Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
R U L I N G
On the compliance of item 1. 1, item 2. 4 and item 7 of
the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On Amending and Appending
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" ", adopted 11 January 1994 with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
19 October 1994, Vilnius
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
composed from the Justices of the Constitutional Court Kęstutis
Lapinskas, Zigmas Levickis, Vladas Pavilonis, Pranas Vytautas
Rasimavičius, Stasys Stačiokas, Teodora Staugaitienė, Stasys
Šedbaras and Juozas Žilys,
the secretary of the hearing - Rolanda Stimbirytė,
representatives of the party concerned - Seimas member
Pranciškus Vitkevičius and Algirdas Taminskas, State and Law
Committee Counsellor of the Seimas,
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 court hearing of 6 October 1994 conducted the
investigation of Case No 10/94 subsequent to the petition
submitted by Širvintos District Court requesting to examine if
item 2. 4 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On Amending
and Appending 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" ", adopted 11 January
1994, which has appended the second part of Article 8 of the
Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the
Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property" of 18 June
1991 by item 4, is in compliance with Articles 23, 28 and the
provisions of Part 2, Article 29 of the Constitution, also if
items 1 and 7 of the same Law, by which the 18 June 1991 Law
"On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the
Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property" has been
amended and appended, are consistent with the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
1.
On 18 June 1991 the Supreme Council of the Republic of
Lithuania adopted the Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of
the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real
Property" (Official Gazette "Valstybės Žinios", No 21-545)
along with amendments and supplements (Official Gazette
"Valstybės Žinios", No 3-40, 1992; No 7-155, 1992; No 11-278,
1992; No 15-405, 1992; No 5-83, 1993; No 32-725, 1993;
hereinafter it shall be referred to as the 18 June 1991 Law),
which on 11 January 1994 was amended and appended by the Law
"On Amending and Appending 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" " (Official
Gazette "Valstybės Žinios", No 7-100, 1994; hereinafter it
shall be referred to as the Law in dispute).
Under item 1. 1 of the Law in dispute, the first part of
Article 1 of the 18 June 1991 Law has been amended and
formulated in the following way:
"This Law shall legislate the procedure and conditions of
the restoration of ownership rights to the citizens of the
Republic of Lithuania to real property which was nationalized
under the laws of the USSR (Lithuanian SSR), or which was
otherwise unlawfully socialized, and which, on the day of
enactment of this Law, is considered the property of the state,
of the public, of cooperative organizations (enterprises), or
of collective farms, or which has been transferred by said
organizations into the ownership of natural persons".
Under item 2. 4 of the Law in dispute, the second part of
Article 8 of the 18 June 1991 Law has been appended by item 4.
The new norm reads:
"The procedure and time limits for the restoration of
residential houses (or portions thereof) shall be established
by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to the
provision that the residential houses shall be returned in the
case that:
4) natural persons, having acquired ownership rights of
the houses (or portions thereof) subject to being returned,
consent, at their own will, to move into other residential
premises allotted to them."
Furthermore, under item 7 of the Law in dispute, the 18
June 1991 Law has been appended by the Article 191 entitled
"Court investigation of petitions for the restoration of
ownership rights" the provision of the second part of which
"while investigating such a case, the court shall conform to
this Law" is in dispute.
2.
The petitioner - Širvintos District Court on 2 March 1994
investigated the case pursuant to the suit brought by O.
Bagdonavičienė and J. Simonavičienė pertaining to the returning
of residential house from unlawful management. The Court by its
ruling suspended the investigation of a civil case and
addressed the Constitutional Court with the request to examine
the conformity of the below mentioned amendments and
supplements to the Law in dispute with the Constitution.
The petitioner's request is based on the following legal
motives.
1. Item 1. 1 of the Law in dispute has appended the first
part of Article 1 of the 18 June 1991 Law by the following
provision: "or has been transferred by said organizations into
the ownership of natural persons". The petitioner considers
that such a supplement extends the scope of the application of
said Law in returning real property, i. e. at present it is
applicable in the restoration to former owners not only of the
property of the state, public, co-operative organizations
(enterprises), or collective farms, but also of the property
which has been transferred by said organizations into the
ownership of natural persons, regardless of the way (with or
without compensation) and the date of its transferral. In the
petitioner's opinion, this is a violation of the provision
established in the first part of Article 23 of the Constitution
specifying that "property shall be inviolable" and the
provision determined in the second part of said Article that
"the rights of ownership shall be protected by law".
2. Item 2. 4 of the Law in dispute has appended Article 8
of the 18 June 1991 Law by such a norm: "The procedure and time
limits for the restoration of residential houses (or portions
thereof) shall be established by the Government of the Republic
of Lithuania, pursuant to the provision that the residential
houses shall be returned in the case that: ...4) natural
persons, having acquired ownership rights of the houses (or
portions thereof) subject to being returned, consent, at their
own will, to move into other residential premises allotted to
them". In the petitioner's opinion, this norm is a violation of
the constitutional principle of the inviolability of property
and the provision of Article 28 of the Constitution that while
exercising their rights and freedoms, persons must observe the
Constitution and the laws of the Republic of Lithuania, and
must not impair the rights and interests of other people.
