Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
R U L I N G
On the compliance of the norms of Part 5 of
Article 8 and of Part 1 of Article 19 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law "On the Procedure and
Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of
Ownership to the Existing Real Property" with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
12 November 1996, Vilnius
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court Egidijus
Jarašiūnas, Kęstutis Lapinskas, Zigmas Levickis, Augustinas
Normantas, Vladas Pavilonis, Jonas Prapiestis, Pranas Vytautas
Rasimavičius, Teodora Staugaitienė, and Juozas Žilys,
the secretary of the hearing - Daiva Pitrėnaitė,
the petitioner - Andrius Kubilius and Vidmantas Žiemelis,
members of Seimas and the representatives of a group of the
members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania,
the party concerned - Alfonsas Vileita, the representative
of the Seimas, the adviser of the Seimas Committee of State and
Law,
pursuant to Part 1 of Article 102 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and Part 1 of Article 1 of the Law on
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its
public hearing on 23 October 1995 conducted the investigation
of Case No. 8/96 subsequent to the petition submitted to the
Court by the petitioner - a group of the members of the Seimas
of the Republic of Lithuania - requesting to investigate if the
norm of Part 2 of Article 1 of the 2 April 1996 Law of the
Republic of Lithuania "On Amending and Supplementing Articles
8, 19, 20, 21 of the Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of
the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real
Property" as well as Appending this Law by Article 211" whereby
Article 8 of the 18 June 1991 Law "On the Procedure and
Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the
Existing Real Property" has been appended by a new Part 5 and
if the norm of Article 2 whereby Part 1 of Article 19 of the
aforementioned law has been amended and supplemented are in
compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
The Seimas by its 2 April 1996 Law "On Amending and
Supplementing Articles 8, 19, 20, 21 of the Law "On the
Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of
Ownership to the Existing Real Property" as well as Appending
this Law by Article 211" (Official Gazette "Valstybės Žinios"
No. 37-929, 1996) supplemented Article 8 of the Law "On the
Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of
Ownership to the Existing Real Property" (hereinafter in the
ruling referred to as the Law) with the following norm:
"Providing a citizen wishes to restore his right of ownership
to a dwelling-house (portion thereof or apartment) in kind, and
providing the said dwelling-house (portion thereof or
apartment) may not be returned in kind in pursuance of Part 2
of this article, the mayor (board) or the State institution
shall inform the citizen in writing and propose him to choose
the manner of buying out which is indicated in Part 4 of this
article. Providing the citizen did not choose the manner of
buying out of the dwelling-house (portion thereof or apartment)
within 3 months from the day of reception of the proposal, the
mayor (board) shall adopt the decision to buy out the
dwelling-house, portion thereof (apartment) for money and
securities." Part 1 of Article 19 was amended and supplemented
with this norm: "The institutions which are indicated in Parts
1, 2, and 3 of Article 18 of this Law must investigate the
requests of citizens and adopt decisions regarding restoration
of the right of ownership (with the exception of the
restoration of the right of ownership to land and forest)
within 3 months from the day of submission of the documents
proving the right to ownership."
II
The petitioner - a group of the members of the Seimas -
requests to investigate if the aforesaid norms in their volume
whereby the conditions and procedure of restoration in kind of
the rights of ownership to dwelling-houses are altered are in
compliance with the Constitution.
In his petition, the petitioner points out that the
disputed provision of Article 8 makes it actually impossible to
retrieve in kind the dwelling-houses which at present are
occupied by tenants as item 4, Part 2 of Article 8 establishes
that "dwelling-houses (or portions thereof), apartments shall
be returned in kind in the case that: [...] 4) the tenants who
occupy houses (or portions thereof), apartments subject to
being returned are provided with a dwelling place conforming to
the requirements of Article 358 of the Civil Code of the
Republic of Lithuania".
According to the provision "institutions must investigate
the requests of citizens and adopt decisions regarding
restoration of the right of ownership (with the exception of
the restoration of the right of ownership to land and forest)
within 3 months from the day of submission of the documents
proving the right to ownership" of contested Article 19, while
adopting decision regarding restoration of the right of
ownership to a dwelling-house, the decision must be adopted
whether it is possible to return the house in kind or,
providing there is not such a possibility, it is necessary to
compensate the former owner for his property which he used to
possess. If the house subject to being returned is occupied by
the tenants, the institutions which are to pass the decision,
must, in addition, adopt the decision whether they may provide
the tenants with other dwelling place within said 3 months.
