Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
R U L I N G
On the compliance of Item 1 of Part 2 of Article
55, Items 1 and 2 of Part 4 of Article 56, and
Part 3 of Article 58 of the Republic of Lithuania
Law on Tax Administration with the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania
Vilnius, 10 July 1997
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 party concerned - Leonora Žukienė, the representative
of the Seimas, Head of the Legal Division of the State Tax
Inspectorate at the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of
Lithuania,
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 24 June 1997 conducted the investigation of
Case No. 16/96 subsequent to the petition submitted to the
Court by the petitioner - the College of the Civil Cases
Division of the Klaipėda County Court - requesting to
investigate if Item 1 of Part 2 of Article 55, Items 1 and 2 of
Part 3 of Article 56, and Part 3 of Article 58 of the Republic
of Lithuania Law on Tax Administration were in compliance with
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
On 17 October 1996, the petitioner - the College of the
Civil Cases Division of the Klaipėda County Court - was
investigating a civil case pursuant to the procedure of appeal
subsequent to an appeal of the stock company "Vakarų Bankas"
against the 23 August 1996 decision of the Klaipėda City
District Court. By its interlocutory ruling the College of the
Civil Cases Division of the Klaipėda County Court suspended the
investigation of the said case and appealed to the
Constitutional Court with a request to investigate whether Item
1 of Part 2 of Article 55, Items 1 and 2 of Part 3 of Article
56, and Part 3 of Article 58 of the Law on Tax Administration
of the Republic of Lithuania (Official Gazette "Valstybės
Žinios", No. 61-1525, 1995; No. 57-1342, No. 59-1404, No.
66-1574, 1996), i.e. those which establish the unconditional,
non-prolonged time period of 20 days during which a taxpayer
may lodge a complaint against a tax administrator or his
officers, with Articles 23 and 29 of the Constitution.
II
The petitioner grounds his request on the following
arguments.
Under Article 54 of the Law on Tax Administration, the
local tax administrator, the central tax administrator and the
court shall investigate tax disputes. Item 1 of Part 2 of
Article 55 of the same law indicates that a taxpayer's
complaint shall be accepted by the local tax administrator
solely in such an instant when it is filed in writing within 20
days from the receipt of a written decision from the tax
administrator's officer. An analogous time period of 20 days is
established when a complaint is lodged against the decision of
local tax administrator regarding complaint investigation
results, as well as against a decision of the central tax
administrator (his officers) (Items 1 and 2 of Part 3 of
Article 56 of the said law). The taxpayer who does not agree
with a decision passed by the central tax administrator must
file the complaint to the court no later than 20 days from the
receipt of the decision, and in the absence of decision
approval, within 20 days from the other day on which the
central tax administrator was to have approved the decision
(Part 3 of Article 58 of the said law). The Law on Tax
Administration does not provide for a possibility to renew the
time period which has been missed for valid reasons. Meanwhile,
time limitation is not applied for payment of computed tax,
added fines and penalties, as well as their exaction (Part 3 of
Article 29 of the said law).
The petitioner is of the opinion that Article 23 of the
Constitution provides that property shall be inviolable, the
rights of ownership shall be 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. This article does not make exceptions for either different
types of property (private and public) or individual subjects
of property law (natural and legal persons, the state and
self-governments). Meanwhile, subjects of property law (the
state and taxpayers) are evidently treated unequally by Part 3
of Article 29, Item 1 of Part 2 of Article 55, Items 1 and 2 of
Part 3 of Article 56, and Part 3 of Article 58 of the Law on
Tax Administration: interests of the state are protected
without setting down any limits regarding time period, while
time limitation is established for taxpayers (natural and legal
persons) and there is provided for no possibility to prolong it
in case of missing it for valid reasons. The petitioner
maintains that thereby the court is prevented from the
possibility to consider the issue of renewal of the missed time
period, while in other cases, for instance, by Article 90 of
the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania, such an
opportunity is granted to the court, while Articles 88 and 89
of the said code provide for suspension or dismissal of the
course of limitation of action. The court may not conform to
the aforementioned provisions, as by Part 3 of Article 1 of the
Civil Code the norms of the Civil Code shall not be applied for
tax relations.
