Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
R U L I N G
On the compliance of the provision of Part 7, Article 10
of 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", as well as the provision of item 1.2,
item 2.1 and its sub-items 1, 2 and 3 of the 26 January 1994
Resolution No 55 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania
"On Partial Amending of the Procedure for Enforcement of the
Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the
Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property", Confirmed
by the 15 November 1991 Resolution No 470 of the Government of
the Republic of Lithuania" with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania
Vilnius, 26 October 1995
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court Algirdas
Gailiūnas, Kęstutis Lapinskas, Zigmas Levickis, Vladas
Pavilonis, Pranas Vytautas Rasimavičius, Stasys Stačiokas,
Teodora Staugaitienė and Juozas Žilys,
the secretary of the hearing - Rolanda Stimbirytė,
the party concerned - the Seimas member Pranciškus
Vitkevičius, the representative of the Seimas of the Republic
of Lithuania,
the party concerned - Pranas Aleknavičius, Deputy Director
of the State Agency of Organization of Land Exploitation and
Geodesy under the Ministry of Agriculture and Benjaminas
Dubickas, Director of Land Exploitation Department of the State
Agency of Organization of Land Exploitation and Geodesy under
the Ministry of Agriculture, the representatives of the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania,
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 hearing of 18 October 1995 conducted the investigation
of Case 2/95 subsequent to the petition submitted to the Court
by the petitioner - the local court of Ignalina region - on 19
June 1995, requesting to investigate if the provision "under
the conditions established by the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania" of Part 7, Article 10 of 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", as
well as the provision "under the conditions established by the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania" of item 1.2, as well
as item 2.1 and its sub-items 1, 2 and 3 of the 26 January 1994
Resolution No 55 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania
"On Partial Amending of the Procedure for Enforcement of the
Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the
Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property", Confirmed
by the 15 November 1991 Resolution No 470 of the Government of
the Republic of Lithuania" are in compliance with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
On 6 April 1995 the petitioner - the local court of
Ignalina region - investigated the civil case No.2-97/95
according to the action brought in by E. Kazėnienė against the
board of Ignalina region, the agrarian reform agency of Dūkštas
area of Ignalina region, as well as J.Vitėnas and K. Vitėnas
concerning the annulment of the decisions on the issues of the
restoration of the ownership right to land and the recognition
of the right of ownership.
The court has passed the ruling to suspend the
investigation of the case and appealed to the Constitutional
Court requesting to investigate if the provision "under the
conditions established by the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania" of Article 6 of the 15 July 1993 Law of the Republic
of Lithuania "On Appending and Amending 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.32-725,
1993), as well as the provision "under the conditions
established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania" of
item 1.2, as well as item 2.1 and its sub-items 1, 2 and 3 of
the 26 January 1994 Resolution of the Government of the
Republic of Lithuania "On Partial Amending of the Procedure for
Enforcement of the Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the
Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real
Property", Confirmed by the 15 November 1991 Resolution No 470
of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania" ("Valstybės
Žinios" No. 9-150, 1994) (hereinafter referred to as "The
Resolution of the Government") are in compliance with Article
23 of the Constitution.
By Article 6 of the 15 July 1993 Law, Article 10 of the
Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the
Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property"(hereinafter
referred to as "the Law"), adopted on 18 June 1991, was
amended. Thus, the disputable provision indicated by the
petitioner is in Part 7 of Article 10 of the Law, therefore
Part 7 of Article 10 of the Law will be discussed in this
ruling.
It is established in Part 7, Article 10 of the Law: "Under
the conditions established by the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania the right of ownership to land or forest shall be
restored to the persons who have filed their petitions to
restore the right of ownership not later than till 10 September
1993".
In item 1.2 of the Resolution of the Government, besides,
it is established that petitions for restoration of the rights
of ownership to land within the boards of towns and urban-type
settlements have to be filed by persons prior to 31 March 1992,
petitions for restoration of the rights of ownership to land
for agricultural purpose, residential houses together with
their equipment which are within the boards of land for
agricultural purpose or land of forest, as well as to forest
areas have to be filed prior to 31 May 1992, and petitions for
restoration of the ownership right to land and forest under the
conditions established by the Government have to be filed prior
to 10 September 1993.
