Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
RULING
On the compliance of the resolution of the Seimas
of the Republic of Lithuania
"On the main directions of land reform", 17 June
1993, with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
19 January 1994, 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, Teodora Staugaitienė,
Stasys Šedbaras and Juozas Žilys,
the secretary of the hearing - Rolanda Stimbirytė,
the petitioner - Seimas member Leonas Milčius and advocate
Šarūnas Vilčinskas, representatives of a group of the Seimas
members,
the party concerned - Seimas members Mykolas Pronckus and
Algirdas Taminskas, representatives of the Seimas,
pursuant to Part 1 of Article 102 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and Part 1, Article 1 of the Law on
the Constitutional Court, in its public court hearing of 14
January 1994 conducted the investigation of Case No 4/93
subsequent to the petition submitted to the Court by a group of
the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania members requesting to
investigate if the resolution of the Seimas "On the main
directions of land reform", 17 June 1993, is in compliance with
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
The petitioner - a group of the Seimas members - request
the Constitutional Court to investigate if the Seimas
resolution "On the main directions of land reform", 17 June
1993 (Parliamentary Record, No 24-561, 1993) is in compliance
with Articles 23, 46, 67 and 70 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania according to the contents, form of norms
as well as the procedure of its adoption, signing and
promulgation. The petition is grounded on the following
motives:
1. It is established in Article 23 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania that the rights of ownership shall be
protected by law. The Seimas, ignoring this provision, by the
resolution "On the main directions of land reform" (sub-items 1
and 2 of item 2 of "Directions") established the duty for
landowners to lease the land that was restored to them for
agricultural enterprises and companies without setting forth a
term. The Seimas restricted the successor's rights in item 15
of "Directions" and in item 23 established the duty for
landowners to return the debts of former farms to the state.
The state assumed the rights of creditor banks and did not
provide for itself the duty to return the former landowners
their money that had been deposited in the bank.
The petitioner also maintains that in item 16 of
"Directions" the Government is charged to support only those
farms that meet certain criteria which contradicts Article 46
of the Constitution.
2. In the opinion of the petitioner, the Seimas resolution
"On the main directions of land reform" is not in compliance
with the Constitution according to its form, as it is
established in item 2 of Article 67 that the Seimas shall enact
laws, and, as it can be seen from item 2, Part 1, Article 94 of
the Constitution, the Seimas shall adopt resolutions concerning
only the implementation of its laws. Thus, the Seimas has
regulated land ownership relations not by a law but by a
resolution.
3. The petitioner also points out that this Seimas act was
considered applying the legislative procedure, however, it was
signed and promulgated not by the President but by the Chairman
of the Seimas. In the opinion of the petitioner, the said act
of the Seimas is comparable to a law according to the procedure
of its adoption, the extent of regulation and the contents of
norms. Various institutions of the Republic of Lithuania rely
on it considering the petitions of former landowners. Due to
this, the question of the enactment of said resolution arises.
In the process of preparation of the case for the hearing
of the Constitutional Court the petitioner's representatives,
by way of responding to the statements of the representative of
the party concerned, submitted the following additional
arguments and motives:
1. Theoretically, "Directions" may be called a programme,
though, it is beyond dispute, that this is an act of the
Seimas, and every Seimas act must be in conformity with the
Constitution.
2. The statement of the representative of the party
concerned that Seimas act in dispute does not contradict
Article 46 of the Constitution revises the Constitution itself.
3. Citizens requesting to restore the right to the
deprived property are the owners of that property, because the
state does not have legal basis to be the owner of the property
that the people were deprived of during the occupation.
Therefore, representatives of the party concerned are not right
in interpreting landowners only as claimants to owners.
The petitioner's representatives in the court hearing
emphasized that constitutional rights of people are especially
restricted by the provisions that establish compulsory lease of
the land to be restored and restrict the division of former
land domain among several persons recovering the actual land
property. Due to the fact, that "The main directions of land
reform" changed the conditions of recovering the actual land
property, i.e. formulated new restrictions, the process of land
reform has slowed down because the institutions considered
applications of former landowners in compliance with
"Directions".