The petitioner points out that under Part 1 of Article 29
of the Constitution all people shall be equal before the law,
the court, and other state institutions and officers. This
equality is regulated by norms (which are not applicable in
this instance) of the Civil Code (Chapter VI of the Civil
Code), while this equality is not guaranteed by the Law on Tax
Administration as the interests of the state as regards
application of limitation of action are placed higher than
those of taxpayers (Part 3 of Article 29, Item 1 of Part 2 of
Article 55, Items 1 and 2 of Part 3 of Article 56, and Part 3
of Article 58 of the Law on Tax Administration).
III
On 13 February 1997 the Seimas passed the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Amending Articles 25, 39, 49, 50, 52, 54, 55,
56 of and Appending Article 391 to the Law on Tax
Administration (Official Gazette "Valstybės Žinios", No.
17-362, 1997).
The petitioner in his explanation of 9 June 1997 to the
Constitutional Court assesses the supplementing and amending of
the Law on Tax Administration as a partial elimination the
non-compliance of the contested norms with Articles 23 and 29
of the Constitution, as at present the law already provides for
a possibility to renew the time period of filing the complaint
which has been missed for valid reasons. However, in the
opinion of the petitioner, the problem which occurred when it
was investigating the said civil case, has not been solved
entirely, as the norms of the Law on Tax Administration contain
the permission only for the tax administrator to renew the time
period of filing the complaint which has been missed, while the
court is not granted such a right by neither the said law nor
Section 241 of the Code of Civil Proceedings by the norms
whereof disputes of payments of taxes are investigated by
established legal procedure.
The petitioner contends that the categorical provision of
Part 3 of Article 58 of the Law on Tax Administration regarding
limited time period to appeal to the court without granting the
right to the court to renew the time period which has been
missed for valid reasons impedes not only the rights of the
taxpayer but also those of the court which it has in
investigation of cases arising from civil and administrative
legal relations.
IV
In the course of preparation of the case for the court
hearing, the representative of the party concerned in her
explanation for the Constitutional Court explicated that tax
laws are assigned to public law as Article 1 of the Civil Code
indicates that the rules of this code shall not be applied for
tax and budget relations. The Law on Tax Administration
provides that "tax denotes monetary obligation owed by the
taxpayer to the state established within the tax law in order
that funds may be obtained to fulfil state (self-government)
functions. This obligation is performed under procedure
established by the laws". Therefore fines are calculated and
penalties are imposed for taxes unduly paid into the state
budget or remitted overdue. Fines and penalties are a way of
ensuring of payment of taxes for the state (budget).
The representative of the party concerned maintains that
tax laws as a sphere of public law are of administrative
character. Therefore economic sanctions are administrative
coercion of the sate which is necessary to ensure state finance
and budget relations. Administrative coercion plays an
important role in strengthening the spheres of trade, finance,
commercial-economic activity, in resisting transgressors, in
collecting the state budget etc. Meanwhile, under the Civil
Code, forfeit (fines and penalties) is understood as a way of
ensuring of the obligation of one party to another which are
equal between each other (i.e. they are not linked by ties of
subordination). Under this code fines and penalties may be
established as a particular sum or as an interest of the sum of
ensured obligation by the agreement of the parties.
The representative of the party concerned is of the
opinion that another important principle of tax laws is the
fact that the state establishes the same amount of fines and
penalties which is mandatory for all payers of respective
taxes. When tax laws are applied, all taxpayers are equal under
the conditions established by these laws. When the laws are
changed, sometimes the amounts of fines or penalties are either
lowered or increased, however sanctions for the same
transgression are applied for all subjects - respective payers
of the tax.
In assessing the norms of the Law on Tax Administration
which establish the procedure and time period of filing a
complaint of a taxpayer against the tax administrator or his
officers, the representative of the party concerned contended
that in the case when a taxpayer missed the time period of
filing a complaint, the complaint shall not be considered.
