Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
R U L I N G
On the compliance of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania
'On the Procedure for the Implementation of the Law of the
Republic of Lithuania "On Amending and Appending the Law of the
Republic of Lithuania on Referendum" ' of 4 July 1994 and the
Seimas Resolution 'On Referendum on the Promulgation of
Provisions of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On Unlawful
Privatization, Devaluated Accounts and Shares, also
Transgressions of Legal Protection" ' of 12 July 1994 with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
1 December 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, Stasys Šedbaras and Juozas Žilys,
the secretary of the hearing - Rolanda Stimbirytė,
the petitioner - Seimas members Kęstutis Skrebys and
Vidmantas Žiemelis, representatives of a group of Seimas
members,
the party concerned - deputy Chairman of the Seimas Juozas
Bernatonis, representative of the Seimas,
pursuant to the first part, 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 29 November 1994
conducted the investigation of Case No 23/94 subsequent to the
petition submitted to the Court by a group of Seimas members
requesting to investigate if the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania 'On the Procedure for the Implementation of the Law
of the Republic of Lithuania "On Amending and Appending the Law
of the Republic of Lithuania on Referendum" ' of 4 July 1994
and the Seimas Resolution 'On Referendum on the Promulgation of
Provisions of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On Unlawful
Privatization, Devaluated Accounts and Shares as well as
Transgressions of Legal Protection" ' of 12 July 1994 are in
compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
1.
On 4 July 1994 the Seimas adopted Law 'On the Procedure
for the Implementation of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania
"On Amending and Appending the Law of the Republic of Lithuania
on Referendum" ' (Official Gazette "Valstybės Žinios" No
51-953, 1994), and on 12 July 1994 passed Resolution 'On
Referendum on the Promulgation of Provisions of the Law of the
Republic of Lithuania "On Unlawful Privatization, Devaluated
Accounts and Shares as well as Transgressions of Legal
Protection" ' (Official Gazette "Valstybės Žinios" No 54-1023,
1994).
The petitioner - a group of Seimas members request the
Constitutional Court to examine if the Law 'On the Procedure
for the Implementation of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania
"On Amending and Appending the Law of the Republic of Lithuania
on Referendum" ' of 4 July 1994 and the Seimas Resolution 'On
Referendum on the Promulgation of Provisions of the Law of the
Republic of Lithuania "On Unlawful Privatization, Devaluated
Accounts and Shares as well as Transgressions of Legal
Protection" ' of 12 July 1994 are in conformity with Articles
3, 9, 33 and 67 of the Constitution.
2.
The petitioner's request is based on the following
arguments.
The initiative group of citizens of the Republic of
Lithuania, conforming to then valid Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on Referendum (Official Gazette "Valstybės Žinios" No
33-445, 1989; No 4-86, No 31-755, 1990; No 18-515, 1992) and
procedure and terms prescribed by this Law, realized the
initiative right to announce a referendum vested in citizens:
filed requisite documents for the submittal for referendum of
the Constitutional Law "On Unlawful Privatization, Devaluated
Accounts and Shares as well as Transgressions of Legal
Protection". This had been done prior to the enforcement of the
Law "On Amending and Appending the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on Referendum" of 15 June 1994 (Official Gazette
"Valstybės Žinios" No 47-870, 1994). This fact has been also
confirmed in the resolving part of the decision "On the
conclusions concerning the documents of the initiative group
for the announcement of referendum" passed on 7 July 1994 by
the Central Electoral Committee which had been commissioned to
check the documents submitted by the initiative group under the
Seimas Resolution of 21 June 1994 "On the documents for the
announcement of referendum submitted by the initiative group",
which reads: "to confirm the conclusion that the documents
submitted by the initiative group containing the requirement to
call a referendum on the constitutional Law of the Republic of
Lithuania "On Unlawful Privatization, Devaluated Accounts and
Shares as well as Transgressions of Legal Protection", is
consistent with the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on
Referendum ..."
The petitioner maintains that the Seimas by Resolution of
12 July 1994 'On Referendum on the Promulgation of the
Provisions of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On Unlawful
Privatization, Devaluated Accounts and Shares as well as
Transgressions of Legal Protection" ' ignored the initiative
right to call referendum vested in the citizens by the first,
third and fourth parts of Article 9 of the
Constitution,"...because, according to said Resolution, the
referendum was announced on another issue than it had been
requested by the citizens. Under item 1 of the mentioned act, a
referendum shall be announced 'on the provisions of the Law of
the Republic of Lithuania "On Unlawful Privatization,
Devaluated Accounts and Shares as well as Transgressions of
Legal Protection"', whereas in item 3 thereof it is resolved
'to submit for referendum eight provisions of the Law of the
Republic of Lithuania "On Unlawful Privatization, Devaluated
Accounts and Shares as well as Transgressions of Legal
Protection" ' .