It is established in item 2.1 and its sub-items 1, 2 and 3
of the Resolution:
"2.1. the right of ownership shall be restored to the
persons who filed petitions for restoration of the ownership
right to land or forest after 31 March 1992 (for the land and
forest owned within the boards of towns and urban-type
settlements) or after 31 May 1992 (for land and forest owned in
rural localities), but not later than prior to 10 September
1993, provided that:
2.1.1. any claimant has not filed the petition to restore
the ownership right to former land or forest property;
2.1.2. prior to the date of enforcement of this Resolution
(inclusive) local agencies of agrarian reform have not drawn
any conclusions concerning the restoration of the ownership
right to land for agricultural purpose to other claimants;
2.1.3. prior to the date of enforcement of this Resolution
(inclusive) local agencies of agrarian reform have drawn
conclusions concerning the restoration of the ownership right
to land for agricultural purpose or forest to other claimants,
but the institutions authorized by the Government of the
Republic of Lithuania have not passed any decisions related to
the restoration of the right of ownership to land for
agricultural purpose or forest to these claimants and they
agree that conclusions of local agencies of agrarian reform
would be amended according to mutual agreement of all the
claimants to the land and forest property owned by them".
II
The petitioner grounds his petition requesting to
investigate the compliance of these norms of law with the
Constitution on the following legal motives.
It is established in Article 23 of the Constitution that
the rights of ownership are protected by law, property may only
be seized for the needs of society according to the procedure
established by law and must be adequately compensated for.
It is indicated in Part 7, Article 10 of the Law that
under the conditions established by the Government the right of
ownership to land or forest are restored to the persons who
have filed their petitions for restoration of the right of
ownership not later than till 10 September 1993, while the
rights of the parties of legal relations of ownership may be
regulated only by the legislator who establishes the contents
of these rights according to law. In this case the governing
institution is entitled to establish the conditions of the
restoration of rights of ownership, and the Government
factually settles the issues of ownership. Legal acts adopted
by the Government do not come up with law in their force, they
cannot compete with law or substitute it.
The petitioner points out that it is established in
Article 1 of the Law: "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 made public."
The petitioner bases himself on the provision of the 27
May 1994 Ruling of the Constitutional Court that the
establishment of new conditions to be applied in the
restoration of the right of ownership is within the competence
of the legislator. Thus, in the opinion of the petitioner the
delegating of such right to the Government is fallacious, and
the provision "under the conditions established by the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania", Part 7, Article 10 of
the Law, contradicts Article 23 of the Constitution.
The petitioner grounds his doubt related to the compliance
of the provision of item 1.2, as well as item 2.1 and its
sub-items 1, 2 and 3 of the Resolution of the Government with
the Constitution on that the conditions established in the
Resolution restrict the restoration of ownership rights to land
and forest to those claimants who have filed their petitions
after the prolongation of the term. The restoration of the
rights of ownership in the Resolution of the Government is
linked with the petitions and will of other claimants and with
decisions of the institutions executing agrarian reform.
Contrary to what is established in the Constitution and Article
1 of the Law, not the conditions established by the Law but
subjective actions or decisions decide the restoration of the
rights of ownership. Such restriction of the restoration of
ownership rights actually means the seizure of the property
which in this case would be performed not according to the
procedure established by law, not for the needs of society and
without any compensation.
III
The representative of the party concerned - the Seimas, in
the process of preparation of the case and in the court hearing
has explained that in accordance with the provisions of the Law
the right of ownership must be restored to the citizens who
have filed the petitions not later than till 10 September
1993., i.e. by this norm the term of filing petitions has been
prolonged. The provision "under the conditions established by
the Government of the Republic of Lithuania" is understood as a
certain closer definition of existing procedure. It does not
entitle the Government to the establishment of new conditions
of the restoration of the ownership rights, which are not
provided for by the law. In the affirmation of the
representative of the Seimas therefore, Part 7, Article 10 of
the Law does not contradict Article 23 of the Constitution.
