Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
R U L I N G
On the compliance of the 5 December 1996 Seimas of
the Republic of Lithuania Resolution "On
Recognising the Seimas Resolution "On the
Appointment of the Members of the Council of the
National Radio and Television of Lithuania" as
Being Voided and the Formation of the Council of
the National Radio and Television of Lithuania"
with the Constitution
29 May 1997, 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, and Juozas Žilys,
the secretary of the hearing - Daiva Pitrėnaitė,
the petitioner - Česlovas Juršėnas, a Seimas member, the
representative of a group of the members of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania,
the party concerned - Mindaugas Briedis, a Seimas member,
Paulius Vinkleris, the consultant at the Legal Division of the
Office of the Seimas, both are representatives of the Seimas,
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
the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its
public hearing on 8 May 1997 conducted the investigation of
Case No. 3/97 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 5
December 1996 Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution
"On Recognising the Seimas Resolution "On the Appointment of
the Members of the Council of the National Radio and Television
of Lithuania" as Being Voided and the Formation of the Council
of the National Radio and Television of Lithuania" was in
compliance with Articles 7, 67, 69 and 70 of the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
On 5 December 1996, the Seimas adopted its Resolution "On
Recognising the Seimas Resolution "On the Appointment of the
Members of the Council of the National Radio and Television of
Lithuania" as Being Voided and the Formation of the Council of
the National Radio and Television of Lithuania" (Official
Gazette "Valstybės Žinios", No. 120-2820, 1996; hereinafter in
the ruling referred to as the disputed resolution of the
Seimas). Following the 5 December 1996 Law on Amending Article
29 of the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public,
the Seimas recognised the resolution of the Seimas "On the
Appointment of the Members of the Council of the National Radio
and Television of Lithuania" as being voided, commissioned the
Education, Science and Culture Committee of the Seimas with
organising the formation of the Council of the National Radio
and Television of Lithuania until 31 December 1996 and
established that the resolution shall enter into force from the
day of its adoption.
II
1. The petitioner grounds his request on the following
arguments.
Part 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution stipulates that
laws shall be enacted in the Seimas in accordance with the
procedure established by law; Part 2 of Article 70 of the
Constitution prescribes that the laws enacted by the Seimas
shall be enforced after signing and official promulgation
thereof by the President of the Republic, unless the laws
themselves establish a later enforcement date, while Part 2 of
Article 7 of the Constitution establishes that only laws which
are promulgated shall be valid. The petitioner, on the basis of
the said provisions of articles of the Constitution, points out
that the Seimas, when adopting the disputed resolution, was
following the Law on Amending Article 29 of the Law on the
Provision of Information to the Public which, on the day of the
adoption of the said resolution, was neither signed nor
promulgated by the President of the Republic.
The petitioner also indicates that Item 5 of Article 67
prescribes that the Seimas shall form State institutions
provided by law, and shall appoint and dismiss their chief
officers. The members of the Council of the National Radio and
Television of Lithuania who were appointed by the 5 November
1996 resolution of the Seimas may, according to their status,
be equalled to chief officers of such institutions. According
to Part 4 of Article 8 of the 8 October 1996 Law on the
Provision of Information to the Public, the members of the
Council may not be dismissed from office before expiration of
the term of appointment save a member of the Council: (1) shall
refuse to participate in the work of the Council; (2) without
valid excuse, does not participate in the work of the Council
for more than 3 months; (3) has committed a crime and is
convicted by the court; (4) has lost the citizenship of the
Republic of Lithuania.
2. In the court hearing the representative of the
petitioner did not agree with the statement of the
representatives of the party concerned that the indication in
the preamble of the disputed resolution of the Seimas to the
Law on Amending Article 29 of the Law on the Provision of
Information to the Public had had no legal effects. In his
opinion, the disputed resolution of the Seimas is inseparably
connected with the laws passed by the Seimas on 5 December 1996
- the Law on Amending Article 29 of the Law on the Provision of
Information to the Public and the Law on Amending and
Supplementing Articles 4, 8 and 10 of the Law on National Radio
and Television of Lithuania. These laws established new norms
under which the Council of the National Radio and Television
must be formed and under procedure of open competition the
Director General of the Council of the National Radio and
Television shall be elected. Both aforementioned laws were
signed by the President of the Republic and officially
promulgated in the official gazette "Valstybės Žinios" on 14
December 1996, while the disputed resolution of the Seimas
which was designated to implement the said laws went into
effect on 5 December 1996. Thus by the disputed resolution of
the Seimas the laws which had not come into force were
implemented.