The petitioner's representatives, on the basis of the
aforesaid motives as well as opinions of the specialists they
had invited, requested the Constitutional Court to recognize
that the Seimas resolution "On the main directions of land
reform" contradicts the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania according to the contents, form, procedure of
adoption, signing and promulgation.
Seimas member M.Pronckus, representative of the party
concerned, stated that claims made by a group of the Seimas
members in the petition submitted to the Constitutional Court
requesting to investigate if the Seimas resolution "On the main
directions of land reform" are in compliance with the
Constitution, are groundless because of the following motives:
1. The Seimas, while adopting the decision of 17 June
1993, did not confirm but approved of "The main directions of
land reform" drafted by the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania, which is "not a law, but only a document defining
certain strategy of the implementation of land reform. State
institutions do not follow "Directions" in dealing with
property issues". This resolution of the Seimas does not
contradict the Constitution, because only citizens by
referendum and the Seimas have the right to determine the
strategy of the People's development and these powers of theirs
may not be restricted by anybody.
The representative of the party concerned explained that
the first Laws of the Republic of Lithuania "On the
Reinstatement of the 12 May 1938 Constitution" and "On the
Provisional Basic Law of the Republic of Lithuania", adopted on
11 March 1991, recognized that the whole land would be the
exclusive property of the state. This was also confirmed by Law
on Land Reform and the Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of
the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real
Property" that were adopted later. For example, it is
established in Article 3 of the Law on Land Reform that the
objects of land reform shall be the Land reform fund of the
Republic of Lithuania, as well as in Article 12 of the Law "On
the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights
of Ownership to the Existing Real Property" it is set forth
that, land required for State needs as well as other land shall
be bought out from persons defined in Article 2 of this law.
This means that, the State leaves at its disposal all the land
it needs reimbursing the former owners and their successors in
the manner prescribed by laws. Therefore, in the opinion of the
party concerned, the petitioner groundlessly identifies
claimants to landowners with the owners themselves.
Furthermore, the representative of the party concerned
indicated that, in both said laws, it is written that land
reform shall be implemented as well as the right of ownership
to land shall be restored according to the land planning
projects, i.e. the State freely disposes of land according to
the confirmed principles of land planning projects.
The representative of the party concerned on the basis of
the arguments he had submitted, maintained that, upon
recognition of the petitioner's reproaches, it should be stated
that said laws, along with the Provisional Basic Law of the
Republic of Lithuania, contradict the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania.
3. Conforming to Article 46 of the Constitution which
establishes that: "The State shall regulate economic activity
so that it serves the general welfare of the people", the
representative of the party concerned maintained that this is
just the purpose of "The main directions of land reform".
The representatives of the party concerned emphasized in
the court hearing that by said resolution the Seimas only
approved of the strategy of the implementation of land reform.
Approval does not mean, however, that "The main directions of
land reform" is a binding executive act of the State. By
adopting "Directions", an attempt was made to establish "a
certain order of sequence in the matters of land reform". The
said resolution of the Seimas is only a suggestion for the
Government and obligation for the Seimas Committee on
Agriculture to draft laws and it does not contain the contents
of norms of the law, and landowners are not charged to lease
the land. State institutions, while dealing with the petitions
of the citizens, did not follow "Directions", and land reform
was not suspended.
Conforming to the above mentioned arguments as well as
opinions of the specialists, the representatives of the party
concerned requested the Constitutional Court to recognize that
the Seimas resolution "On the main directions of land reform"
is in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. On the compliance of the resolution of the Seimas "On
the main directions of land reform", 17 June 1993, with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania according to form.
