Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
RULING
On the compliance of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania resolution "On amending item 5 of the
resolution of the Supreme Council of the Republic
of Lithuania "On the procedure for implementing
the Republic of Lithuania
Law on Citizenship", adopted 22 December 1993,
with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
13 April 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, Stasys Stačiokas,
Teodora Staugaitienė and Juozas Žilys,
the secretary of the hearing - Sigutė Brusovienė,
the petitioner - Vilija Aleknaitė-Abramikienė,
representative of a group of Seimas members ,
the party concerned - Seimas member Petras Papovas, Seimas
representative,
pursuant to Part 1, Article 102 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and Part 1, Article 1 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its
public hearing of 8 April 1994 conducted the investigation of
Case No 7/94 subsequent to the petition submitted to the Court
by a group of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania members
requesting to investigate if Seimas resolution "On amending
item 5 of the resolution of the Supreme Council of the Republic
"On the procedure for implementing the Republic of Lithuania
Law on Citizenship", adopted 22 December 1993, is in compliance
with Articles 12, 28 and the first part of Article 29 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
On 22 December 1993, the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania adopted resolution "On amending item 5 of the
resolution of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania
"On the procedure for implementing the Republic of Lithuania
Law on Citizenship"" (Official Gazette "Valstybės Žinios", No 2
-24, 1994).
The petitioner - a group of the Seimas members - requests
the Constitutional Court to recognize that Seimas resolution
"On amending item 5 of the resolution of the Supreme Council of
the Republic of Lithuania" On the procedure for implementing
the Republic of Lithuania Law on Citizenship" ", 22 December,
1993 Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania.
The petitioner grounds his request on the fact that said
resolution establishes the norm that persons having served in
the armed forces of the Soviet Union and having terminated
their service within the period up to 1 march 1992 and up to 4
November 1994 having been issued a Citizen of the republic of
Lithuania Certification Card or a Certification Testifying to
the (Person's) Decision to acquire Citizenship of the Republic
of Lithuania , have citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania
and may be issued the passport of a citizen of the republic of
Lithuania. In the petitioner's opinion, in Article 12 of the
Constitution it is specified, that citizenship of the Republic
of Lithuania shall be acquired by birth or on other bases
established by law and the procedure for the acquisition and
loss of citizenship shall be established by law, whereas Seimas
has resolved this issue by adopting said resolution.
The petitioner has stated that said resolution contradicts
the second part of Article 12 of the Constitution in which it
is determined that, with the exception of cases established by
law, no person may be a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania
and another state at the same time. "Persons who served in the
armed forces as well as another repressive structures of the
Soviet Union, had to be and were citizen of the Soviet Union,
therefore, documents to their decisions to acquire citizenship
of the Republic of Lithuania, which they have been issued shall
be invalid. Hereby, this resolution contradicts Article 28 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well. By said
resolution, the Seimas legalises citizenship irrespective of
the fact whether a person, has acquired it lawfully or not. The
constitutional principle establishing that all people shall be
equal before the law, the court, and other state institutions,
has also been violated (Part 1, Article 29, Constitution)".
In the court hearing, the petitioner's representative has
submitted the following additional arguments.
The fact that the presence of the armed forces of the
Soviet Union in Lithuania was unlawful is confirmed by a number
of legal acts: the Supreme Council of the republic of Lithuania
resolution "On 1939 treaties between Germany and USSR and
elimination (liquidation) of their consequences to Lithuania",
7 February 1990, "13 March 1990 address of the Supreme Council"
To the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR", 19 March
1990 declaration (statement of the Supreme Council "On the
status of Soviet armed forces in Lithuania", and partly 24
December 1989 resolution passed in the meeting of USSR People's
deputies. The Soviet army was unlawfully stationed in
Lithuania, thus, there is no ground for maintaining that
persons, who formed that army, had come to Lithuania lawfully.
Hereford the conclusion is to be made that the factual presence
of servicemen of the Soviet Union on the territory of Lithuania
did not mean, however, that they had permanent place of
residence in Lithuania, because:
a) they could not choose their place of residence
themselves;
b) Serviceman of the Soviet Union were registered in
Lithuania according to legal status of foreign state.
