Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC LITHUANIA
R U L I N G
On the compliance of Article 2 of the Law of the Republic
of Lithuania "On the Establishment of the Supreme Court of
Lithuania, Court of Appeal of Lithuania, District Courts;
Determination of the Territories of Activity for District and
Local Courts, also Reformation of the Procurator's Office of
the Republic of Lithuania" of 15 June 1994 and the procedure
for its adoption with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania
22 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 member Kęstutis Skrebys,
representative of a group of Seimas members,
the party concerned - representatives of the Seimas -
Seimas member Pranciškus Vitkevičius, Minister of Justice of
the Republic of Lithuania Jonas Prapiestis,
pursuant to the first part 1 of Article 102 of the
Constitution of the Republic and Part 1, Article 1 of the Law
on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in
its public court hearing of 13 December 1994 conducted the
investigation of Case No 27/1994 subsequent to the petition
submitted by a group of one-fifth of Seimas members requesting
to examine if Article 2 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania
"On the Establishment of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, Court
of Appeal of Lithuania, District Courts; Determination of the
Territories of Activity for District and Local Courts, also
Reformation of the Procurator's Office of the Republic of
Lithuania" of 15 June 1994 and the procedure for its adoption
are in compliance with Articles 111, 115, 116 and Part 3,
Article 69 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
The Constitutional Court
has established:
1.
On 15 June 1994 the Seimas adopted the Law "On the
Establishment of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, Court of
Appeal of Lithuania, District Courts; Determination of the
Territories of Activity for District and Local Courts, also
Reformation of the Procurator's Office of the Republic of
Lithuania" (Official Gazette "Valstybės Žinios" No 50-932,
1994; hereinafter referred to as the Law in dispute).
The norm of Article 2 of the Law in dispute has been
formulated in the following way:
"The present Supreme Court of Lithuania shall be
liquidated and its activity and the powers of the judges of
this Court shall be terminated on 31 December 1994.
The Supreme Court of Lithuania shall be established on 1
January 1995 for the implementation of other functions
prescribed by laws."
The petitioner - a group of Seimas members request the
Constitutional Court to examine if Article 2 of the Law of the
Republic of Lithuania "On the Establishment of the Supreme
Court of Lithuania, Court of Appeal of Lithuania, District
Courts; Determination of the Territories of Activity for
District and Local Courts, also Reformation of the Procurator's
Office of the Republic of Lithuania" of 15 June 1994 is in
conformity with Articles 111, 115 and 116 of the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania, and, according to the procedure
for the adoption of the Law in dispute, with the third part of
Article 69 of the Constitution.
2.
The petitioner in his request and his representative
during the court hearing of the case submitted the following
arguments.
1. Concerning the establishment of the Supreme Court of
Lithuania.
1. The petitioner has noted that on 11 March 1990, after
the promulgation of the Act on the Restoration of the
Independent State of Lithuania, there was adopted the Law "On
the Provisional Basic Law of the Republic of Lithuania" Article
2 of which approved the Provisional Basic Law of the Republic
of Lithuania. Article 14 of this Law contains the underlying
principles of the legal system and administration of justice,
whereas the second part of Article 113 prescribes: "The courts
of the Republic of Lithuania shall be the Supreme Court of
Lithuania and district (town) courts." The Supreme Council,
conforming to the Law on the Court System and Status of Judges
of 13 February 1990 (Official Gazette "Valstybės Žinios" No
8-185, 1990), on 2-3 April 1990 elected the Chairman and two
deputy Chairmen of the Supreme Court, whereas on 3 May
appointed judges and formed the Presidium of the Supreme Court.
Taking all this into consideration, the petitioner maintains
that the Supreme Court and local courts have been established
in the independent Republic of Lithuania.
In the third part of Article 113 of the Provisional Basic
Law it was determined: "The procedures for the organization and
functioning of the courts of Lithuania shall be established by
law." The legislator presumed that courts, conforming to
democratic principles established in new laws, would not be
able to administer justice in compliance with the Law on the
Court System and Status of Judges adopted before the
restoration of the independent State of Lithuania and this
would necessitate the implementation of court reform.
2. The petitioner specifies, that on 16 January 1992 the
Supreme Council adopted the Law "On Amending and Appending Some
Articles of Provisional Basic Law", and formulated the second
part of Article 113 in the following way: "The courts of the
Republic of Lithuania shall be the Supreme Court of Lithuania,
the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, district and local courts."