The petitioner alleges that the unconditional duty of the
mayor (board) or any other state institution which is set forth
by contested provisions of Article 8 of the Law means that the
dwelling-houses occupied by the tenants will not be returned to
the owners as no institution that adopts decisions regarding
restoration of the rights of ownership is not capable to
provide the tenants with dwelling place within 3 months.
The petitioner is of the opinion that such a provision
contradicts Part 5 of Article 21 of the Law which was
supplemented by the disputed law, too, which prescribes that
"persons who reside in a dwelling-house, portion thereof, or
apartment which is being returned to the owner shall be
provided with a dwelling place by the local government of the
respective town or district pursuant to the programme prepared
and carried out by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania.
The means to implement such programmes shall be provided for
yearly from the State Budget". Such programmes are implemented
during long period of time and cannot be implemented within 3
months. According to the disputed provisions of the law,
however, the mayors (boards) of the local governments or state
institutions must adopt decisions regarding restoration of the
rights to ownership to dwelling-houses when taking no account
of the implementation of the said programmes. Thus the
returning of property in kind becomes dependent on arbitrary
factors: when the documents proving the right to ownership were
submitted, how much of unoccupied dwelling place which may be
proposed to the tenants who live in the houses subject to being
returned is left at the command of a particular local
government, etc., but not on the objective circumstances (the
economical capacity of the sate). Hence the state loses its
opportunity to implement its major duty - to co-ordinate
different interests of social groups (owners and tenants).
The petitioner alleges that the legislator by actually
abolishing the opportunity to implement state long-term
programmes designed to provide the tenants who now reside in
the dwelling houses which are being returned with appropriate
dwelling place, at the same time deprived the persons who wish
to restore their rights of ownership to the dwelling-house
where the tenants reside of the opportunity to retrieve the
property in kind. This contradicts the principle of the
protection of the rights of ownership which is set forth in
Article 23 of the Constitution and which was interpreted by the
Constitutional Court for many a time. In the opinion of the
petitioner, in this case the public need is to co-ordinate the
interests of the owners and tenants, this must be done with the
power of the state during the time limits known for both
parties and not by immediately and unconditionally satisfying
the interests of one party.
The petitioner indicates that the Constitutional Court set
forth an analogous view in its 22 December 1995 ruling: "When
restoring ownership rights to residential houses (or portions
thereof), or apartments, there exist a variety of possible
manners to co-ordinate the protection of the rights of former
owners and the rights of tenants. [...] The allotment of some
other dwelling place to tenants is the problem of law
enforcement, the economical capacity of the state and that of
the possibilities of the owners. In order to solve this
problem, as well as that of relations between former owners and
tenants who occupy the houses of the former, the Government
must prepare corresponding programmes (Part 5, Article 21 of
the Law, Article 14 of the Law "On Enabling the Population of
the Republic of Lithuania in Providing Themselves with Dwelling
Places"). The implementing of programmes is an economic problem
and it is being solved when discussing, adopting and fulfilling
the budget."
The petitioner also notes that the Constitutional Court
also held in the same ruling that "if a former owner requests
to restore a house (or a portion thereof), or an apartment in
kind, the legal condition of the tenant shall remain intact,
however, the tenant is not entitled to privatise the aforesaid
dwelling place". The petitioner is of the opinion that the
interests of the tenant may not be violated as they are
protected by the same law. The tenant is provided with an
opportunity to privatise the dwelling place which will
subsequently be allotted to him. Meanwhile, the interest of the
former owner to restore the building in kind is violated
because its implementation becomes dependent upon the
conditions that are impossible to fulfil: Can the Government
find enough means so that all the tenants who now reside in the
houses which are subject to being returned were actually within
3 months at one instance in whole Lithuania provided with other
dwelling place?
