Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
R U L I N G
On the compliance of Part 4 of Article 38 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Elections to the
Seimas and Part 4 of Article 36 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Elections to Local Government
Councils with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania
Vilnius, 11 November 1998
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
composed of the Judges of the Constitutional Court Egidijus
Jarašiūnas, Kęstutis Lapinskas, Zigmas Levickis, Augustinas
Normantas, Vladas Pavilonis, Jonas Prapiestis, Pranas Vytautas
Rasimavičius, Teodora Staugaitienė, and Juozas Žilys,
with the secretary of the hearing-Daiva Pitrėnaitė,
in the presence of:
the representative of the petitioner-a group of members of
the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania-Algimantas
Dziegoraitis, an advocate,
the representative of the party concerned-the Seimas of
the Republic of Lithuania-Audronė Ožiūnienė, a consultant to
the Seimas Legal Department,
pursuant to Part 1 of Article 102 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and Part 1 of Article 1 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on the Constitutional Court, on 28
October 1998 in its public hearing conducted the investigation
of Case No. 17/97 subsequent to the petition submitted to the
Court by the petitioner-a group of Seimas members-requesting to
investigate if Part 4 of Article 38 of the Law on Elections to
the Seimas was in compliance with Part 2 of Article 12, Article
29, Part 1 of Article 33 and Part 1 of Article 56 of the
Constitution, as well as if Part 4 of Article 36 of the Law on
Elections to Local Government Councils was in conformity with
Part 2 of Article 12, Article 29, Part 1 of Article 33 and Part
2 of Article 119 of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
On 9 July 1992, the Supreme Council-Reconstituent Seimas
adopted the Law on Elections to the Seimas (Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, No. 22-635, No. 24-710, 1992; No. 10-234,
1993; No. 89-1718, 1994; No. 7-142, 1995; No. 62-1467, 1996).
On 7 July 1994, the Seimas adopted the Law on Elections to
Local Government Councils (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios,
No. 53-996, No. 63-1234, No. 89-1719, 1994; No. 7-143, No.
18-405, 1995; No. 126-2944, 1996; No. 50-1191, No. 58-1331,
1997).
The petitioner-a group of Seimas members-requests to
investigate if Part 4 of Article 38 of the Law on Elections to
the Seimas is in compliance with Part 2 of Article 12, Article
29, Part 1 of Article 33 and Part 1 of Article 56 of the
Constitution, as well as if Part 4 of Article 36 of the Law on
Elections to Local Government Councils is in conformity with
Part 2 of Article 12, Article 29, Part 1 of Article 33 and Part
2 of Article 119 of the Constitution.
II
The petitioner grounds his request on these arguments.
Part 4 of Article 38 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas
and Part 4 of Article 36 of the Law on Elections to Local
Government Councils respectively obligate candidates for Seimas
members and those for local government council members, who
have taken an oath of a citizen of another state, to repudiate
the said oath in writing and to point out in their application
form as to how and when they did so.
Refusal of an oath of a citizen is an expression of the
will of an individual to cancel the legal link with the state
to which he has sworn. However, the taken oath binds him until
he loses the citizenship under the legal procedure of the said
state. The stipulation established by the disputed norms of
Part 4 of Article 38 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas and
those of Part 4 of Article 36 of the Law on Elections to Local
Government Councils to repudiate the oath of a citizen, by
making an assumption that this is not linked with the refusal
of citizenship, contradicts even the common legal principle lex
non cogit ad impossibilia, i.e. the law never demands what is
impossible.
It is established in the Constitution that in cases when
provided for by the law, a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania
may be a citizen of another sate as well (Part 2 of Article
12).
The general principle of equality of persons is set down
in Article 29 of the Constitution: "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 principle of equality
of persons is defined as non-discrimination. This principle is
reflected by Part 1 of Article 33 of the Constitution which
establishes that citizens shall have the right to participate
in the government of their State both directly and through
their freely elected representatives, and shall have the equal
opportunity to serve in a State office.