In the fifth part of Article 114 it was determined that "the
judges of the courts of the Republic of Lithuania shall be
elected for a term of five years. Upon the termination of this
period, they shall be appointed: women - until they are 60
years of age, men - until they are 65 years of age". This Law
entered into force on 1 February 1992.
In the petitioner's opinion, judges of courts of Lithuania
had been elected or appointed for a term of ten years prior to
1 February 1992, and for a term of five years - after the
mentioned date.
On 6 February 1992 the Supreme Council adopted the Law on
Courts of the Republic of Lithuania, and on 12 March 1992
passed the Law on the Establishment of Local Courts of the
Republic of Lithuania, under which established local courts
instead of district (town) courts. In Article 2 of this Law it
is prescribed, that "... judges of town and district courts,
that have been elected until now, shall perform their functions
within 5 years from their election day."
On 29 October 1992 the Supreme Council adopted the Law "On
the Establishment of District Courts, the Court of Appeal of
Lithuania, the Supreme Court of Lithuania and Appending Article
15 of the Law on Courts of the Republic of Lithuania." The
petitioner draws the conclusion that the Supreme Court of
Lithuania, the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, and concrete
district courts have been established, however the Court of
Appeal and district courts have not been formed yet.
The petitioner, complying with the provision of the first
part of Article 111 of the Constitution that "The court system
of the Republic of Lithuania shall consist of the Supreme
Court, the Court of Appeal, district courts, and local courts",
the petititioner maintains that, the Constitution itself
presupposes the establishment and existence of said courts (e.
g. the Constitutional Court, President, Government and other
institutions, the establishment of which was not based on the
adoption of any separate laws as it was not necessary to do
so), until the Constitution is amended or prescribes otherwise.
Furthermore, the petitioner specifies that "the procedure for
the formation of all these courts and above mentioned
institutions as well as their competence (but not their
establishment, however) shall be provided by separate laws".
For instance, the formation and competence of courts shall be
established by the Law on Courts of the Republic of Lithuania
of 31 May 1994, those of the Constitutional Court - by the Law
on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania of 3
February 1993, of the President of the Republic - by the Law on
the President of the Republic of 26 January 1993, of the
Government - by the Law on the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania of 19 May 1994. Besides, in the petitioner's opinion,
such conclusion is also confirmed by the second part of Article
111 of the Constitution which provides that specialized courts
may be established along with the Supreme Court, Court of
Appeal, district and local courts that are prescribed by the
Constitution itself. This constitutional norm was realized on
12 April 1994 by adopting the Law of the Republic of Lithuania
on Economic Court under which the Economic Court was
established instead of the State Arbitration.
Pursuant to what has been said above, the petitioner draws
the conclusion that there has been no and there is no basis in
law for liquidating the present Supreme Court .
2. Concerning the powers of the Supreme Court judges.
The petitioner specifies that, under the Provisional Basic
Law and its amendment of 16 January 1992, in the period from
1990 to 1 February 1992 the Supreme Court judges were elected
for a term of 10 years and after 1 February 1992 - for a term
of 5 years. Therefore, the powers of all the judges will be
still valid on 31 December 1994, i. e. on the day of the
liquidation of the present Supreme Court.
The petitioner specifies that the Supreme Court judges,
pursuant to the laws that were in force at the time they were
elected or appointed, have been lawfully elected or appointed,
therefore they may be dismissed from office only in the cases
determined in Articles 115 and 116 of the Constitution, that
may not be given more extensive interpretation as the list of
the enumerated cases is exhausted. According to the petitioner,
the definitness of the validity of powers of judges established
in the Constitution as well as the prohibition to determine the
powers on other basis than provided by the law shall be one of
the underlying guarantees for the independence of judges.
Court judges of the Republic of Lithuania shall be
dismissed from office according to the procedure established by
law in the following cases:
1) at their own will;
2) upon expiration of their powers or upon reaching
pensionable age as determined by law;
3) for reasons of health;
4) upon appointment to another office or upon voluntary
transference to another place or office;
5) if the behavior discredits their position as judge; and
6) when judgement imposed on them by court comes into
force.
If the Chairperson or judges of the Supreme Court or the
Court of Appeal grossly violate the Constitution, break their
oath, or are found guilty of an offence, the Seimas may remove
them from office according to impeachment proceedings.
