Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
R U L I N G
On the compliance of the Methods for Establishing
the Nominal Price of Land Bought Out by the State
as confirmed by Government of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution No. 909 of 6 December 1993
with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
Vilnius, 18 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-Jadvyga Aleksaitė, Director of the
Legal Acts Department at the Ministry of Justice, and
Stanislovas Naujalis, a deputy director of the Department of
Territorial Planning at the Ministry of Construction and Urban
Planning, both are 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 3
June 1998 in its public hearing conducted the investigation of
Case No. 11/96 subsequent to the petition submitted to the
Court by the petitioner-the Kaunas City District
Court-requesting to investigate if the Methods for Establishing
the Nominal Price of Land Bought Out by the State as confirmed
by Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 909
of 6 December 1993 were in compliance with Articles 23 and 29
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
On 14 May 1996, the petitioner-the Kaunas City District
Court-was investigating a civil case subsequent to a petition
of the plaintiffs to adopt a supplementary decision and adjudge
a pecuniary compensation from the administration of the city of
Kaunas administrator for the land bought out by the State. By
its ruling the court suspended the investigation of the case
and appealed to the Constitutional Court with a petition
requesting to investigate if the Methods for Establishing the
Nominal Price of Land Bought Out by the State as confirmed by
Government Resolution No. 909 of 6 December 1993 (Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, No. 68-1284, 1993) were in compliance
with Articles 23 and 29 of the Constitution.
II
The petitioner grounds his request on the following
arguments.
Item 2 of the Methods for Establishing the Nominal Price
of Land Bought Out by the State (hereinafter in the ruling also
referred to as the Methods) provides that the price of land
subject to buying out shall be established by the Methods for
the Nominal Price of Land Sold by the State as confirmed by
this Government Resolution, and that the price of land bought
out by the State shall be equal to the price of land sold by
the State after deduction of the expenses for land improvement.
In the opinion of the petitioner, these both methods contradict
each other, therefore there exist big differences in prices of
analogous land plots that are subject to buying out and sale.
By applying the Methods, the constitutional principle of
equality of all persons before the law is violated, and the
ownership right is not protected. Unless the contradictions are
cleared up and eliminated, it is impossible to precisely
calculate the amount of compensation for land bought out by the
State, and thereby to restore the equality of persons before
the law and the court which is guaranteed by Article 29 of the
Constitution, as well as the right of private ownership
protection which is entrenched in Article 23 of the
Constitution. The petitioner is of the opinion that it is
necessary to establish that, in calculating compensation for
land subject to buying out by the State and which is not
returned in kind as well as for land subject to sale, one is to
apply the same methods for value calculation.
III
In the course of preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, the representative of the party
concerned S. Naujalis presented these counter-arguments.
1. In pursuance of Item 4 of Part 1 of Article 12 of the
Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the
Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property" (hereinafter
in the ruling also referred to as the Law), the land which on
the day of enforcement of this law was within the
administrative boundaries of a town, or territories ascribed to
towns, shall be bought out by the State, as before ascribing
land to towns, it has been planned and specified for
utilisation for public needs, which is in line with Article 23
of the Constitution.
2. The main provision for the evaluation of land bought
out by the State is Part 2 (Part 1 of the first wording of the
Law) of Article 17 wherein the condition is established that
the value of the items compensated for the real property bought
out by the State must be equivalent to the actual value of the
property at the tame of buying out, after deduction of the
expenses for its improvement. Following this provision, the
methods which are necessary for calculation of the nominal
price of land bought out by the State were prepared and
confirmed by Government resolutions (Resolution No. 473 of 18
November 1991, and Resolution No. 909 of 6 December 1993).
3. The value of land bought out by the State is
established by subtracting the average expenses for improvement
of the said land from the calculated value of land sold by the
State. For example, the value of non-agricultural land
increases due to the development of urban infrastructure, i.e.
because of the installation of streets, water-supply, gas-main,
electrical system and telephone network, commercial objects and
those of public purpose the aim of which is to render service
to residents, as well as because of the opportunities to
develop economic or other activities. In the Government
Resolution such increase of the land value has been provided
for that the prices of urban land and agricultural land which
is in rural areas could correspond to the proportions that
existed in Lithuania until 1940.