Pursuant to Article 102 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and item 1, Part 2, Article 63 of the Law
on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court shall
examine the compliance of laws and other acts of the Seimas
with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
It is set forth in item 2 of Article 67 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the Seimas shall
enact laws. As it can be seen from the second part of Article
70 of the Constitution, the Seimas may adopt other acts as
well. The disputable act has got the form of a law and not
Seimas resolution. While classifying state legal acts from the
point of view of legal traditions in Lithuania that served as a
basis for drafting the existing Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania, and co-ordinating this classification with the
constitutional division of power on which the system of sources
of law in modern democratic states is grounded more or less,
state legal acts are divided into laws (Constitution,
Constitutional laws, laws), executive acts (other acts of the
Seimas, regulations, individual executive acts) and court
decisions.
While investigating this case, it is essential to
establish the dependence of the form of laws and other acts of
the Seimas upon their contents, thus, the grouping of legal
acts into normative acts and individual acts is especially
significant. Normative acts are considered those that contain
universally binding rules of general nature. Here, what is most
significant, is not the particular wording of a certain rule,
but the fact that the text should provide understanding beyond
doubt that the instruction is given to certain subjects under
certain conditions to act in appropriate way.
A law is an original legal act adopted in the procedure
prescribed by the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and
the Statute of the Seimas which expresses the legislator's will
and which has the supreme legal power. Therefore, a law can be
amended or its validity can be nullified only upon the adoption
of another law or recognition of it as contradictory to the
Constitution by the Constitutional Court. All other legal acts
must be adopted conforming to laws and may not contradict them,
i. e. must be executive. Executive legal act is a legal act
adopted by a competent body on the basis of and according to
the procedure prescribed by law. An executive act is usually an
act of administration. Norms of the law are realized by it,
however, such an act may not replace the law itself and create
new legal rules of general nature that in their power would
compete with the norms of law. It is an act of application of
norms of law irrespective of the fact whether this act is of
temporary (ad hoc) or permanent validity.
These peculiarities of an executive act shall also be
indispensable for other acts adopted by the Seimas specified in
the second part of Article 70 of the Constitution. Executive
acts of the Seimas may not contradict the Constitution and laws
enacted by the Seimas, the more so, they may not change the
norms of laws and their contents.
The representative of the party concerned maintained that
the Seimas resolution "On the main directions of land reform"
is not a legal act but a programme, therefore, in his opinion,
requirements and evaluations that are set for a law or an
executive act are not applicable for said act. In jurisprudence
and in legislative practice of other states, the so-called
programme laws are well-known. The form and possible contents
of such laws are established in constitutions. Programme laws
set the goals of economic and social activities for the state
but do not establish legal rules regulating the conduct of the
subjects of legal relations. The Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania does not provide for programme laws as a special
form of laws, therefore, all laws are evaluated as original
legal acts of factual validity, that are binding to all
subjects of legal relations.
The legal analysis of the text of the Seimas resolution in
dispute does not confirm the statement of the representative of
the party concerned that this is only a programme (strategic)
document. Even if it were such according to its contents, it
would have to possess the form of the law. Said resolution, of
which "The main directions of land reform" is an inseparable
integral part, established general norms and also charged the
Seimas Committee on Agriculture and indirectly the Government
to submit concrete draft laws. "The main directions of land
reform" consists of the following chapters: I. Land acquisition
into private ownership. II. Providing with conditions for
effective farming. III. Repayment of claimants to land
possessed by the right of ownership. Thus, as it can be seen
from the very titles of the aforementioned chapters, the rights
of ownership to land are regulated here. At the same time, it
is set forth in the second part of Article 23 of the
Constitution that the rights of ownership shall be protected by
law, and in the third part of this Article it is prescribed
that property may only be seized for the needs of society
according to the procedure established by law and must be
adequately compensated for. This means that a legislator may
regulate subjective rights of landowners and participants of
other property legal relations only by determining the contents
of these rights. In the process of implementation of land
reform in Lithuania, property relations are regulated by
special laws regulating the principles and procedure of land
reform. In the time when the Seimas resolution in dispute was
adopted, the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On the Procedure
and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to
the Existing Real Property", 18 June 1991 (Parliamentary
Record, No 21-545, 1991), along with amendments and supplements
(Parliamentary Record, No 3-40, 7-155, 11-278, 15-405, 1992,
Parliamentary Record, No 5-83, 1993) was in force until 12
January 1993, as well as the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on
Land Reform, 25 July 1991(Parliamentary Record, No 24-635, 1991),
along with amendments and supplements ( Parliamentary Record,
No 1-11, 3-45, 15-404,1992) was in effect until 7 May 1992, that
established the conditions and procedure of the restoration of
the rights of ownership to land and its new acquisition while
implementing land reform.