Furthermore, the petitioner in the court hearing of the
case emphasized that the Republic of Lithuania is a member of
the United Nations. The General Assembly, in its resolution
40/146 of 13 December 1985 welcomed the Basic principles on the
Independence of the Judiciary, and invited Governments to
respect them and to take them into account within the framework
of their national legislation and practice. Article 12 of said
Principles runs: "Judges whether appointed or elected, shall
have guaranteed tenure until a mandatory retirement age or the
expiry of their term of office, where such exists."
Pursuant to what has been said before, the petitioner
holds that the cases when court judges shall be dismissed from
office have been enumerated in Articles 115 and 116 of the
Constitution and may not be subjected to broader
interpretation, therefore the provision of Article 2 of the Law
in dispute that "the powers of the judges of this Court shall
be terminated on 31 December 1994" contradicts Articles 115 and
116 of the Constitution.
3. Concerning the procedure for the adoption of the Law of
15 June 1994 "On the Establishment of the Supreme Court of
Lithuania, the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, District Courts;
Determination of the Territories of Activity for District and
Local Courts, also Reformation of the Procurator's Office of
the Republic of Lithuania".
The petitioner maintains that, though the third part of
Article 69 of the Constitution prescribes that "the Seimas
shall establish a list of constitutional laws by a three-fifths
majority vote of the Seimas members", this has not been done
yet. Following the petitioner, the Law in dispute should be
considered constitutional, because it is concerned with the
establishment of constitutional bodies. It was adopted by 54
votes of Seimas members in favour thereof, i. e. by less than a
half of all the Seimas members. Thus, in the petitioner's
opinion, the procedure of its adoption has been violated and
the Law may not be considered lawful.
The petitioner's representative, during the court hearing
of the case having presented the above mentioned arguments and
having summarized them, requests to recognize that Article 2 of
the 15 June 1994 Law and the procedure for its adoption
contradict Articles 111, 115 and 116 as well as the third part
of Article 69 of the Constitution.
3.
The representative of the party concerned explained during
the preliminary investigation and court hearing of the case
that, in their opinion, the petitioner's request is not
justified.
By way of answering to the petitioner's statement that the
Supreme Court has been liquidated and the new Supreme Court has
been established unlawfully, they submitted the following
arguments.
1. The first part of Article 111 of the Constitution runs
that "the court system of the Republic of Lithuania shall
consist of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, district
courts, and local courts." This Article of the Constitution
provides for the court system and court reform actually
different from the existing one. The Supreme Court until now
has worked in compliance with the soviet Law on the Court
System and Status of Judges, whereas, upon the establishment of
the Court of Appeal and district courts, the Supreme Court
loses some of its functions, e. g. it loses its right to
investigate cases as the first instance, also to reconsider
non-effective court decisions and judgements. Besides, the new
Supreme Court will have a different cassation procedure. It may
be started not by individual persons but by panels of three
judges.
Apart from the functions, the structure of the Supreme
Court shall change too: the Presidium and Plenary Meeting shall
be superseded by the Judges' Senate the structure and functions
of which shall be changed as well: it will comprise all the
Supreme Court judges likewise the Plenary Meeting, whereas all
the other judges of the Republic may participate therein by the
right of deliberative vote. According to the representative of
the party concerned, Article 18 of the Law on Courts defining
the competence of the Supreme Court prescribes that "the
Supreme Court shall proclaim court decisions approved by the
Judges' Senate. Courts, state and other institutions, also
other persons, while applying the same laws must take into
consideration interpretations of the application of laws
proposed in said court decisions. "This proves that the Supreme
Court, the Judges' senate shall be entitled to the powers that
the present Supreme Court may not enjoy. Representatives of the
party concerned maintain that the present Supreme Court must be
liquidated and replaced by a new Supreme Court with different
competence, other functions performed while administering
justice in the country.
2. By way of answering to the petitioner's statement that
the powers of judges have been terminated before the expiration
of the term of office, the party concerned pointed out that in
the fourth part of Article 111 of the Constitution it is set
forth that: "... the formation and competence of courts shall
be determined by the Law on Courts of the Republic of
Lithuania." This Law, which was adopted on 31 May 1994, in
essence provided for a completely new Supreme Court. Upon the
enforcement of this Law, all the other earlier valid laws
concerning this issue, among them the laws that foresaw the
duration of the powers of the Supreme Court judges, members of
Presidium and Plenary Meeting, shall become null and void. In
contrary case, not only the liquidation but even reorganization
of the Supreme Court would not be possible.