The representative of the petitioner pointed out that on 5
November 1996 the Seimas, following Article 29 of the Law on
the Provision of Information to the Public of 2 June 1996 and
Article 8 of the Law on the National Radio and television of
Lithuania of 8 October 1996, adopted the Resolution "On the
Appointment of the Members of the Council of the National Radio
and Television of Lithuania" whereby 4 members of the Council
of the National Radio and Television of Lithuania were
appointed. The representative of the petitioner asserted that
after the Seimas had recognised the Seimas resolution of 5
November 1996 regarding appointment of Council members, they
were dismissed from office.
The representative of the petitioner also indicated that
on 12 December 1996 the Seimas passed 2 laws in addition: the
Law on Implementation of the Law on Amending Article 29 of the
Law on the Provision of Information to the Public whereby it
was established that the powers of the members of the Council
of the National Radio and Television of Lithuania who had been
appointed before by the President of the Republic and the
Seimas shall cease; and the Law on Amending and Supplementing
Article 8 of the Law on the National Radio and Television of
Lithuania whereby a new basis for dismissing from office of the
members of the Council of the National Radio and Television of
Lithuania was established: i.e. in the case of alteration of
the legal basis of appointing a Council member. The said laws
were adopted for the purpose of backing the illegitimate
disputed resolution of the Seimas. The petitioner pointed out
that the said laws were passed on 12 December 1996 and they
were signed by the President of the Republic and officially
promulgated in "Valstybės Žinios" on 14 December 1996, i.e.
they went into effect later than the disputed resolution of the
Seimas.
The representative of the petitioner noted during the
court hearing that in such a case one should pay attention to
the principle that laws have no retroactive validity, which is
universally recognised in the legal doctrine and which has been
emphasised in rulings of the Constitutional Court for many a
time.
III
1. In the course of the preparation of the case for the
court hearing, in his paper of 7 March 1997, in replying to the
arguments of the petitioner, the representative of the party
concerned explained that it is impossible to investigate the
relation of the disputed resolution of the Seimas with Part 1
of Article 7 of the Constitution without having in mind the
other articles of the Constitution which had been mentioned by
the petitioner. First of all one should assess the compliance
of the disputed legal act with Article 69 of the Constitution,
Parts 1 and 2 whereof establish procedure of adoption of laws,
Part 3 - that of adoption and amendment of constitutional laws,
while Part 4 of the said article stipulates that provisions of
the laws may also be adopted by the referendum. The
representative of the party concerned concludes that the
content of Article 69 does not permit to speak about the
relation of this article with the disputed resolution of the
Seimas.
Part 1 of Article 70 determines the enforcement procedure
of the laws. Part 2 of this article stipulates that other acts
adopted by the Seimas (as well as other Seimas resolutions) and
the Statute of the Seimas shall be signed by the Chairperson of
the Seimas, while the said acts shall become effective the day
following the promulgation thereof, unless the laws themselves
provide for another procedure of enforcement. Article 3 of the
disputed resolution of the Seimas provides that this resolution
shall come into force from the moment of its adoption. It was
signed and promulgated by the Chairperson of the Seimas as
established in Part 2 of Article 70 of the Constitution. The
representative of the party concerned is of the opinion that by
adopting the disputed resolution the Seimas accomplished the
provision of Part 2 of Article 70 of the Constitution.
The representative of the party concerned also contends
that the provision contained in the preamble of the disputed
resolution has not aroused any legal effects. In his opinion,
according to the legal theory, the preamble of a legal act is
an introductory part indicating the aims and motives of the
adoption of the said act but not that of normative character.