Discrimination is, as a rule, understood as changing of
the situation of a person or group of persons with respect to
other persons without any valid reason.
The requirement to repudiate an oath of a citizen of
another state established by the disputed norms of Part 4 of
Article 38 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas and those of
Part 4 of Article 36 of the Law on Elections to Local
Government Councils permits to assume that a person who is a
candidate for either Seimas or local government council members
and who, in the course of the procedure of acquisition of
another state's citizenship, took an oath of a citizen of the
said state, is forced to repudiate this citizenship. Thus, by
the disputed legal norms the citizens are grouped as follows:
(1) those who acquired foreign citizenship without any oath of
a citizen, and who need not repudiate it and who may be elected
Seimas or local government council members (providing they meet
the other conditions stipulated by the law); (2) those who
acquired foreign citizenship and who took an oath of a citizen.
The latter acquire equal opportunities with the rest to become
candidates for Seimas or local government council members only
after they have repudiated their foreign citizenship.
The Constitution shall be an integral and directly
applicable statute (Part 1 of Article 6), therefore it is
possible to conclude that the Constitution does not require
that a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania who has foreign
citizenship in particular cases as provided for by the law
repudiate the said citizenship so that he may be elected Seimas
or local government council member.
As additional arguments, the petitioner pointed out
Articles 6, 8, 13, 14 of the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article
3 of the First Protocol to the Convention.
In the Constitutional Court hearing, the representative of
the petitioner virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in
the petition.
III
In the course of preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, the representative of the party
concerned A. Ožiūnienė presented these counter-arguments.
Part 2 of Article 34 of the Constitution provides that the
right to be elected shall be established by the Constitution
and by the election laws. Concerning the issue as to who may be
elected a Seimas member, it is provided for by Part 1 of
Article 56 of the Constitution which stipulates that any
citizen of the Republic of Lithuania who is not bound by an
oath or pledge to a foreign state, and who, on the election
day, is 25 years of age or over and has permanently been
residing in Lithuania, may be elected a Seimas member. This
constitutional provision is repeated by Part 2 of Article 2 of
the Law on Elections to the Seimas.
Part 4 of Article 38 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas
indicates that persons who have taken an oath of a citizen of
another state must repudiate the said oath in writing and point
out in their application form as to how and when they did so.
An analogous provision is contained by Part 4 of Article 36 of
the Law on Elections to Local Government Councils.
Assessing whether Part 4 of Article 38 of the Law on
Elections to the Seimas and Part 4 of Article 36 of the Law on
Elections to Local Government Councils are in compliance with
the Constitution, it is of crucial importance to determine the
content of the notion "who is not bound by an oath or pledge to
a foreign state" employed by Part 1 of Article 56 of the
Constitution.
The word bound (Lith. susijęs) means "to be interrelated,
to link" (see A Dictionary of Contemporary Lithuanian, Vilnius,
1993, p. 691). Thus, according to the representative, he who
has sworn or given a pledge to a foreign state is to be treated
as bound by an oath or pledge to a foreign state, when this
oath or pledge is valid and establishes a link between this
person and the foreign state. A person is to be treated as not
bound by an oath or pledge to a foreign state who has not sworn
nor given a pledge to a foreign state, or if he has repudiated
such an oath or pledge to a foreign state.
The constitutional norms do not particularise as to what
concrete oath or pledge must be given to a foreign state, nor
by what means this had to be done, nor what institution of a
foreign state had to ascertain the fact of such an oath or
pledge to a foreign state, so that the person may be treated as
bound by an oath or pledge to a foreign state. It is impossible
for the Constitution to regulate all this in detail. An oath or
pledge to a foreign state is regulated by laws of foreign
states but not those of Lithuania, and they can provide for
special cases characteristic of that state only. Therefore only
the principal requirement of general character is established
by Part 1 of Article 56 of the Constitution whereby only a
citizen of the Republic of Lithuania who is not bound by an
oath or pledge to a foreign state may be elected a Seimas
member. This constitutional provision is well reasoned: by
means of it one attempts to create pre-conditions so that only
the persons who are not bound by an oath or pledge to a foreign
state may be elected Seimas members, i.e. so that Seimas
members would be able to represent the people freely and
unhampered by any influence of a foreign state.