The Seimas has not authorized and has not been able to
authorize the Government to establish new conditions of the
restoration of the right of ownership. The Government, while
establishing additional conditions of the restoration of
ownership rights, has exceeded its authority granted to it in
the Law. Thus, in the opinion of the representative of the
Seimas, the disputable norms contradict Part 7 of Article 10 of
the Law.
IV
The representative of the party concerned - the
Government, while preparing the case for the hearing, and the
representative of the party concerned in the court hearing have
explained that the disputable provision of Part 7, Article 10
of the Law means that the Government establishes the procedure
how the institutions restoring the rights of ownership must
adopt the decisions. This procedure is necessary for regulating
the whole process of land reform and the restoration of the
ownership right to land, which may be established in detail not
by laws but by resolutions of the Government. For instance, in
the procedure of the application of the Law, certain conditions
of the restoration of the ownership rights to land in the rural
localities are established: conclusions of the agency of
agrarian reform, and, when necessary, conclusions of the
commission of experts must be presented, the land shall be
reclaimed only after forming rational land areas of economic
significance in the project of agrarian reform and organization
of land exploitation and etc.
The representatives of the Government have emphasized
that, after the 15 July 1993 prolongation of the term of the
filing petitions for the restoration of the ownership right,
the established process of the restoration of the ownership
right to land would have to be changed because new claimants
appeared. It is therefore specified in Part 7, Article 10 of
the Law that the Government should include additional
conditions into the resolutions adopted by it. The
establishment of the aforementioned conditions does not mean
that provisions of laws are amended by the Resolution of the
Government. Judging from the text of item 2.1 of the Resolution
of the Government, it is prepared without violating the laws
regulating land reform or any other laws. In the provision
"under the conditions established by the Government of the
Republic of Lithuania" of the Law the word "conditions" is used
improperly because the Law establishes conditions. However, in
the opinion of the representatives of the Government, the norms
of the Resolution of the Government adopted on the basis of the
Law do not violate the constitutional rights of citizens, as
pursuant to them the rights of ownership are being restored. In
case the institution authorized by the Government has already
adopted the decision concerning the restoration of the rights
of ownership, the ownership rights to the same property may not
be restored to other entities and disputes arising due to that
should be considered in court. The condition included into the
Resolution of the Government, as if restricting the rights of
citizens, does not violate them because it is indicated in the
Law that in the event when the claimants do not agree, the
dispute shall be considered in court.
In the opinion of the representatives of the Government,
the provision of item 1.2, as well as item 2.1 and its
sub-items 1, 2 and 3 of Resolution No 55 of the Government, 26
January 1994, do not contradict Article 23 of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. On the compliance of Part 7, Article 10 of 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 Part 2, Article 23 of the Constitution.
The answer to the question whether the Seimas could
delegate the Government the right to establish the conditions
of the restoration of ownership rights should be related with
the principle of the division of the State power, which is
consolidated in Article 5 of the Constitution. This principle
means that legislative, executive and legal powers must be
separated, sufficiently independent, but at the same time the
balance must be among them. The competence answering their
purpose is conceded to every body of power, the concrete
contents of which depends on the place of that body among other
bodies of power and on the relation of its authorizations with
authorizations of other bodies.
It is consolidated in items 1 and 2 of Article 67 of the
Constitution that laws are enacted by the Seimas. In the system
of the sources of law of a country, law is a primary legal act
having the supreme legal force. This force is based on that in
the law, adopted by the legislator authorized by the people -
the Seimas, the will of the people on main problems of social
life is expressed. Rules of general character are established
in norms of laws, and they can be particularized, as well as
the procedure of their execution can be regulated in executive
legal acts.