This is also confirmed by shorthand records of the Seimas
sitting, as in the sitting during deliberations over the
disputed resolution of the Seimas there were propositions not
to enter the said preamble into the resolution at all. The
party concerned notes that the allusion formulated in the
petition for the Constitutional Court that the provision of the
preamble of the disputed resolution of the Seimas contradicts
Articles 69, 70 and 7 of the Constitution has no legal basis.
In his paper the representative of the party concerned
also points out that Article 67 of the Constitution
consolidates the functions and powers of the Seimas as an
institution of representative power. Item 5 of the said article
provides that the Seimas shall form State institutions provided
by law, and shall appoint and dismiss their chief officers. On
5 November 1996, by adopting the Resolution "On the Appointment
of the Members of the Council of the National Radio and
Television of Lithuania", the Seimas neither established any
State institution nor appointed its chief officers. Following
Article 29 of then in force Law on the Provision of Information
to the Public, the Seimas appointed 4 members of the Council of
the National Radio and Television of Lithuania. Therefore the
disputed resolution should not be regarded as contradicting
Article 67 of the Constitution.
2. The representative of the party concerned in his
supplementary paper of 7 May 1997 explained the following as
concerns the disputed resolution of the Seimas.
Part 1 of Article 7 of the Constitution stipulates: "Any
law or other statute which contradicts the Constitution shall
be invalid." This fundamental provision of Chapter 1 entitled
"The State of Lithuania" of the Constitution regarding
constitutionality of laws and other legal acts is realised
through the competence of the Constitutional Court consolidated
in Part 1 of Article 102 and Part 1 of Article 105 of the
Constitution. In the legal system of the Republic of Lithuania,
it is only the Constitutional Court which may judge if the laws
and acts of the Government are in compliance with the
Constitution or laws.
The representative of the party concerned contends that
the contradiction of laws and other acts of the Seimas, as well
as the disputed resolution of the Seimas, may be investigated,
in essence, in view of the Constitution. The problem of both
the law and the disputed resolution of the Seimas as a
substatutory act is left for the so-called "self-control of the
Seimas", though, it goes without saying, the acts of the Seimas
may not contradict the law.
It is evident from Part 1 of Article 102 and Part 1 of
Article 105 of the Constitution, that Seimas resolutions, as
acts of a legislative body, are to be compared to laws, and the
Constitutional Court, under the aforementioned articles of the
Constitution, as well as Article 63 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, may examine problems of compliance of
Seimas resolutions with the Constitution only.
It is noted in the supplementary paper that the
Constitution is an indivisible, co-ordinated act as regards the
content of its provisions. It regulates in detail, even in
precision most possible a part of questions of state life,
whereas a part of questions of state life are regulated by the
norms of greater or smaller definition as to their content,
while some questions are not constitutionally regulated at all,
i.e., as regards their relation with the Constitution, they are
to be assessed as being constitutionally non-regulated.
Part 1 of Article 44 of the Constitution stipulates that
"censorship of mass media shall be prohibited", while Part 2 of
the said article provides that "the State, political parties,
political and public organisations, and other institutions or
persons may not monopolise means of mass media". The
Constitution does not consolidate any principles which as
constitutional principles would determine the legal status of
the National Radio and Television.
According to Article 29 of the Law on the Provision of
Information to the Public and the Law on the National Radio and
Television of Lithuania implementing the aforesaid law, the
National Radio and Television of Lithuania shall be a
functioning institution. However, the norms of these laws have
no constitutional power and the Constitutional Court may not
examine this relation (between a law of the Seimas and a
resolution of the Seimas), while the Constitution even does not
mention such an institution as the National Radio and
Television of Lithuania.
It is alleged that the disputed resolution of the Seimas
would contradict Part 2 of Article 67 as to the form if
universally binding rules of general character were formulated
therein. The disputed resolution of the Seimas is an act of
individual character which does not contain any universally
binding rules of general character which should be formulated
in the form of law. Thus it does not contradict the
Constitution as to the form.
It is also indicated that the provision of the disputed
resolution of the Seimas, mentioning that the Seimas was
following the 5 December 1996 Law on Amending Article 29 of the
Law on the Provision of Information to the Public, has had no
legal effects. This is to be assessed as a "technical error"
which was significant for the going into effect of the act but
not, however, for the essence of the act. It is alleged that,
according to the legal theory, the preamble of a legal act is
an introductory part indicating the aims and motives of the
adoption of the said act but not that of normative character.