In pre-war Lithuania, the Law on Keeping Urban Land
provided that in case land is bought out for the needs of
society (e.g., building a street), the owner of the land shall
not be compensated up to 30 % of the value of the seized land,
as after the street had been built, he also enjoyed better
conditions due to which the value of the remaining land would
increase.
4. At present the price of land bought out by the State in
rural areas and most urban districts is higher than the market
price for land, therefore it is not expedient to change the
procedure for establishment of the price of land bought out by
the State.
In the course of preparation of the case for judicial
investigation, an explanation of Albinas Kadūnas, a
representative of the party concerned, was also received
wherein the following arguments were presented.
1. By Article 17 of the Law, the procedure for the
calculation of compensation shall be established by the
Government. Pecuniary compensation for land which is outside
the limits of a town, is not provided for, this land, however,
is assessed in monetary value so that the value of other
property that is to be allotted instead of it might be
calculated.
2. Agricultural land sold by the State is assessed in the
same manner as in pre-war Lithuania, i.e. taking account of the
ratio of the market price of land, and the price of the stabile
commodity, i.e. grain. To assess urban land sold out by the
State, the data of land market investigation of foreign
countries were applied by taking into consideration the size of
a town, and the position of the land plot with regard to urban,
ecological, commercial and other aspects. The value of land
bought out by the State is calculated by subtracting the
average expenses of improvement of this land from the
established value of the land which is being sold.
3. The Law contains no requirement to establish individual
prices for every land plot according to its actual location. In
the Methods, the average land price is established for all
urban territory according to the significance and size of
towns. By assessing urban land only 3 conditions were pointed
out, i.e., the land which belonged to towns until 1940, the
land ascribed to towns until 1 June 1995 (i.e. the agricultural
land which had been held by the ownership right) and the
agricultural land ascribed to towns after 1 June 1995.
By applying the Methods, the average price (depending on
the size of a town) of the land held in towns until 1940 and
which is at present being bought out by the State, amounts to
28,800-57,600 Lt a hectare, or, in other words, is 18-36 times
higher than the price of the agricultural land bought out by
the State which is in rural areas. Correspondingly, the average
price of the land which was ascribed to towns after 1940 and
which is bought out by the State is smaller and amounts to
4,800-9,600 Lt a hectare or, in other words, is 3-6 times
higher for the price of agricultural land bought out by the
State which is located in rural areas. The value of this land
has been increased by taking into consideration the average
increase of the market price due to the proximity to a town.
The increase of land value has been provided for of the degree
so that the ratio between the price of urban land and that of
agricultural land which is in rural areas might correspond to
the proportions that existed in Lithuania until 1940.
4. In Lithuania, the land market only begins to function,
therefore in many cases land is sold for a price which does not
completely correspond to the actual value of land. The price of
land bought out by the State as calculated by the Methods is
often higher than the present market price of land both in
rural areas and in towns (especially smaller ones).
5. The Methods for Establishing the Nominal Price of Land
Bought Out by the State as confirmed by the Government were in
compliance with the provisions of the Law. In essence, these
Methods are based on the calculation principles of the Methods
for Establishing the Nominal Price of Land Sold by the State,
therefore they are in conformity with the latter.
6. Variation of the methods for calculation of land price
made in attempt to assess every plot individually would
condition very great social inequality and would lead to
negative consequences. For the land taken by the State, if
compared to other citizens, certain citizens would undeservedly
get very big compensations, while this would be especially
unfair with regard to the citizens for whom decisions were
adopted to restore the right to land property by paying
pecuniary compensations (such compensations have been
calculated for the sum of more than 700 million Lt). The
application of new methods would remove the end of land reform
for many years.
In the course of preparation of the case for judicial
investigation, similar arguments were presented by the
representative of the party concerned Pranas Aleknavičius.
IV
In the court hearing, the representative of the party
concerned S. Naujalis virtually reiterated the arguments set
forth in his paper.