The right of the Seimas to regulate property relations is
beyond doubt because the Seimas is the only legislator
empowered by the People. Property relations may be regulated
only by laws and not other acts of the Seimas. Meanwhile, in
"The main directions of land reform" some statements are
formulated that, according to their meaning, are new legal
rules changing in essence the present legal situation. For
instance, it is established in sub- items 1 and 2 of item 2 of
"The main directions of land reform" that:
"In areas ascribed to land that shall be bought out by the
state, the actual land property may be recovered in:
1) the land leased by specialized pure strain
stock-breeding farms and seed-growing farms as well as
breeding-grounds, also in the land occupied by orchards,
berry-fields, nursery-gardens of specialized agricultural
companies, also in plots of vegetable gardens that are under
irrigation system and those adhering to cattle-breeding
complexes - for persons who, upon restoration of the rights of
ownership to land, make private land lease contracts with above
mentioned agricultural enterprises until their reorganization
or termination of activities;
2) farming lands adjoining to cattle-breeding farms,
entitling the landowner to the right of independent farming
only upon the termination of farming activities by above -
mentioned agricultural companies or other owners of
cattle-breeding farms. Meanwhile, said users of land shall make
contracts of private land lease with the landowners.
In these plots the land rent payment is established of the
same amount as that of state land lease.
The restoration of the right of ownership to land in said
plots of land that shall be bought out by the state, however,
does not entitle the landowner to the right of unilateral
breach of land lease contract so long as present land users may
function".
The part of the text cited above is not programme. A legal
norm of law nature is formulated in it ( conditions of return
of actual land, the amount of land rent payment, etc.).
Besides, by this norm it is established another provision
different from one which is set forth in Article 12 of the Law
"On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the
Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property" that was in
force at that time, under which existing real property shall be
bought out by the state. Thereby, the contents of possible
legal relations regulated by law is changed.
It is set forth in item 15 of "The main directions of land
reform": "The distribution of former land estates among
claimants wishing to recover their actual land property is
restricted by laws and regulations (except cases when
applicants reside in rural areas or when everyone is allotted
not less than 20 hectares)". Such legal provision failed to be
present in former valid laws.
It is established in item 23 of "The main directions of
land reform": "For prospective claimants to the land possessed
by the right of ownership, upon their submission of declaration
about the debts of the former farm ( until 1940 ) to the Land
Bank, mortgage of land or other debts to the state, the plot of
land which is subject to restitution or buying out by the state
shall be equivalently reduced. In the event of failing to
submit such a declaration, but upon establishing said debts
throughout 10 years by state institutions, they shall be
ascribed for the landowner according to the equivalent sum of
money for grain and shall be paid for the state by
instalments". In a law-governed State, disputes arising from
transactions are resolved by civil proceedings. In this case
the State as a party of civil dispute should not unilaterally
settle the dispute in its own favour by the establishment of
imperative norm. The presence of such an imperative norm in the
disputable resolution also confirms that this resolution is not
a programme but a legal act equivalent to law.
Item 16 of "The main directions of land reform" contains
the following imperative norm ascribed for the Government: "The
Government by preferential credits for capital construction
shall support only those farms that according to the size of
land or special extent of production meet the requirements set
for the farmer's holding or agricultural company". It is
evident from the Seimas competence established in Article 67 of
the Constitution as well as the principle of the division of
the powers determined in Article 5 of the Constitution, that
the Seimas may not give the Government any direct normative
instructions otherwise than in the procedure of legislation.