Such a conclusion is also grounded on the fact that in the
sitting of the Seimas during deliberations over the disputed
resolution of the Seimas there were propositions not to enter
the Law on Amending Article 29 of the Law on the Provision of
Information to the Public into the preamble.
In the court hearing the representatives of the party
concerned M. Briedis and P. Vinkleris virtually reiterated
these motives and arguments.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1.1. On 2 July 1996, the Seimas passed the Law on the
Provision of Information to the Public. Article 1 of the said
law consolidates that this law shall establish the procedure of
obtaining, processing, and disseminating of public information
and the rights and responsibility of public information
producers, disseminators, the owners thereof and journalists.
Part 3 of Article 29 of the said law established the
principles and procedure of formation of governing bodies of
the National Radio and Television of Lithuania. It read: "The
Council shall be the highest governing body of the National
Radio and Television of Lithuania, established for a period of
3 years and comprised of 13 individuals. 3 of the members shall
be appointed by the President of the Republic, 4 - by the
Seimas, 6 - by drawing lots by choosing 1 from the Lithuanian
Periodical Press Publishers' Association, Lithuanian
Journalists' Union, Lithuanian Journalists' Society, Lithuanian
Writers', Lithuanian Cinematographers' Union, Lithuanian
Theatre Union, Lithuanian Composers' Union, Lithuanian Artists'
Union, and Lithuanian Architects' Union each. After the lapse
of a 3-year period, the representatives of 6 of the selected
organisations will be changed by drawing lots with
representatives of those 3 organisations, which were not
selected for the Council during the first term of office."
On 8 October 1996, the Seimas passed the Law on the
National Radio and Television of Lithuania. Part 1 of Article 8
of the said law provided that the Council and administration of
the National Radio and Television of Lithuania shall be
governing bodies of the National Radio and Television of
Lithuania. The Council of the National Radio and Television of
Lithuania shall be formed pursuant to the procedure established
by Article 29 of the Law on the Provision of Information to the
Public.
On 5 November 1996, following Article 29 of the Law on the
Provision of Information to the Public and Article 8 of the Law
on the National Radio and Television of Lithuania, the Seimas
passed its Resolution "On the Appointment of the Members of the
Council of the National Radio and Television of Lithuania"
whereby appointed 4 members of the Council of the National
Radio and Television of Lithuania. Other members of the Council
were also appointed in pursuance of the procedure established
by the law. Thus, implementing the norms of the Law on the
Provision of Information to the Public and those of the Law on
the National Radio and Television of Lithuania, the Council - a
governing body of the National Radio and Television of
Lithuania - was formed.
1.2. On 5 December 1996, the newly elected Seimas passed
the Law on Amending Article 29 of the Law on the Provision of
Information to the Public whereby amended Part 3 of Article 29
and set it forth as follows: "The Council shall be the highest
governing body of the National Radio and Television of
Lithuania, established for a period of 3 years and comprised of
15 individuals. The following art creators' and public
organisations shall delegate their representatives to the
Council of the National Radio and Television of Lithuania: the
Lithuanian Architects' Union, Lithuanian Artists' Union,
Society of the Lithuanian Language, Lithuanian Catholic Academy
of Science, Lithuanian Cinematographers' Union, Lithuanian
Composers' Union, Lithuanian Periodical Press Publishers'
Association, Association of Lithuanian House of Economy, Trade
and Crafts, Lithuanian Writers' Union, Charter of Citizens of
the Republic of Lithuania, Lithuanian Family Centre, Lithuanian
Theatre Union, Lithuanian Lawyers' Society, Lithuanian
Journalists' Society, Lithuanian Journalists' Union. The
formation of the Council the National Radio and Television of
Lithuania shall be organised by the Education, Science and
Culture Committee of the Seimas."
This amendment of the law established other principles and
procedure of formation of the National Radio and Television of
Lithuania than those provided for in the former norm of Part 3
of Article 29 of the Law on the Provision of Information to the
Public.
