Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
DECISION
Concerning the compliance of the Law of the
Republic of Lithuania "On Partial Amending and
Appending of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania
on Elections to the Seimas", 16 March 1993, with
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
8 November 1993, Vilnius
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
composed from the Justices of the Constitutional Court Algirdas
Gailiūnas, Kęstutis Lapinskas, Zigmas Levickis, Vladas
Pavilonis, Pranas Vytautas Rasimavičius, Stasys Stačiokas,
Teodora Staugaitienė, Stasys Šedbaras and Juozas Žilys,
the secretary of the hearing - Rolanda Stimbirytė,
the petitioner - Zita Šličytė, representative of the group
of the Seimas,
the party concerned - Juozas Bernatonis, the Seimas
representative, deputy Chairman of the Seimas,
pursuant to part 1 of Article 102 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and part 1 of Article 1 of Law on the
Constitutional Court, the Court in its public sitting of 4
November 1993 conducted the investigation of Case No 6,
subsequent to the petition submitted to the Court by a group of
the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania members to investigate
the conformity of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On
Partial Amending and Appending of the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas", 16 March 1993, with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
established:
The petitioner - a group of the Seimas members requests
the Constitutional Court to investigate if the Law "On Partial
Amending and Appending of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania
on Elections to the Seimas", 16 March 1993, is in compliance
with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. The request
is grounded on the provision established in Article 69 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that "laws shall be
enacted in the Seimas in accordance with the procedure
established by law". The petitioner maintains that the law in
dispute was enacted by the Seimas on 16 March 1993 neglecting
the procedure of law enactment established by law, as:
1) in violation of Article 216 of the Provisional Statute
of the Seimas "the head of the Committee for State and Law -
the Commission for Drafting Laws did not announce the date of
the public sitting of the Committee when the possibility would
be provided for the Seimas members to submit proposals and
supplements for consideration. During the consideration no
conclusion on the part of the Committee for Budget was
submitted";
2) "the term for the third consideration was set for the
same day of the Seimas sittings in violation of the procedure
prescribed by law (i.e. in Articles 206 and 209 of the
Provisional Statute of the Seimas), furthermore, the Seimas
majority ignored the proposals and supplements submitted by the
members of the Seimas and did not charge the legislators to
edit the draft law taking them into consideration";
3) "On 16 March 1993 applying speed-up order of
consideration of this law, the first, the second and the third
considerations were conducted on the same day of the Seimas
sittings in violation of the procedure established by law, and,
for this reason, factions and members of the Seimas could not
in due time, at least 24 hours before the consideration, submit
their proposals and amendments in writing".
Furthermore, the petitioner in the request submitted to
the Constitutional Court states that during the consideration
of said draft law in the Seimas on 16 March 1993 "the Seimas
members of Homeland Coalition (Tėvynės Santaros frakcijų
koalicija) demanded in compliance with Article 69 of the
Constitution to establish a list of constitutional laws. This
demand was rejected by the majority of the Seimas and on the
same day the Law "On Partial Amending and Appending of the Law
of the Republic of Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas was
enacted by the vote of 55 Seimas members".
As it is specified in Article 7 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania "any law which contradicts the
Constitution shall be invalid."
On 10 March 1993, the draft law "On Amending the Law of
the Republic of Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas" was
submitted to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania. On the
same day the Seimas decided to include this draft law into the
session schedule of sittings and to apply the speed-up
procedure of consideration.
The first and the second considerations of this law were
conducted in 16 March 1993 morning sitting. The third
consideration was carried out and the law "On Partial Amending
and Appending of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on
Elections to the Seimas" was enacted in the evening sitting of
16 March 1993.
Upon the request of Homeland Coalition (Tėvynės Santaros
frakcijų koalicija) on 23 March 1993 the Seimas formed the
Provisional Committee for the investigation of said violations.
The Provisional Committee of the Seimas, upon the
investigation of the petition submitted by Homeland Coalition
have agreed that the petition points out to the following
violations of the Provisional Statute of the Seimas:
1) the date of the public sitting of the Committee for
State and Law - the Commission for Drafting Laws was not
announced;
2) the conclusion drawn by the Committee for Budget was
not submitted during the consideration;
3) the discussion time as well as the number of
participants was limited;
4) the third consideration was scheduled for the same day
of the Seimas sitting when the first and the second
considerations were conducted;
5) the procedure of amendments and supplements to draft
laws established in Article 208 of the Statute was not
observed.