Another important provision contained by the Law on Tax
Administration is that providing a taxpayer missed the time
period of filing a complaint for reasons which are recognised
by the tax administrator as valid this time period may be
renewed by the decision of the tax administrator. The
application regarding renewal of the missed time period is
filed before such a tax administrator under competence of whom
depends adoption of the decision concerning the complaint, and
it is considered under the same procedure as the complaint.
Under the Law on Tax Administration, before investigating
a complaint in the court, prior non-judicial investigation of
the dispute at the state tax inspectorate shall be obligatory,
i.e. actions of a tax administrator shall be appealed against
by 3 stages: first, the complaint shall be filed to the local
tax administrator, later - the central tax administrator, i.e.
the State Tax Inspectorate at the Ministry of Finance of the
Republic of Lithuania, and in case one does not agree with the
decision of this administrator, the complaint shall be filed to
the court.
In view of civil proceedings the legal situation of
institutions responsible for tax administration and that of
taxpayers is the same, the parties are equal, and during
investigation of tax disputes in the court they take advantage
of all procedural rights.
Procedures of appealing against computed taxes and imposed
sanctions by the tax administrator are rather different in
various states. In some states actions of the tax administrator
may be appealed against either through the tax administrator or
directly to the court, whereas in other states there exist
special tax courts which investigate tax disputes exclusively.
During the process of judicial investigation the
representative of the party concerned L. Žukienė reiterated her
statements.
V
In the course of preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, explanations of E. Kunevičienė,
Chairperson of the Budget and Finance Committee of the Seimas,
N. Pitrėnienė, Head of the State Tax Inspectorate at the
Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as G.
Švedas, a vice-minister of the Ministry of Justice, were
received.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. On 28 June 1995, at the time of appeal of the
petitioner to the Constitutional Court, the following procedure
of filing a complaint of the taxpayer against the actions of
the tax administrator or his officers was established by the
Law on Tax Administration (the wording of 2 July 1996):
(1) a taxpayer's complaint had to be accepted by the local
tax administrator solely in instances when it was "filed in
writing within 20 days from receipt of a written decision from
the tax administrator's officer" (Item 1 of Part 2 of Article
55);
(2) a taxpayer's "complaint filed before the central tax
administrator shall be investigated only if: (1) submitted in
writing within 20 days following receipt of local tax
administrator's decision regarding complaint investigation
results or because the time period during which such a decision
should have been adopted, has expired; (2) submitted in writing
for decision by tax administrator (his officers) within 20 days
following the day of receipt of decision subject to complaint
(Items 1 and 2 of Part 3 of Article 56).
(3) a taxpayer's complaint had to be filed no later than
within 20 days from the receipt of the decision of the central
tax administrator, and in the absence of decision approval,
within 20 days from the other day on which the central tax
administrator was to have approved the decision (Part 3 of
Article 58).
Thus in the pre-trial stage of investigation the
unconditional time period of 20 days was established for the
taxpayer to file a complaint against respective actions
performed by officers of the state tax inspectorate and no
right was granted to either the tax administrator or the court
to prolong or renew the said time period.
On 13 February 1997 the Seimas adopted the Law on Amending
Articles 25, 39, 49, 50, 52, 54, 55, 56 of and Appending
Article 391 to the Law on Tax Administration. At present Parts
7 and 9 of Article 54 of the Law on Tax Administration provide:
"7. Providing a taxpayer missed the time period of filing
a complaint for reasons which are recognised by the tax
administrator as valid this time period may be renewed by the
decision of the tax administrator. The application regarding
renewal of the missed time period is filed before such a tax
administrator under competence of whom depends adoption of the
decision concerning the complaint, and it is considered under
the same procedure as the complaint. [...]
9. Along with filing an application regarding renewal of
the time period, the complaint the time period of filing
whereof has been missed must be filed. The decision of the tax
administrator whereby the application regarding renewal of the
term is rejected may be appealed against under general
procedure as established by the present law."