On the same day, i.e. 5 December 1996, the Seimas adopted
the Resolution "On Recognising the Seimas Resolution "On the
Appointment of the Members of the Council of the National Radio
and Television of Lithuania" as Being Voided and the Formation
of the Council of the National Radio and Television of
Lithuania". Following the 5 December 1996 Law on Amending
Article 29 of the Law on the Provision of Information to the
Public, the Seimas recognised the resolution of the Seimas "On
the Appointment of the Members of the Council of the National
Radio and Television of Lithuania" as being voided,
commissioned the Education, Science and Culture Committee of
the Seimas with organising the formation of the Council of the
National Radio and Television of Lithuania until 31 December
1996 and established that the resolution shall enter into force
from the day of its adoption.
On 12 December 1996 the Seimas passed the Law on
Implementation of the Law on Amending Article 29 of the Law on
the Provision of Information to the Public in Article 1 whereof
establishing that "after the 12 December 1996 Law on
Implementation of the Law on Amending Article 29 of the Law on
the Provision of Information to the Public has come into force
[...], the powers of the members of the Council of the National
Radio and Television of Lithuania prior appointed by the
President of the Republic and the Seimas shall cease."
2.1. Part 1 of Article 70 of the Constitution stipulates
that the laws enacted by the Seimas shall be enforced after
signing and official promulgation thereof by the President of
the Republic, unless the laws themselves establish a later
enforcement date. To implement this constitutional provision,
on 6 April 1993 the Seimas passed the Law "On the Procedure of
Promulgation and Coming into Force of Republic of Lithuania
Laws and Other Legal Acts". Part 1 of Article 1 of this law
provides that the official promulgation of laws and other legal
acts shall be their promulgation in the official gazette
"Valstybės Žinios". The day of the promulgation in "Valstybės
Žinios" shall be the day of the issue of the said publication
which is indicated at the first page of each publication
whereof. Part 1 of Article 4 of the said law provides that the
laws of the Republic of Lithuania shall be enforced after
signing and official promulgation thereof by the President of
the Republic, unless the laws themselves establish a later
enforcement date. Article 5 of the said law provides that the
legal acts adopted by the Seimas shall be enforced the
following day after their promulgation in "Valstybės Žinios",
unless the acts themselves establish a later enforcement date.
The President of the Republic, following Part 1 of Article
71 of the Constitution, did not sign the Law on Amending
Article 29 of the Law on the Provision of Information to the
Public passed by the Seimas on 5 December 1996 and by his
decree of 10 December 1996 returned it to the Seimas for
repeated deliberation. On consideration of the amendments moved
by the President in his decree, during the sitting of 12
December 1996 the Seimas did not approve of them and repeatedly
passed the Law on Amending Article 29 of the Law on the
Provision of Information to the Public.
The said law was signed by the President of the Republic
and was officially promulgated in "Valstybės Žinios" on 14
December 1996. The law repeatedly adopted by the Seimas went
into effect on 14 December 1996.
2.2. It is universally recognised in the legal doctrine
that legal acts are divided into laws and substatutory acts.
In view of the case at issue, it is important to establish
the place of the laws and other legal acts passed by the Seimas
in the legal system, as well as their reciprocity.
Part 1 of Article 7 of the Constitution provides that "any
law or other statute which contradicts the Constitution shall
be invalid". This fundamental constitutional principle defines
the supremacy of the Constitution in the system of legal acts.
The Constitution is defined as the basic law which has supreme
legal power in the hierarchical system of laws. Furthermore,
the Constitution consolidates basic provisions of legal
regulation and constitutes the basis for legislation.
Substatutory acts, including other acts adopted by the
Seimas which are mentioned in Part 2 of Article 70 as well,
are, as a rule, designated to implement laws, therefore they
are passed in pursuance of valid laws and may not contradict
them. Thus all legal acts must be lawful: the laws may not
contradict the Constitution, while substatutory legal acts -
the Constitution and the laws. To implement the lawfulness
principle of legal acts, states in their practice make use of
the institute of justice and that of administrative justice.
The Constitutional Court held in its 19 January 1994
ruling: "A law is an original legal act adopted in the
procedure prescribed by the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania and the Statute of the Seimas which expresses the
legislator's will and which has the supreme legal power.
