Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
R U L I N G
On the compliance of Paragraph 3 of Item 3.4 of
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution
No. 329 "On the Compensation for the Damage Done
to Forests" of 14 August 1991 with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
Vilnius, 1 June 1998
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-Laima Vaičiūnienė, the head specialist
at the Legal and Personnel Office of the Legal Department at
the Ministry of Agriculture, and Valdas Vaičiūnas, the Head of
the Division of Forestry Strategy of the Forestry Department at
the Ministry of Environment, both are the representatives of
the Government 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, on 7 May
1998 in its public hearing conducted the investigation of Case
No. 11/97 subsequent to the petition submitted to the Court by
the petitioner-the College of the Civil Cases Department of the
Klaipėda Regional Court-requesting to investigate if Paragraph
3 of Item 3.4 of Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 329 "On the Compensation for the Damage Done to
Forests" of 14 August 1991 was in compliance with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
On 14 August 1991, the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania adopted Resolution No. 329 "On the Compensation for
the Damage Done to Forests" (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios,
No. 26-706, 1991). Item 3.4 was set forth by the Government in
its Resolution No. 741 "On Partial Amendment to Government of
the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 329 of 14 August 1991"
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, No. 52(37)-1014) as
follows:
"3.4 The means exacted for the damage done to forests, as
well as those received after realization of unlawfully acquired
production, shall be paid:
into the accounts of district and city boards in the case
that the damage has been done to the forests attributed to the
sphere of regulation of the said boards and damages have been
claimed by the same;
to the owners in the case that the damage has been done to
their forests and damages have been claimed by the same;
into the Fund for the Forest Growing of Forestry Offices
and National Parks in the case that the damage has been done to
the forests of forestry offices or those of national parks, and
damages have been claimed by forest protection officials, as
well as in the event that the damage has been done to forests
belonging to other legal or natural persons by unlawful actions
of the latter and damages have been claimed by forest
protection officials;
into the Central Fund of the Forestry Ministry for Forest
Growing in the case that the damage to the forests of forestry
offices or those of national parks has been done by unlawful
actions of these forestry offices or national parks, and
damages have been claimed by forest protection officials."
By indicating the number of the disputed paragraph of this
resolution, the petitioner disregarded the requirements of Part
3 of Article 9 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Drafting
Procedure for Laws and Other Legal Normative Acts. According to
the content of the paragraph challenged by the petitioner, it
should be registered as Paragraph 3 of Item 3.4 (hereinafter in
the Constitutional Court ruling referred to as Paragraph 3 of
Item 3.4 of Government Resolution No. 329 "On the Compensation
for the Damage Done to Forests" of 14 August 1991).
II
On 18 June 1997, the petitioner-the College of the Civil
Cases Department of the Klaipėda Regional Court-was
investigating a civil case subsequent to an appeal of the
respondent concerning the decision of the Klaipėda Regional
District Court to exact from the respondent 37115.02 Lt in
damages for arbitrary felling of his forest. On 18 June 1997,
by its interlocutory ruling, the Court suspended the
investigation of the case and appealed to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the means exacted for the damage done to forests
[...] shall be paid into the Fund for the Forest Growing of
Forestry Offices and National Parks [...] in the event that the
damage has been done to forests belonging to other legal or
natural persons by unlawful actions of the latter" of Paragraph
3 of Item 3.4 of Government Resolution No. 329 "On the
Compensation for the Damage Done to Forests" of 14 August 1991
was in compliance with Article 23 of the Constitution.
III
The petitioner grounds his request on the following
arguments.
Article 26 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Forests
provides that the natural and legal persons that violated the
requirements of the Law on Forests shall be brought to
responsibility under the procedure provided for by the laws of
the Republic of Lithuania. Part 2 of Article 11 of the Law on
Forests provides that the regulations for managing and
utilisation of private forests shall be confirmed by the
Government.