The petitioner concludes that the law-maker should
establish the duty for local governments that they during
certain time limits by carrying out the Government programme
must provide the tenants who reside in a house which is subject
to being returned with other dwelling place but never should
the law-maker establish the duty for the local governments or
other institutions that they immediately recognised that the
house where the tenants reside is not subject to being returned
nor the duty for the former owner to immediately opt for a
manner of compensation.
In the process of judicial investigation the
representatives of the petitioner emphasised that, while
restoring ownership rights to real property, the main provision
is justice. Justice is understood as a balance of interests,
and in this particular case it is the co-ordination of
interests of the former owners and the tenants who now reside
in the houses which are subject to being returned. The main
interest of the owner is retrieval of the real property in kind
whereas that of the tenant is to get and privatise other
dwelling place which corresponds to that returned to the owner.
The co-ordination of these interests objectively depends on the
economic capacity of the state. Therefore it is immoral and
illegal to require that the issue of property restoration or
that of compensation allotment were decided within 3 months
while, in addition, one should consider the fact that the
compensation is paid within 10 years whereas the budget is
accrued for one year but not for 3 months.
The representatives of the petitioner did not contest the
right of the tenant residing in the house subject to being
returned to other dwelling place which conforms to the
requirements of law. However, as the Law provides that the
issue of the property restoration in kind or compensation of
the value of the property must be decided within 3 months and
while it is impossible to restore ownership rights in kind
during such a short period of time, thus, if the compensation
was allotted to the former owner, the principle of
co-ordination of interests would not be followed. The
representatives of the petitioner also deem that this procedure
provided for in the Law contradicts Article 29 of the
Constitution. Equality of rights of persons is violated as
implementation of the rights is dependent on the economic
capacity of a particular local government and on the fact how
much of the unoccupied dwelling place is at its disposal at the
given moment.
In the opinion of the representatives of the petitioner,
when solving this issue, a roll of the queue of the tenants who
reside in the houses which are subject to being returned to the
owners and who must be provided with dwelling place must have
been formed. They must be provided with other dwelling place
within 10 years and from state means, the dwelling place rented
by them may not be privatised while the local government or
another state institution shall adopt the decision to return
the property to former owners in kind. The interests of the
tenants are protected by the guarantees for the tenants as
provided in the Law. The allotment of dwelling place to the
tenants should be the priority direction of the budget.
III
While replying to the Constitutional Court paper for the
party concerned, Pranciškus Vitkevičius, Chairman of the Seimas
Committee of State and Law, when the case was being prepared
for the court hearing, explained in writing that the members of
the Seimas do not insistently point out in their petition as to
what provisions (what articles) of the Constitution are
challenged by the contested norms. The petition contains an
indication to Article 23 of the Constitution, however, the
Constitutional Court has held that persons whose ownership
rights are not restored and who claim to restore the rights
shall not be the owners. Therefore it is impossible to assert
that the disputed norms contradict Article 23 of the
Constitution. The Chairman of the Committee points out that the
initial wording of the Law was not perfect. It was necessary to
amend and improve the Law while taking account of the actual
economic and social conditions and the interests of particular
groups of people of Lithuania. The disputed amendments were
passed on the grounds of the following reasons:
1) The former norms of the law were vague and solving of
the ownership restoration issue was not limited by any time
limit whereas such a vagueness corresponded the interests of
neither the former owners nor the tenants. The Seimas had to
resolve this issue then.
2) When resolving the issue of restoration of the
ownership rights to existing houses, it was necessary to
consider the economic situation of the state. At the given
moment, the Republic of Lithuania is not capable to provide
with dwelling place in pursuance of Article 357 of the Civil
Code all the tenants who reside in houses the right to property
to which must be restored. In addition, there exist no means to
pay at once the former owners all the price of the houses
(apartments) which formerly belonged to them.
The Chairman of the Committee deems that the provisions of
the disputed law are in compliance with the Constitution.
The representative of the party concerned explained during
the process of judicial investigation that, in his opinion,
this amendment of the Law was defective from its adoption as it
did not establish the procedure of investigation of prior
submitted requests to restore the ownership rights. A great
many of the requests had to be investigated at once only after
this amendment had been adopted. The representative of the
party concerned also emphasised that until the ownership rights
are not restored to the former owners they are not the owners
as yet. Thus their rights may not be protected on the basis of
Article 23 of the Constitution therefore the contested
provisions of the Law may not contradict Article 23 of the
Constitution.
