Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
R U L I N G
On the compliance of the provisions of items 1, 9, 12 and
39 of the Law "On Amending and Appending the Law of the
Republic of Lithuania on Referendum" of 15 June 1994, by which
Articles 1, 9, 12 and 32 of the Law on Referendum have been
amended or appended, with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania
22 July 1994, Vilnius
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
composed from the Justices of the Constitutional Court Algirdas
Gailiūnas, Zigmas Levickis, Pranas Vytautas Rasimavičius,
Stasys Stačiokas, Teodora Staugaitienė, Stasys Šedbaras and
Juozas Žilys,
the secretary of the hearing - Rolanda Stimbirytė,
the petitioner - Seimas member Alfonsas Vaišnoras and
Zenonas Juknevičius, representatives of a group of Seimas
members,
the party concerned - Juozas Bernatonis, representative of
the Seimas, deputy Chairman of the Seimas
pursuant to the 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 20 July 1994 conducted the investigation of
Case No 18/94 subsequent to the petition submitted to the Court
by a group of Seimas members requesting to investigate if the
provisions of items 1, 9, 12 and 39 of the Law "On Amending and
Appending the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Referendum",
adopted 15 June 1994, by which Articles 1, 9, 12 and 32 of the
Law on Referendum have been amended or appended, are consistent
with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
The Constitutional Court
has established:
1.
The Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania on 15 June 1994
adopted the Law "On Amending and Appending the Law of the
Republic of Lithuania on Referendum" (Official Gazette
"Valstybės Žinios", No 47-870, 1994).
The petitioner requests to investigate if the part of item
1 of this Law, by which Article 1 of the Law on Referendum has
been amended; the part of item 9, by which the first and the
third parts of Article of the Law on Referendum have been
amended; the part of item 12, by which Article 12 of the Law on
Referendum has been appended by Parts 2 and 3; and the part of
item 39, by which the second part of Article 32 the Law on
Referendum became Part 5 after the new formulation of said
Article of the Law on Referendum, are in compliance with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
2.
The petitioner's request is based on the following
arguments.
1. The amendment to Article 1 of the Law on Referendum
specifying that not the laws but only the provisions of the
laws may be adopted by referendum meant violation of the
substance of Articles 4, 9, 33 and the third part of Article 71
of the Constitution, as they speak only about laws adopted by
referendum.
Furthermore, the Seimas exceeded its powers by
establishing in the new edition of Article 1 that "provisions
of laws on economic issues may be adopted by referendum only
after economic examination of possible consequences". Thus, the
right to referendum is related to the economic examination,
and, moreover, experts appointed by no one knows whom are
entitled to the right to decide whether to permit or not to
permit the People to exercise the supreme sovereign power,
whether to permit or not to permit to directly participate in
the government of their State. Therefore, not only Articles 4
and 33 of the Constitution have been violated but also Article
6 of the Constitution, stating that the Constitution shall be
an integral and directly applicable statute, has been denied
without any conclusions made by the experts.
2. In the amendments to Article 9 of the law on Referendum
it is required that a citizen while signing a list for
initiating a referendum should indicate his passport number.
This contradicts Article 4, the third part of Article 9 and the
first part of Article 33 of the Constitution, because, while
carrying out this provision, those citizens who due to their
physical handicap or semi-literacy cannot write all the data,
are deprived of the constitutional right to demand the
announcement of a referendum, and the right to directly
participate in the government of their State. Moreover, a
citizen has all the rights, irrespective of the fact, whether
or not he has always a passport with him.
3. Articles 9, 282 and 29 of the Law on Referendum are not
co-ordinated among themselves and, therefore, restrict the
constitutional rights of citizens to require the announcement
of a referendum, because in Articles 282 and 29 it is
established, that a voter may submit to the district electoral
committee not only a passport but also another document
confirming his personality or citizenship, or ask another
person to fill in the ballot-paper in case he cannot do it
himself.
4. In the second part of the newly formulated Article 12
of the Law on Referendum it is determined that the Seimas' duty
shall be to decide whether a draft of the provisions of the law
submitted for referendum is in conformity with the
Constitution. This provision violates Articles 67 and 102 of
the Constitution. Said Articles of the Constitution do not
provide the right for the Seimas to adopt decisions as to the
conformity of the legal acts or their drafts with the
Constitution. It is the prerogative of the Constitutional Court
to decide whether the legal acts do not violate the
Constitution.