The petitioner notes that Article 23 of the Constitution
stipulates that property shall be inviolable, and that the
rights of ownership shall be protected by law. The petitioner
is of opinion that the owner of a forest by arbitrarily, i.e.
unlawfully, felling his forest can inflict damage to himself
only. The responsibility for such a transgression is provided
for in Article 62 of the Code of Administrative Transgressions
of Law, however, no other law-the Civil Code, the Law on
Forests, etc.-provides for the responsibility of the owner for
felling of a private forest or the compensation for the damage.
The petitioner maintains that the disputed provision of
Paragraph 3 of Item 3.4 of Government Resolution "On the
Compensation for the Damage Done to Forests" restricts the
rights of the owner to manage, use, and dispose of his
property, and violates his interests. According to the meaning
of Article 23 of the Constitution, such restrictions may be
provided for only by the law.
IV
In the course of preparation of the case for judicial
investigation, explanations of L. Vaičiūnienė and V. Vaičiūnas,
the representatives of the party concerned, were received.
1. The representative L. Vaičiūnienė explained that under
Article 1 of the Law on Forests "forest is one of the main
resources of Lithuanian nature, it serves for the welfare of
the State and its citizens, it preserves the stability of the
landscape and the quality of the environment". Forest is
national wealth of our State, it satisfies the interests of the
whole society, and its ecological significance is enormous. The
Law on Forests grants the right to citizens to visit forests
freely with the exception of reservation and special purpose
forests. If compared to other objects of the right to private
ownership, all these circumstances condition specific character
of legal regulation pertaining to forest as the object of the
right to private ownership. The representative also indicated
that the management, utilisation, restoration and preservation
of forests of all ownership forms are regulated by the Law on
Forests, the Law on Land, the Regulations for Managing and
Utilisation of Private Forests which are confirmed by a
Government resolution, as well as other legal acts.
The representative noted that the owners of private
forests have the right to purchase, transfer gratuitously,
exchange, let, and mortgage woodland under procedure
established by laws, as well as to get, free of charge, legal
advice concerning forestry management.
The representative is of opinion that the fact that the
laws and other legal acts impose restrictions to the owners of
private forests as regards utilisation of forest resources does
not violate the provisions of property inviolability as
established by Article 23 of the Constitution.
The representative pointed out that the ministry, taking
account of the fact that the owner of a forest, by felling
forest arbitrarily and destroying trees and shrubbery in the
woodland which belongs to him by the ownership right, does not
inflict harm to either the State or society, submitted to the
Government a new draft resolution "On the Compensation for the
Damage Done to Forests" wherein the responsibility of forest
owners for compensation for the damage caused by felling trees
and shrubbery in the woodland belonging to them by the
ownership right has not been provided for.
2. In his explanation the representative A. Vaičiūnas
indicated that the specific character of legal regulation of
forest as an object of the right to private ownership is
conditioned by the fact that, if compared with other objects of
the right of ownership, forest is national wealth of Lithuania,
it satisfies the interests not only of the owner but also those
of society.
The representative noted that it is impossible to mention
any developed country where the owners of forests could dispose
of it absolutely freely. All over the world the state regulates
forest felling, restoration, their conversion into other areas
of economic significance, it establishes environment
preservation requirements and responsibility for violations of
respective laws.
The representative maintained that the owners of private
forests dispose of the forests which belong to them by the
right to private ownership, they may sell, transfer
gratuitously, mortgage, let their forests etc. The forest
owner, however, must manage, utilise the resources of, restore
and preserve his forest in observance of the requirements of
laws and other legal acts.
In the opinion of the representative, the restrictions
imposed on the owners of private forests regarding utilisation
of forest resources in the valid laws and substatutory acts do
not violate the property inviolability provisions as
established by Article 23 of the Constitution.
The representative pointed out that the owner of a forest
who fells his forest by violating laws and other legal acts
often inflicts damage to the State, society and nature.
However, in such cases when a forest owner performs selective
felling in utilised forests, then, in practice he does not
inflict much damage either to nature or society, however, he
violates valid legal acts, for which he must be brought to
responsibility.
The representative noted that taking into consideration
the fact that the forest owner, by arbitrarily felling forest,
often inflicts damage only to himself, the Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry submitted to the Government a new
draft resolution "On the Compensation for the Damage Done to
Forests" wherein one does not provide for damage estimation for
the forest owners who have felled their forest arbitrarily.