The petitioners representative has maintained that
Certification Testifying to the (Person's) Decisions to Acquire
Citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania may have been issued
only for civilians as they were valid only along with soviet
passport they possessed. At that time it was not the passport
but military card (serviceman's identity card) which confirmed
the person's identity and citizenship of Soviet servicemen,
therefore, the certifications they have been issued are invalid
(unlawful).
The representative of the party concerned has explained,
that the petitioner's request is groundless and the adopted
resolution "On amending item 5 of the resolution of the Supreme
Council of the Republic of Lithuania "On the procedure for
implementing the Republic of Lithuania Law on Citizenship" does
not contradict the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The representative of the party concerned has submitted
the following counter - arguments:
The goal (purpose) of the resolution adopted by the Seimas
is - to regulate equal application of laws and other legal acts
that are in force now and were in effect earlier according to
the principles of equality of men. Seimas resolution of 22
December 1993 has regulated the meaning of items 8, 5 and 4 of
10 December 1991 resolution and provision thereof that no legal
acts shall have retroactive and, more so, they are not validity
with respect to 1989 Law, on Citizenship which is no longer in
force. Said resolution adopted by the Seimas provides the
possibility for the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania to
lawfully and validity be issued with passports of citizens of
the republic of Lithuania".
The representative of the party concerned holds that the
arguments submitted by the petitioner are not grounded, as:
"1. The Seimas resolution has not amended the provision of
Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania,
but , on the contrary, has regulated that persons who have
acquired citizenship on the bases prescribed by laws be issued
passports of a citizen.
2. Said resolution is in conformity with Part 2, Article
12 of the Constitution, because the laws on Citizenship have
provided for other separate cases when persons are considered
to be citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, and items 7 and 4
of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania resolution
"On the procedure for implementing the Republic of Lithuania
Law on Citizenship" establish that citizenship of the Soviet
Union with regard to persons specified in Article 1 of the Law
on Citizenship is null and void.
3. The Seimas resolution cannot contradict Article 28 of
The Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well, as
citizenship has been legalised not by said resolution but by
above mentioned Laws on Citizenship. The Seimas has regulated
the application of legal laws in issuing passports for the
citizen of the Republic of Lithuania. The wording "May be"
established in said resolution allows for passport agencies to
check whether a person has acquired his or her citizenship
validly and lawfully.
4. Seimas' said resolution has also not violated the
provisions of Part 1, Article 28 of the Constitution, as the
Seimas "has only regulated all the provisions of legal acts
specifying that all citizens of the Republic of Lithuania must
be issued passports of citizens, i.e. that the principle of all
person's equality before Laws on Citizenship and passport
agencies be established."
The representative of the party concerned in his
additional explanation (argumentation) on 7 April 1994 has also
that Law on Citizenship did not forbid Soviet servicemen to be
citizens of Lithuania and they, by the Supreme Council of the
Republic of Lithuania resolution "On the procedure for
implementing the Republic of Lithuania Law on Citizenship" were
allowed to serve in military structures within the period up to
1 March 1992. Therefore, he maintains that, persons specified
in paragraph 3 Article 1 of the Law on Citizenship may as well
be servicemen, and they are not forbidden to be citizens of the
Republic of Lithuania and may be issued with passports of a
citizen of the Republic of Lithuania.
There may not be different explanations with regard to
what is the permanent place of residence of servicemen or other
persons. Besides, the permanent place of residence should be
decided in accordance with permanent registration of residents
which was in force at that time (at the time of their
residing).
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
Citizenship is a person's permanent political legal
relation to a certain state, grounded on mutual rights and
obligations as well mutual trust, loyalty and protection
therefrom. Laws on citizenship adopted by states precisely
regulate conditions and procedure for acquiring citizenship,
providing for the oath to the state and pledge of loyalty (with
exception of cases when citizenship is acquired by birth),
forbidding or restricting badly double citizenship. In modern
contemporary international law international agreements
concerning (on) double citizenship between states concerned is
considered a usual way of legalisation of double citizenship.
The Republic of Lithuania Law on Citizenship, adopted
1989, did not provide for possibility for a citizen of
Lithuania to be at the same time a citizen of another state.