5. In the third part of the newly formulated Article 12 of
the Law on Referendum it is set forth that the announcement of
a referendum may be postponed provided that the Seimas decides
to consider and adopt submitted provisions of the law, however,
the referendum should be called at the same Seimas sitting in
which the Seimas fails to adopt the submitted provisions of the
law. This period of consideration until the adoption or
non-adoption of the provisions of the law is not limited in any
way. The consideration can be artificially prolonged, for
example failing to write the issue under consideration on the
agenda. This, however, contradicts Articles 4, 9 and 33 of the
Constitution.
6. In the fifth part of the newly formulated Article 32 of
the Law on Referendum it is established that the provisions of
the law or other decisions shall be deemed adopted by
referendum if more than half of citizens included in the lists
of voters approve of them during referendum. This provision
restricts the implementation of the constitutional right of
citizens to participate in the government of their State
directly as compared to their participation in the government
through their freely elected representatives, because, under
the provisions of the Law on Elections to the Seimas (Articles
75 and 76) and Article 69 of the Constitution, laws shall be
deemed adopted in the Seimas if at least 10 per cent of
democratically elected People's representatives vote
affirmatively. Such restriction of the right to directly
participate in the government of the State is not stipulated in
Article 33 of the Constitution.
3.
The petitioner's representatives have explained that,
while adopting the Law "On Amending and Appending the Law of
the Republic of Lithuania on Referendum", the Constitution was
violated because the Seimas concentrated on the approaching
referendum on the adoption of the Law "On Unlawful
Privatization, Devaluated Accounts and Shares as well as
Transgressions of Legal Protection". The petitioner's
representatives have submitted the following reasoning
concerning the compliance of specific articles of the Law in
dispute with the Constitution.
1. In Article 1 of the Law on Referendum it is prescribed
that the provisions of laws may be submitted for referendum. A
provision of a law is only a part of a law - its article or
norm - and not the whole law, therefore such restriction of the
citizens' right to call a referendum contradicts Articles 4, 9,
33 and the third part of Article 71 of the Constitution. The
Seimas, while adopting this norm, conformed only to Article 69
of the Constitution and left out of account the third part of
Article 71, which runs about the signing and promulgation of
laws adopted by the Seimas and says nothing about that of the
provisions of laws. If the provisions of laws were adopted by
referendum, the Seimas, by way of implementing them, would have
to adopt a law distorting the People's will.
2. The norm of the Law on Referendum, having related the
referendum on economic issues to the economic examination of
possible consequences, implies that the citizens' right to
participate in the government of their State is related to
additional procedures without specifying what institution shall
carry out these procedures. The initiative group, while calling
a referendum, shall perform official or non-official
examination on its own responsibility.
3. The requirement of amended Article 9 of the Law on
Referendum that a citizen shall himself fill in a ballot-paper
and indicate his passport number violates the constitutional
civil right in cases when a person is semiliterate or has
physical handicap, etc. While voting in referendum, he or she
shall be able to invite another person into the ballot booth,
to submit another document confirming person's identity,
whereas while implementing the right to call a referendum this
right is restricted. The request to indicate the passport
number is some sort of compulsion, as a person is forced to
have a passport with him all the time. That means lack of
confidence in a person. The truthfulness of signatures must be
verified by an institution prescribed by law.
4. The duty of the Seimas is to act in conformity with the
Constitution while adopting laws. However, in cases when the
initiative to call a referendum is expressed by the citizens,
the Seimas may not prevent the citizens from the implementation
of their initiative. While assuming the duty to verify the
constitutionality of the issue submitted for referendum, the
Seimas violates the Constitution. The citizens may directly
amend the Constitution as well.
5. The provision of the third part of amended Article 12
of the Law on Referendum, which provides the Seimas with the
possibility to consider the draft law submitted for referendum,
has not been finally regulated. It is obscure, how the
initiative of the citizens shall be implemented, whether the
announcement of referendum shall not be delayed for a long time
ignoring the citizens' will.
6. The norm of the fifth part of Article 32 of the Law on
Referendum that the provisions of the law or another decision
shall be deemed adopted by referendum if more than half of the
citizens included in the lists of voters approve of them, is
very different from the requirements set for the formation of
the Seimas. Pursuant to the Constitution, the majority by which
decisions shall be deemed adopted, should correspond to the
majority by which the People shall delegate their rights to the
People's representatives.