V
In the course of preparation of the case for judicial
investigation, the conclusions of the specialists-Prof. Habil.
Dr. V. Mikelėnas, Head of the Chair of Civil Law and
Proceedings at the Law Faculty of Vilnius University, and L.
Miežėnas, a procurator at the Division for Preparation of Civil
Cases and Legal Acts of the Office of the Procurator General of
the Republic of Lithuania-were received.
V. Mikelėnas, basing oneself on the analysis of the
content of Part 2 of Article 30 of the Constitution, as well as
that of the norms of articles of the Civil Code and the norms
of the Law on Forests, drew a conclusion that the Government,
by establishing civil responsibility to the forest owner for
inflicting damage after he felled his forest, was acting ultra
vires, i.e. it violated the principle of the division of powers
which has been established by the Constitution and the laws, as
it decided the issues attributed not to its competence but that
of the legislator. It is affirmed in the conclusion that, from
the legal standpoint, the Government groundlessly established
civil responsibility for the forest owner who has felled his
forest in violation of the established procedure, as this
contradicts the established fundamentals of appearance and
termination of liabilities.
It is emphasised in the conclusion that forest is a
special object of the ownership right, it has a significant
importance for the whole society, atmosphere and other life
factors of the existence of our planet. The restrictions
imposed on management and utilisation of private forests by the
Law on Forests and other legal acts are justifiable as they
protect the public interest. The State has been granted such a
right by Part 3 of Article 46 of the Constitution.
In his explanation, L. Miežėnas indicated that the Law on
Forests does not provide for material responsibility of forest
owners for the damage inflicted to the forests which belong to
them by the ownership right. The Regulations for Managing and
Utilisation of Private Forests do not provide for material
responsibility to forest owners for the inflicted damage by
felling the forests which belong to them by the ownership
right. It is maintained in the explanation that under the valid
laws, for an arbitrary forest felling, or for exceeding the
amount of wood or species of trees indicated in the permit,
administrative responsibility might be applied to the forest
owner which is provided for in the Code of Administrative
Transgressions of Law.
L. Miežėnas pointed out that, by its resolution of 14
August 1991, the Government by establishing damage compensation
to the state (or the local government), when the damage has
been inflicted by unlawful actions of the owner by felling the
forest which belongs to him by the right to private ownership,
exceeded its competence powers.
In the case at issue an explanation of the vice minister
of agriculture A. Brukas was also received.
VI
In the court hearing the representatives of the party
concerned virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in their
explanations.
The representative V. Vaičiūnas additionally explained
that whenever forest is felled, some or other damage is being
inflicted to the environment, and this is not doubted by
environment experts. The main drawback of the disputed
resolution is that one does not distinguish the damage
inflicted to the forest, nor the damage which is inflicted to
the environment by forest felling. The representative noted
that the damage inflicted to the forest by arbitrary forest
felling has 2 aspects: that of property-when damage has been
inflicted to the forest, and that of environment
protection-when damage has been inflicted to the environment.
The representative pointed out that in the prepared new draft
resolution there is not provided that property damages are to
be deducted after a forest owner has arbitrarily felled his
forest as it does the said damage to his own forest. However,
providing one established that damage has been inflicted to the
environment due to the forest felling, the owner must
compensate such damage.
The representative of the party concerned L. Vaičiūnienė
assented to the explanation of V. Vaičiūnas and noted that
Article 26 of the Law on Forests provides for the
responsibility of the third party to compensate the damage
inflicted to managers, owners or users of forests. The forest
owner by arbitrary forest felling inflicts damage to himself.
The law provides for administrative responsibility for
arbitrary forest felling by the forest owner. The civil
responsibility of the forest owner for the said action should
be abolished.