The requirement that only a citizen of the Republic of
Lithuania who is not bound by an oath or pledge to a foreign
state may be elected a Seimas member as established by Part 1
of Article 56 of the Constitution is particularised by the Law
on Elections to the Seimas. An analysis of the Law on Elections
to the Seimas permits to assert that this law clearly points
out to a case when a person is treated as bound by an oath or
pledge to a foreign state, i.e. when he acquired citizenship of
the said foreign state upon his taking an oath of a citizen of
the said state. The requirement set down in Part 4 of Article
38 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas to repudiate in
writing the oath of a citizen given to another state comes from
the provision formulated by Part 1 of Article 56 of the
Constitution and is quite reasoned. The same is to be noted
regarding the provisions of Part 4 of Article 36 of the Law on
Elections to Local Government Councils.
It is impossible to treat the provisions of Part 4 of
Article 38 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas and those of
Part 4 of Article 36 of the Law on Elections to Local
Government Councils as discriminatory since the said provisions
establish equal conditions to all citizens of Lithuania under
which they may be elected Seimas or local government council
members, i.e. the citizens may not be bound by an oath or
pledge to a foreign state. In this case the constitutional
principle of equality of all persons before law is not
violated.
The representative contends that Part 4 of Article 38 of
the Law on Elections to the Seimas and Part 4 of Article 36 of
the Law on Elections to Local Government Councils are in
compliance with the Constitution.
In the court hearing the representative of the party
concerned reiterated the arguments which had been presented in
writing.
IV
In the course of preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, a written explanation by Assoc.
Prof. Dr. T. Birmontienė, Head of the Constitutional Law
Department of the Law Academy, was received wherein one's
attention is drawn to certain imperfections of the election
laws, and doubts are expressed regarding the conformity of the
disputed norms with the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. On the compliance of Part 4 of Article 38 of the Law on
Elections to the Seimas and Part 4 of Article 36 of the Law on
Elections to Local Government Councils with Part 2 of Article
12 of the Constitution.
Part 4 of Article 38 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas
provides: "A citizen who has nominated himself or has been
nominated for a candidate to Seimas members, must himself enter
the following data into the application form of a candidate for
Seimas members: his surname, name, passport number, personal
number, date of birth, address of permanent place of residence,
whether he has been imposed a sentence by court which has not
been served, whether he is not a person serving in active
military or alternative service, whether he is not an officer,
non-commissioned officer or a non-retired from service
re-enlistee of the defence system, or that of the police or
that of the internal service, or a paid officer of another
militarised or security service who has not retired, and
whether he has citizenship of another state, and after this he
must put his signature. Persons who have taken an oath of a
citizen of another state must repudiate it in writing and
indicate in the application form as to how and when they did
so. The application form of a candidate for Seimas members may
also contain additional questions established by the Central
Electoral Committee to which the person is entitled not to
answer."
Part 4 of Article 36 of the Law on Elections to Local
Government Councils provides: "A citizen who has been nominated
for a candidate to local government council members, must
himself enter the following data into the application form of a
candidate for local government council members: his name,
surname, passport number, personal number, date of birth,
address of permanent place of residence, whether he has been
imposed a sentence by court which has not been served, whether
he is not a person serving in active military or alternative
service, whether he is not an officer, non-commissioned officer
or a non-retired from service re-enlistee of the defence
system, or that of the police or that of the internal service,
or a paid officer of another militarised or security service
who has not retired, and whether he has citizenship of another
state, and after this he must put his signature. Persons who
have taken an oath of a citizen of another state must repudiate
it in writing and indicate in the application form as to how
and when they did so. The application form of a candidate for
local government council members may also contain additional
questions established by the Central Electoral Committee to
which the person is entitled not to answer."