Therefore, a law can be amended or its validity can be
nullified only upon the adoption of another law or recognition
of it as contradictory to the Constitution by the
Constitutional Court. All other legal acts must be adopted
conforming to laws and may not contradict them, i. e. must be
executive. Executive legal act is a legal act adopted by a
competent body on the basis of and according to the procedure
prescribed by law. An executive act is usually an act of
administration. Norms of the law are realized by it, however,
such an 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."
The requirements for a substatutory act are mandatory for
the other acts of the Seimas which are indicated in Part 2 of
Article 70 of the Constitution. These acts, following general
basics of the legal acts theory, may not contradict the
Constitution and the laws, and, all the more, may alter neither
the norms of laws nor their content. This is one of the most
important rules of creation of a legal system and its internal
co-ordination.
Part 2 of Article 5 of the Constitution provides that "the
scope of powers shall be defined by the Constitution". This
means that the Seimas, while representing the people, is
independent as a law-maker as much as his powers are not
limited by the Constitution and other laws. The prerogative of
the Seimas to adopt, amend, supplement and recognise as voided
valid laws and substatutory acts is uncontested, however, the
Seimas must conform to the procedure established by the
Constitution and universally recognised principles of
co-ordination of legal acts.
The 8 November 1993 ruling of the Constitutional Court
explains: "The process of legislation is the whole complex of
legally significant acts necessary for the adoption of a law
and performed in rigid sequence of logic and time. The
following stages of the process of legislation are universally
recognized: the realization of the right to legislation, the
consideration of a draft law, the adoption of a draft law, the
promulgation and the enforcement of the enacted law. Only with
the completion of one stage in consecutive order starts
another. The aforesaid consecutive order of the process of
legislation is in essence established in the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania: the realization of the right of
legislative initiative - in Article 68, the adoption of laws -
in Article 69, the promulgation and enforcement of laws - in
Articles 70-72." Thus, in regulating the process of
legislation, it is attempted to seek both the concord between
the links of the legal system and implementation of the
lawfulness principle in the legislation of legal acts. The
rules of the process of legislation are important in the
context of the case at issue, too.
3. The petitioner questions the compliance of the Seimas
Resolution "On Recognising the Seimas Resolution "On the
Appointment of the Members of the Council of the National Radio
and Television of Lithuania" as Being Voided and the Formation
of the Council of the National Radio and Television of
Lithuania" with the Constitution and indicates that Article 69
of the Constitution stipulates that laws shall be enacted in
the Seimas in accordance with the procedure established by law;
Article 70 prescribes the procedure of enforcement of laws and
other acts adopted by the Seimas, while Part 2 of Article 7
establishes that only laws which are promulgated shall be
valid. The petitioner contends that the Seimas adopted the
disputed resolution following the Law on Amending Article 29 of
the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public which, on
the day of the adoption of the said resolution, was neither
signed nor promulgated by the President of the Republic.
The Constitutional Court holds that the disputed
resolution of the Seimas is, as to its legal nature and
content, a substatutory legal act designated to implement the
Law on Amending Article 29 of the Law on the Provision of
Information to the Public. The said resolution of the Seimas,
as indicated in its Article 3, went into effect on the day of
its adoption, i.e. on 5 December 1996.
However, on the day of going into effect of the disputed
resolution of the Seimas, the Law on Amending Article 29 of the
Law on the Provision of Information to the Public passed on 5
December 1996 had not come into force yet. On that day Part 3
of the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public (the
wording of 2 July 1996) was still in force whereby other
principles and procedure of formation of the Council of the
national Radio and Television of Lithuania were established.
Thus, the disputed resolution of the Seimas contradicted the
valid law. On the other hand, this resolution of the Seimas was
implementing a law which was not valid yet.
The statement of the representatives of the party
concerned that the indication "the Seimas, following the Law on
Amending Article 29 of the Law on the Provision of Information
to the Public of 5 December 1996" contained in the preamble of
the disputed resolution of the Seimas had no legal effects is
not a grounded one.