The petitioner in its explanation of 9 June 1997 for the
Constitutional Court treats this amendment and supplementation
of the Law on Tax Administration as a partial solving of the
doubts which have arisen to it, however, it has not eliminated
the non-compliance of the contested articles with Article 23
and 29 of the Constitution. The Law on Tax Administration
provides for a possibility to renew the time period of 20 days,
which has been missed for valid reasons, of filing a complaint
before a local or central tax administrator, however, in the
opinion of the petitioner, to do so only the tax administrator
is permitted. Part 3 of Article 58 of the Law on Tax
Administration establishes the right of a taxpayer to appeal to
the court with his complaint during a limited time period,
though the court is not granted the right to renew the time
period of filing the complaint which has been missed for valid
reasons. The petitioner contends that this impedes not only the
rights of the taxpayer but also those of the court.
In assessing the legal situation which occurred in the
case under investigation after the said law of 13 February 1997
had been adopted, the Constitutional Court holds that the
content of Item 1 of Part 2 of Article 55, that of Items 1 and
2 of Part 4 of Article 56, and that of Part 3 of Article 58 had
basically been extended. Complementary rules of implementation
of the contested norms were established by new norms (Parts 7
and 9 of Article 54), and at present the time period of filing
the complaint which has been missed may be renewed while the
decision of the tax administrator whereby the application for
renewal of the time period is rejected may be appealed against.
The contested parts of articles of the Law on Tax
Administration have not formally been changed, meanwhile due to
the performed amendments merely the numbering of parts of
Article 56 of the said law was changed - Part 3 became Part 4
and editorial supplement of Item 2 of Part 4 of the aforesaid
article was performed.
Therefore, investigating the request of the petitioner,
the Constitutional Court shall, first of all, assess the
contested norms systematically, i.e. by taking account of the
wording of the Law on Tax Administration which was in force at
the time of the application of the petitioner and investigation
of the case at the Constitutional Court.
2. When one assesses the arguments of the petitioner, the
provisions consolidated in Article 127 of the Constitution as
well as their analysis are of crucial importance.
Part 1 of Article 127 of the Constitution provides that
"the budgetary system of the Republic of Lithuania shall
consist of the independent State Budget of the Republic of
Lithuania and the independent local governments budgets". The
part of the national income accumulated in the budget of the
Republic of Lithuania creates necessary conditions for
implementation of programmes of state education, culture,
science, health care, social maintenance and social assistance,
protection of environment, as well as for development of
economy, maintenance of state government and state
administration institutions and strengthening the defence of
the country.
Part 2 of Article 127 of the Constitution provides that
"State Budget revenues shall be accrued from taxes, compulsory
payments, dues, receipts from State property, and other
income". Thus one of the most important sources of the state
budget is taxes. Basing oneself on Item 15 of Article 67 of the
Constitution, one may assert that taxes are obligatory,
gratuitous and timely payments of respective amount of legal
and natural persons as established by the law into the state
(local government) budget (or, in some cases, into
non-budgetary purposive funds). It is evident that the main
purpose of taxes is fiscal, they are used to accrue the state
treasury designated for satisfying public needs of the state
and society. Besides, with the help of taxes social and
economic processes taking place in the state are regulated,
useful economic efforts are supported, capital and investments
are attracted, or, on the contrary, undesirable trends of
socio-economic development are intermitted.
Along with consolidation of the budgetary system of the
Republic of Lithuania and indication of the sources of accrual
of the state budget, the provisions of Article 127 of the
Constitution consolidate the constitutional duty to pay taxes.
This monetary obligation provided for the taxpayer is
accomplished under the procedure established by the law.
One should also note that provided taxes are not paid or
paid overdue the state budget does not receive revenue, the
budget deficit increases, possibilities for the state to
implement its tasks and accomplish its functions which are
vitally important for its citizens, the nation and the state
are restricted or even deprived of. Furthermore, at the time
when part of subjects of economic activity do not pay taxes,
the other subjects - conscientious taxpayers - find themselves
at a disadvantage, and thereby essential principles of free
market basing itself on fair competition are violated.