The petitioner contends that the "established requirement
[by the said elections laws] to repudiate an oath of a citizen
of another state permits to assume that a person who is a
candidate for either Seimas or local government council members
and who, in the course of the procedure of acquisition of
another state's citizenship, took an oath of a citizen of the
said state, is forced to repudiate this citizenship." While
"the Constitution does not require that a citizen of the
Republic of Lithuania who has foreign citizenship in particular
cases as provided for by the law repudiate the said citizenship
so that he may be elected a Seimas or local government council
member."
1.1. Citizenship is a permanent political and legal link
with a concrete state, which is based on mutual rights and
obligations, and, as the result of the latter, on mutual
confidence, protection and individual's loyalty to the
respective state. Political nature of citizenship is determined
by a permanent link of an individual with a special political
institution, i.e. a certain state, and recognition that he
enjoys certain political rights and freedoms, which grant him
an opportunity to participate in the socio-political life of
that country, including the right to participate him in the
government of that country. Thus citizenship is an important
institution of domestic law the content of which is established
and peculiarities regulated by the normative legal acts of a
respective state.
Alongside, the legal doctrine also emphasises general
tendencies of regulation of some relations of citizenship:
universal recognition of acquisition of citizenship in cases
when an individual is born in a family of citizens;
establishment of special conditions for acquisition of
citizenship by naturalisation; restriction of double
citizenship in greater or smaller extent. In addition, it is
underlined that all issues connected with citizenship,
especially those of acquisition and loss of citizenship, are
regulated by the laws of every particular state. The influence
of international law on the institution of citizenship becomes
evident only when bilateral international agreements are
concluded concerning citizenship issues or corresponding
international conventions are joined. Most often by bilateral
international agreements one attempts to solve the problems
which arise due to double citizenship.
1.2. Article 12 of the Constitution establishes only the
most general rules for the acquisition of citizenship of the
Republic of Lithuania. For instance, it is emphasised in Part 1
of the said article, that citizenship of the Republic of
Lithuania shall be acquired by birth or on other bases
established by law. Part 1 of Article 1 of the Law on
Citizenship provides:
"The following persons shall be citizens of the Republic
of Lithuania:
(1) persons who were citizens of the Republic of Lithuania
prior to 15 June 1940, and their children and grandchildren
(provided they have not repatriated from Lithuania);
(2) persons who were permanent residents on the territory
of the Republic of Lithuania in the period from 9 January 1919
to 15 June 1940, as well as their children and grandchildren,
provided on the day of entry into force of this Law they have
been permanent residents in Lithuania, and are not citizens of
another state;
(3) persons of Lithuanian dissent residing in other states
provided they left Lithuania prior to 16 February 1918 and have
not acquired citizenship of another state;
(4) persons who acquired citizenship of the Republic of
Lithuania prior to 4 November 1991 under the Law on Citizenship
which had been in force before the 5 December 1991 enactment of
the Law on Citizenship;
(5) other persons who have acquired citizenship of the
Republic of Lithuania under the Law on Citizenship."
Part 2 of Article 12 of the Constitution provides that
"with the exception of cases established by law, no person may
be a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania and another state at
the same time." Taking account of this, Article 16 of the Law
on Citizenship provides that the President of the Republic of
Lithuania, conforming to the Law on Citizenship, may, by way of
exception, grant citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania to
citizens of foreign states who have been of merit to the
Republic of Lithuania without applying to them the conditions
of granting of citizenship. From this the following conclusion
is to be drawn: the Constitution grants the right to the
legislator to regulate the questions of double citizenship
regarding establishment of special cases for its granting (when
this is demanded by State interests, however with no
contradiction to the provision of exception) as well as its
restriction.
The disputed norms of the aforesaid election laws also
mention citizenship of a foreign state: a citizen of the
Republic of Lithuania who is a candidate for Seimas or local
government council members must answer the question which is in
the application form whether he is a citizen of another state;
while persons of double citizenship, in case they have taken an
oath of a citizen of another state, must repudiate it in
writing and indicate in the application form as to how and when
they did so. According to the petitioner, the requirement to
repudiate the oath of a citizen is equal to that of repudiation
of foreign citizenship.