The representative of the party concerned V. Vaičiūnas
admitted that the conditions, basis and procedure for the
compensation for arbitrary forest felling and due to it for the
damage which has been inflicted to the forest as well as the
environment must be established by laws, while the methods and
rates for the calculation of the amount of damages may be
approved by the Government or, upon the commissioning of the
latter, by a competent institution. Besides, the representative
explained that the principles of compensation of ecological
damages are not regulated in details by the law. The methods
and rates of determination of such damages must be based on
objective criteria, i.e. by the functional purpose of forest,
under which Article 4 of the Law on Forests divides forests
into 4 groups and for each group respective legal regulation
has been established.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. The principle of inviolability of property is
entrenched in Part 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution:
"Property shall be inviolable." Thus, it is only the owner, as
a possessor of subjective rights to property, who has an
exclusive right to manage, use and dispose of it. Alongside,
the owner has the right to demand that other natural and legal
persons, as well as the State, should not violate his ownership
rights.
Part 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution provides: "The
rights of ownership shall be protected by law." Thus, the State
has an obligation to pass corresponding laws, and, on the
grounds thereof, to protect property. For that purpose, a
system of respective legal norms is created, the aim of which
is to secure an opportunity to the owner to use, manage, and
dispose of his property at his discretion, as well as safeguard
the ownership right from its violations. It is not possible to
assert, however, that, in accomplishing his subjective
ownership rights, the owner is absolutely free. Neither the
Constitution nor universally recognised international legal
norms deny a possibility to establish by laws certain limits on
management, use or disposal of one's property. Meanwhile, such
restrictions may not deny the essence of the ownership right.
In elucidating the content of Parts 1 and 2 of Article 23
of the Constitution, one has to take account of Article 28 of
the Constitution, wherein it is stipulated: "While exercising
their rights and freedoms, persons must observe the
Constitution and the laws of the Republic of Lithuania, and
must not impair the rights and interests of other people." The
norm of Part 1 of Article 96 of the Civil Code whereby the
owner shall manage, use and dispose of the property which
belongs to him without violating the rights and legitimate
interests of other persons is, in essence, in conformity to the
aforesaid constitutional provision. It means that the owner,
when accomplishing his subjective ownership rights, must take
into consideration the public interests. Besides, while
construing the essence of Part 2 of Article 23 of the
Constitution, the Constitutional Court noted that "[...] as far
as the theory of law is concerned, the protection of property
rights by legal means presuppose, in turn, appropriate limits
to such protection, as law in all cases of the regulation of
public relations is valid only within certain limits" (the
Constitutional Court ruling of 13 December 1993).
2. Part 1 of Article 54 of the Constitution prescribes:
"The State shall concern itself with the protection of the
natural environment, its fauna and flora, separate objects of
nature and particularly valuable districts, and shall supervise
the moderate utilization of natural resources as well as their
restoration and augmentation." In this norm one of the aims of
the activities of the State is formulated, i.e., to ensure
people's rights to healthy and clean environment. Environment,
as a rule, is understood as the entirety of interrelated
elements (the surface and entrails of the earth, air, water,
soil, flora, fauna, organic and non-organic substances,
anthropogenic components), as well as natural and anthropogenic
systems uniting them, which functions in nature.
Forest is one of the chief natural resources. It is part
of the indivisible ecological system, it serves for the welfare
of society and people, it preserves the stability of the
landscape and improves the quality of the environment. The
common principles of environmental protection are applied to
forest as a constituent part of environment: environmental
protection is the concern and obligation of the State and the
population; both public and private interests should be devoted
to improve the quality of the environment; diminishing of the
negative impact upon the environment; striving for ecological
production; efficient and combined utilization of natural
resources. Generally, the requirements for environmental
preservation are consolidated and particularised in the norms
of respective laws wherein the duties and rights of forest
managers, owners and users are established.
From the standpoint of forest preservation, one should
distinguish the fact that in the valid legal acts special
duties are established to forest owners, managers and users,
as: to protect the forests from fire, pests, diseases and other
negative factors, to restore the felled forest in due time and
properly, to utilise the forest in such a way which could
diminish the negative impact upon the environment, to
rationally manage the woodland, to preserve its biological
diversity, etc.
Thus, a peculiar ecological, social and economic
significance of forest to the environment and the public
interests conditions certain restrictions and restraints on the
ownership right of forest owners. As a rule, this is done by
regulating the management and use of forest by legal acts.