In the court hearing the representative of the party
concerned J. Aleksaitė explained that the petitioner by wishing
to decide the issue of the amount of compensation, it seems,
made a mistake and did not take account of the fact that buying
out land from proprietors under the law on restitution of the
ownership rights of citizens to the existing real property and
buying of state land are different matters. In this case there
are different subjects and different relations. These issues
are regulated by different legal norms and different laws.
Buying of state land is accomplished according to the purchase
and sale agreement which is regulated by the Law on Land, and
the Law on Land Reform. In this case the agreement is based on
the free will and equality of the parties. According to it, the
State, as a subject of the ownership right, commits itself to
sell its property, i.e., land in this case, to the purchaser
for the agreed price. No one may force to make such an
agreement. Buying out under the law on restitution of the
ownership rights of citizens to the existing real property
means that the institutions authorised by the State are
entitled to adopt a decision to buy out land under prescribed
conditions for the needs of society, and this does not depend
on the will of the former owners. Buying out of property is not
a voluntary transfer of property but its seizure by
compensating its value.
In the opinion of the representative of the party
concerned, there exists no contradiction between the methods
for establishing of the price for land sold and those for land
bought out by the State. The Law on Land, as well as the Law on
Land Reform, obligates the Government to establish the
procedure for assessment of land sold by the State. Under the
law on restitution of the ownership rights of citizens to the
existing real property, buying out land by the State, the
amount of extraordinary compensation or the value of the
transferred property shall be established taking account of the
actual value of the bought out property at the time of buying
out, after deduction of the expenses for its improvement. Thus
there is not any violation in that the Government approved by
the same resolution 2 types of Methods and established that the
price of land bought out by the State shall be equal to the
price of land sold by the State after deduction of the expenses
for land improvement, thus one type of Methods does not
contradict the other one.
In the court hearing, the specialist Juozas Benjaminas
Dubickas, an adviser to the minister of agriculture, explained
that the prices of land bought out and that sold by the State
are calculated by means of the same method, and only the
coefficients are different. It is quite reasonable that smaller
coefficients are being applied when land is bought out. By
selling land, the State applies the coefficients according to
the present situation so that it could accumulate means, solve
other economic issues, as well as pay for land bought out. It
might be possible that not everywhere the coefficients have
been concretely and precisely established, but one lacks the
necessary data, nor there is investigation into the land
market. The calculations are generalised. By implementing a new
law on the restitution of the rights of ownership, a new
Government resolution on the price of land bought out by the
State is being prepared, however the principles for
establishment of the price of land bought out by the State are
left the same. They are not disputed by anyone.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
On 6 December 1993, the Government adopted Resolution No.
909 "On the Procedure for Establishment and Application of the
Nominal Price of Land Sold and Land Bought Out by the State".
The petitioner doubts whether the Methods for Establishing the
Nominal Price of Land Bought Out by the State as confirmed by
the said Government resolution were in compliance with Articles
23 and 29 of the Constitution.
In deciding this question, first of all one should note
the fact that in the system of the sources of legal acts, the
legal acts adopted by the Government are designated as
substatutory acts. Therein the norms of laws are
particularised, as well as their implementation is regulated.
For instance, Item 4.1 of the aforesaid resolution provides
that the nominal price of land bought out by the State which is
calculated pursuant to the methods confirmed by this Resolution
shall be applied when one compensates for land or woodland
bought out by the State and to which the right of ownership is
being restored. Therefore, when assessing the Methods for
Establishing the Nominal Price of Land Bought Out by the State,
it is important to take account of the fact as to how and in
what scope the Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the
Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real
Property" regulated buying out of the existing real property,
as well as what questions of legal regulation the Government
was commissioned to decide in this sphere by the Law. It is
possible to decide the conformity of the Methods with
particular articles of the Constitution only by taking account
of the interaction of the norms consolidated in the Methods
with respective provisions and norms of the law on the
restoration of the rights of ownership. Therefore the arguments
on which the present Constitutional Court ruling is based will
be set forth in such a sequence.