The state budget must be replenished constantly. Therefore
the rights and duties of subjects of tax relations in the
sphere of payment of taxes must be accomplished not only
completely but also within established time limits while arisen
tax disputes must be settled as soon as possible. Tax relations
are a matter of regulation by public law therefore the method
of administrative legal regulation is applied for their
realisation first of all.
Subordination, elements of command dominate in the norms
of tax laws establishing the means ensuring accomplishment of
tax obligation, in defining the status of subjects of legal tax
relations, in solving issues of taxpayers' responsibility,
procedure of investigation of tax disputes and other questions.
Such an imperative, obligating method of regulation ensures
priority of interests of the general public, as well as those
of the state, in tax relations. When the method of
administrative legal regulation is applied, legal relations of
commanding character occur between the taxpayer and
institutions of the executive power of the state - tax
administrators. Instructions given by the latter, as well as
their adopted decisions, are mandatory for taxpayers. One does
not negotiate taxes, the rights and duties of the taxpayer are
directly pointed out in the norms of tax laws. Not only
financial but also administrative and criminal responsibility
is established and applied for violation of tax laws.
Alongside, one should note that the relations between
taxpayers and the officials administering taxes must be based
not only on effective implementation of commanding instructions
but also on a real opportunity of the taxpayer to defend his
legitimate interests.
3.1. The petitioner contends that Article 23 of the
Constitution does not provide for any exception for either
specific types of property or individual subjects of property.
Meanwhile the Law on Tax Administration evidently places the
subjects of the right to property (taxpayers, the state) at a
disadvantage: Part 3 of Article 29 of this law provides that
the time limitation term is not applied for payment of computed
tax, added fines and penalties, as well as their exaction when
the limited time period of 20 days is established for filing
complaints. Only the tax administrator is entitled to renew the
said time period provided it has been missed for valid reasons.
Therefore the petitioner argues that when tax disputes are
settled the interests of the state are placed higher than those
of taxpayers. The provision of Part 3 of Article 58 of the Law
on Tax Administration which does not grant a possibility to the
court to renew the time period for filing the complaint which
has been missed for valid reasons impedes not only the rights
of taxpayers but also those of the court and thereby violates
Article 29 of the Constitution.
3.2. Article 29 of the Constitution consolidates the
principle of equality of all people before the law, the court,
and other state institutions and officers. The Constitutional
Court has already noted that this principle "must be observed
when passing and applying laws, as well as administering
justice. This principle obligates to apply uniform legal
assessment to homogeneous facts and prohibits to arbitrarily
assess essentially homogeneous facts" (the 24 January 1996
ruling of the Constitutional Court).
Legal equality of taxpayers before the law is established
by Article 3 of the Law on Tax Administration which stipulates
that "in applying tax laws, all taxpayers shall be held equal
on the basis of the conditions established by these laws". Thus
tax laws, as well as the Law on Tax Administration, are
universal with respect to taxable subjects.
As it was mentioned, the method of administrative legal
regulation prevails in the sphere of tax relations. Therefore
in their legal position taxpayers may not be made equal to the
tax administrators who, by representing state interests and
administering accomplishment of the tax duty, base themselves
on commanding authorisation. The taxpayer and the tax
administrator have different rights and duties due to the
character of the same tax as an obligation of the state.
However, every taxpayer is entitled to dispute and appeal
against every decision of the tax administrator or his officer
under time period and procedure established by the law.
By the administrative method of regulation of tax
relations and the procedure of pre-trial investigation one
attempts to ensure that the taxes were paid promptly and
timely. Therefore it is necessary that the subjects of tax
relations accomplish their duties during the shortest possible
time period as established by the law. This is also induced by
the special and comparatively short time period of filing the
complaint. On the other hand, provided a taxpayer considers
that he was unsuccessful in defending his rights during
pre-trial stages of investigation of tax disputes, he is
entitled to appeal to the court.
Alongside one should take account of the fact that, as it
was mentioned, after the 13 February 1997 Law on Tax
Administration had been amended and supplemented, a possibility
appeared to renew the time period of filling the complaint
which has been missed for valid reasons (Part 7 of Article 54
of the Law on Tax Administration).