The Provisional Committee has drawn the following
conclusions pertaining to every fact:
1. The law was drafted on the initiative of J.Bernatonis,
A.Kunčinas and V.Būtėnas, members of the Committee for State
and Law. This draft was investigated in 9 March 1993 sitting of
the Committee for State and Law and was approved by the
majority vote, however, the said draft law was submitted for
consideration and was investigated not upon the instructions of
the Committee but on the initiative of the group of the members
of the Seimas. Thus, the Seimas did not commission the
Committee for State and Law or any other Committee to draft the
law. On the other hand, all the sittings of the Committee for
State and Law with the exception of closed ones are public and
there was no need to inform about it separately, therefore, in
this case requirements set forth in Article 216 of the
Provisional Statute of the Seimas are not applicable and this
Article does not regulate the right of legislative initiative.
2. It is specified in Article 216 of the Provisional
Statute of the Seimas that law enactment should be preceded by
the conclusion drawn by the Committee for Budget and Finance
pertaining to State means and their possible source necessary
to implement a law or decision. As in said draft law the
tendency of saving the expenses is obvious because it contains
a suggestion to diminish the composition of the Central
Electoral Committee, the conclusion of the Committee for Budget
and Finance would evidently have had no sense.
3. The duration of discussions during the first and second
considerations was limited to 40 minutes and speeches to 5
minutes respectively. The duration of discussions and the
number of participants are interrelated, therefore, the
limitation of discussion time causes the limitation of the
number of those who speak. In the opinion of the Committee, in
this case there was no direct violation of Article 218 of the
Provisional Statute of the Seimas. The Seimas members did not
ask to prolong the consideration of the draft law.
4. It is specified in Article 218 of the Provisional
Statute of the Seimas that the third consideration can be
conducted in one of the nearest sittings of the Seimas. The
first and the second considerations were conducted in 16 March
1993 morning sitting and the third consideration - in the
evening sitting of the same day which is in absolute compliance
with Article 218 of the Provisional Statute of the Seimas. It
is established in Article 218 that the third consideration
shall be conducted in conformity with the requirements set
forth in Chapter 23 of the Statute. In the opinion of the
petitioner, there was a violation of Article 206 of the
Provisional Statute of the Seimas. However, this Article
regulates not the course of the third consideration but the
decisions upon the second consideration which in case of
application of speed-up order of consideration is regulated by
Article 218. Thus, in this case, there was no violation of the
Provisional Statute of the Seimas as the third consideration
was conducted on the same day applying speed-up procedure of
law consideration established in Article 218.
5. Article 208 of the Provisional Statute of the Seimas
regulates not the course of the third consideration but the
decisions adopted upon the second consideration. In the event
of application of speed-up order of consideration, the third
consideration is regulated by Articles 209, 210, 211 and 212
and as the third consideration in question met the requirements
established in these Articles, it can be stated that, in this
case, there was no violation of the Provisional Statute of the
Seimas.
The Provisional Committee, upon the investigation of the
facts submitted in the petition of Homeland Coalition (Tėvynės
Santaros frakcijų koalicija) , have drawn a general conclusion
that in the consideration of the draft law "On Partial Amending
and Appending of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on
Elections to the Seimas" there was made some minor formal
violation (the conclusion of the Committee for Budget and
Finance concerning the State means and their possible source
necessary to implement the law - Article 216 - was not
submitted), which did not influence the enactment and the
implementation of said law. On this ground, the Provisional
Committee proposed to leave the enacted law in force.