In the opinion of the representative of the party
concerned, the disputed norms of the Law do not violate the
principle of the equal rights of people as established in
Article 29 of the Constitution either because in this case the
equality of rights can be violated provided the law is
implemented and as to who and how implements the norms provided
for by the law. The same should be mentioned as regards
equality of rights of persons when adopting the norms of the
law. The law shall be amended when taking account of changing
socio-economic circumstances as well as those which were not
considered when the law was being adopted.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
The restitution of the constitutional institute of the
right of private ownership is to be linked with the 11 March
1990 Republic of Lithuania Law "On the Reinstatement of the 12
May 1938 Constitution of Lithuania". By adopting the Law "On
the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights
of Ownership to the Existing Real Property", the legislator
based himself on the concept that the constitutional institute
of the right of private ownership had already been restored and
that it had to be actually implemented. Alongside, the
principal provision was consolidated that the protection of the
ownership rights which had been violated during the period of
occupation means that the ownership rights shall be restored to
existing real property by, first of all, returning it in kind.
And only providing it is impossible to return the property in
kind because of the conditions enumerated in the Law it shall
be compensated in other manner at the option of the former
owner as it is established in the Law.
When restoring the ownership rights to dwelling-houses,
portions thereof, apartments, the Law does not ignore the
legitimate interests of the tenants. In this case the
regulation role of law manifests itself in that the rights of
former owners and the legitimate interests of tenants are
co-ordinated. When the house is returned to the former owner,
the interests of tenants are protected by providing them with
other dwelling place. While assessing the disputed appendages
of the Law concerning the restoration of the ownership rights
to dwelling-houses, it is necessary, first of all, to take
account of the legal aspects of co-ordination of these
interests.
II
The Seimas by its 2 April 1996 Law "On Amending and
Supplementing Articles 8, 19, 20, 21 of the Law "On the
Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of
Ownership to the Existing Real Property" as well as Appending
this Law by Article 211" supplemented Article 8 of the Law "On
the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights
of Ownership to the Existing Real Property" with the following
norm: "Providing a citizen wishes to restore his right of
ownership to a dwelling-house (portion thereof or apartment) in
kind, and providing the said dwelling-house (portion thereof or
apartment) may not be returned in kind in pursuance of part 2
of this article, the mayor (board) or the State institution
shall inform the citizen in writing and propose him to choose
the manner of buying out which is indicated in Part 4 of this
article. Providing the citizen did not choose the manner of
buying out of the dwelling-house (portion thereof or apartment)
within 3 months from the day of reception of the proposal, the
mayor (board) shall adopt the decision to buy out the
dwelling-house, portion thereof (apartment) for money and
securities." Part 1 of Article 19 was supplemented with this
norm: "The institutions which are indicated in Parts 1, 2, and
3 of Article 18 of this Law must investigate the requests of
citizens and adopt decisions regarding restoration of the right
of ownership (with the exception of the restoration of the
right of ownership to land and forest) within 3 months from the
day of submission of the documents proving the right to
ownership."
The disputed supplements must be interpreted along with
other norms of the Law. Part 2 of Article 8 of the Law
prescribes the cases under which the dwelling-houses, portions
thereof, apartments shall be returned in kind. Part 4 of
Article 8 of the Law establishes that "in all other cases, not
specified in Part 2 of this Article, the ownership right to
dwelling-houses (or portions thereof, apartments) shall not be
returned in kind and the ownership right shall be restored by
buying them out from the persons indicated in Article 2 of this
law at their option in the following manner: [...]". Upon the
association of the disputed supplements of the Law with these
norms, it is possible to understand that the aforementioned
supplements may be applied to some cases regarding the
returning of dwelling-houses, portions thereof, apartments in
kind and which are enumerated in Part 2 of Article 8 of the
Law.