Furthermore, by item 2 of said Resolution the Seimas "also
resolved to hold that the proposal of the initiative group
concerning a constitutional law or constitutional provisions
was not in conformity with Article 69 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania". Although this question was not
considered at a sitting, the Seimas decided that "provisions of
the law of the Republic of Lithuania shall be submitted for
referendum". In the petitioner's opinion, this "restricts the
sovereign right of the People to directly participate in the
government of their State, established in Article 33 of the
Constitution which forbids to restrict the sovereign powers of
the People. It should also be noted that legal acts enumerated
in Article 150 of the Constitution have already been ascribed
to constitutional laws by the direct manifestation of the
People's will..."
The above mentioned Resolution of the Seimas "...has
established additional conditions for the conduction of a
referendum - item 3 of said Resolution has determined that the
provisions of the law shall be submitted for referendum "unless
these provisions of the law are adopted by the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania until the referendum day." '
The petitioner also maintains that the Seimas, "while
adopting items 2 and 3 of said Resolution, violated the
provisions of the second and third parts of Article 12 of the
specified in the preamble Law on Referendum to which the Seimas
members had conformed in the adoption of this act and which
regulated the procedure for the adoption of a Seimas resolution
on the requirement to call a referendum.
On 15 June 1994 the Seimas adopted the Law "On Amending
and Appending the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on
Referendum", which entered into force on 22 June 1994.
Following the petitioner, "upon the enforcement of new legal
norms regulating the procedure for realization of the
initiative right to call a referendum, also the procedure for
the announcement and execution of a referendum, the legal fact
had already occurred - the citizens' initiative right to call a
referendum had already been realized in the procedure
prescribed by the law. Therefore, the application of newly
adopted legal norms to the citizens' demands to call a
referendum which had been already been realized, implies their
application to facts and legal consequences that had appeared
prior to the enforcement of a normative act.
In the petitioner's opinion, the Law of 4 July 1994 'On
the Procedure for the Implementation of the Law of the Republic
of Lithuania "On Amending and Appending the Law of the Republic
of Lithuania on Referendum" ', "...according to the scope of
regulation, contradicts Articles 3 and 9 of the Constitution as
it restricts the People's sovereign powers to call a
referendum. The above mentioned Law prescribes that the
provisions of the first, second, third and fourth parts of
Article 9 as well as third part of Article 11 of said Law shall
not be applied for the citizens' initiatives to call a
referendum the realization of which had been started prior to
the enforcement of the 15 June 1994 Law "On Amending and
Appending the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Referendum".
However, the provisions of part 1, Article 1; parts 2 and 3 of
Article 3; part 4 of Article 4; part 1 of Article 7; Article 8;
parts 1 and 2 of Article 9; parts 1, 2 and 3 of Article 10; and
part 2 of Article 13 of then valid Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on Referendum - had already been realized until the
specified date, therefore the preliminary investigation of the
citizens' proposal had to be started in the procedure
prescribed by Article 11 of the mentioned Law and the
referendum had to be announced in the procedure established in
Articles 12 and 13 of the same Law."
During the court hearing the petitioner's representatives
actually repeated these motives specified in the petition.
Conforming to the above mentioned motives, the petitioner
and his representatives request the Constitutional Court to
examine if the 4 July 1994 Law 'On the Procedure for the
Implementation of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On
Amending and Appending the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on
Referendum" ' and the Seimas Resolution of 12 July 1994 'On
Referendum on the Promulgation of the Provisions of the Law of
the Republic of Lithuania "On Unlawful Privatization,
Devaluated Accounts and Shares as well as Transgressions of
Legal Protection" ' are in compliance with Articles 3, 9, 33
and 67 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
3.
During the court hearing, a representative of the party
concerned explained that, in his opinion, the petitioner's
request is not justified.
By way of answering to the petitioner's statement that the
Law according to the scope of regulation contradicts Articles 3
and 9 of the Constitution he submitted the following arguments.
First, the Law in dispute was not adopted for one
particular referendum because signatures for the referendum on
pre-term elections to the Seimas were already being collected
at that time.
Second, the Law specified that these amendments concerning
the collection of signatures and their verification would not
be applied to already started initiatives for referenda.