Three members of the Provisional Committee (The Seimas
members P.Giniotas, S.Pečeliūnas and V.Žiemelis) did not agree
with the conclusions of the Committee and prepared a separate
certificate the main statements of which are as follows:
1. The right of legislative initiative vested in the
Seimas members in compliance with Article 68 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania was restricted as
"the head of the Committee for State and Law - Commission for
Drafting Laws did not inform about the time of the public
sitting of the Committee and when the possibility would be
provided for the Seimas members to submit their proposals and
supplements for consideration" (as it is required by Article
216 of the Provisional Statute of the Seimas)
2. "The Committee for Budget and Finance did not consider
this draft law and did not submit any conclusions" (the
violation of Article 216 of the Provisional Statute of the
Seimas).
3. "In the consideration of this draft law, the discussion
time was limited to 5 minutes and the time allotted for the
consideration of this issue was also limited, therefore, the
majority of those willing to participate in discussions could
not do this which can only be qualified as the limitation of
the number of participants in the discussions. It is specified
in the Provisional Statute that only one limitation can be
applied" (the violation of Article 218 of the Provisional
Statute of the Seimas).
4. "The first and the second considerations of the draft
law ended at 2.30 p.m. of 16 March 1993. The third
consideration was set for the next Seimas sitting, i.e. after 3
p.m. In this case the Seimas members did not have the
possibility to submit their suggestions and supplements for the
third consideration" in conformity with the requirements
established in Article 208 of the Provisional Statute of the
Seimas.
5. "In the process of consideration and voting of this
draft law, an amendment of the title of the draft law was
submitted in verbal form, which was not a formal amendment but
a key one altering the title of the law as well as the essence
of the interpretation of its content. This amendment was
applied in violation of the procedure established in item 4 of
Article 208 of the Provisional Statute of the Seimas, in which
it is specified that new amendments and supplements are not
accepted during the third consideration, except formal
amendments which are not subject to consideration and voting
and are only submitted in writing to the Commission for
Drafting Laws".
The above mentioned members of the Provisional Committee
proposed to abrogate the Seimas decision to enact the Law "On
Partial Amending and Appending of the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas".
Two alternative draft decisions were submitted to the
Seimas. On 4 May 1993, the Seimas by the majority vote
confirmed the draft decision proposed by the Provisional
Committee in approval of the conclusions drawn by this
Committee.
In the process of the preliminary investigation of the
case, the representative of the petitioner submitted the
following supplementary arguments and motives:
1. "The Seimas, by adoption of the new edition of Article
11 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Elections to the
Seimas, renounced the provision that "all political parties and
public political movements participating in an election shall
have the right to equal representation in all electoral
committees". The renunciation of this provision contradicts
Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
which promulgates that all people shall be equal before the
law. As it is well known, people can be physical and juridical
persons, thus Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania guarantees not only the equality of all people before
the law but also the equality of political parties and public
political movements registered as juridical persons. The
granting of exclusive rights to the Society of Lawyers of
Lithuania as well as to political parties and public political
movements that won their mandate of members of the Seimas in
multi - candidate electoral area established in the edition of
Article 11 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania,
does not only contradict Article 29 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania but also denies the opportunity of active
participation in elections to the Seimas to those political
parties and public political movements that did not get seats
in the Seimas by the elections in multi - candidate electoral
area".
"New editions of Articles 13 and 14 of the Law of the
Republic of Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas, establishing
principles of the formation of electoral committees of
electoral areas and districts, by analogy with those of forming
the Central Electoral Committee, also contradicts Article 29 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania".
2. The newly elected Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
"had primarily to establish a list of constitutional laws and
only then start the process of legislation. Unfortunately, this
was not done either within 3,5 months before the enactment of
the Law "On Partial Amending and Appending the Law of the
Republic of Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas" or later.
The draft Law "On the Constitutional Laws of the Republic
of Lithuania" was submitted to the Seimas on 19 October 1993.
Article 2 of the draft Law establishes that the Law of the
Republic of Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas is a
constitutional law. Thus, amending and appending the Law of the
Republic of Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas without having
established a list of constitutional laws, the Seimas has
grossly violated the provisions of Article 69 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania".
3. "The essence of violations enumerated in the
declaration (an appended document to the petition submitted to
the Constitutional Court) of Homeland Coalition (Tėvynės
Santaros frakcijų koalicija) "is that the constitutional right
of legislative initiative vested in the Seimas of the Republic
of Lithuania members in accordance with Article 68 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania was restricted".