In the process of the judicial investigation, the
petitioner, as well as his representatives, in his petition
interpreted the defectiveness of the contested supplements by
associating them with the norm of item 4, Part 2 of Article 8
of the Law which stipulates that providing a citizen wishes to
retrieve the dwelling-house in kind in the case that it is
occupied by the tenants he shall be proposed to restore his
ownership rights by buying the said house out by the state in
the manner provided for by the Law. Provided the former owner
does not wish that his ownership rights were restored by the
manner of buying out or he does not choose the manner of buying
out within the period of 3 months and wishes to retrieve the
house in kind then the institution which investigates the
request of the citizen to restore the ownership rights must
adopt the decision to buy out this property against the will of
the former owner. Such a period of time is not a realistic one
as it is impossible to provide all the tenants with other
dwelling place during a very short period of time, neither is
it possible to pay the former owners compensations for the
dwelling-houses which are not returned. The petitioner and his
representatives are of the opinion that the disputed
supplements of the Law deny the possibility to restore the
ownership rights to dwelling-houses in kind.
Thus the Constitutional Court will assess the disputed
supplements of the Law in the volume whereby the said
supplements are related to item 4, Part 2 of Article 8 of the
Law, i.e., with the opportunity to retrieve dwelling-houses,
portions thereof, apartments in kind in the case the tenants
reside therein.
III
The legal norm by which the state loads itself with a
respective responsibilities, in this case - to provide the
tenants who reside in the houses, portions thereof, apartments
which are subject to being returned to the former owners with
corresponding dwelling place - must be grounded on material and
financial resources. Otherwise this legal norm becomes
ineffective, it is impossible to make use of it (ius nudum).
Part 5 of Article 21 of the Law establishes that persons
who reside in a dwelling-house, portion thereof, or apartment
which is being returned to the owner shall be provided with a
dwelling place by the local government of the respective town
or district pursuant to the programme prepared and carried out
by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania while the means
to implement such programmes shall be provided for yearly from
the State Budget. While implementing the Law, the Government
adopted its 27 October 1992 Resolution No. 805 "On Programmes
to Provide Tenants Who Live in Houses Subject to Being Returned
to Former Owners with Apartments". It provides for material and
financial measures aimed at providing the tenants with other
dwelling place until the year 2000 and afterward.
Along with these guaranties, the right to state support is
provided for the tenants (item 2, Part 1 of Article 9, and
Article 14 of the Law "On Enabling the Population of the
Republic of Lithuania in Providing Themselves with Dwelling
Places"), as well as the right to other appropriately furnished
dwelling place (item 4, Part 2 of Article 8 of the Law, Part 1
of Article 356 of the Civil Code), as well as the right to buy
out the allotted other dwelling place making use of the
deposited state extraordinary disbursements (vouchers) and
other purposive compensations (Article 211 of the Law, Article
2 of the Law "On Utilisation of State Extraordinary
Disbursements and Other Purposive Compensations", as well as
other guarantees (Parts 6-8 of Article 21 of the Law).
The Constitutional Court has also held that, while
restoring the ownership rights, it is necessary to co-ordinate
the interests of former owners with public interests (the 27
May 1994 and 8 March 1995 rulings) as well as to bring into
accord the lawful interests of former and present owners of the
same property as well as those of the tenants, occupying the
houses subject to being restored (the 15 June 1994 and 22
December 1995 rulings).
According to the disputed supplements of Articles 8 and 19
of the Law, the former owners are deprived of the right to
retrieve the dwelling-houses, portions thereof, apartments in
kind. Thus the new legal norm does not co-ordinate the
interests of certain social groups - the former owners and the
tenants who reside in the houses, portions thereof, apartments
of the former owners. On the contrary, in the case that the
former owner wishes to retrieve the property in kind, the
priority of the tenant's interests protection is established
which is not in conformity with the constitutional protection
of the right to property.
IV
In the theory of law, as well as in the practice of
application of legal acts, the principle is followed that the
material legal norms have the priority in regard of procedural
legal norms. As a rule, the latter are of official character,
i.e., they are aimed at implementation of material legal norms.
Article 8 of the Law contains legal norms of two types: the
material legal norms establishing conditions under which the
ownership right are restored (the dwelling-house, portion
thereof, or apartment is returned in kind or bought out) and
the procedural legal norms establishing the procedure whereby
the ownership rights are restored providing there exist the
conditions established by the material norms of the Law.