Third, although the Constitutional Court had already
investigated the petition of Seimas members and on 22 July 1994
passed the ruling on the compliance of the 15 June 1994 Law "On
Amending and Appending the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on
Referendum" with the Constitution, the petitioner however has
doubts as to the constitutionality of the application of this
Law.
Fourth, the legislation process concerning the adoption of
laws in the Seimas as well as by referendum consists of several
stages the main of which are as follows: realization of the
initiative right of legislation, consideration of a draft,
adoption of a draft, promulgation and enforcement of the
adopted law. The Law on Referendum not only establishes the
procedure for expressing initiative, collection of signatures
and their presentation, but also the procedure for the
announcement of a referendum, consideration of the submitted
draft and its adoption as well as the enforcement of an act
adopted by referendum. That is why the Seimas passed the Law in
dispute - in order new norms would not be applied to the stage
of expressing initiative.
Fifth, the petitioner's statement that the provisions of
part 1, Article 1; parts 2 and 3 of Article 3; part 4 of
Article 4; part 1 of Article 7; Article 8; parts 1 and 2 of
Article 9; parts 1, 2 and 3 of Article 10; and part 2 of
Article 13 could not be applied is not justified in any way
because said provisions had already been realized.
The representative of the party concerned has also
explained the essence of the amendments to the Law on
Referendum;
The first sentence of the first part of Article 1 only
echoes the constitutional norms that were valid already prior
to its amendment;
Parts 2 and 3 of Article 3 establish the procedure for
referendum campaign. These norms have been particularized by
specifying that the procedure for the campaign in mass media
shall be determined by the Central Electoral Committee;
The norms of the fourth part of Article 4 are not related
to the realization of the initiative right vested in the
citizens, they only prescribe rights and duties for mass media
during referendum;
Article 7 has been recognized null and void, whereas the
norm of the first part of Article 7 mentioned by the petitioner
has been repeated in Article 1;
Only two notions from Article 8 have undergone amending,
namely: the notion "for the deputies of the Supreme Council"
has been replaced by "for Seimas members" and the notion "for
citizens" has been used instead of "for the People";
In the first part of Article 10 the non-existing
institution "Supreme Council" was superseded by the notion
"Chairman of the Seimas", whereas the second part was subjected
to no changes; in the third part the notion "Presidium of the
Supreme Council" was substituted by the "Central Electoral
Committee";
The second part of Article 13 establishes that initiators
of referendum shall make amendments to the draft and shall
publicize them within 15 days before referendum. Under the
earlier valid norm, the signatures could be collected in
support of one draft whereas another draft could be announced,
which was not in compliance with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania.
Sixth, the situation was such that some norms of the
earlier Law on Referendum were no longer valid and could no
longer be applied. Realizing that, the legislators adopted
amendments to the Law on Referendum.
In the opinion of the representative of the party
concerned, many of the petitioner's statements concerning the
Seimas Resolution 'On Referendum on the Promulgation of the
Provisions of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On Unlawful
Privatization, Devaluated Accounts and Shares as well as
Transgressions of Legal Protection" ' of 12 July 1994 are also
not justified.
On 22 June 1994, the initiative group submitted the last
draft to the Seimas. The initiators proposed to submit for
referendum a draft constitutional law, however it would have
contradicted Article 69 of the Constitution, in the third part
of which it is established: "The Seimas shall establish a list
of constitutional laws by a three-fifths majority vote of the
Seimas members". The Constitutional Court in its Ruling of 8
November 1993 on the compliance of the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania "On Partial Amending and Appending of the Law of the
Republic of Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas" with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania stated that: "The
constituent parts of the Constitution shall primarily be laws
established in Article 150 of the Constitution. Only the Seimas
is empowered with enumerating other constitutional laws."
Since such a list did not exist at the moment when the
draft was submitted, the legislator could not call the
submitted for referendum draft constitutional. The Seimas,
conforming to the second part of Article 12 of the Law on
Referendum, maintained that "the proposal of the initiative
group concerning the constitutional law of the Republic of
Lithuania or constitutional provisions was not consistent with
Article 69 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania".
Such right of the Seimas was also recognized by the
Constitutional Court Ruling of 22 July 1994. Therefore, the
petitioner's statement that another question was submitted for
referendum, does not fit to reality.
The representative of the party concerned has also
acknowledged that the provision of item 3 of the Seimas
Resolution in dispute stating that the provisions shall be
proposed for referendum "unless they are adopted by the Seimas
until the referendum day", is not in compliance with the
Constitution.