This provision was also established in Provisional Basic Law in
Part 2, Article 13 of which it was promulgated: "As rule, a
citizen of Lithuania may not be currently a citizen of another
state". The above mentioned constitutional provision was later
specified by the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania
resolution "On the procedure for application of Articles 7 and
35 of the Law of the republic of Lithuania on Citizenship",
passed on 9 June 1990. In said resolution it was interpreted:
"A citizen of the Republic of Lithuania may possess the
citizenship of another state only in cases when, by way of
exception, he is granted citizenship of the Republic of
Lithuanian accordance with Article 7 of the Law of the Republic
of Lithuania on Citizenship".
Double citizenship has become more restricted upon
adoption of 16 April 1991 Law " On amending Article 18 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Citizenship", by which said
Article establishing the cases of the loss of citizenship was
appended by item 4 providing for the loss of citizenship on the
following basis: "upon acquisition of citizenship of another
state". True, the provisions concerning restriction of double
citizenship in Lithuania were later adjusted (amended)
providing for additional ways of exception for this
prohibition. It concerned, however persons of one category -
persons who were citizens of the republic of Lithuania prior to
June 15 1940, and their descendants. Thus, there is no legal
ground for maintaining that, with the exception of said
prescribed by law cases, other persons acquiring citizenship of
the Republic of Lithuania may currently be citizens of other
states.
In Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Citizenship, adopted 1989, it established that the following
persons shall be citizens of Lithuania:
(1) Persons who were citizens of the Republic of
Lithuania, children and grandchildren of such persons, as well
as other persons who were permanent residents on the current
territory of the Lithuanian SSR prior to 15 July 1940, and
their children and grandchildren who now are or have been
permanent residents on the territory of the Lithuanian SSR;
(2) Persons who have a permanent place of residence in the
Lithuanian SSR, provided they were born on the territory of the
Lithuanian SSR, or have provided that at least one of their
parents or grandparents was born on said territory, and
provided that they are not citizens of another state;
(3) Other persons who, up to and including the date of
entry into force of this Law, have been permanent residents on
the territory of the Republic and have here a permanent place
of employment or another constant legal source of support; such
persons shall freely choose their citizenship during two years
following the entry into force of this Law; and
(4) Persons who have acquired citizenship of the
Lithuanian SSR under this law".
It is obvious that completely different groups of persons
, which have had specific relations with the Republic of
Lithuania, are specified in every item of said Article,
therefore, not only general requirements for them have been
established by law, but also different procedures for granting
citizenship for separate groups of persons or additional
conditions necessary to acquire citizenship.
General requirements and conditions for persons of all
groups were as follows: at first they were considered only as
potential citizens as they were guaranteed the right to freely
decide on their citizenship; the prerequisite for becoming
citizens of Lithuania was permanent residence on the territory
of Lithuania; having accepted citizenship of Lithuania they all
had to take the pledge of loyalty to the Republic of Lithuania.
Citizens specified in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 1 of
the Law on Citizenship ex officio (by virtue of their previous
right) have become citizens of the Republic of Lithuania - they
had only to provide evidence for (about) appropriate
circumstances and to apply for the issuance of citizens'
documents. Their right to decide on citizenship actually meant
the right to renounce citizenship of Lithuania. In this
respect, the status of the persons of other groups was
completely different. Persons mentioned in paragraph 4 of said
Article could acquire citizenship only in accordance with other
Articles of the Law on Citizenship: Article 7 (granting
citizenship by way of exception), Article 15 (granting
citizenship by naturalisation), etc. Conditions and procedure
for granting citizenship for persons specified in paragraph 3,
Article 1 were also different. These persons were different
from persons specified in items 1 and 2, Article 1 as earlier
they had never had firm permanent legal relations with
Lithuania. As matter of fact, they were immigrants (settlers),
who have come from places that are beyond the borders of
Lithuania. As a rule, they had citizenship of the Soviet Union.