Analysing the disputed provisions within the context of
Article 12 of the Constitution, first of all it must be
emphasised, that the procedures of repudiation or deprivation
of a foreign citizenship may be established only by the state
which by its legal norms has created a corresponding
citizenship institution. Secondly, an oath of a citizen is
taken when citizenship is granted by way of naturalisation,
however in this case, too, the oath is merely one of the
conditions of acquisition of citizenship, therefore subsequent
denial of one of these conditions not necessarily will mean
repudiation of citizenship. As mentioned, states, as a rule,
establish special procedures for repudiation of citizenship.
Thirdly, it is directly stipulated by the disputed provisions
of the Lithuanian election laws that a person who is of double
citizenship and who has taken an oath of a citizen of another
state, and who wishes to be a candidate for Seimas or local
government council members, would merely repudiate in writing
the oath of a citizen of another state which he has taken. Such
a requirement is raised in attempt to ensure that a respective
person would meet the constitutional condition not to be bound
by an oath or pledge to a foreign state.
On the grounds of the arguments set forth one is to
conclude that the disputed provisions of the aforesaid election
laws are in compliance with Part 2 of Article 12 of the
Constitution.
2. On the compliance of Part 4 of Article 38 of the Law on
Elections to the Seimas and Part 4 of Article 36 of the Law on
Elections to Local Government Councils with Article 29 and Part
1 of Article 33 of the Constitution.
The petitioner points out that the requirement set down by
the election laws for the persons who have taken an oath of a
citizen of another state to repudiate it in writing is of
discriminatory nature, i.e. that it contradicts Article 29 and
Part 1 of Article 33 of the Constitution.
2.1. The principle of equality of persons which is
established by Article 29 of the Constitution means, in
essence, prohibition of discrimination. Discrimination is most
often understood as restriction of the rights of an individual
or granting certain privileges according to his or her sex,
race, nationality, language, origin, social status, religion,
convictions, or opinions. However, differentiated legal
regulation when it is applied to certain groups of persons
which are distinguished by the same signs, and in case one
strives for positive and socially meaningful goals, is not
regarded as discrimination. Special requirements or certain
conditions when their establishment is linked with
peculiarities of the regulated relations are not attributed to
discriminatory restrictions either. For example, laws provide
for certain requirements of education, qualifications, health
or work experience as regards citizens who enter the civil
service. Taking account of the peculiarities of performance and
responsibility in state institutions, such requirements are
considered natural and indispensable and they are applied in
all states, therefore in such cases there never arise questions
as for the violation or restriction of the right of citizens to
participate in the government of their country. This must be
said concerning the right of citizens to participate in the
government of their State which is established by Part 1 of
Article 33 of the Constitution. This right is directly linked
with the norms of Part 1 of Article 56 of the Constitution
which establish special requirements for a person who wants to
be elected a Seimas member, i.e. he must be a citizen of the
Republic of Lithuania, he must not be bound by an oath or
pledge to a foreign state, and he, on the election day, must be
25 years of age or over and must permanently reside in
Lithuania. In the doctrine of constitutional law similar
requirements are attributed to the realisation conditions of
the passive electoral right and they are broadly applied.
2.2. An oath is a solemn and firm pledge of an individual
to bind himself with corresponding duties and perform them, or
it is a pledge to tell the truth, which is also done by one
addressing God. There are not any essential differences between
an oath and a pledge, and these notions are treated as having
almost the same meaning. True, certain differences may be
discerned if one paid his attention to formal matters. For
instance, an oath is defined as a solemn and firm pledge. There
are various types of oaths: ecclesiastic, state, official,
professional, judicial etc. In the context of the case at
issue, one has in mind an oath or a pledge to a foreign state.
It is noteworthy that Part 1 of Article 56 of the
Constitution which mentions an oath or a pledge to a foreign
state reveals neither the content nor the limits of this
notion. There is no doubt, however, that the constitutional
wording underlines one very important aspect, i.e. political
nature of an oath or pledge, as here one deals with certain
commitments to a foreign state.