Conforming to these arguments, the representative of the
party concerned requests the Constitutional Court to recognize
that the 4 July 1994 Law of the Republic of Lithuania 'On the
Procedure for the Implementation of the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania "On Amending and Appending the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on Referendum" ' and the Seimas Resolution 'On
Referendum on the Promulgation of Provisions of the Law of the
Republic of Lithuania "On Unlawful Privatization, Devaluated
Accounts and Shares, also Transgressions of Legal Protection" '
of 12 July 1994 are consistent with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. On the compliance of the 4 July 1994 Law of the
Republic of Lithuania 'On the Procedure for the Implementation
of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On Amending and
Appending the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Referendum" '
with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court in its Ruling of 16 March 1994
stated that "in the sphere of legal regulation a general rule
is valid: a law has no retroactive validity. The essence of
this rule is that laws, except some particular cases, usually
"do not go to the past", i. e. they are not applied to legal
facts, that have already occurred, and legal consequences that
existed prior to the enforcement of the newly adopted normative
act" (Official Gazette "Valstybės Žinios") No 22-366, 1994).
This provision was once again repeated in the Constitutional
Court Ruling of 15 July 1994 (Official Gazette "Valstybės
Žinios" No 56-1103, 1994).
First of all, it must be noted that, at the time of the
adoption of the law in dispute, the legal relations concerning
initiation and organization had not finished yet, therefore
there were no grounds for speaking about the legal consequences
that appeared then. This is concerned with the fact that
relations regarding organization of referendum are continuous
legal relations. Besides, in the case in question, certain
amendments to the Law on Referendum had to be made in order to
ensure the positive run, i. e. continuity, of said relations.
Such objective necessity was preconditioned by the Constitution
and new structure of the Parliament. Consequently, the adoption
of such amendments by itself did not imply the retroactive
validity of new norms, because at the moment in question
concrete legal consequences did not actually exist yet.
Secondly, the statement that making one's initiative to
organize a referendum already implies the beginning of a
referendum, is not justified. The formation of an initiative
group, collection of citizen's signatures for organizing a
referendum, filing of documents and their verification and
consideration - these are only obligatory actions in the
process of referendum oranization. The Seimas resolution to
announce a referendum may be adopted only after the above
mentioned actions have been performed (with the exception of
cases when a referendum is announced on the Seimas initiative).
It should be noted, that failing to perform the most important
preliminary actions (e. g. failing to collect the necessary
number of citizens' signatures within the established period of
time) would mean the breach of organizational process of
referendum. After the Seimas passes a resolution to announce a
referendum, direct preparation for a referendum shall start -
committees for referendum and electoral districts shall be
formed, voter lists shall be verified, referendum campaign
shall take place. Referendum (i. e. citizens' vote) shall be
conducted on the day specified in the Seimas resolution and at
the time prescribed by the law. Only in cases and procedure
provided by law when voting takes place by post, citizens shall
participate in referendum earlier than the appointed day.
Thirdly, the Law in dispute itself prescribed that the
norms which might change already existing legal relations
concerning referendum organization could not be applied.
Namely, it was established that "the provisions of parts 1, 2,
3 and 4 of Article 9, also part 3 of Article 11 of this Law
would not be applied to the citizens' initiatives to announce a
referendum the implementation of which had been started before
the enforcement of amendments to the Law on Referendum". It
should be noted, that this is all the contents of the Law in
dispute. Therefore, the petitioner's statement that "this Law,
according to the scope of regulation, contradicts Articles 3
and 9 of the Constitution as it restricts the power of the
People to call a referendum" is not grounded on legal motives.
By the Law in dispute the Seimas only realized the right vested
therein to establish the procedure for the enforcement of the
already adopted law. Therefore, the 4 July 1994 Law 'On the
Procedure for the Implementation of the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania "On Amending and Appending the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on Referendum" ' is in conformity with the
Constitution.
2. On the compliance of the Seimas Resolution 'On
Referendum on the Promulgation of Provisions of the Law of the
Republic of Lithuania "On Unlawful Privatization, Devaluated
Accounts and Shares, also Transgressions of Legal Protection" '
of 12 July 1994 with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania
2. 1. The petitioner maintains that under items 1 and 3 of
said Resolution "the referendum was announced on another than
required by the citizens issue". The petitioner bases his
statement on the fact that the title of the draft law was
specified by adding the word "provisions" (i. e. "provisions
... of the law"). The representative of the party concerned
explained that the concretization of the title of the law
conformed to the norm of the fourth part of Article 69 of the
Constitution which reads that "provisions of the laws ... may
also be adopted by referendum". This question has already been
resolved in the Constitutional Court Ruling of 22 July 1994 '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'
(Official Gazette "Valstybės Žinios" No 57-1120, 1994). The
second paragraph of item 2 of the argumentation of said Ruling
runs: "... 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". The
Constitutional Court did not establish that the Seimas had
changed the contents of the draft law submitted for referendum,
i. e. concrete norms of said draft law. Thus, the petitioner's
statement that "referendum was announced on another than
required by the citizens' question" is not justified.