After restoration of independent state of Lithuania they became
here foreigners. In other states, citizenship for such persons
is generally granted by naturalisation. In Lithuania,
citizenship for them was granted in a rather simplified
procedure. It was required from them to be permanent residents
on the territory of Lithuania and have here a permanent place
of employment or another constant legal source of support. They
had the right within 2 years following the enforcement of the
Law on Citizenship to freely decide on citizenship , i. e.
could either retain citizenship of the Soviet Union or become
citizens of Lithuania. This case may be interpreted as
acquisition of citizenship by voicing one's option, because,
upon restoration of independent state and end of occupation,
part of residents, who had not have firm legal relations with
former state of Lithuania, were entitled to the right to choose
citizenship.
Voicing one's option as a way of acquiring citizenship is
usually provided for by bilateral international treaties with
the Republic of Lithuania. This opportunity of choosing one's
citizenship (i. e. by voicing one's option, in fact) which had
been unilaterally promulgated by Lithuania, was later
recognised by Russia as Soviet Union successor. On
international level this principle of option was actually de
jure registered (included) in the treaty between Lithuania and
Russia "On the basis of state relations" which was signed on 29
July 1991 in Moscow.
In accordance with the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Citizenship, adopted 1989, the prerequisite for acquiring
citizenship for persons who were born beyond the borders of the
Republic of Lithuania (with exception of those cases, when at
least one of his or her parents or grandparents was born on the
territory of Lithuania) was permanent residence on the
territory of Lithuania and a permanent place of employment or
another constant legal source of support in Lithuania. Only
those persons in conformity with paragraph 3, Article 1 of the
Law on Citizenship, were entitled to the right to freely decide
on citizenship within 2 years following the enforcement of the
Law, i. e. until 4 November 1991.
Conditions prescribed by said Law had relevant
significance in resolving issues on citizenship. They have
priority with regard to person's decision on citizenship of
Lithuania, i. e. only a person who meets these conditions is
entitled to the right to decide on citizenship of Lithuania.
And, on the contrary, - when a person fails to meet above
mentioned conditions for acquiring citizenship, his wish to
become a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania shall not bring
legal consequences, and if on this ground thereof he or she has
been issued a Citizen of the Republic of Lithuania
Certification Card or a Certification testifying to the
[Person's] Decision to Acquire Citizenship of the Republic of
Lithuania, they must be recognised invalid.
Therefore, the interpretation of above mentioned concepts
"permanent residence on the territory of Lithuania" and
"permanent place of employment constant legal source of
support" acquires special importance. In the Law, these
concepts were not fully defined, thus their interpretation was
formed while practically applying norms of the law, their
contents was certainly specified (particularised) in
resolutions of the Supreme Council. Said concepts were clearly
enough defined in item 3 of the Supreme Council resolution "On
the procedure for implementing the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Citizenship" adopted 10 December 1991, which specified that "a
person shall be considered as permanently residing in Lithuania
if he or she:
- has been registered in the register of permanent
residents of the Republic of Lithuania;
- and has acquired living quarters in Lithuania by the
right to ownership or leased same for an indefinite period, or
is the owner's or tenant's family member;
- and is employed in Lithuania under employment contract
or has another paid occupation in Lithuania, is somebody's
dependant or is paid a pension legally due to him or her in
Lithuania;
- and pays on the territory of Lithuania income tax, and
other taxes established by laws of the Republic of Lithuania,
or is exempt therefrom in the manner established by law."
There is no much doubt expressed about the interpretation
of these concepts (the interpretation of these concepts is not
is not questioned a lot), only it is maintained that such
resolution and provisions thereof are applicable solely to the
new Law on Citizenship (1991). Thus, it is stated, that in
order to prove permanent residence on the territory of
Lithuania under 1989 Law on Citizenship, it should be necessary
to refer to former registration of residents. This is a
doubtful statement because previous temporary as well as
permanent registration of residents was, in essence,
administrative measure which restricted one of the fundamental
human rights - the right to freely move on the territory of the
state and to freely choose one's place of residence. It should
also be noted, that such procedure for registration was
obviously of discriminative nature as restrictions of
registration were not applied to servicemen of occupation army
and other officials of occupation regime (they enjoyed
exceptions and privileges). It is also important, that
servicemen could not freely choose place of their residence
themselves as they were stationed and periodically dislocated
under the orders of high military authority.