Articles 115 and 116 prescribe the procedure for dismissal
from office of judges of existing courts. Otherwise, it would
go counter to Article 111 of the Constitution and, on the
whole, no reform of the courts and procurator's office would be
possible
Neither the Law on Courts, nor Article 2 of the 15 June
1994 Law providing for the procedure for the enforcement of the
aforesaid Law, nor the procedure for the adoption of said
Article contradict Articles 111, 115 and 116 of the
Constitution, because the Supreme Court is liquidated and on
its basis a new Supreme Court with new structure and functions
shall be formed.
The representatives of the party concerned argued that the
judges of the present Supreme Court had been elected to other
courts, i. e. to the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, district
courts, and they would be able to continue their work as a
judge.
3. The representatives of the party concerned maintained
that the laws of 31 May 1994 and of 15 July 1994 were not
constitutional. They were adopted by the simple majority vote
of Seimas members participating in the sitting, therefore they
may not be ascribed to constitutional laws that shall be deemed
adopted if more than half of all the members of the Seimas vote
in the affirmative. Thus, it may not be stated, that the third
part of Article 69 of the Constitution has been violated.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. Concerning the compliance of Article 2 of the Law "On
the Establishment of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the Court
of Appeal of Lithuania, District Courts; Determination of the
Territories of Activity for District and Local Courts, also
Reformation of the Procurator's Office of the Republic of
Lithuania" with the Constitution.
1. On 11 March 1990 the Supreme Court approved the
Provisional Basic Law of the Republic of Lithuania, Article 113
of which prescribed that the courts of the Republic of
Lithuania would be the Supreme Court of Lithuania and district
(town) courts, and the procedure for organization and activity
of the courts of Lithuania would be established by the laws of
Lithuania. Thus, at that time the old system (that had existed
before the restoration of independence) of courts was left.
16 January 1992 may be considered the beginning of the
reform of Lithuania's court system, because on that day the
Supreme Council adopted the Law "On Amending and Appending Some
Articles of the Provisional Basic Law" which provided the
following wording for the second part of Article 113 of the
Provisional Basic Law : "The Court of the Republic of Lithuania
shall be the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the Court of Appeal of
Lithuania, district and local courts."
The new court system had to be created on the basis of
constitutional norms. On 6 February 1992 the Supreme Council
adopted the Law on Courts of the Republic of Lithuania and
Resolution "On the enforcement of the Law on Courts of the
Republic of Lithuania." Under item 3 of this Resolution the
Ministry of Justice of Lithuania was authorized, in
co-ordination with the Supreme Court, to draft and submit for
the Supreme Council certain draft laws and draft resolutions.
It was also determined that chapters of the Law on Courts which
regulated the activity of the new court system had to come into
force on 1 November 1992.
On 12 March 1992 the Supreme Council adopted the Law on
the Establishment of Local Courts of the Republic of Lithuania
under which new local courts were established instead of then
existing town and district courts.
On 29 October 1992 the Supreme Council adopted the Law "On
the Establishment of District Courts, the Court of Appeal of
Lithuania, the Supreme Court of Lithuania and Appending of
Article 15 of the Law on Courts of the Republic of Lithuania"
item 5 of which prescribed that "the courts provided by this
Law must be formed until the adoption of appropriate laws on
amending and appending the codes of civil and criminal
procedure that would mark the enforcement of Articles 3-5,
8-13, 18, 19, 49, 60, 62 of the Law on Courts of the Republic
of Lithuania." The implementation of the provisions of this Law
has been prolonged because said amendments and supplements of
procedural laws were not adopted.
Taking all the chronological run of the implementation of
Lithuania's court reform and the essence of the contents of the
adopted legal acts into consideration, the following two
conclusions can be made: first, local courts were established
on 12 March 1992 and have been functioning according to 6
February 1992 Law on the Courts of the Republic of Lithuania;
second, other courts, the Supreme Court included, had to be
formed conforming to the 29 October 1992 Law until the adoption
of amendments and supplements to the codes of civil and
criminal procedure.
Thus, the reform of the court system has actually been a
long continuous process the run and duration of which has been
determined by the material and financial abilities of the State
as well as the creation of the system of appropriate laws.
