WITH THE hours ticking away to the smoking ban, the association of bar owners warned yesterday that the new law will be unenforceable as it is riddled with holes.
Association head Fanos Leventis claimed, for example, that establishments have not been informed on the proper procedures for putting up no-smoking signs.
He said that while the law requires all bars and restaurants to put up appropriate signs, it does not clarify what “appropriate” is.
The signs must be placed in highly visible spots and the writing must be readily legible. Failure to do so will result in a fine of up to €1,000.
“Who will decide what is appropriate? The police officer conducting the checks on-site? So the policeman will have to become lawman, judge and jury all at the same time,” Leventis said.
Leventis believes that if the previous law – which had provided for smoking and non-smoking areas – had been properly formulated and implemented, there would have been no need for an outright smoking ban.
As it stands, the new law provides for a fine of up to €2,000 for the person caught smoking where they shouldn’t be and also for the person responsible for allowing it to happen.
There are also provisions for on-the-spot fines, which currently stand at €37 – for both patrons and owners of establishments – but the police have proposed upping it to €85.
However, due to an oversight by lawmakers, a by-law governing on-the-spot fines does not presently include owners of establishments, only customers. In practical terms, this means police cannot issue an on-the-spot fine for the offending patron only, because that would constitute discrimination.
To get around this, the police will be pressing charges against both the patron and the owner, who would then appear in court and be liable for a €2,000 fine.
The police have proposed an amendment to the relevant by-law that would correct this discrepancy. The amendment was due to be discussed by the Cabinet.
Bar owners meanwhile are up in arms over another clause in the ban which states that persons responsible for the establishment are liable on a per-infraction basis. To illustrate, if 30 patrons are found smoking, they each would be served an on-the-spot fine (assuming the law is amended in the meantime to allow this), whereas the owner would be issued 30 fines.
Leventis said this was unfair on the owners, who were considering challenging the clause with the Supreme Court.
He also played another card, warning that if bar owners saw that business was taking a hit because of the ban, they would not hesitate to cut costs by laying off employees.