The issue concerning the status of Soviet army troops
stationed on the territory of Lithuania arose in the process of
preparation for 1990 elections to the Supreme Council and local
councils. At the beginning, the Supreme Council by its 29
September 1989 and 7 December 1989 resolutions has elucidated
that servicemen of Soviet army troops shall participate in
elections general (i. e. former occupation) procedure: separate
election Committees shall be formed and lists of voters shall
be established in submits, candidates to the posts of deputies
shall be nominated in the meetings of soldiers. Later, however,
when on the initiative of citizens of Lithuania, referendum on
the possibility for Soviet servicemen to participate in
elections was called forth, the Supreme Council by 15 January
1990 resolution recognised said elucidation's null and void and
has established that only those servicemen who under Article 1
of the Law on Citizenship may be citizens of Lithuania shall
participate in elections. Thus, already prior to the
restoration of independent state of Lithuania it had been
established that servicemen of occupation army were not
entitled to the right to participate in elections organised in
Lithuania, with exception of those persons who under 1989 Law
on Citizenship could be recognised citizens of Lithuania. These
were the persons who were recognised citizens of Republic of
Lithuania in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2, Article 1 of
Law on Citizenship, as well as other persons who in established
judicial procedure had already become citizens of the Republic
of Lithuania.
Lithuania's standpoint (point of view) to armed forces of
the Soviet Union stationed on its territory as to occupation
army was officially expressed (stated) in the Supreme Council 7
February 1990 resolution "On 1939 treaties between Germany and
the USSR and elimination (liquidation) of their consequences to
Lithuania", the Supreme Council 19 March 1990 declaration "On
the status of Soviet armed forces in Lithuania" as well as in
many other documents of the Supreme Council. The activities of
KGB, internal troops and other repressive structures of the
Soviet Union operating in Lithuania were appropriately
(accordingly) evaluated. It should be noted, that the fact of
1940 annexation and occupation of Lithuania was recognised by
many states of the world. The same recognition was expressed in
the preamble to the treaty between Lithuania and Russia "On the
basis of interstate of relations" which was signed on 29 July
1991 in Moscow.
Therefore, the provisions of the Supreme Council 10
December 1991 resolution "On the procedure for implementing the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Citizenship are actually based on
the same interpretation of illegal stationing of occupation
army on the territory of another state together with (along
with) other legal consequences therefrom. It should be noted,
that former (previous) item 5 of said resolution could be
applied only to former servicemen of occupation army of foreign
state as well as persons who had served in repressive
structures of foreign state. The statement that "persons
serving in the armed forces, internal troops and state security
structures, as well as other law enforcement and repressive
structures of the Soviet Union which have been unlawfully
stationed and operating in Lithuania since 15 June 1940, may
not be considered as permanently residing or employed in
Lithuania", was logically related to said official declarations
(statements) of the Seimas of Lithuania on (pertaining to) the
location residing of occupation army in Lithuania and may not
be evaluated as new interpretation of the provisions of 1989
Law in Citizenship. The explanation that evaluation of
occupation army can be different with regard to time, may not
be admitted either. It is obvious that irrespective of time:
1) neither occupation army (along with soldiers) nor
repressive structures (along with officers) of foreign state,
which resided in Lithuania without free-will consent of
Lithuania's authorities, could be interpreted (considered) as
lawfully residing;
2) service in occupation army or repressive structures of
foreign state could not be considered as legal permanent
employment on the territory of Lithuania;
3) Unlawful, i. e. without free-will consent of official
authorities of the Republic of Lithuania, residing on the
territory of Lithuania irrespective of its duration, could not
be considered as lawful permanent on the territory of
Lithuania.