2. After the enforcement of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania on 2 November 1992, the contents of court
reform had to be co-ordinated with the constitutional norms
concerning the legal power, court system and the status of
courts. The Seimas is commissioned to do this by the
Constitution and the Law "On the Procedure for the Enforcement
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania." In Article 2
of this Law it is established that laws, other legal acts, or
parts thereof which where in effect on the territory of the
Republic of Lithuania prior to the adoption of the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania, shall be effective provided that
they do not contradict the Constitution and this law, and shall
remain effective until they are either declared null and void
or co-ordinated with the provisions of the Constitution.
By way of further implementing the reform of court system,
the Seimas on 31 May 1994 adopted a new Law on Courts of the
Republic of Lithuania and on 15 June 1994 - the Law "On the
Establishment of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, Court of
Appeal of Lithuania, District Courts; Determination of the
Territories of Activity for District and Local Courts, also
Reformation of the Procurator's Office of the Republic of
Lithuania".
The petitioner's statement, that the norm of the first
part of Article 111 of the Constitution itself establishes that
"the court system of the Republic of Lithuania shall consist of
the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, district courts, and
local courts", therefore the adoption of a separate law on
their establishment (e. g. the establishment of the
Constitutional Court, President of the Republic, the
Government, etc.) is unnecessary, is not justified. The fourth
part of Article 111 directly prescribes that "the formation and
competence of courts shall be determined by the Law on Courts
of the Republic of Lithuania." Therefore, the legislator,
implementing this constitutional provision, exercised the
prerogative to enact laws provided by the Constitution.
The Constitution and the Law "On the Procedure for the
Enforcement of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania"
does not determine the way and methods the Seimas should employ
in the implementation of the court reform. Thus, the Seimas is
free to choose the ways and procedure for the implementation of
this reform provided that they do not contradict the
Constitution.
The functions and competence of the Supreme Court in the
new four-level court system in essence differs from the
functions and competence of the Supreme Court in the previous
two-level system. The function of the previous Supreme Court to
examine cases at the first instance and to reconsider
non-effective court decisions and judgements was delegated to
the newly formed district courts and the Court of Appeal. In
the new court system, the Supreme Court became exceptionally
only the supreme instance of cassation. Besides, the law
commissioned it to perform one more function - to form unique
practice of courts applying laws. Taking all the above
mentioned circumstances into consideration, there are grounds
to maintain that, in the new court system, the Supreme Court
became an institution with a qualitatively new competence.
Namely in this light the provisions of Article 2 of the 15
June 1994 Law that "the present Supreme Court of Lithuania
shall be liquidated" and "the Supreme Court of Lithuania shall
be established on 1 January 1994 for the implementation of
other functions prescribed by laws" should be evaluated. The
notion "to establish" used by the legislator etymologically
means "to give a start", "to set up". The term "shall be
established", however is inseparable from the words "for the
implementation of other functions prescribed by laws", which
implies that the legislator presumed that new powers of the
Supreme Court were determined.
The Constitutional Court also holds that the statement of
the Law in dispute "the present Supreme Court of Lithuania
shall be liquidated" may be understood ambiguously, i. e. it
may be stated that it implies encroachment upon an independent
institution of state power. In the process of court reform when
new courts are being established, the competence of the Supreme
Court is subjected to changes, and the judicial authority is
undergoing reorganization, all this situation should be defined
using other linguistic-legal concepts that would enable to
precisely and clearly describe the dynamics and consequences of
the legal relations emerging during this reform. The notion
"liquidation" is usually employed in cases when an enterprise,
institution or organization is being liquidated in the
procedure prescribed by laws. Such cases are related to other
legal consequences.
The notion "establishment" used in Article 2 of the Law in
dispute may be understood only in the sense of the
determination of additional or adjusted spheres of competence
of the Supreme Court and changing its inner structure, and not
in the sense of establishing a new legal institution. This is
confirmed by the norms of the 15 June 1994 Law 'On the
Enforcement of the Law on Courts of the Republic of Lithuania
and the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On the Establishment
of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, Court of Appeal of
Lithuania, District Courts; Determination of the Territories of
Activity for District and Local Courts, also Reformation of the
Procurator's Office of the Republic of Lithuania"'. Striving to
ensure permanent implementation of the functions of the supreme
judicial authority, in Article 3 of the Law it was set forth
how non-examined cases would be handed over to other courts
according to their jurisdiction, how cases in which adopted
court decisions, judgements, rulings and resolutions are
appealed against in supervision order would be further
investigated. Said Law has resolved also other issues
concerning the new powers of the Supreme Court as a supreme
judicial authority.