1. It is to be noted that the Law "On the Procedure and
Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the
Existing Real Property" adopted on 18 June 1991 gave preference
to returning the property in kind. Alongside, the Law provided
for buying out of the existing real property from the persons
to whom the rights of ownership were subject to restoration.
Article 12 of the Law established the situations when the land
for the needs of the State as well as other land was bought
out. By Article 16 of the Law, the methods of compensation for
the bought out land were: (1) transferring the owner, free of
charge, rights to different property of the same type or value
as ownership; (2) giving extraordinary state payments or
allotting shares to the owner; (3) making void financial
liabilities of a citizen to the State which were incurred after
the appropriation of real property. Article 17 of the Law
prescribed that in buying out existing real property, thus land
also, the amount of extraordinary state payments shall be based
on the actual value of the property at the time of buying out,
after deduction of the expenses for its improvement.
Article 17 also commissioned the Government to establish
the procedure for the calculation and allocation of payments.
On 18 November 1991, the Government adopted Resolution No.
473 "On the Establishment of the Nominal Price of Saleable
Land, Forest and Water Bodies and the Procedure for Their
Buying Out" whereby the Methods for the Establishment of the
Price of Land Bought Out by the State and the Methods for the
Establishment of the Nominal Price of Saleable Land, Forest and
Water Bodies were approved. In the general part of the said
Government resolution it was prescribed that the average
(nominal) price for land bought out by the State which had been
held by the private ownership shall be 4,000 rubles a hectare
in rural areas, while the average nominal price of the land for
agricultural purposes which was sold was 5,000 rubles a
hectare.
Thus already by starting regulating the restoration of the
rights of ownership by the Law, one consolidated the provision
that, by establishing the amount of compensation for property
bought out, in respective cases the expenses of property
improvement were to be deducted. Taking account of this fact,
the said Government resolution provided for a smaller price of
land bought out by the State than that of land sold by the
State.
2. Both legal and substatutory regulation of payments and
compensations for the existing real property bought out by the
State has undergone changes. After the Seimas amended and
supplemented the Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the
Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real
Property" on 12 January 1993, Article 17 of the said Law was
expanded: a new provision of equivalence of property bought out
and that transferred in kind was consolidated therein. The
former norm was also supplemented by establishing that the
expenses for property improvement shall be deducted not only in
the cases of allocation of extraordinary state compensations
but also by allotting shares for property bought out.
Besides, on the same day, 12 January 1993, instead of the
former commissioning to the Government to establish the
procedure for calculation and allocation of payments as
contained by Article 17, the following norm was adopted: "The
procedure for the calculation of payments, as well as for their
allocation, shall be established by the Government of the
Republic of Lithuania." After such an amendment had been
adopted, a question might be raised whether the Government
would be entitled to continue establishing the procedure for
calculation of payments, i.e. deciding questions of the price
of land subject to buying out. In this case, however, the fact
is of importance that the restoration of the rights of
ownership to land and land reform are inseparable processes the
legal regulation whereof is linked in most cases. Under the Law
on Land Reform, the main goal of land reform is to implement
the right of Lithuanian citizens to land ownership and
utilisation by returning the disseized land in accordance with
the procedures and terms established by law by gratuitously
transferring or allotting it as ownership. For the legal
regulation of these interrelated processes the Seimas
Resolution "On the Procedure for Enforcement of the Republic of
Lithuania Law 'On the Amendment and Supplementation of the
Republic of Lithuania Law of Land Reform'" of 15 July 1993 was
designated wherein the Government was suggested that it prepare
several resolutions, among them a resolution, too, providing
for the establishment of the procedure of the price of land
bought out by the State. Thus, on the legal basis, the question
of legitimacy of subsequent Government decisions in this sphere
of legal regulation was solved.
Accomplishing the commissioning of the legislator, on 6
December 1993 the Government adopted Resolution No. 909 "On the
Procedure for Establishment and Application of the Nominal
Price of Land Sold and Land Bought Out by the State". By this
Government resolution, as before, separate methods for
establishing the nominal price of land sold and bought out by
the State were confirmed.
