Lietuviškai
Material No 33/94
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
D E C I S I O N
On the refusal to investigate and on the return of the
petition submitted by Vilnius 2nd District Court requesting to
examine if item 4. 2 of the Procedure for the Establishment of
Investment Joint-Stock Companies, confirmed by the Government
of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No 30 of 21 January
1992, is in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania and Article 16 of the Law on Initial Privatization of
State Property of the Republic of Lithuania, also if item 14 of
the 2 February 1993 Law "On Appending and Amending the Law on
Initial Privatization of State Property of the Republic of
Lithuania" conforms to the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania
10 November 1994, Vilnius
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
composed from the Justices of the Constitutional Court Algirdas
Gailiūnas, Zigmas Levickis, Vladas Pavilonis, Pranas Vytautas
Rasimavičius, Teodora Staugaitienė, Stasys Šedbaras and Juozas
Žilys,
the secretary of the hearing - Rolanda Stimbirytė,
in the procedural sitting considered the report made by
Justice Stasys Šedbaras pertaining to the results of
preliminary investigation of the material, and
has established:
The petitioner - Vilnius 2nd District Court by its ruling
suspended the investigation of the civil case concerning the
restoration of infringed rights and addressed the
Constitutional Court requesting to examine if item 4. 2 of the
Procedure for the Establishment of Investment Joint-Stock
Companies, approved by the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution of 21 January 1992, is consistent with the
Constitution and Article 16 of the Law on Initial Privatization
of State Property valid then, also if item 14 of the 2 February
1993 Law "On Appending and Amending the Law on Initial
Privatization of State Property of the Republic of Lithuania"
complies with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. In Articles 63 and 64 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court of the Republic of Lithuania it is established that the
grounds for the examination of a case concerning the compliance
of a legal act with the Constitution shall be a legally
justified doubt that the entire legal act or part thereof
contradicts the Constitution or laws.
The petitioner, while requesting to examine the compliance
of item 4. 2 of the Procedure for the Establishment of
Investment Joint-Stock Companies with the Constitution, did not
submit any arguments to justify the opinion on non-conformity
of this norm with the Constitution. Under Article 70 of the Law
on the Constitutional Court, this shall be grounds for the
return of the petition to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner also requests to examine the compliance
of item 4. 2 of the Procedure for the Establishment of
Investment Joint-Stock Companies with Article 16 of the Law on
Initial Privatization of State Property which was in force
earlier.
The Procedure for the Establishment of Investment
Joint-Stock Companies was approved by the Government Resolution
of 21 January 1992. The second part of Article 16 of then valid
Law on Initial Privatization of State Property was amended by
the Law of 2 February 1993.
Thus, the petitioner requests to investigate the
conformity of the legal act to the invalid norm of the law.
Article 102 of the Constitution and Article 63 of the Law on
the Constitutional Court do not prescribe that the
Constitutional Court shall examine cases concerning the
compliance of legal acts with invalid laws. According to item 2
of the first part of Article 69 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, this shall be grounds for refusal to
consider a petition.
3. Besides, the petitioner requests to investigate the
constitutionality of item 14 of the 2 February 1993 Law "On
Appending and Amending the Law on Initial Privatization of
State Property of the Republic of Lithuania", which has amended
Article 16 of the Law on Initial Privatization of State
Property. The petitioner raises the question on what grounds
said norm of the Law has been amended. The petition does not
contain any arguments presenting the opinion on non-conformity
of the amended norm of the Law with the Constitution, as it is
prescribed by item 5 of the second part of Article 67 of the
Law on the Constitutional Court. The petitioner's argument may
not be considered as a legal motive, this being the grounds for
refusal to consider the petition (Law on the Constitutional
Court, Article 69, Part 1, item 5).
Conforming to Articles 25 and 28 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the
Constitutional Court has taken the following
decision:
1. To return the petition to examine the constitutionality
of item 4. 2 of the Procedure for the Establishment of
Investment Joint-Stock Companies to the petitioner.
2. To refuse to consider the petition requesting to
examine the compliance of item 4. 2 of the Procedure for the
Establishment of Investment Joint-Stock Companies with Article
16 of the earlier valid Law on Initial Privatization of State
Property.
3. To refuse to consider the petition requesting to
examine the constitutionality of item 14 of the 2 February 1993
Law "On Appending and Amending the Law on Initial Privatization
of State Property of the Republic of Lithuania".
Justices of the Constitutional Court:
Algirdas Gailiūnas
Zigmas Levickis
Vladas Pavilonis
Pranas Vytautas Rasimavičius
Teodora Staugaitienė
Stasys Šedbaras
Juozas Žilys