The representative of the petitioner has also explained
that "the declaration of Homeland Coalition gives far from
being exhaustive interpretation of Article 218 of the
Provisional Statute of the Seimas and that the joining of
alternative norms into one idea ensues from inaccurate citing
of the law. It also gives a misleading reference to Article
209, though, in reality, Article 208 was cited, as well as
groundlessly relies on Article 208 instead of Article 218 of
the Provisional Statute of the Seimas".
The representative of the party concerned stated that the
petition of a group of the members of the Seimas submitted to
the Constitutional Court on 23 March 1993 with the request to
investigate the compliance of the Law "On Partial Amending and
Appending of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Elections
to the Seimas" with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania does not contain any evidence or arguments confirming
the contradiction of aforesaid law to the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania. The Provisional Committee formed by the
Seimas has also established no violations mentioned above. The
representative of the party concerned, approving of the
conclusions drawn by the Committee, in addition has made the
following retorts:
1. The petitioner states that the conclusions of the
Committee for Budget and Finance were not submitted during the
consideration of said draft law. It is specified in Article 192
of the Provisional Statute of the Seimas as a general norm that
"if the implementation of the law requires state means, the
initiators of draft laws should submit their proposals as well
as the Committee for Budget and Finance along with the
Government should submit their conclusions pertaining to
possible source of means". The special norm established in
Article 216 of the Statute only specifies the term for the
submission of the conclusions drawn by the Committee for Budget
and Finance but it does not define the conditions when they are
indispensable. In this case the initiators of the draft did not
submit the proposals because after the consultations with the
members of the Committee for Budget and Finance they found out
that the implementation of the amended law would not require
additional budget means.
2. The petitioner's statement, that the third
consideration of the draft law could not be conducted earlier
than on the other nearest day of the Seimas sitting, is
groundless. The petitioner presents an erroneous and too
extensive interpretation of special norms established in
Article 218 of the Provisional Statute of the Seimas that
define the application of the speed-up procedure of the
consideration of a law. As defined by special norm established
in Article 218, in case when the speed-up order of the
consideration of a law is applied, the Seimas upon the first
and the second consideration decides to conduct the third one
in one of the nearest sittings of the Seimas. In item 1 of
Article 206 of the Provisional Statute of the Seimas an
analogous general norm is formulated specifying that "the third
consideration may not be conducted earlier than on the other
nearest day of the Seimas sitting", however, it is applied in
all cases with exception of those when the Seimas decide to
consider the law under the speed-up order or emergency order of
consideration. Therefore, the Seimas decision to conduct the
third consideration of the draft law in the nearest sitting,
i.e. in the evening sitting of the same day was in compliance
with the Provisional Statute of the Seimas.
3. The representative of the party concerned does not
agree with the petitioner's statement that in the period
between the first, the second and the third considerations the
edited draft law was not submitted to the Seimas members. In
fact, the first and the second considerations in the morning
sitting of the Seimas ended about 1.30 p.m. whereas the third
consideration started at the end of the evening sitting - i.e.
after 7 p.m., and by this time a newly edited draft law heeding
the remarks and proposals of the Seimas members, had been
submitted. For example, an amendment of P.Papovas, member of
the Seimas, was submitted and considered. However, it was
rejected, as key amendments to the law were proposed. The
remarks of the Seimas members that Article 2 of the Law on
Elections to the Seimas is not in compliance with the
Constitution, were taken into account and an amended draft law
was submitted for the third consideration.
4. The petitioner maintains that by the adoption of this
law procedure of law enactment established in the Constitution
was violated as this law had to be enacted as a constitutional
law. As a matter of fact, in the process of the consideration
of the above mentioned draft law, a number of the Seimas
members suggested establishing a list of constitutional laws,
however, the suggestion was submitted in violation of the
Provisional Statute of the Seimas and without preparation of
necessary drafts. In conformity with Article 69 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania the Seimas shall
establish a list of constitutional laws by a three - fifths
majority vote of the Seimas members. As the Law on Elections to
the Seimas did not have the power of the constitutional law,
the Law on Partial Amending and Appending of it could not be
considered and enacted as a constitutional law.