It is to be noted that on 30 May 1995, when the aforesaid
Government resolution was in force, Article 17 of the Law "On
the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights
of Ownership to the Existing Real Property" was expanded once
again, and it was additionally established in Part 2 thereof
that the value of the plot of land or woodland allocated
gratuitously for the existing real property bought out by the
State shall be established taking account of the actual value
of the existing real property at the time of buying out, after
deduction of the expenses for its improvement. After that, the
discussed norms of the Government resolution have not been
changed.
The petitioner, calling in question the compliance of the
Methods for Establishing the Nominal Price of Land Bought Out
by the State with the Constitution, notes that under Item 2 of
the said Methods "the price of land bought out by the State
shall be equal to the price of land sold by the State after
deduction of the expenses for land improvement". The petitioner
contends that the methods for establishing the nominal price of
land sold and bought out by the State contradict each other. By
applying both said Methods, there occur big differences in
prices between analogous plots of land sold and that bought out
by the State. Due to such legal regulation the right of
ownership is not being protected. Therefore, the petitioner is
of the opinion that the Methods for Establishing the Nominal
Price of Land Bought Out by the State contradict Article 23 of
the Constitution.
3. Article 23 of the Constitution provides:
"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."
The function of these constitutional norms is many-sided.
The chief purpose of the norms entrenched in Article 23 of the
Constitution is to secure protection of the subjective rights
of the person to ownership of property he possesses. Speaking
of the constitutional guarantee of property inviolability, one
is to note that in the legal language the word inviolability
is, as a rule, understood as an inviolable, inalienable human
right. In this respect the fact is of great importance that the
Constitution itself establishes the requirements of protective
nature which ought to be observed when a necessity arises to
seize private property for the needs of society. The seizure of
property for the needs of society as indicated by Part 3 of
Article 23 of the Constitution is understood as an individual
decision concerning seizure of private property held as private
ownership which is made in every concrete case according to the
procedure established by laws.
In accomplishing restitution, buying out of land or other
real property for the needs of the State from citizens who are
subject to the restitution of the rights of private ownership
is a legal act of somewhat different nature. In fact, the
property which former belonged to these persons is at present
being managed by the State. Until respective state institutions
have not adopted a decision on the restoration of the rights of
ownership, in reality such persons do not enjoy the subjective
rights to the property which earlier belonged to them,
therefore they cannot directly make use of the constitutional
guarantee of property inviolability. However, in this case it
is important to note a wider aspect of Article 23 of the
Constitution. It is evident that by the constitutional
guarantee of property inviolability, as well as the
constitutional regulation of seizure of private property for
the needs of society, a possibility of universal and gratuitous
nationalisation has been denied. Such an understanding of the
function of Article 23 of the Constitution presupposes the fact
that also, by restoring the ownership rights of citizens
unlawfully and universally denied by the occupation government,
one must follow the principle of fair compensation for property
bought out by the State. This is in line with the attempt to
restore justice in respect to the people who suffered from the
occupation government. By the way, in its 27 May 1994 ruling,
the Constitutional Court by deciding the question of compliance
of the norms of the Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the
Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real
Property" with the Constitution held that providing there is no
possibility to restore property in kind, fair compensation also
ensures restoration of property ownership rights.
4. The scale of the restoration of ownership rights, the
absence of the settled land marked at the beginning of the
process of restitution, and limited material and financial
capacities of the State conditioned the fact that the State
itself established the price of land subject to buying out. As
mentioned, on the commissioning by the legislator, the
Government confirmed the Methods for Establishing the Nominal
Price of Land Bought Out by the State.
Item 2 of the Methods, which is indicated by the
petitioner in his petition, prescribes:
"The price of land bought out by the State by transferring
gratuitously plots of land and woodland of equal value (i.e. by
returning land and forest in equivalent kind) shall be
established by assessing the plots of land or woodland by the
Methods for Establishing the Nominal Price of Land Sold by the
State as confirmed by this Resolution. The price of land bought
out by the State shall be equal to the price of land sold by
the State after deduction of the expenses for land
improvement."