3. In Article 115 of the Constitution it is determined:
"Court judges of the Republic of Lithuania shall be dismissed
from office according to the procedure established by law in
the following cases:
1) at their own will;
2) upon expiration of their powers or upon reaching
personable age as determined by laws;
3) for reasons of health;
4) upon appointment to another office or upon voluntary
transference to another place of office;
5) if their behaviour discredits their position as judge;
and
6) when judgement imposed on them by court comes into
force."
Furthermore, in Article 116 of the Constitution it is set
forth that if the Chairperson or judges of the Supreme Court or
the Court of Appeal grossly violate the Constitution, break
their oath, or are found guilty of an offence, the Seimas may
remove them from office according to impeachment proceedings.
Consequently, the powers of judges may not be terminated prior
to the expiration of their term of office, with the exception
of cases provided by the Constitution. Such provision is also
present in the United Nations General Assembly resolution
40/146 of 13 December 1985 which welcomed the Basic Principles
on Independence of the Judiciary, and invited Governments to
respect them and to take into account within the framework of
their national legislation and practice. In Article 12 of said
Principles it is specified that judges, whether appointed or
elected, shall have guaranteed tenure until a mandatory
retirement age or the expiry of their term of office, where
such exists.
In the second part of Article 109 it is established:
"While administering justice, judges and courts shall be
independent." This means that independence of judges as well as
courts shall be safeguarded by constitutional provisions. The
judge's independence must be actually guaranteed together with
the guarantees for the judge's tenure.
Judges of the Supreme Court of Lithuania appointed in
compliance with the Provisional Basic Law, also judges
appointed under the Constitution, were designated for a
concrete term of office. Their powers will still be valid on 31
December 1994.
The Seimas, taking into consideration the delegation of
part of the competence of the previous Supreme Court to the
Court of Appeal and district courts also the change of its
procedural functions, could establish another than earlier
number of Supreme Court judges. However, the termination of the
powers of judges was possible only conforming to the principles
determined in Article 115 of the Constitution. Therefore, the
provision of Article 2 of the Law in dispute that the Supreme
Court judges shall be dismissed from office on 31 December 1994
contradicts item 2 of Article 115 of the Constitution.
2. Concerning the compliance of the 15 June 1994 Law "On
the Establishment of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the Court
of Appeal of Lithuania, District Courts; Determination of the
Territories of Activity for District and Local Courts, also
Reformation of the Procurator's Office of the Republic of
Lithuania" with the third part of Article 69 of the
Constitution according to the procedure of its adoption.
In the third part of 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 than said procedure
for the establishment of constitutional laws. Consequently,
only the laws included in the list of constitutional laws
approved in this procedure may be interpreted as constitutional
laws and only to these laws the procedure for their adoption
and amendment provided by the Constitution shall be applied.
This was stated in the Constitutional Court Ruling of 8
November 1993 'Concerning the compliance of the Law of the
Republic of Lithuania "On Partial Amending and Appending of the
Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Elections to the
Seimas", 16 March, 1993, with the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania' and once again confirmed in the Constitutional
Court Ruling of 1 December 1994. The Seimas, while adopting the
Law in dispute, did not violate the procedure of its adoption.
Taking into consideration the interpretation of notions in
question presented in the argumentation of this ruling, and
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 concerning the Law of 15 June 1994
"On the Establishment of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, Court
of Appeal of Lithuania, District Courts; Determination of the
Territories of Activity for District and Local Courts, also
Reformation of the Procurator's Office of the Republic of
Lithuania":
(1) the provision of the first part of Article 2 "the
present Supreme Court of Lithuania shall be liquidated", and
the provision of the second part "the Supreme Court of
Lithuania shall be established on 1 January 1994 for the
implementation of other functions prescribed by laws" are
consistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;
(2) the provision of the first part of Article 2 "the
powers of the judges of this Court shall be terminated"
contradicts item 2 of Article 115 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania.
2. To acknowledge that the 15 June 1994 Law "On the
Establishment of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the Court of
Appeal of Lithuania, District Courts; Determination of the
Territories of Activity for District and Local Courts, also
Reformation of the Procurator's Office of the Republic of
Lithuania" is, according to the procedure of its adoption, in
compliance with 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.