The petitioner's representatives have requested to
recognize that Article 1, amendments and supplements to the
first and third parts of Article 9, the second and third parts
of Article 12 and the fifth part of Article 32 of the Law on
Referendum, contradict the Constitution.
4.
The representative of the party concerned has expressed
the opinion, that the petitioner had submitted no grounded
arguments proving the contradiction of the Law on Referendum to
the Constitution, and proposed the following explanations.
1. Article 1 of the Law on Referendum contains the norms
established in the first part of Article 9 and the fourth part
of Article 69 of the Constitution. The third part of Article 71
of the Constitution determines the procedure of the
promulgation of laws and not of their adoption. Neither
Constitution nor the Law on Referendum restricts the number of
provisions submitted for referendum; the provisions of the law
ready for adoption may also be submitted for referendum. Upon
adoption, signing and promulgation of these provisions in the
established procedure, they acquire the power of law.
Therefore, in the opinion of the representative of the party
concerned, the norm of Article 1 of the Law on Referendum that
the provisions of the law may be submitted for referendum, does
not contradict Constitution.
2. The fourth part of Article 9 of the Constitution
determines that the procedure for the announcement and
execution of a referendum shall be established by law, whereas
Article 69 of the Constitution prescribes the main rules for
the adoption of laws. Thus, the Seimas itself may establish the
procedure for the announcement and execution of a referendum
according to the Constitution. The Statute of the Seimas
establishes what an initiator of a draft law must do while
submitting the draft, whereas the Law on Referendum does not
prescribe that exhaustive conclusions must be presented along
with the draft submitted for referendum. Therefore, there was
adopted the norm of Article 1 of the Law on Referendum,
specifying that the provisions of the laws on economic issues
may be adopted be referendum only after the economic
examination of possible consequences. This shall be only an
extra measure helping a citizen to make a decision. From the
point of view of jurisprudence, this norm perhaps is not
distinctly formulated, however, in practice this is no obstacle
for the announcement of a referendum.
3. The Law on Referendum valid until now established the
witnessing of citizens' signatures by a notary. In such a case,
a passport, or a document certifying the person's identity had
to be presented. After the procedure for the witnessing of
citizens' signatures by a notary had been given up, and seeking
to prevent the cases when the citizens' will might be distorted
or falsified, the first part of Article 9 of the Law on
Referendum was amended establishing that, along with other
data, a passport number must be specified while signing a list
for initiating a referendum. It is possible to do so without
carrying a passport all the time. This entirely conforms to the
third part of Article 9 of the Constitution that the
announcement of a referendum may be initiated only by the
citizens of the Republic of Lithuania. It is not necessary to
establish the citizenship of a person before his or her voting,
as such data are written on the list of voters. It is
sufficient only to establish the identity of a voter.
4. The second part of appended Article 12 of the Law on
Referendum is not a norm. It contains only the repetition of
the appropriate Article of the Statute of the Seimas which
prescribes the procedure for the co-ordination of the draft
legal acts considered by structural units of the Seimas with
the Constitution. The supplement to the Law on Referendum
commission the whole Seimas to do this. In the fourth part of
Article 59 of the Constitution it is established that, in
office, Seimas members shall act in accordance with the
Constitution. If Seimas members were obliged to submit for
referendum a draft law contradicting the Constitution, they
would be compelled to break their oath. Neither Articles 102
and 105 of the Constitution nor the Law on the Constitutional
Court entitle the Constitutional Court to the right to decide
whether draft legal acts are in conformity with the
Constitution.
5. In accordance with the provisions of the third part of
amended Article 12 of the Law on Referendum, the adoption of
the decision on the issue of the announcement of a referendum
may not be delayed, because the Statute of the Seimas
establishes the possibility to consider draft laws in speed-up
procedure. In the Statute of the Seimas it is also determined
which issues shall be obligatorily put on the agenda of a
plenary sitting.
6. The norm of the fifth part of Article 32 of the Law on
Referendum that the decision in referendum shall be deemed
adopted if more than half of the registered voters vote in the
affirmative, does not contradict the Constitution either. The
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania has been adopted
conforming to this principle; other referenda have also been
conducted in accordance with the same rule. The establishment
of another than the majority vote principle may not find
motivation in the rules of the election of Seimas members,
because the People's elected representative represents the
whole People and not the voters who voted in favour thereof.