The Seimas, by its decision having adopted new legal norms
regulating land ownership relations and having amended the
present legal norms, violated the constitutional principle of
supremacy of laws over executive legal acts as well as the
provisions of the Constitution specifying that property
relations and the contents of subjective rights of the
participants of these relations shall be regulated by laws and
not by executive acts. The Seimas, while resolving the issues
that are the subject matter of legal regulation, may not choose
the form of resolution, because resolution is a legal act of
lower rank.
The Constitutional Court, stating the viciousness of the
form of the Seimas resolution, emphasizes that the provisions
of the resolution regulate the contents of private property
rights. The right to private property is one of the main human
rights established in the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania. Taking the significance of this fundamental right
into consideration, it is established in the Constitution that
the rights of ownership shall be protected by law. Legal
regulation is of paramount importance for the protection of
private rights of ownership, because in the legislative
process, along with the Seimas, the President of the Republic
takes part as well: he shall sign and promulgate the laws
enacted by the Seimas, also have the relative veto power, i. e.
the right to refer back to the Seimas a law enacted by it for
reconsideration. No doubt, these rights vested in the President
of the Republic should be evaluated as an additional guarantee
of the constitutionality of the laws enacted by the Seimas.
The Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania resolution "On the
main directions of land reform" is legally vicious also because
of the fact that the provisions formulated in it in many ways
competed with the laws that were in force at that time, formed
the state of legal uncertainty for the subjects of legal
relations, shattered the people's reliance on law and all this
does not conform to the striving for a law-governed state,
promulgated in the preamble to the Constitution.
Conforming to the aforementioned motives, the
Constitutional Court draws the conclusion that the Seimas act
of such normative contents should not have been adopted in the
form of resolution, therefore, the Seimas resolution "On the
main directions of land reform" contradicts Article 23 and item
2, Article 67 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
according to its form.
As the Seimas resolution "On the main directions of land
reform" according to its form is not in compliance with the
procedure of the regulation of property relations established
in the Constitution, this act may not be recognized as
legitimate. The compliance of concrete statements of the
resolution which is not legitimate according to its form with
the Constitution, may not be evaluated.
2. On the compliance of the resolution of the Seimas "On
the main directions of land reform", 17 June 1993, with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania according to the
procedure of its adoption, signing and promulgation.
The Seimas resolution "On the main directions of land
reform" was adopted in the Seimas plenary sitting by the
majority vote of the Seimas members participating in the
sitting. This conforms to the second part of Article 69 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, in which it is
established that laws shall be deemed adopted if the majority
of the Seimas members participating in the sitting vote in
favour thereof. This is a general principle of the adoption of
the Seimas resolutions, which is also applied to other Seimas
acts, except constitutional acts (Ruling of the Constitutional
Court on the compliance of the decision of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania "On the dissolution of Vilnius city
Council and some measures necessary to improve the activities
in local governments", 15 April 1993, with the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania ).
While adopting the resolution of normative nature "On the
main directions of land reform", the Seimas chose inadequate
for this case form of legal regulation, however, it did not
violate the procedure of adoption of resolutions prescribed in
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Seimas resolution "On the main directions of land
reform" was signed and promulgated by the Chairman of the
Seimas. According to the form of legal act the Seimas has
chosen, this is in conformity with the provision of the second
part of Article 70 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania: "Other acts adopted by the Seimas and the Statute of
the Seimas shall be signed by the Chairman of the Seimas".
Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and Articles 53, 54, 55, 56 of the Law of
the Republic of Lithuania on the Constitutional Court, the
Constitutional Court has passed the following
ruling :
To recognize that the resolution of the Seimas "On the
main directions of land
reform", 17 June 1993, according to its form contradicts
Article 23 and item 2, Article 67 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania.
This Constitutional Court ruling is final and not subject
to appeal.
The ruling is promulgated on behalf of the Republic of
Lithuania.