It is usually difficult to fulfil the aim of consolidating
all main rules in laws. The practice of many democratic States
concerning the establishment of law undoubtedly proves the
significant role of executive power bodies while establishing
national law - they pass executive legal acts. In some States
(Italy, France, etc.), so-called delegated legislation exists
when under the commission of the legislator the Government may
issue legal acts which have the force of law. For instance, it
is established in Article 76 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Italy that the execution of the function of
legislation may be delegated to the Government only after
pointing out main principles and criteria, only for the limited
time, and on certain subjects. Thus, if the delegating of
legislature is allowed, relevant limits and other
constitutional guarantees are set and determined.
The delegating of the right of legislation to the
Government must be legitimate, i.e. based on the provisions
consolidated in the Constitution of the State. In the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania the delegation of
legislation is not provided for, only executive legal acts
therefore may be adopted by the Government.
The regulation limits of laws and executive acts depend on
many factors - traditions of law, level of political and legal
culture of the society, however, from the standpoint of both
the theory of law and the practice of legislation, certain
priority matters of a society must be regulated only by laws.
In a democratic society the priority is given to an individual,
therefore, everything that is related to the fundamental human
rights and freedoms is regulated by laws. That comprises the
confirmation of human rights and freedoms, determination of the
contents thereof, legal guarantees of protection and defence,
their permissible limitation, and etc.
The provision of a legal democratic State that the rights
and freedoms of an individual are protected by laws is
consolidated in Chapter of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania "The Individual and the State": the right of life of
individuals is protected by law (Article 19), human dignity is
protected by law (Article 21), and etc.
It is established in Part 2, Article 23 of the
Constitution that "The right of ownership shall be protected by
law." This constitutional provision conforms to that the
restoration of the rights of private ownership violated during
the period of the Soviet occupation is regulated by the Law "On
the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights
of Ownership to the Existing Real Property", and not by an
executive act. For instance, it is established in Part 1 of
Article 1 of the Law: "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 real property
which was nationalized under the laws of the USSR (Lithuanian
SSR), or which was otherwise unlawfully made public 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 is transferred by
these organizations to the ownership of natural persons."
Pursuant to the Law, the conditions of the restoration of
ownership rights are such legal facts, on which it depends
whether the rights of ownership will be restored. That includes
demands made of an entity (Article 2), determined kinds of
remained real property (Article 3), as well as the
circumstances stipulating the ways of the restoration of
ownership rights: the property is restored by giving over the
actual property, the equivalent of such property, or by
otherwise compensating
(Articles 4-6 and 8), and etc. In the norms regulating the
procedure of the restoration of ownership rights, the terms of
filing petitions (Article 10), the State institutions
authorized to consider petitions for the restoration of
ownership rights and to adopt decisions (Article 18 and Article
191), the procedure and terms to appeal decisions (Articles 19
and 20), and etc. Thus, in the norms of the Law concerning the
procedure and conditions of the restoration of the rights of
ownership, legal prerequisites and time of the origin of
subjective rights of ownership, the contents of subjective
rights of ownership subject to restoration, juridical remedies
and other essential matters are stated.
It is established in Parts 1 and 2 of Article 10
"Procedure for Filing Petitions to Reclaim Property" of the
Law, that persons who have the right to the restoration of
ownership rights may file petitions for restoration of the
ownership right to land existing within the boards of towns and
urban-type settlements prior to 31 March 1992, and to land for
agricultural purpose, as well as to forest - prior to 31 May
1992. It is established in Part 4 that persons who fail to file
petitions within this period shall lose their right to the
restoration of the ownership rights under this Law, with the
exception of persons having no permanent place of residence in
the Republic of Lithuania because of deportation or
imprisonment as a result of resistance to occupational regime.
Pursuant to Part 7 of Article 10 of the Law, by which, as it
has been already mentioned in this ruling of the Constitutional
Court, it was appended on 15 July 1993, "Under the conditions
established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania the
right of ownership to land or forest shall be restored to
persons who have filed their petitions to restore the right of
ownership not later than till 10 September 1993." There are two
related norms in this part of Article 10: 1) persons are
allowed to file petitions for the restoration of the ownership
right to land or forest prior to 10 September 1993; 2) to the
persons who have performed this the rights of ownership are
restored under the conditions established by the Government.