The Constitutional Court notes that in this case the
indication contained in the preamble points to the law in
pursuance of which the said substatutory act was adopted and
what provisions of the law it is designated to implement. It is
possible to hold that the preamble corresponds to the content
of the disputed resolution as well. Thus, by the disputed
resolution of the Seimas was implementing provisions concerning
the formation of the Council of the National Radio and
Television of Lithuania of a law which was not valid yet. These
provisions were in essence different from the law valid then.
The Constitutional Court emphasises that the opinion of
the representatives of the party concerned expressed during the
court hearing that the problem of the reciprocity between the
law and the disputed resolution of the Seimas is merely that of
"self-control of the Seimas", or that this is merely a
"technical error" is based on neither constitutional principles
and norms nor the hierarchical reciprocal dependence and
interaction of legal acts. One should also note that the
representatives of the party concerned admitted in their
explanations in the court hearing that the disputed resolution
of the Seimas is a substatutory act of application of law and,
as all acts of such character, must be in compliance with laws.
The representatives of the party concerned are of the
opinion that the 12 December 1996 Law on Implementation of the
Law on Amending Article 29 of the Law on the Provision of
Information to the Public legalised the disputed resolution of
the Seimas.
The Constitutional Court notes that the disputed
resolution of the Seimas was not permitted to be legalised by
adopting the aforesaid law as this law was signed by the
President of the Republic and officially promulgated in
"Valstybės Žinios" on 14 December 1996, i.e. after the disputed
resolution of the Seimas had aroused corresponding legal
effects. Besides, the Constitution provides for neither
opportunity nor ways of legalisation of a legal act which
contradicts the laws.
On the grounds of the set forth above, it is to be
concluded that the disputed resolution of the Seimas actually
meant violation of constitutional principles regarding
legislation of legal acts therefore it contradicts Part 2 of
Article 7 and Part 1 of Article 70 of the Constitution.
The request of the petitioner to assess the disputed
resolution of the Seimas as contradicting Part 1 of Article 69
is a groundless one. The disputed resolution of the Seimas is a
substatutory legal act, meanwhile Part 1 of Article 69 of the
Constitution is designated to regulate the procedure of
adoption of laws.
4. The petitioner - a group of Seimas members - points out
in its petition to the Constitutional Court that the adoption
of the disputed resolution of the Seimas meant dismissal from
office the members of the Council of the National Radio and
Television of Lithuania appointed by the Seimas. The petitioner
is of the opinion that such a question is, as a rule, decided
by a Seimas resolution concerning dismissal respective
officials or chiefs. The petitioner also alleged that during
the adoption of the disputed resolution of the Seimas the Law
on the National Radio and Television of Lithuania did not
provide for the legal grounds on the basis whereof one was
permitted to dismiss from office the aforementioned members of
the Council. Thus, in the opinion of the petitioner, the part
of the disputed resolution regarding the dismissal from office
of the members of the Council of the National Radio and
Television of Lithuania contradicts Item 5 of Article 67 of the
Constitution.
The Constitutional Court, when investigating the
compliance of the disputed resolution of the Seimas with the
Constitution from this standpoint, takes account of the fact
that questions concerning dismissal from office of the members
of the Council of the National Radio and Television of
Lithuania are regulated in particular laws.
It should be noted that, as it was mentioned, the
principles and procedure of formation of the Council of the
National Radio and Television of Lithuania were established by
Article 29 of the 2 July 1996 Law on the Provision of
Information to the Public. Dismissal from office of Council
members was regulated by the 8 October 1996 Law on the National
Radio and Television of Lithuania. Part 4 of Article 8 of the
said law provided that Council members may not be dismissed
before expiration of the term of appointment save a member of
the Council:
"(1) shall refuse to participate in the work of the
Council;
(2) without valid excuse, does not participate in the work
of the Council for more than 3 months;
(3) has committed a crime and is convicted by the court;
(4) has lost the citizenship of the Republic of
Lithuania."
Part 5 of Article 8 of the said law provides that in cases
when a vacancy occurs in the Council, the Chairman of the
Council shall apply to the institution which has delegated the
lacking member of the Council with a request to appoint a new
member of the Council for work until the end of term of office
of the Council.