The representative of the party concerned requested to
recognize that said amendments and supplements to the Law on
Referendum did not contradict the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. Article 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania establishes that the People shall exercise the
supreme sovereign power vested in them either directly or
through their democratically elected representatives. Thus, the
Constitution prescribes the possibility for the citizens of the
State to implement the People's sovereignty in the form of
direct democracy, i. e. by referendum. In accordance with
jurisprudence and constitutional traditions, a referendum is
understood as the popular vote on the issues concerning the
adoption of the Constitution, laws or provisions of laws, as
well as home and foreign policy. The essence of this
institution of democracy is defined by two main criteria: 1)
direct definition of the People's sovereign powers ( suprema
potestas ) and 2) the legal significance of the acts adopted in
the process of implementation of direct democracy.
Referenda are divided into decisive, consultative and
ratifying. Decisive referenda, when the People adopt laws by
popular vote, as a political legal institute are rarely met in
countries with democratic traditions. Consultative referenda,
when the most important issues concerning the life of the state
are submitted for consideration, are more widely spread, as
well as ratifying referenda, when people express their approval
or disapproval of the law adopted by the parliament.
Article 9 of the Constitution establish that the most
important issues concerning the life of the State and the
People shall be decided by referendum; the procedure for the
announcement and execution of a referendum shall be established
by law. The implementation of the principles of referenda
determined in the Constitution is particularized in the Law on
Referendum, adopted 3 November 1989; and on 15 June 1994 the
Seimas enacted the Law "On Amending and Appending the Law of
the Republic of Lithuania on Referendum".
2. Item 1 of the Law in dispute has amended Article 1 of
the Law on Referendum. It sets forth that "the most significant
issues concerning the life of the State and the People shall be
decided, and the provisions of laws may be adopted by
referendum". According to the former edition of this Article,
it was determined that only laws might be adopted by
referendum.
Article 69 of the Constitution prescribes the fundamental
rules of legislation. In the fourth part of said Article it is
established that the provisions of laws may be adopted by
referendum. In the Constitution and the Law on Referendum,
while regulating the right of the initiative to announce a
referendum, the number of provisions to be submitted for
referendum is not determined. Therefore, the notion "provisions
of laws" used in the Constitution may be understood equally as
an integral law as well as separate norms of a law. A law as
well as its constituent parts always consist of certain
provisions that become legal norms only in the process of
legislation. However, it does not mean, that a law and
provisions of laws have different legal power in the stage of
their submittal for referendum as well as after their adoption
by referendum.
A law is a primary legal act passed in the procedure
prescribed by the Constitution and other laws. Citizens, while
exercising their right established in the Constitution to
participate directly in the government of their State, shall be
legislators of laws adopted by referendum (Article 33 of the
Constitution). In the third and fourth part of Article 71 of
the Constitution it is stipulated that the President of the
Republic must, within five days, sign and officially promulgate
laws and other acts adopted by referendum; in the event that
the President of the Republic does not sign and promulgate such
laws within the established period, said laws shall become
effective upon being signed and officially promulgated by the
Chairperson of the Seimas.
Thus, provisions of laws acquire the supreme legal power
and the status of law only upon their adoption by referendum.
They must be signed and promulgated as laws in the procedure
prescribed by the Constitution. Therefore, the amendment to
Article 1 of the Law on Referendum, establishing that
"provisions of laws" may be adopted by referendum, is
consistent with the Constitution.
3. Item 1 of the Law in dispute has also amended Article 1
of the Law on Referendum appending it by the norm that
"provisions of laws on economic issues may be adopted by
referendum only after economic examination of possible
consequences".
By way of implementing the right vested in citizens to
participate in the government of their State, it is prescribed
in the Constitution that in cases established by laws referenda
shall be announced by the Seimas (Article 9). Thus, the
Constitution does not provide for the possibility to relate the
implementation of this norm to any additional conditions or
decisions by any persons. In the first part of Article 3 of the
Constitution it is established that no one may limit or
restrict the sovereignty of the People. Without denying the
citizens their right to be informed about economic and other
consequences of the laws and other provisions adopted by
referendum, various interpretations of issues submitted for
referendum may be given during election campaign, however,
these may not predetermine the announcement and execution of a
referendum. Therefore, while relating the right to call and
execute a referendum on economic issues to the economic
examination of possible consequences, sovereign powers of the
People are restricted, which contradicts Articles 3, 4, 9 and
33 of the Constitution.
4. Item 9 of the Law in dispute has amended the first part
of Article 9 of the Law on Referendum by establishing that a
citizen, while signing a list for initiating a referendum, must
specify, among other data, the number of a citizen of the
Republic of Lithuania passport.