The petitioner argues that item 2 of the Resolution in
dispute has unlawfully changed the form of the act proposed for
referendum: i. e. "provisions of the laws of the Republic of
Lithuania were submitted" for referendum instead of a
constitutional law (or constitutional provisions).
Constitutional laws are mentioned in Articles 69 and 72 of
the Constitution. Said laws differ from other laws primarily by
the procedure of their adoption and amendment. Constitutional
laws shall be deemed adopted if more than half of all the
members of the Seimas vote in the affirmative; they shall be
amended by at least a three-fifths majority vote of all the
Seimas members. Meanwhile, other laws (including their
amendments) shall be deemed adopted if the majority of the
Seimas members participating in the sitting vote in the
affirmative. Furthermore, said procedure for the adoption and
amendment of laws is concerned with the peculiar place these
laws occupy in the legal system and specific relations the
norms of constitutional laws are in with constitutional norms.
In Article 69 of the Constitution it is set forth: "The
Seimas shall establish a list of constitutional laws by a
three-fifths majority vote of the Seimas members." The
Constitution does not prescribe another procedure for the
establishment of constitutional laws than the above mentioned
one and the procedure for making amendments to the
Constitution. Constitutional norms are equally binding to all
legal persons, including groups for initiating a referendum as
well as citizens' groups of any size. The later may not be
either identified with the People or speak on behalf of the
People. The People usually express their will directly by
referendum or during direct universal elections, i. e. only
after referendum or direct universal elections People's will
with regard to concrete issues becomes known. Parliament -
democratically elected People's representative shall indirectly
express the People's will.
Thus, according to the Constitution, only the Seimas shall
establish a list of constitutional laws. Consequently, in the
above mentioned case the Seimas, while crossing out the word
"constitutional" from the title of the draft law proposed for
referendum, acted in compliance with the powers vested therein.
This fact has already been stated in the Constitutional Court
Ruling of 8 November 1993 'On the compliance of the Law of the
Republic of Lithuania "On Partial Amending and Appending of the
Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas"
with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania'.
2. 3. The petitioner maintains that the provision of item
3 of the Resolution in dispute "unless the provisions of this
Law are adopted by the Seimas until the referendum day" implies
the establishment of additional conditions for the execution of
referendum, which contradicts the Constitution.
This question has been resolved on its merits in the
Constitutional Court Ruling of 22 July 1994 '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.' Under item 7 of
this Ruling it has been recognized that "the norm of item 12
which appended Article 12 of the Law on Referendum by the third
part", contradicts the Constitution. In said Constitutional
Court Ruling it was noted that "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 citizens' right to initiate a
referendum and voice their will with regard to the submitted
draft law or a draft of any other legal act." The provision in
dispute of the Seimas resolution in essence echoed the norm of
the 15 June 1994 Law "On Amending and Appending the Law of the
Republic of Lithuania on Referendum" which by the
Constitutional Court Ruling has been recognised as
contradicting the Constitution. According to Article 72 of the
Law on the Constitutional Court, this provision is null and
void and may not be applied.
Pursuant to the above mentioned motives, the
Constitutional Court has drawn the conclusion that the Seimas
Resolution of 12 July 1994 'On Referendum on the Promulgation
of Provisions of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On
Unlawful Privatization, Devaluated Accounts and Shares as well
as Transgressions of Legal Protection" ', with the exception of
the provision of item 3 "unless these provisions of the law are
adopted by the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania until the
referendum day" which under the Constitutional Court Ruling of
22 July 1994 is null and void, 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 passed the following
ruling:
1.To recognize that the Law of the Republic of Lithuania
'On the Procedure for the Implementation of the Law of the
Republic of Lithuania
"On Amending and Appending the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on Referendum" ' of 4 July 1994 is in conformity with
the Constitution.
2. To recognize that the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution 'On Referendum on the Promulgation of
Provisions of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On Unlawful
Privatization, Devaluated Accounts and Shares, also
Transgressions of Legal Protection" ' of 12 July 1994, with the
exception of the provision of item 3 "unless these provisions
of the law are adopted by the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania until the referendum day" which under the
Constitutional Court Ruling of 22 July 1994 is null and void,
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.