One should note that a many-sided tradition of forest
preservation is characteristic of Lithuania. For instance, in
the Rules for the Supervision and Management of Private Forests
approved on 7 June 1929 it was provided that the forests of
proprietors shall be under the supervision of the Forestry
Department. In Lithuania a rather strict procedure of forest
felling for owners was in force. The owners who violated the
rules for forest felling were being brought to responsibility
under the norms of the Criminal Statute. The timber that was
felled unlawfully was being withheld or sequestrated.
3.1. Doubts arose to the petitioner whether the provision
that the means exacted for the damage done to forests shall be
paid into the Fund for the Forest Growing of Forestry Offices
and National Parks "[...] in the event that the damage has been
done to forests belonging to other legal or natural persons by
unlawful actions of the latter" of Paragraph 3 of Item 3.4 of
Government Resolution No. 329 "On the Compensation for the
Damage Done to Forests" of 14 August 1991 was in compliance
with Article 23 of the Constitution. The petitioner is of
opinion that such a provision contradicts the said article as
thereby the right of the owner to manage, use and dispose of
his property is restricted, i.e. his interests are violated.
Besides, he maintains, that according to the meaning of Article
23 of the Constitution, the rights of ownership may be
restricted only by the law.
By analysing the conformity of the disputed provision of
Paragraph 3 of Item 3.4 of the Government resolution to Article
23 of the Constitution, it is necessary to take into
consideration its interaction with other norms of the said
resolution, historical aspects of legal regulation of
corresponding public relations, as well as other important
circumstances.
Item 1 of the Government resolution prescribes that both
legal and natural persons are materially responsible provided
they, in the lands of the fund of forests, unlawfully fell or
damage trees and shrubbery, destroy or damage forest, forest
cultures, seedlings or saplings in forest plantations. Material
responsibility is also established for other unlawful actions.
In the resolution the rates of compensation for the damage done
to forests by the actions of legal and natural persons were
approved, while sub-Item 2 of Item 3 stipulates that the
persons who have done damage to forests shall compensate it
irrespective of the fact whether they are brought to criminal
or administrative responsibility or not. Generalising the
content of the aforesaid legal norms, one may assert that the
legal grounds have been formulated therein to exact
compensation for the damage inflicted to forests from legal and
natural persons.
The other norms of this resolution are virtually designed
for particularisation of the legal regulation concerning
compensation of the damage done to forests. It is evident that
the disputed provision of Paragraph 3 of Item 3.4 is also of
such nature. It was established therein that the means exacted
for the damage done to forests shall be paid into the Fund for
the Forest Growing of Forestry Offices and National Parks in
the event that the damage has been done to forests belonging to
other legal or natural persons by unlawful actions of the
latter. This provision establishes the implementation rules for
certain legal norms of the Government resolution.
In assessing the lawfulness of the disputed provision of
the Government resolution, one has to take account of another
aspect which is linked with its historical interpretation. One
should note that on 14 August 1991, when the Government
Resolution "On the Compensation for the Damage Done to Forests"
was being adopted, in reality private forests so far did not
exist. After the institution of private property had been
re-instituted into the legal system of Lithuania, the nature of
legal regulation of private property, including forests, was
essentially changed. The Law on Forests, as well as other laws,
provided for the existence of private property of forest, and
established the duties of forest owners, managers and users.
The legal pre-conditions of forest protection against unlawful
actions were formulated, i.e., legal responsibility for
arbitrary forest felling, as well as the obligation of natural
and legal persons who have done damage to forest to compensate
it.
Alongside, one should note that after private property of
forest had come into being, the Government resolution of 14
August 1991 on the compensation for damage done to forests was
not correspondingly specified.
3.2. In solving the constitutionality issue of Paragraph 3
of Item 3.4 of the Government resolution, one also has to base
oneself on Part 2 of Article 54 of the Constitution wherein it
is prescribed: "The exhaustion of land and entrails of the
earth, the pollution of waters and air, the production of
radioactive impact on environment, as well as the
impoverishment of fauna and flora, shall be prohibited by law."