In the third part of Article 9 of the Constitution it is
determined that a referendum shall be announced if no less than
300, 000 of the electorate so request.
Citizenship is a permanent political-legal relationship of
an individual with a specific state, based on mutual rights and
duties as well as trust, loyalty and protection (Constitutional
Court ruling of 13 April 1994). No one may enjoy civil and
political rights and duties prescribed by the Constitution,
except the citizens of their State. In this case it implies the
citizen's constitutional right to directly participate in the
government of their State and the duty of State institutions to
ensure the implementation of this right.
The initiative right to call a referendum is one of the
guarantees for the implementation of the People's sovereignty,
therefore, the legislator establishes the rules that would
ensure the realization of this constitutional guarantee only
for the electorate. A citizen's passport is a document
confirming his or her citizenship and the personality of the
owner.
Thus, the provision of the second part of Article 9 of the
Law on Referendum that a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania
while signing a list for initiating a referendum, must, among
other data, indicate his or her passport number, is one of the
guarantees that the signature is by a proper person. Therefore,
this norm of the Law on Referendum is in compliance with the
Constitution.
5. Item 5 of the Law in dispute has amended the third part
of Article 9 of the Law on Referendum which specified that "a
citizen himself shall write all the data while signing a list
for initiating a referendum".
By way of implementing the constitutional right vested in
the citizens to participate in the government of their State
(Article 33 of the Constitution), the laws should establish the
guarantees for the implementation of this right.
In cases established by laws, referenda shall be announced
by the Seimas. Referenda shall be announced if no less than
300, 000 of the electorate so request (Article 9, Part 3).
In accordance with Parts 1 and 3, Article 34 of the
Constitution, only citizens who are under 18 on the day of
election or those who are declared legally incapable by court
shall not have the right to vote in the election (nor the right
to request to call a referendum). The Constitution does not
prescribe any other restrictions of the suffrage and its
implementation.
The provision of the Law in dispute that a citizen himself
shall write all the data while signing a list for initiating a
referendum, is a deprivation of the right to call a referendum
for those citizens who, due to their physical handicap, cannot
fill in that list. Thereby, the citizen's constitutional right
to participate in the government of their State is denied,
which contradicts Articles 4, 9 and 33 of the Constitution.
6. Item 12 of the Law in dispute has appended Article 12
of the Law on Referendum by the second part which establishes:
"In cases when, according to the Seimas, the draft of the
provisions of a law submitted for referendum does not conform
to the Constitution, the question of amending the Constitution
must be primarily considered".
In Article 6 of the Constitution it is determined that the
Constitution shall be an integral and directly applicable
statute, whereas Article 7 thereof prescribes the principled
provision that any law or other statute which contradicts the
Constitution shall be invalid. The Constitutional Court shall
decide whether the laws and other legal acts adopted by the
Seimas are in conformity with the Constitution and legal acts
adopted by the President and the Government, do not violate the
Constitution or laws (Constitution, Article 102).
However, the Constitution does not prescribe the
prerogative to the Constitutional Court to decide the
compliance of draft laws or other draft legal acts with the
Constitution. The Seimas, as well as other participants of
legislation process, must draft and adopt legal acts in
conformity with the Constitution. This is one of the main
measures ensuring the constitutional order and one of the basic
principles of the law-governed State. A group of citizens,
while expressing their initiative to call a referendum, must
also keep to this rule. Therefore, a draft law or a draft of
the provisions of law submitted for referendum should also be
co-ordinated with the Constitution.
The Seimas, as People's representative and legislator may
voice its opinion on the compliance of a draft law or a draft
of the provisions of law, submitted for referendum, with the
Constitution. Therefore, the provision of the second part of
Article 12 of the appended Law on Referendum that the Seimas
may state the contradiction of the draft of the provisions of
law to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, is
consistent with the Constitution.
In cases when the draft of the provisions of law is
submitted for referendum, the People shall be the legislator.