One is to note that the aforementioned item of the Methods
contains 2 autonomous norms. In the first of these norms it is
established that in the case that another plot of land is
allocated in another location instead of agricultural land
bought out by the State, i.e. in case land is returned in
equivalent kind, the land subject to buying out shall be
assessed by the Methods for Establishing the Nominal Price of
Land Sold by the State. The deduction of the expenses for
improvement of land bought out is not mentioned therein. In
this case more favourable conditions (the expenses of land
improvement are not deducted) provided for are to be linked
with the attempt entrenched in the Law "On the Procedure and
Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the
Existing Real Property" to restore justice by returning in kind
the existing real property to citizens. The circumstance that
by compensating in equivalent kind the agricultural land
subject to buying out the expenses for land improvement were
not to be deducted might induce the citizen to opt for such a
form of compensation, namely, that in equivalent kind.
In its turn, the second norm of Item 2 of the Methods
provides that in case the land subject to buying out is
compensated not in equivalent kind but other ways, the expenses
of land improvement shall deducted. This norm of the
substatutory act particularises the principle entrenched in
Article 17 of the Law whereby the starting-point of
compensation of property bought out by the State is the value
of the property at the time of seizure from its legitimate
owners. Thus, when one assesses land which is within the
administrative boundaries of a town, the fact is of importance
whether the land belonged to the town until 1940, or whether
agricultural land was ascribed to the town later. The deduction
of the land improvement expenses is not, by itself,
incompatible with the provision of fair compensation.
It is important that one also paid heed to the requirement
of fairness in establishing the land price calculation
criteria. In the context of the case at issue, one is to note
that due to various reasons, as well as the absence of a
possibility to individually assess every plot of land subject
to buying out, the Methods have established the average price
of land bought out by the State for the whole urban territory
while taking account of the significance and size of the town.
According to the data of the representative of the person
concerned, the average price (depending on the size of a town)
of the land held in towns until 1940 and which is at present
being bought out by the State, amounts to 28,800-57,600 Lt a
hectare, or, in other words, is 18-36 times higher than the
price of the agricultural land bought out by the State which is
in rural areas. Correspondingly, the average price of the land
which was ascribed to towns after 1940 and which is bought out
by the State is smaller and amounts to 4,800-9,600 Lt a hectare
or, in other words, is 3-6 times higher for the price of
agricultural land bought out by the State which is located in
rural areas. The value of this land has been increased by
taking into consideration the average increase of the market
price due to the proximity to a town. The increase of land
value has been provided for of the degree so that the ratio
between the price of urban land and that of agricultural land
which is in rural areas might correspond to the proportions
that existed in Lithuania until 1940.
It goes without saying, in the process of restitution the
application of the provision on deduction of the land
improvement expenses presupposes the difference of the price of
land bought out by the State if compared with the price of land
sold by the State. This difference depends on a number of
factors. For example, the value of non-agricultural land
increases due to the development of urban infrastructure, i.e.
because of the installation of streets, water-supply, gas-main,
electrical system and telephone network, commercial objects and
those of public purpose the aim of which is to render service
to residents, as well as because of the opportunities to
develop economic or other activities. By establishing the price
of land bought out by the State, one takes into consideration
the average expenses which were made in the process of land
improvement. It is to be noted that the petitioner did not
present any concrete arguments as regards the criteria
indicated in the Government resolution under which the increase
in the land value is established.
When one decides the question raised by the petitioner on
insufficient protection of private ownership in the discussed
Government resolution, one should mention important means of
protection of the rights of citizens to whom the ownership
rights are being restored which are provided by Article 17 of
the Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of
the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property". Under
Part 3 of the said article, in establishing the size of
payments, the type and number of allotted shares as well as
transferring property in kind, the consent of the citizen had
to be given. While Item 8 of the Methods for Establishment of
the Nominal Price of Land Bought Out by the State which was
designated for the implementation of the said norm of the Law
provides that in case the citizen disagrees with the price of
land subject to buying out calculated in accordance with the
established procedure, at his request the plot of land shall be
assessed by another methods indicated in this Item of the
Methods. The citizen was entitled to appeal against the final
decisions of respective institutions on the restoration of the
rights of ownership to court (Article 20 of the Law).