Reservations should also be made about explanations that
laws of the Republic of Lithuania allowed servicemen of the
Soviet Union to be citizens of the Republic of Lithuania and
that the latter were permitted to stay in said services until 1
March 1992. In this case, different ways of acquiring
citizenship are mixed, thus, providing conditions for evading
prohibitions for soldiers of occupation troops to become
citizens of Lithuania. In cases when in legal acts mention is
made of citizens of the Republic of Lithuania who serve in army
troops of the Soviet Union, it is meant persons who acquired
citizenship under paragraph 1 or 2, Article 1 of 1989 Law on
Citizenship. They could find themselves in occupation army for
different reasons, however, the citizenship of Lithuania they
acquired is lawful because they are either descendants of
former citizens of Lithuania or they themselves (or their
parents, grandparents) were born in Lithuania. Namely for such
persons, i. e. lawful citizens of Lithuania, item 4 of the
Supreme Council 10 December 1991 resolution "On the procedure
for the implementing the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Citizenship" was meant, which set the terms (until 1 March
1992) for the termination of military or another service in
institutions of foreign state.
The above mentioned as well as other persons who had
lawfully acquired citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania were
considered as having lost citizenship of the Soviet Union. With
regard to said persons, citizenship of the Soviet Union was
declared null and void. Such decision meant that consequences
of occupation and annexation with regard to citizens of
Lithuania who had been enforced citizenship of the Soviet Union
against their will, were being eliminated (overcome). It goes
without saying, that such decision on the part of the state
could be adopted only with regard to its citizens, and the
state, by no means, could resolve issues concerning citizenship
of another state.
In accordance with laws of the Soviet Union, only citizens
of the Soviet Union, only citizens of the Soviet Union were
allowed to serve in the armed forces of that state. Therefore,
in cases when servicemen of the Soviet Union upon issuance of
Citizens of the Republic of Lithuania certification Card or
Certification Testifying to the [Persons'] Decision to Acquire
Citizenship Republic of Lithuania (with exception of persons
stipulated in paragraphs 1 and 2, Article 1 of 1989 Law of the
Republic of Lithuania on Citizenship), continued their military
service, laws were violated twice: 1)they unlawfully acquired a
Citizen of the Republic of Lithuania Certification Card, as
said servicemen could not become citizens of the Republic of
Lithuania under paragraph 3, Article 1 of the Law on
Citizenship; 2) they unlawfully acquired double citizenship, as
laws of the Republic of Lithuania do not provide for double
citizenship for this category of persons.
Provisions of item 5 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Citizenship", 10 December 1991, are in compliance with the main
principles of international law. In Article 49 of 12 August
1949 Geneva Convention on Protection of Civilians During War it
is promulgated (declared): "The occupying country may not
deport or dislocate part of its civil residents to the
territory it occupies". If such restrictions are imposed with
regard to civil residents (civilians), it is inappropriate even
to talk about the right of servicemen of occupation army and
officials of other repressive structures to citizenship of the
occupied state.
The representative of the party concerned has maintained
that the item 5 of the Supreme Council 10 December 1991
resolution "On the procedure for implementing the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Citizenship" may not be applied to 1989 Law on
Citizenship which is no longer in force, Nevertheless, it is
requested to recognize as lawful amendment to said resolution
by which item 5 has been appended by a new second part,
considering that it may be applied retroactively, i. e. applied
to legal consequences ensuing from the law which is no longer
in effect, striving for the revision (with the purpose to
revise them).
The first and second parts of item 5 of the Seimas
resolution "On the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania
resolution "On the procedure for implementing the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Citizenship"" contradict each other and even
deny each other. Furthermore, in the second part attempts are
made to legalise documents conforming citizenship of Lithuania
which have been unlawfully obtained by some servicemen, thus
this part contradicts the provisions of 1989 Law on
Citizenship. In this case, by said resolution provisions of the
law which has already been realised and is no longer in effect
are revised, and attempts are made to achieve the result which
was not stipulated either in 1989 law on Citizenship nor in
1991 Law on Citizenship which is now in force. Therefore, the
resolution in dispute according to its contents contradicts the
Republic of Lithuania Laws on Citizenship as well as Article 28
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and according
to its form - Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania.
Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania as well as Articles 53, 54, 55 and 56 of
the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania has passed the following
ruling :
To recognize that the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
resolution "On amending item 5 of the Supreme Council of the
Republic of Lithuania resolution "On the procedure for
implementing the Republic of Lithuania Law on Citizenship"",
adopted 22 December 1993, according to its contents contradicts
the Republic of Lithuania Laws on Citizenship as well as
Article 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania,
and according its form - Article 12 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.