In Article 3 of the Constitution it is established that no one
may limit or restrict the sovereignty of the people or make
claims to the sovereign powers of the People. The adoption of
any preliminary decisions not provided for by the Constitution
and stipulating the announcement of a referendum would restrict
the supreme sovereign power of the People. The provision of the
second part of Article 12 of amended Law on Referendum, that
upon the establishment of the contradiction of the draft legal
act submitted for referendum to the Constitution "the question
of amending the Constitution must be primarily considered",
relates the announcement of a referendum to the condition not
prescribed by the Constitution - the consideration of the issue
concerning the amendment to the Constitution. This provision is
flawed also due to the fact that the issue of amending the
Constitution would be considered being unaware of the People's
will to be stated during vote on the draft legal act submitted
for referendum. Therefore, this provision contradicts Articles
3, 4 and 9 of the Constitution.
7. Item 12 of the Law in dispute has appended Article 12
of the Law on Referendum by Part 3, which reads: "In cases that
the Seimas decides to consider and adopt submitted provisions
of the law, the announcement of a referendum may be postponed,
however the referendum must be announced in the same sitting
which fails to adopt the submitted provisions of the law".
The Seimas is the People's representative, whose
prerogative is to enact laws and decide other issues concerning
State power. The Seimas may adopt any law in the procedure
prescribed by the Constitution and the Statute of the Seimas
and without violation of the laws in force. In Article 9 and
the third item of Article 67 of the Constitution it is
determined that the Seimas shall adopt resolutions for the
organization of a referenda if no less than 300, 000 of the
electorate so request. The Constitution, however, does not
prescribe that the Seimas may do any other activities or accept
for consideration the draft legal act submitted for referendum,
thus restricting the citizen's right to initiate a referendum
and voice their will with regard to the submitted draft law or
a draft of any other legal act. Therefore, the third part of
amended Article 12 of the Law on Referendum contradicts
Articles 4, 9 and item 3 of Article 67 of the Constitution.
8. Under item 39 of the Law in dispute, Article 32 of the
Law on Referendum has been newly formulated and part 2 has
become Part 5. The latter prescribes: "Provisions of laws of
the Republic of Lithuania or any other decision shall be deemed
adopted by referendum if more than half of registered voters
vote in the affirmative".
The Constitution establishes that sovereignty shall be
vested in the People (Article 2). Citizens shall have the right
to participate in the government of their State both directly
and through their freely elected representatives (Article 33).
The direct participation of citizens in the government of their
state is a very important expression of the supreme sovereign
power, therefore, referendum shall be a testimony of the real
will of the people.
In Article 1 of the Constitution it is established that
the State of Lithuania shall be an independent and democratic
republic. One of the democratic principles in the adoption of
decisions is the majority principle. This principle is also
determined in the Constitution establishing the procedures for
the activity and law enactment carried out by the Seimas and
other authorised institutions, also regulating other questions.
All referenda up to now, including those when the present
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the
constitutional provision "the State of Lithuania shall be an
independent and democratic republic" were adopted, have been
organized under this principle and following the democratic
legal traditions of the Lithuanian State.
Therefore, the provision of the law that decisions shall
be deemed adopted by referendum if more than half of the
registered voters vote in the affirmative, does not contradict
the Constitution.
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 has taken the following
ruling:
To recognize that in the 15 June 1994 Law "On Amending and
Appending the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Referendum":
1) the norm of item 1 that "provisions of laws of the
Republic of Lithuania may be adopted by referendum", does not
contradict the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;
2) the norm of item 1 that "provisions of laws on economic
issues may be adopted by referendum only after economic
examination of possible consequences", contradicts Articles 3,
4, 9 and 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;
3) the norm of item 9 which amended the first part of
Article of the Law on Referendum by establishing that "the
passport number of a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania"
shall be indicated while signing a list for initiating a
referendum, does not contradict the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania;
4) the norm of item 9 which amended the third part of
Article 9 of the Law on Referendum by establishing that "a
citizen himself shall write all the necessary data while
signing a list for initiating a referendum", contradicts
Articles 4, 9 and 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania;
5) the provision of item 12 which has appended Article 12
of the Law on Referendum by the second part establishing that
the Seimas may state that the draft of the provisions of laws
submitted for referendum is not in compliance with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, conforms to the
Constitution;
6) the provision of item 12 which has appended Article 12
of the Law on Referendum by the second part, that "the question
of amending the Constitution must be primarily considered",
contradicts Articles 3, 4 and 9 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania;
7) the norm of item 12 which has appended Article 12 of
the Law on Referendum by the third part, contradicts Articles 4
and 9 as well as item 3 of Article 67 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania;
8) the provision of item 39, which provided a new wording
for Article 32 of the Law on Referendum and upon which the
second part of said Article has become Part 5, does not
contradict 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.