Subsequent to the above mentioned motives, the
representative of the party concerned is of the opinion that
the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On Partial Amending and
Appending of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Election
to the Seimas" is in compliance with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania, thus, the petitioner's request should
not be complied with. The representative of the party concerned
has also stated that he would not be against the evaluation of
additional arguments of the petitioner's representative by the
Constitutional Court. The representative of the party concerned
has also explained, that universally recognized human and civil
rights and freedoms are established in Chapter of the
Constitution "The Individual and the State". The petitioner's
representative gives too extensive an explanation of the notion
"person" and groundlessly maintains that equality of people
established in Article 29 of the Constitution is applicable to
juridical persons. The consideration of the constitutional law
in dispute was conducted in speed-up order prescribed by the
Provisional Statute of the Seimas in compliance with the right
of legislative initiative established in Article 68 of the
Constitution.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. Concerning the compliance of the procedure of the
enactment of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On Partial
Amending and Appending of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania
on Elections to the Seimas, 16 March 1993, with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
General rules of law enactment are formulated in Article
69 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. It is
specified by which majority vote laws and constitutional laws
shall be adopted. As far as other procedures are concerned, it
is established in the first part of said Article that laws
shall be enacted in the Seimas in accordance with the procedure
established by law. At present, these procedures are
established in the Provisional Statute of the Seimas - a legal
act having the power of law. The procedure of the submission of
draft laws to the Seimas, of three considerations of those
laws, of discussions, voting and other significant issues
pertaining to the process of legislation, are established in
it. In fact, these are the issues of the structure and the
procedure of activities of the Seimas that shall be determined
by the Statute of the Seimas as prescribed by Article 76 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. The self-dependence
of the Seimas is within its competence established in the
Constitution as well as is limited by its duty to act in
compliance with the Constitution and valid laws. The duty of
the Seimas to act in accordance with the procedure of law
enactment established by the Statute of the Seimas not only may
be but, in fact, must be interpreted as a constitutional duty
because it is conditioned by the provision established in part
1 of Article 69 of the Constitution.
It is determined in the Provisional Statute of the Seimas
how to verity the adherence to the procedure of law enactment
prescribed by law and how to resolve disputes ensuing from the
violations of procedure (Article 2121 of the Provisional
Statute of the Seimas). It is also specified in the Statute
that in cases when the Provisional Committee formed by the
Seimas draws the conclusion pointing out to gross violations in
the procedure of legislation, essential violations in the order
of voting as well as other relevant violations of significant
provisions of the Statute that predetermined the decision of
the Seimas on the law, the Seimas resolves by voting whether to
abrogate or to leave in force the act in dispute. Thus, the
conclusion can be drawn that the Seimas itself states if there
was a violation of the procedure of law enactment prescribed by
the Statute of the Seimas, and resolves the disputes that
arise. The perfection of the norms of the Statute is also
within the competence of the Seimas. There was no appeal to the
Constitutional Court on the constitutionality of the above
mentioned and other norms of the Provisional Statute of the
Seimas determining the procedures of consideration and adoption
of draft laws.
The Seimas formed the Provisional Committee to investigate
the said procedural violations. In the conclusions submitted by
the Committee, violations mentioned in the declaration of
Homeland Coalition (Tėvynės Santaros frakcijų koalicija) are
investigated and a generalized conclusion is drawn that during
the consideration of the draft Law "On Partial Amending and
Appending of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Elections
to the Seimas" a minor formal violation has been made (no
conclusion of the Committee for Budget and Finance pertaining
to state means and their possible source necessary for the
implementation of the law was submitted), which had no effect
upon the adoption and implementation of the law in dispute. On
the basis of this, the Provisional Committee proposed to leave
the Law "On Partial Amending and Appending of the Law of the
Republic of Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas", 16 March
1993, in force. Furthermore, the Provisional Committee has
called attention to the fact, that the speed-up procedure of
the consideration of law is not specified accurately enough in
the Provisional Statute of the Seimas, therefore, various
interpretations of norms, causing disputes and
misunderstandings are possible. On 4 May 1993 the Seimas
adopted the decisions in approval of the conclusions drawn by
the Provisional Committee.