5. The petitioner also contends that unless the
contradictions are cleared up and eliminated, it is impossible
to precisely calculate in each particular case the amount of
compensation for land bought out by the State, and thereby to
secure the equality of persons before the law and the court
which is guaranteed by Article 29 of the Constitution. Not
pointing out any particular contradictions, the petitioner
considers that in calculating the price of land sold and that
bought out by the State one is to apply the same methods for
value calculation.
Article 29 of the Constitution provides:
"All persons shall be equal before the law, the court, and
other State institutions and officers.
A person may not have his rights restricted in any way, or
be granted any privileges, on the basis of his or her sex,
race, nationality, language, origin, social status, religion,
convictions, or opinions."
The constitutional principle of the equality of all
persons before the law, the court, and other state institutions
and officers must be observed when laws are passed, applied and
when justice is implemented. This constitutional principle,
however, does not deny the fact that the law may establish
different legal regulation in respect of certain categories of
persons which are in different situations.
In the case at issue such a defined category of persons is
persons to whom the rights of ownership are being restored. As
is well known, in this country the implementation of limited
restitution was regulated by the Law "On the Procedure and
Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the
Existing Real Property". The Law provided for the restoration
of the ownership rights to not all former owners nor to the
whole former possessed property. That was a compromise decision
as one sought to restore justice in respect to the people who
had suffered from the occupation government, however, one had
to take account of the existing socio-economic relations and
factual opportunities of accomplishment of the restitution.
Thus, establishment of conditions of the restoration of the
ownership rights is a prerogative of the legislator. One of
important conditions of the restoration of the ownership rights
is that when one compensates property bought out by the State
the expenses of its improvement are deducted. The
Constitutional Court has already argued in this ruling that
deduction of the expenses for property improvement is in line
with the constitutional requirements of property protection.
Alongside, the Constitutional Court notes that the legal
regulation of compensation for property bought out by the State
was conditioned, among other factors, by limited material and
financial capacities of the State. When the State undertakes a
respective liability by the law, it must be grounded on
material and financial resources, otherwise the law becomes
ineffective. Therefore, taking into consideration the
capacities of the State, respective amounts of compensation for
property bought out by the State may be established. The
amounts of compensation provided for by the Methods as
confirmed by the Government resolution do not constitute
grounds to assess them as fair or unfair. Besides, in the
context of the equality of rights of all members of society,
the fact is of importance that the obligation assumed by the
Law to pay corresponding compensation to a certain category of
persons for property bought out by the State virtually falls on
the other members of society.
Assessing the argument of the petitioner that in
calculating the price of land sold and that bought out by the
State one is to apply the same methods for value calculation,
one is to pay attention to the fact that in both cases the
price is in essence calculated following the same principles.
Under Item 2 of the Methods for Establishing the Nominal Price
of Land Bought Out by the State, in buying out land from the
persons to whom the rights of ownership are being restored, the
plot of land shall be assessed under the Methods for
Establishing the Nominal Price of Land Sold by the State. The
price of land bought out is received after the expenses for
land improvement are deducted from thus established price.
Thus, the Government, by implementing the Law, confirmed the
Methods for Establishing the Nominal Price of Land Sold by the
State and individual Methods for Establishing the Nominal Price
of Land Bought Out by the State. Every of these methods are to
be applied to different relations and different categories of
persons. There are not any legal arguments which could
substantiate the fact that the application of the Government
resolution, the Methods for Establishing the Nominal Price of
Land Bought Out by the State in particular, does not secure the
constitutional principle of persons' equality before the court.
Taking account of the arguments and motives set forth one
is to conclude that the Methods for Establishing the Nominal
Price of Land Bought Out by the State as confirmed by the
Government resolution 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 the Methods for Establishing the Nominal
Price of Land Bought Out by the State as confirmed by
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 909 of 6
December 1993 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.