The petitioner motivates his doubt related to the
compliance of said norm with the Constitution by that the
commission to the Government to establish the conditions of the
restoration of ownership rights contradicts the Constitution.
In the affirmation of the representative of the Seimas, Part 7
of Article 10 of the Law ("Under the conditions established by
the Government of the Republic of Lithuania the right of
ownership to land or forest shall be restored to persons who
have filed their petitions for restoration of the right of
ownership not later than till 10 September 1993.") should be
interpreted otherwise: the Seimas by the said provisions "has
prolonged the term of the petitions for the restoration of
ownership rights up to 10 September 1993 and has authorized the
Government to establish the procedure for acceptance and
consideration of such petitions, however it has not authorized
and has not been able to authorize the Government to establish
new conditions of the restoration of ownership rights". So the
problem of interpreting the disputable norm of the Law has
arisen. It should be noted that the necessity to interpret
norms or provisions of law usually arises in such case when the
law does not completely comply with the requirements (integrity
of the contents of the act, logicality of exposition, absence
of contradictions, determination of legal regulation, accurate
application of legal terms, distinct distinguishing of norms
and various provisions in the act, and etc.), raised for it as
a structurally integral and complete document. While
interpreting norms of a law, the intentions of the legislator
due to which the law has been adopted are considered to be a
significant factor, the interpretation of a norm however must
be determined by the rules of both the establishment and
interpretation of legal norms, which enable to uniformly
understand and apply thereof. In conformity with the
word-for-word and notional interpretation of the provision
"under the conditions established by the Government of the
Republic of Lithuania" of the Law, the conclusion should be
made that the conditions of the restoration of the ownership
right for the mentioned group of persons are spoken about and
that the Government is commissioned to establish them. By the
way, the Government has executed this provision of the Law
exactly like that. However, legal acts adopted by the
Government are executive acts, and as it has been mentioned in
this ruling of the Constitutional Court the conditions of the
restoration of ownership rights belong to the regulation
subject of the Law. The Constitutional Court in its 19 January
1994 ruling has held that: "norms of the law are realized by an
executive act, however, such legal act may not replace the law
itself and create new legal rules of general nature that in
their power would compete with the norms of law. It is an act
of application of norms of law irrespective of the fact whether
this act is of temporary (ad hoc) or permanent validity"
("Valstybės Žinios", No 7-116, 1994).
The conclusion therefore should be made that the
provision, by which the Government is commissioned to establish
by an executive act the conditions for the restoration of
ownership rights, contradicts Part 2 of Article 23 of the
Constitution.
2. On the compliance of the provision of item 1.2, as well
as item 2.1 and its sub-items 1, 2 and 3 of the 26 January 1994
Ruling No 55 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania
with Part 2, Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania.
On 15 November 1991 the Government adopted Resolution No
470 "On the Enforcement of 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", by which
"The Procedure for Enforcement of 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" was
confirmed. It should be noted that many norms of the Law were
transferred into said executive act, without indicating the
source of law. Such practice of establishing law should be
considered as fallacious. It can arouse obscurity, what is the
real source of relevant legal regulation - a law or an
executive act, and otherwise cause difficulty for applying
norms of law. For instance, it is established in the Chapter of
the Procedure of Enforcement of the Law, named "Filing and
Consideration of Petitions for the Restorations of Ownership
Rights", which is newly set forth in item 1.2 of the 26 January
1994 Resolution No 55 of the Government, as well as in Parts 1
and 2 of Article 10 of the Law, that petitions for the
restoration of ownership rights to land within the boards of
towns and urban-type settlements have to be filed by persons
prior to 31 March 1992, petitions for the restoration of
ownership rights to land for agricultural purpose, to
residential houses together with their equipment which are
within the boards of land for agricultural purpose or land of
forest, as well as to forest areas, have to be filed prior to
31 May 1992, and petitions for the restoration of the right of
ownership to land and forest under the conditions established
by the Government have to be filed prior to 10 September 1993.