A conclusion is to be made from Parts 1, 7 and 9 of
Article 54 of the aforesaid law, as well as from the content of
the contested norms, that the taxpayer, who does not agree with
the refusal of the tax administrator to renew the time period
of filing the complaint which has been missed for valid reasons
or providing the tax administrator does not adopt any decisions
regarding this question, then the taxpayer is entitled to
appeal to the court against such an action or absence of action
of the tax administrator (his officers), as well as due to the
consequences which have arisen because of this.
The Constitutional Court emphasises that it is such an
interpretation of the Law on Tax Administration which is in
compliance with the provision of Article 30 of the Constitution
whereby any person whose constitutional rights or freedoms are
violated shall have the right to appeal to court.
After the process of solution of tax disputes has ceased
and the complaint has been lodged against the decision of the
tax administrator (his officer) to the court, the procedural
legal situation of the institutions (their officers) which are
responsible for tax administration and that of taxpayers become
equal. These subjects of tax relations become parties of a
civil proceedings and the court investigates the case
conforming to principles of contention and parties' equality.
Thus the disputed norms of the Law on Tax Administration
are in compliance with Article 29 of the Constitution.
3.3. Article 23 of the Constitution stipulates:
"Property shall be inviolable.
The rights of ownership shall be 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."
In view of property, the norms of Article 23 of the
Constitution, all together forming an intact unity, reveal the
essence of protection of the right to property and emphasize
constitutional protection of property.
The Constitutional Court has noted, that inviolability of
property must not be treated as unrestricted: "[...] neither
the Constitution nor valid system of other laws, nor
universally recognized norms of international law deny the
opportunity under conditions and procedure prescribed by the
law to alienate the property or restrict its possession, use or
disposal" (the 13 December 1993 ruling of the Constitutional
Court).
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
indicates that "every natural or legal person is entitled to
the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be
deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and
subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the
general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way
impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems
necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the
general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other
contributions or penalties".
Thus international law does not deny the right of states
to establish by the law broad opportunities of tax collection,
ways of control, choice of means in ensuring effective
functioning of state tax and budget systems.
One should note that along with promulgation of general
principle of inviolability of property in Article 23 of the
Constitution, the right of the Seimas to establish taxes by the
law is consolidated in Part 2 of Article 127, Item 15 of
Article 67 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the norms of the
Constitution, by granting the right to the Seimas to impose
taxes, also pre-suppose obligation for the state to create
necessary, sufficient and effective legal means of
implementation of the rights and duties of tax relations
subjects.
In the sphere of accrual of the budget, as well as in the
sphere of taxes, the object of state activities in imposing
taxes is, first of all, property, received returns, income,
accumulated financial resources etc. Thus the constitutional
duty occurs to the owner to pay taxes to the state. Alongside,
the owner is a subject of tax law - a tax payer - and through
taxes he finances implementation of internal and external
functions of the state.
The nature and purpose of state taxes, the
administrative-legal method of regulation of tax relations, the
rights and duties of the subjects of these relations and
guarantees of their implementation, the procedure of pre-trial
investigation of tax disputes, the time period of filing
complaints against actions of the tax administrator (his
officers) by taxpayers, as well as the procedure of renewal of
this time period, permit to maintain that the principle of
inviolability of property is not violated in tax relations.
Thus the disputed norms of the Law on Tax Administration are in
compliance with the provisions of Article 23 of the
Constitution.
Taking account of the motives set forth a conclusion is to
be made that Item 1 of Part 2 of Article 55, Items 1 and 2 of
Part 4 of Article 56, and Part 3 of Article 58 of the Law on
Tax Administration are in compliance with 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 Item 1 of Part 2 of Article 55, Items 1
and 2 of Part 4 of Article 56, and Part 3 of Article 58 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Tax Administration are in
compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
This Constitutional Court ruling is final and not subject
to appeal.
The ruling is promulgated on behalf of the Republic of
Lithuania.