The contested provisions of Part 5 of Article 8 are
virtually to be assessed as procedural norms. However, when
conforming to these norms and the supplement of Article 19 of
the Law, the mayor (board) of the local government of the town
(district) or the state institution (Part 2 of Article 18 of
the Law) must adopt the decision that the dwelling-house
portion thereof, apartment of the former owner shall be bought
out in the case that it is occupied by the tenants. Thus, on
the grounds of the procedural norm, the former owner is
deprived of the opportunity to restore his ownership rights by
retrieving the property in kind.
The Constitutional Court already investigated the
compliance of the norm of item 4 stipulating that the
dwelling-houses (or portions thereof), apartments shall be
returned in kind in the case that "the tenants who occupy
houses, portions thereof, or apartments subject to being
returned are provided with a dwelling place conforming to the
requirements of Article 358 of the Civil Code of the Republic
of Lithuania" with the Constitution. The Constitutional Court
held in its 22 December 1995 ruling that the lease with the
tenant may be forfeited and he may be evicted in the case that
the condition of item 4 of Part 2, Article 8 of the Law is met,
i.e. he is allotted a corresponding dwelling place. Only then
may the former owner retrieve the dwelling-house, portion
thereof, apartment in kind when this condition is fulfilled.
As it was mentioned, the guarantees established by laws as
well as the programme of providing the tenants with other
dwelling place virtually condition the time period of carrying
out the restoration of the ownership rights in kind. However,
the norm of Part 5 of Article 8 of the Law imperatively
establishes the concrete time period of 3 months from the day
of the proposal to choose the manner of buying out the house,
portion thereof, apartment. Provided the citizen who wishes to
retrieve the dwelling-house, portion thereof, or apartment in
kind does not choose the manner of buying out in the case that
there exists the condition provided for by item 4, Part 2 of
Article 8 of the Law, then the institutions which investigate
citizens' requests to restore their ownership rights must adopt
decisions pursuant to administrative procedure (Part 1 of
Article 19 of the Law) to restore the ownership rights but only
by buying out the dwelling-houses, portions thereof, or
apartments from the former owners. This norm altered the
principal provision of the Law that while restoring ownership
rights priority shall be given to restoration of the property
in kind. The fact that by the aforesaid groundlessly short time
periods the process of the restoration of the ownership rights
by retrieving the dwelling-houses, portions thereof, or
apartments in kind is actually ceased contradicts the
constitutional provisions of the protection of property rights.
V
It should be noted that the persons whose ownership rights
to dwelling-houses, portions thereof, or apartments are
restored in case they are occupied by the tenants had an
opportunity to retrieve them in kind until the adoption of the
contested amendments of the Law and when the implementation of
these rights was not bound by concrete time limits. Under such
conditions, part of the former owners have already retrieved
dwelling-houses, portions thereof, apartments in kind.
Meanwhile, the disputed supplements of Articles 8 and 19 of the
Law obligate the institutions of state governing to resolve the
issue of the restoration of ownership rights during a very
short time period. Thereby the process of the restoration of
the ownership rights by the main manner provided for by the
Law, i.e., to return the dwelling-houses, portions thereof, or
apartments in kind, is actually ceased. The former owners who
have not retrieved the dwelling-houses, portions thereof, or
apartments, in essence, loose the opportunity to retrieve them
under the contested supplements of the Law. This is to be
treated as the violation of the principle of the equality of
people which is consolidated in Article 29 of the Constitution.
On the grounds of the motives set forth, the
Constitutional Court concludes that the disputed supplements of
Articles 8 and 19 of the Law contradict Articles 23 and 29 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:
To recognise that the norms of Part 5 of Article 8 and of
Part 1 of Article 19 of the Republic of Lithuania Law "On the
Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of
Ownership to the Existing Real Property" in their volume
whereby the possibility of the former owners to retrieve in
kind dwelling-houses, portions thereof, or apartments when they
are occupied by the tenants is denied as established in item 4,
Part 2 of Article 8 of this law contradict Articles 23 and 29
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.