In assessing the legal grounds formulated in the Law on
the National Radio and Television of Lithuania on the grounds
whereof the powers of the members of the Council of the
National Radio and Television of Lithuania were permitted be
terminated, the following conclusions are to be made. First,
Council members may be dismissed from office only on the
grounds provided for by the law. Second, the grounds for
dismissal from office of Council members which are provided for
by the law are based on the criteria linked with the resolution
of a Council member himself, or objective legal facts which may
be assessed as reasonable causes to dismiss from office a
Council member.
Thus the peculiarities of the legal status of a Council
member (legal protection in case of dismissal from office) is
based on the autonomy of the Council of the National Radio and
Television of Lithuania which is consolidated in the Law on the
Provision of Information to the Public, as well as the Law on
the National Radio and Television of Lithuania.
After the independence of the Council of the National
Radio and Television of Lithuania and its broad powers to
direct the radio and television had been consolidated by laws,
a respective procedure of election of the Director General of
the National Radio and Television of Lithuania was established.
The Seimas repudiated the influence of state institutions in
adopting this official and established in Part 2 of Article 10
of the Law on the National Radio and Television of Lithuania
that the Director General shall be elected for the term of 5
years under procedure of open competition and shall be approved
in the Council providing no less than half of the members of
the Council vote for his candidature, while in the case that
such a number of votes is not reached, a new competition shall
be organised. The laws also provide for a special procedure of
the dismissal from office of the Director General prior to
termination of his powers: he shall be dismissed provided no
less than 8 members of the Council vote for this. The essence
of these norms was not changed by the Law on the Law on
Amending and Supplementing Articles 4, 8 and 10 of the Law on
National Radio and Television of Lithuania passed by the Seimas
on 5 December 1996 with the exception of the duration of the
term of office of the Director General, i.e. at present he is
elected for 3 years.
On 12 December 1996, the Seimas passed the Law on Amending
and Supplementing Article 8 of the Law on the National Radio
and Television of Lithuania whereby, along with the grounds of
the dismissal from office Council members provided for in the
law before, a new legal ground was provided for which was
formulated as follows: "[...] the legal grounds of appointing a
member of the Council shall alter". On the same day, i.e. 12
December, the Seimas also adopted the Law on Implementation of
the Law on Amending Article 29 of the Law on the Provision of
Information to the Public whereby it was established that after
the Law on Amending Article 29 of the Law on the Provision of
Information to the Public passed on 5 December 1996 has come
into force, the powers of the members of the Council of the
National Radio and Television of Lithuania who had been
appointed before by the President of the Republic and the
Seimas shall cease. Thus the aforementioned laws are both
interdependent and conditioning each other: the first law
provided for supplementary legal grounds for dismissal from
office of the members of the Council of the National Radio and
Television of Lithuania, while the second law established that
the powers of the formerly appointed members of the Council
shall cease.
The Constitutional Court emphasises the fact that the
disputed resolution of the Seimas aroused legal effects - the 5
November 1996 resolution of the Seimas whereby the members of
the Council of the National Radio and Television of Lithuania
had been appointed was recognised as voided. The Education,
Science and Culture Committee of the Seimas was commissioned
with organising of the formation of a new Council of the
National Radio and Television. The resolution came into force
from the day of its adoption - on 5 December 1996, i.e. when
there existed no legal grounds to dismiss the members of the
Council. Only on 12 December 1996 a law was passed wherein new
grounds for dismissal were provided for - when "the legal
grounds of appointing a member of the Council shall alter".
This legal norm went into effect by the established procedure
on 14 December 1996. Thus, before going into effect of the new
grounds of dismissal from office of Council members, by the
disputed resolution of the Seimas the norms of the law which
had not come into force were implemented.
Taking account of the constitutional principle that the
constitution is an integral act, as well as the motives and
arguments set forth, a conclusion is to be made that the
disputed resolution of the Seimas contradicts Part 1 of Article
70 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 5 December 1996 Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania Resolution "On Recognising the Seimas
Resolution "On the Appointment of the Members of the Council of
the National Radio and Television of Lithuania" as Being Voided
and the Formation of the Council of the National Radio and
Television of Lithuania" contradicts Part 2 of Article 7 and
Part 1 of Article 70 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.