The legal proceedings prove that the conclusion of the
Committee for Budget and Finance was not submitted for the
adoption of law, i.e. the requirement established in part 2 of
Article 216 of the Provisional Statute of the Seimas has been
violated. The Court holds that the issue of financing the
elections has in essence been resolved upon the enactment of
the Law on Elections. Thus, even though the above mentioned
procedural violation has been made, the Constitutional Court
does not find a sufficient ground for the conclusion that the
enacted law contradicts the Constitution in accordance with the
procedure of its enactment established by the Constitution.
The legal proceedings also prove that many disagreements
and disputes arose from inaccurate defining of the procedure of
the consideration of draft laws in the Statute and the variety
of interpretations of the norms of the Statute. In the
application of these norms a rule specifying that, in case of
the competition between general and special norms, a special
norm shall be valid, was not always observed.
On the basis of item 4 of part 1 of Article 64 of the Law
on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court
investigates the compliance of legal act with the Constitution
in accordance with the procedure prescribed by this law. The
Constitutional Court draws the conclusion that this procedure
in the adoption of the Law "On Partial Amending and Appending
of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Elections to the
Seimas" was not violated. Thus, there is no ground for
maintaining that the law in dispute contradicts part 1 of
Article 69 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania in
the procedure of its enactment. The petitioner did not raise
the question whether in the adoption of the law in dispute the
norms of part 2 of said Article were violated.
2. Concerning the issue whether the Law "On Partial
Amending and Appending of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania
on the Elections to the Seimas", 16 March 1993, had to be
enacted in accordance with the procedure established by
constitutional laws and not general procedure.
The Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania establishes
a variety of majority votes for the enactment of laws. in
compliance with part 2 of Article 69 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania, laws shall be deemed adopted if the
majority of the Seimas members participating in the sitting
vote in favour thereof. The procedure of the enactment of
constitutional laws is defined in part 3 of said Article: they
shall be deemed adopted if more than half of all the members of
the Seimas vote in the affirmative and shall be amended by at
least a three - fifths majority vote of all the Seimas members.
Due to the above mentioned variety in the procedure of the
adoption of laws, the classification of laws in accordance with
constitutional norms is very significant. The constituent parts
of the Constitution shall primarily be laws established in
Article 150 of the Constitution. Only the Seimas is empowered
with enumerating other constitutional laws. It is determined in
part 3 of Article 69 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania: "The Seimas shall establish a list of constitutional
laws by a three - fifths majority vote of the Seimas members".
Thus, a list of constitutional laws being established only in
accordance with this procedure, laws entering this list shall
be interpreted as constitutional laws, and the rule of their
enactment and amendment by at least a three - fifths majority
vote of all the Seimas members established in the Constitution
shall be applied only to these laws. In the absence of such a
list of constitutional laws, the aforesaid procedure of law
enactment may not be applied to the adoption of any law, except
the law on the establishment of the list of constitutional
laws. Even more groundless are the arguments that amendments
and supplements to an ordinary law may be adopted in accordance
with the rules of the adoption of constitutional laws.
The above mentioned procedure of law enactment and
amendment is not applied to amendments to the Constitution that
can also be called constitutional laws. The procedures of their
amending, consideration and adoption are regulated by Chapter
14 of the Constitution of Republic of Lithuania "Amending the
Constitution".
Constitutional norms do not establish the priorities of
the sequence of consideration or enactment of laws,
constitutional laws included. These issues are within the
competence of the Seimas.
3. Concerning the Compliance of the Law "On Partial
Amending and Appending of the law of the Republic of Lithuania
on Elections to the Seimas", 16 March 1993, with Article 68 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The petitioner maintains that due to procedural violations
made in the adoption of the Law "On Partial Amending and
Appending of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Elections
to the Seimas", 16 March 1993, the right of the Seimas members
to submit proposals and supplements for consideration was
restricted, i.e. the constitutional right of legislative
initiative of the members of the Seimas established in Article
68 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania was
restricted in essence.