The Constitutional Court notes that several aspects are to be
distinguished in the content of this norm. First of all, the
principle of environmental protection is consolidated therein:
every legal and natural person must abstain from such actions
which might inflict harm to natural environment and, it goes
without saying, forests. Secondly, this norm presupposes
corresponding responsibility for unlawful actions, as well as
legal pre-conditions for the compensation for the damage done
to forest.
The norm of Part 2 of Article 54 of the Constitution is
the constitutional basis of the legal norms regarding
compensation of the damage done to environment and forests.
Article 32 of the Law on Environmental Protection provides:
"Legal and natural persons who, by way of unlawful activities,
cause damage to the environment, the life or health of a given
person(s), or to the property or interests of other legal and
natural persons, must compensate all losses, and, if possible,
must restore the environmental state of the object in
question." However, corresponding norms of the Law on Forests
have not been co-ordinated with the aforementioned norms yet.
For example, Part 1 of Article 26 of the Law on Forests
provides that the legal and natural persons who inflict damage
to the forest, property or interests of forest managers, owners
and users, must compensate it fully or, if possible, restore
the state of the matter in question which was prior to the
infliction of the damage. One should pay attention to the fact
that in the said article one mentions only the damage inflicted
by the third party, meanwhile the damage to the environment
which may be done by forest owners when they arbitrarily fell
the forest which belongs to them by the ownership right is not
mentioned.
It is to be noted that the owner, by his arbitrary actions
felling the forest which belongs to him by the private
ownership right, may cause legal effects of 2 kinds. First, the
forest owner violates the procedure for management and use of
private forests which is established either by the law or
substatutory legal act, i.e. he performs a transgression of law
for which he may be brought to legal responsibility. Second,
the forest owner, by arbitrarily felling his forest, may do
damage to the environment, too. In such a case, regardless of
the application of administrative or criminal responsibility,
liability may occur to compensate the damage inflicted to the
environment.
3.3. As it was mentioned, the petitioner, by asserting
that the disputed provision of Paragraph 3 of Item 3.4 of
Government Resolution No. 329 "On the Compensation for the
Damage Done to Forests" of 14 August 1991 contradicts Article
23 of the Constitution, considers that the owner, by
arbitrarily felling his forest, may inflict damage only to
himself, therefore one may not demand that he compensate the
damage.
It is to be noted that the investigation of the question
as for the legal regulation concerning compensation of the
damage by the forest owner which was inflicted to his forest by
arbitrary forest felling is to be linked with the common
principles of liability law. Civil liability is a property
liability one party whereof is entitled to claim damages, while
the other party must compensate them. In the liability relation
2 parties are necessary: the person who has suffered damages,
and the person who has inflicted the damage. The forest owner
by arbitrarily, i.e. unlawfully, felling his forest may inflict
property damage to himself as well. In this case, however,
there is not any property liability, as the person who has
suffered damages and the person who has inflicted the damage
coincide in one person.
In the context of the case at issue it is important that
the forest owner, by arbitrarily felling forest, inflicts
damage to the environment, therefore there occur liability
relations of damage compensation. In such a case a respective
institution of environmental protection is entitled to demand
that the damage done to the environment be compensated.
Taking account of the motives and arguments set forth, it
is to be concluded that the disputed provision of Paragraph 3
of Item 3.4 of Government Resolution No. 329 "On the
Compensation for the Damage Done to Forests" of 14 August 1991
contradicts Parts 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution.
Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and Articles 53, 54, 55 and 56 of the Law
of the Republic of Lithuania on the Constitutional Court, the
Constitutional Court has passed the following
ruling:
To recognise that the disputed provision that the means
exacted for the damage done to forests shall be paid into the
Fund for the Forest Growing of Forestry Offices and National
Parks "[...] in the event that the damage has been done to
forests belonging to other legal or natural persons by unlawful
actions of the latter" of Paragraph 3 of Item 3.4 of Government
of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 329 "On the
Compensation for the Damage Done to Forests" of 14 August 1991
contradicts Parts 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania.
This Constitutional Court ruling is final and not subject
to appeal.
The ruling is promulgated on behalf of the Republic of
Lithuania.