissed the idea that smoking could ever count as such a right, writing that “smoking is merely a lifestyle choice that, however addictive it may become, can hardly be considered a core trait of one’s personality or a significant means of self-fulfillment.” To Pavli, the ruling turned a personal habit, not a core human freedom, into something resembling a constitutional guarantee.

Judge Georgios Serghides agreed with most of the decision but parted ways on one key point — compensation. He argued that simply acknowledging a rights violation wasn’t enough to make up for what the prisoners went through, saying they deserved something more tangible for the distress they suffered.

Aikaterini Tsampi, an international law professor at the University of Groningen, noted that the finding “came with an unusually high number of separate opinions.” She cautioned that reading it as creating a “right to smoke in prison” could set back the progress many countries have made on tobacco control through international health agreements.

However, Tsampi added that it was still important that the court acknowledged Estonia’s aims — protecting people’s health and maintaining order — as legitimate, even though it ultimately found the blanket ban too extreme.

A spokesperson for the Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs told Courthouse News that it will “take time to analyze it, including whether there may be grounds for referring the case to the Grand Chamber.”

Lawyers for the applicants did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The judgment will become final in three months unless either side seeks referral to the Grand Chamber.

Courthouse News reporter Eunseo Hong is based in the Netherlands.