By Timothy S. Donahue

Top Takeaways:

• Case dismissed: The European Court of Human Rights ended a challenge to Estonia’s prison smoking ban on procedural grounds.
• Earlier ruling erased: The Grand Chamber’s decision nullifies a 2025 judgment that found the ban violated prisoners’ right to private life.
• No precedent set: The court declined to rule on the legality of prison smoking bans, leaving the broader human rights question unresolved.

The European Court of Human Rights has dismissed a closely watched challenge to Estonia’s prison smoking ban, leaving the country’s prohibition intact and erasing the only European court ruling that had found the policy violated prisoners’ rights.

In a final judgment issued Tuesday, the court’s Grand Chamber struck the case from its docket after determining that the remaining applicants no longer wished to pursue their claims. One applicant died during the proceedings, and the other two had been released from prison and failed to respond to repeated communications from the court.

“For the court, the circumstances strongly support the conclusion that the two applicants in question do not intend to pursue their applications,” the Grand Chamber wrote.

The judges also declined to continue hearing the case on the broader public interest. “In light of the above considerations, the court concludes that no special circumstances relating to respect for human rights require it to continue the examination of the case,” the Grand Chamber wrote.

The ruling means that a split decision issued by a seven-judge chamber in November 2025 never became legally binding.

The earlier 4-3 judgment had concluded that Estonia violated prisoners’ right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights by imposing a total smoking ban across its prisons, while rejecting a separate claim that the policy constituted inhuman or degrading treatment.

Because the Grand Chamber struck the case before issuing a merits decision, the chamber judgment “did not become final and is thus legally void,” leaving no European precedent recognizing a prisoner’s right to smoke.

Estonia introduced its comprehensive prison smoking ban in 2017, prohibiting inmates from possessing tobacco products or smoking-related items anywhere in correctional facilities. The government argued that the measure protects health, reduces exposure to secondhand smoke, improves prison security, lowers fire risk, and prevents cigarettes from serving as prison currency.

The applicants, all long-term smokers housed at Viru Prison, argued that the policy caused nicotine withdrawal and unlawfully interfered with their personal autonomy after unsuccessful challenges in Estonia’s domestic courts.

The Grand Chamber’s procedural decision elicited differing reactions among legal experts.

Amandine Garde of the University of Liverpool and Aikaterini Tsampi of the University of Groningen, who sought permission to intervene in the proceedings, welcomed the outcome, saying it removed what they viewed as the “specter” of a judicially recognized right to smoke.

By contrast, human rights lawyer Barbora Bukovská called the decision “very disappointing,” arguing that the court missed an opportunity to clarify how governments should balance public health objectives with prisoners’ personal autonomy.

The judgment leaves European governments free to continue implementing prison smoking bans without a contrary ruling from the continent’s highest human rights court. At the same time, because the Grand Chamber did not address the merits of Estonia’s policy, the broader legal question of how far governments may restrict tobacco use in custodial settings remains unresolved.