The process of legislation is the whole complex of legally
significant acts necessary for the adoption of a law and
performed in rigid sequence of logic and time. The following
stages of the process of legislation are universally
recognized: the realization of the right to legislation, the
consideration of a draft law, the adoption of a draft law, the
promulgation and the enforcement of the enacted law. Only with
the completion of one stage in consecutive order starts
another. The aforesaid consecutive order of the process of
legislation is in essence established in the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania: the realization of the right of
legislative initiative - in Article 68, the adoption of laws -
in Article 69, the promulgation and enforcement of laws - in
Articles 70-72. The stage of the consideration of draft laws,
being the stage which guarantees the application of principles
of democracy in the process of legislation, is not specified in
these articles. However, their actual presence is evident from
other constitutional norms: Article 71 establishes the right of
the President of the Republic of Lithuania to refer the law
back "to the Seimas for reconsideration", Article 72 - the
right of the Seimas "to reconsider and enact laws" which have
been referred back by the President of the Seimas. Upon this a
conclusion can be drawn that the stage of the consideration of
draft laws is necessary in the procedure of the Seimas
legislation. This is confirmed in the wording of Article 72
that "after reconsideration of the Seimas, a law shall be
deemed enacted if the amendments and supplements submitted by
the President of the Republic were adopted, or if more than
half of all the Seimas members vote in the affirmative, and if
it is a constitutional law - if at least three - fifths of all
the Seimas members vote in the affirmative".
The process of legislation starts with putting forward an
initiative. This may be done only by the persons specified in
the Constitution, i.e. persons who have the right of
legislative initiative. The essence and purpose of this right
is to initiate the process of legislation. This right is
practically realized by the submission of some concrete draft
law to the Seimas or by written wording of a new substantial
idea concerning legislation. Upon the submission of the law
project by the proper subject, the duty of the Seimas -
institution of legislation - is to initiate the consideration
of the submitted draft law or the idea of the law project. Then
the second stage of the process of legislation, usually defined
by regulations of the Seimas (Statutes), starts. In this stage,
remarks, proposals, amendments and supplements on the draft law
submitted by the members of the Seimas are relevant elements of
the stage of consideration, however, they cannot be interpreted
as legislative initiative because it has already been realized.
Suggestions, amendments and supplements are practically
submitted up to the moment of law enactment. The order of their
submission and consideration is regulated by regulation norms
of the consideration of draft laws. It is peculiar that the
order differs in essence from the realization of the right of
legislative initiative. The right of legislative initiative is
also different from the submission of amendments and
supplements to the draft under consideration in its purpose
and, after all, they are different parts of the stages of the
process of legislation.
On the basis of the above mentioned motives, the
Constitutional Court concludes that the Law "On Partial
Amending and Appending of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania
on Elections of the Seimas", 16 March 1993, was enacted in
compliance with the norms established in Article 68 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
4. Concerning the compliance of the Law "On Partial
Amending and Appending of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania
on Elections to the Seimas, 16 March 1993, with Article 29 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The petitioner states that the amendment of Article 11 of
the Law on Elections to the Seimas and the renunciation of the
principle of equal representation of all political parties and
public political movements participating in an election in all
electoral committees, established in this law, violated the
principle of equality of all people before law specified in
Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The aforesaid Article 29 is in Chapter 2 of the
Constitution under the title "The Individual and the State",
therefore, the concept "person" can only be, in this case, a
synonym of "individual". This chapter of the Constitution,
Article 29, in particular, is about human and civil rights,
freedoms and duties, thus, there is no juridical ground for
more extensive interpretation of the notion "person".
The variety of legal status is peculiar to collective
legal persons (organizations and institutions), therefore, on
the basis of typology of legal persons, groups of persons with
the same special legal capacity may be discerned, and only
these groups are comparable among themselves.
On the basis of the above mentioned motives, the
Constitutional Court concludes that the Law "On Partial
Amending and Appending of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania
on Elections to the Seimas", 16 March 1993, is in compliance
with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania.
Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution as well as
Articles 53, 54, 55 and 56 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court, the Constitutional Court has taken the following
decision:
The Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On Partial Amending
and Appending of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on
Elections to the Seimas", 16 March 1993, does not contradict
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
This Constitutional Court decision is final and not
subject to appeal.
The decision is promulgated on behalf of the Republic of
Lithuania.