Besides, the principle that all the people shall be equal
before the law, the court, and other State institutions and
officers, established in the first part of Article 29 of the
Constitution, has been violated too. The petitioner draws the
conclusion that "while interpreting the said supplement to the
Law, one can get an impression that subjective will of one
person restricts the possibility of another person to exercise
the right vested in him by law, the principle of people's
equality, inviolability and protection of private property is
given different interpretations".
3. Item 7 of the Law in dispute has appended the 18 June
1991 Law by Article 191, the second part of which stating that
"while investigating such a case, the Court shall conform to
this Law," in the petitioner's opinion, contradicts the
provisions of the first and second parts of Article 5, the
second part of Article 109 and the first part of Article 110 of
the Constitution, because the court is commissioned to conform
to the Law referred to by said norm while investigating
specific cases of certain categories. This is a violation of
the independence of court, as a state authority, from other
state authorities as well as the independence of judges and
courts while administering justice.
3.
The representatives of the party concerned explained in
the court hearing that the supplement to the first part of
Article 1 of the Law in dispute provided the possibility to
restitute the ownership rights under the 18 June 1991 Law also
to those citizens of the Republic of Lithuania whose real
property which had been nationalized under the laws of the USSR
(Lithuanian SSR), or which had been otherwise unlawfully
socialized, was the ownership of natural persons on the day of
the enactment of this Law.
The representatives of the party concerned have specified
that the Constitutional Court by the Ruling of 15 June 1994
recognised that: the provision of item 2. 4 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law "On Amending and Appending 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"", adopted 11 January 1994, that the residential
houses shall be returned "in the case that natural persons,
having acquired ownership rights of the houses (or portions
thereof) subject to being returned, consent, at their own will,
to move into other residential premises allotted to them",
conforms to the Constitution. Thus, the petitioner's request
pertaining to item 2. 4 is decided.
The representatives of the party concerned have also
explained that the provision of the second part of Article 191
which on 11 January 1994 appended the 18 June 1991 Law implies
that the Court should, along with the Law in dispute,
necessarily abide by the Law "On the Procedure and Conditions
of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing
Real Property", taking into account all the amendments and
supplements.
Said norm does not create a collision of laws as it is a
special norm, which must be applied only in the restoration of
ownership rights according to the 18 June 1991 Law which
establishes a special procedure and conditions for the
restoration of ownership rights different from general legal
norms determined in the Civil Code that regulate the protection
of the ownership rights.
The representatives of the party concerned think that the
petitioner groundlessly questions the compliance of the
provision of the second part of Article 191 with the principle
of the independence of courts while administering justice,
which is established in the second part of Article 109 of the
Constitution. In the third part of Article 109 of the
Constitution it is requested that, while investigating cases,
judges shall obey only the laws, and the legislator by the
provision of the second part of Article 191 of the Law echoes
the requirement of the third part of Article 109 of the
Constitution that, while investigating cases, judges shall obey
only the laws, and emphasizes that the 18 June 1991 Law
prescribes special procedure and conditions for the restoration
of the rights of ownership, therefore special legal norms set
forth in this Law and not the ones of general nature must be
applied.
By adopting the Law in dispute, including the provision
that "while investigating such a case, the court shall conform
to this Law", the Seimas only realized the right vested in it
by item 2, Article 67 of the Constitution as well as its duty
to enact laws, and did not violate Article 5 of the
Constitution.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
After the restoration of independent State of Lithuania,
the right of private ownership was returned by constitutional
provisions to the state legal system. By way of implementing
these provisions, on 18 June 1991 the Supreme Council of the
Republic of Lithuania adopted special Law " On the Procedure
and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to
the Existing Real Property".
1. On the compliance of items 1. 1 and 2. 4 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law "On Amending and Appending the Law of
the Republic of Lithuania "On the Restoration of the Rights of
Ownership to the Existing Real Property"", adopted 11 January
1994, by which the first part of Article 1 and Article 8 of the
18 June 1991 Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the
Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real
Property" have been adequately amended and appended, with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Seimas by the 11 January 1994 Law has appended the
norm of the first part of Article 1 of the 18 June 1994 Law
specifying that "this Law shall legislate the procedure and
conditions of the restoration of the right of ownership to the
citizens of the Republic of Lithuania to the property which was
nationalized under the laws of the USSR (Lithuanian SSR), or
which was otherwise unlawfully socialized, and which, on the
day of enactment of this law, is considered the property of the
state, of the public, of cooperative organizations
(enterprises), or of collective farms" by the provision "or has
been transferred by said organizations into the ownership of
natural persons". This implies that under this Law the
ownership rights are restored to the former owners not only to
real property which is considered the property of the state,
public, cooperative organizations (enterprises), or collective
farms, but also which has been transferred by said
organizations into the ownership of natural persons.