Pursuant to the direction of Part 7, Article 10 of the Law, in
said norm the provision is established that the Government will
establish the conditions of the restoration of ownership
rights. That means, that it has been passed from the legitimate
regulation to the regulation of the same subject in the
executive act.
The disputable provision "under the conditions established
by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania" of item 1.2 of
the Resolution of the Government is developed in sub-items of
item 2.1 of the Resolution of the Government: "the right of
ownership shall be restored to the persons who have filed
petitions for the restoration of ownership rights to land or
forest after 31 March 1992 (for the land and forest owned
within the boards of towns and urban-type settlements) or after
31 May 1992 (for the land and forest owned in rural
localities), but not later than prior to 10 September 1993,
provided that:
2.1.1. any claimant has not filed the petition to restore
the ownership right to former land or forest property;
2.1.2. prior to the date of enforcement of this Resolution
(inclusive) local agencies of agrarian reform have not drawn
any conclusions concerning the restoration of the ownership
right to land for agricultural purpose to other claimants;
2.1.3. prior to the date of enforcement of this Resolution
(inclusive) local agencies of agrarian reform have drawn
conclusions concerning the restoration of the ownership right
to land for agricultural purpose or forest to other claimants,
but the institutions authorized by the Government of the
Republic of Lithuania have not passed any decisions related to
restoration of the right of ownership to land for agricultural
purpose or forest to these claimants and they agree that
conclusions of local agencies of agrarian reform would be
amended according to mutual agreement of all the claimants to
the land and forest property owned by them".
The proposition of the representative of the Government
that those are the norms of the law of procedure is only partly
right. As such should be considered the norms, in which it is
established what decision must be taken by an appropriate
institution in one or another case. There are legal norms of
two kinds in item 2.1 of the Resolution of the Government:
procedural and substantive. The first ones establish what
decision must be - to restore the rights of ownership or not to
restore them. However, the decision is settled by the norms of
substantive law, the contents of which is as follows: "the
rights of ownership shall be restored to the persons, who have
filed their petitions after the prolongation of the term till
10 September 1993, only under conditions provided for in
sub-items 1, 2 and 3 of item 2.1. These conditions are related
not to a person seeking to restore the ownership rights, or to
a kind of property, as it is in the Law, but to other factors
of subjective character: to petitions and will of other persons
seeking to restore the ownership rights to the same property,
decisions adopted by the institutions executing agrarian
reform. Thus, the additional conditions of the restoration of
the ownership rights, which are not established in the Law, are
provided for in the Resolution of the Government.
The circumstance that former owners have appeared who have
filed petitions for the restoration of ownership rights to land
or forest after the prolongation of the term may have influence
on the initiated process of the restoration of ownership
rights. However, legal relations being formed due to this,
subjective rights of the parties thereof should be regulated by
laws, and possible individual disputes should be settled in
courts. The Government may not intrude by an executive act into
the sphere of the regulation of law, to establish additional
conditions of the restoration of ownership rights.
The disputable provision of the Law has not been amended
or appended by the 3 October 1995 Law of the Republic of
Lithuania "On Amending and Appending of 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", the disputable norms of the Resolution of the
Government are still in force.
On the ground of the mentioned above, the conclusion
should be made that the provision "under the conditions
established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania" of
item 1.2 of the Resolution of the Government, as well as item
2.1 and its sub-items 1, 2 and 3 contradict Part 2, Article 23
of the Constitution.
Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and Articles 53, 54, 55 and 56 of the Law
of the Republic of Lithuania on the Constitutional Court, the
Constitutional Court has passed the following
ruling
1. To recognize that the provision "under the conditions
established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania" of
Part 7, Article 10 of 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" contradicts Part 2
of Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
2. To recognize that the provision "under the conditions
established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania" of
item 1.2, as well as item 2.1 and its sub-items 1, 2 and 3 of
the 26 January 1994 Resolution No 55 of the Government of the
Republic of Lithuania "On Partial Amending of the Procedure for
Enforcement of the Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the
Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real
Property" Confirmed by the 15 November 1991 Resolution No 470
of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania" contradict Part
2, Article 23 of 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.