The procedure for the implementation of said provision
concerning the returning of residential houses (or portions
thereof) is determined in item 2. 4 of Article 8 of the Law in
dispute: "The procedure and time limits for the restoration of
residential houses (or portions thereof) shall be established
by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to the
provision that the residential houses shall be returned in the
case that: ...4) natural persons, having acquired ownership
rights of the houses (or portions thereof) subject to being
returned, consent, at their own will, to move into other
residential premises allotted to them".
The Constitutional Court in its Ruling of 15 June 1994
stated that natural persons, while acquiring residential houses
(or portions thereof) on the contract, conformed to the rules
of conclusion of contracts established by normative acts that
were in force at that time, exercised the rights and performed
ensuing from such contracts obligations of the party. Upon
denial of ownership rights which appeared on the basis of such
unlawful contracts, the contents of existing legal relations
would be changed.
Until the property is returned or due compensation is
paid, the subjective rights of the former owner to specific
property are not restored yet, however the law entitles such a
person to the right to bring an action in court so that the
latter should resolve in civil procedure the petition to
restore a residential house (or portion thereof) which has been
transferred into the ownership of natural persons. Such
provision of the Law provides the possibility to verify in
court procedure the legality of the contract on which a natural
person has acquired real property because, upon restoration of
the ownership rights to the former owner, the rights of the
present owner may not be denied in non-judicial procedure.
The Constitutional Court has recognized that the provision
"providing that there is no possibility to grant property in
kind it must be adequately compensated for", does not
contradict the principles of inviolability of property and
protection of property ownership rights, because fair
compensation also ensures the restoration of property ownership
rights (Constitutional Court Ruling of 27 May 1994).
While restoring ownership rights, not only the rights of
former owners but also those of natural persons who have
acquired residential houses (or portions thereof) on lawful
contracts are protected.
This is in conformity with the provision of the first part
of Article 29 of the Constitution that "all people shall be
equal before the law, the court, and other state institutions
and officers" and the provision of Article 28 of the
Constitution that "while exercising their rights and freedoms,
persons must observe the Constitution and the laws of the
Republic of Lithuania, and must not impair the rights and
interests of other people".
Therefore, the disputable provision "or has been
transferred by said organizations into the ownership of natural
persons" is in compliance with the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court by its ruling of 15 June 1994 has
recognized that item 2. 4 of the 11 January 1994 Law "On
Amending and Appending 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" ", which has
appended the second part of Article 8 of the 18 June 1991 Law
"On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the
Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property" by item 4,
does not contradict the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania. Taking this into consideration, pursuant to item 3,
Part 1, Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the
legal proceedings of this case concerning item 2. 4 should be
dismissed.
2. On the compliance of the second part of item 7 of the
11 January 1994 Law "On Amending and Appending 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" ", which has appended the 18 June 1991 Law "On the
Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of
Ownership to the Existing Real Property" by Article 191, with
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
In the second part of Article 5 of the Constitution it is
established that the scope of powers shall be defined by the
Constitution. The status of the Court, as one of the state
authorities, is determined in Chapter 9 of the Constitution.
The first part of Article 109 of the Constitution prescribes
that the courts shall have the exclusive right to administer
justice, the second part of said Article runs that while
administering justice judges and courts shall be independent,
and the third part thereof determines that while investigating
cases judges shall obey only the law. Anyone shall be
prohibited from interfering with the activities of a judge or
the court.
The provision of the Law in dispute "while investigating
such a case, the court shall conform to this Law" may be
evaluated as the possible way to settle the collision of laws
or separate legal norms. This provision implies that, with
regard to the relations of the restoration of ownership rights,
a special Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the
Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real
Property" should be applied, and not the norms of Civil Code
which regulate the protection of ownership rights. Also, it
should be stated, that the provision of the Law in dispute that
"while investigating such a case, the court shall conform to
this Law" is ambiguous as it can be interpreted as an
interference with the independence of the judicial authority.
However, such precondition may not serve as a basis for
recognition that said provision contradicts the Constitution.
Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania as well as Articles 53, 54, 55, 56 and
the third part of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court
has taken the following
ruling:
1. To recognize that the provision of item 1. 1 of the 11
January 1994 Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On Amending and
Appending 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" " stating that "or has
been transferred by said organizations into the ownership of
natural persons", which has appended the first part of Article
1 of the 18 June 1991 Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of
the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real
Property", does not contradict the Constitution.
2. To dismiss the legal proceedings of the case concerning
the compliance of item 2. 4 of the 11 January 1994 Law of the
Republic of Lithuania "On Amending and Appending 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" " with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
3. To recognize that the provision "while investigating
such a case the court shall conform to this Law" of the second
part of item 7 of the 11 January 1994 Law "On Amending and
Appending 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" ", which has appended
the 18 June 1991 Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the
Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real
Property" by Article 191, 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.