In the institution of citizenship an oath is most often
used when citizenship is granted by way of naturalisation: a
person applying for citizenship pledges solemnly to observe the
constitution and laws of the respective state, to protect that
state in case of need and perform other civil duties, to
respect the customs and culture of that state etc. Thus,
doubtless to say, an oath of a citizen is a political
obligation of a particular person to the state which grants its
citizenship to the person in the first place. Alongside, it is
to be noted that an oath is only one part of the procedure of
acquisition of citizenship by way of naturalisation, therefore
it is significant not so much in itself but in the whole
context of the procedures for acquisition or loss of
citizenship. One should also underline that the conditions and
procedure for repudiation or deprivation of citizenship of
another state may be established only by the state which
creates the institution of its citizenship but never by a
foreign state. Therefore requirements of a state for its
citizens concerning citizenship of another state which they
enjoy may not give way to any effects directly meaning
annulment or deprivation of citizenship of another state. It
goes without saying, this does not mean that a state may not
restrict or even prohibit double citizenship.
2.3. In the case under investigation the disputed
provisions of the aforesaid election laws are referred to a
rather clearly defined group of persons, i.e. citizens of the
Republic of Lithuania who have citizenship of another state and
who, on acquiring it, took an oath of a citizen of another
state. Such distinction of citizens of the Republic of
Lithuania is based on the norms of Part 1 of Article 56 of the
Constitution. It should be noted that the disputed provisions
of the election laws are worded not as categorical prohibitions
but a requirement for a certain positive action helping to meet
the constitutional condition. Thus, in this case the
implementation of the condition as established by the
Constitution depends upon determination and will of a
particular citizen, and this may not be treated as
discrimination.
In view of the motives set forth, as well as the fact that
the requirements set down in Part 1 of Article 56 of the
Constitution are to be attributed to special requirements
applied to the realisation of the passive electoral right,
there are no grounds to conclude that the disputed provisions
of the electoral laws particularising the said requirements
contradict Article 29 and Part 1 of Article 33 of the
Constitution.
3. On the compliance of Part 4 of Article 38 of the Law on
Elections to the Seimas with Part 1 of Article 56 of the
Constitution and on the compliance of Part 4 of Article 36 of
the Law on Elections to Local Government Councils with Part 2
of Article 119 of the Constitution.
3.1. The disputed provision of Part 4 of Article 38 of the
Law on Elections to the Seimas reads as follows: "Persons who
have taken an oath of a citizen of another state must repudiate
it in writing and indicate in the application form as to how
and when they did so." The quoted provision particularises the
following norm of Part 1 of Article 56 of the Constitution:
"Any citizen of the Republic of Lithuania who is not bound by
an oath or pledge to a foreign state [...] may be elected a
Seimas member."
The requirement of Part 1 of Article 56 of the
Constitution stipulating that candidates for Seimas members may
not be bound by an oath or pledge to a foreign state is, first
of all, accounted for that Part 2 of Article 59 of the
Constitution provides that "newly-elected Seimas members shall
acquire all the rights of a People's representative only after
swearing in the Seimas to be loyal to the Republic of
Lithuania." Part 3 of the same article contains another
important provision which reads: "Seimas members who either do
not take an oath in the manner prescribed by law, or who take a
conditional oath, shall lose the mandate of a Seimas member."
Thus the Constitution unreservedly requires that a Seimas
member take an oath to be loyal to the state of Lithuania only,
that he pledge to respect and observe the Constitution and
laws. This is understandable as in state institutions only the
persons who are loyal to that state and regarding their loyalty
or credibility no doubts arise may work in its institutions. It
is evident that in cases when a person who is bound by an oath
or pledge to a foreign state takes an oath of a Seimas member,
doubts might arise as to the certainty and credibility of his
oath, while the legal and political situation of such a person
would become ambiguous.
As mentioned, the constitutional norms do not reveal the
content or possible limits of the notion "who is not bound by
an oath or pledge to a foreign state." The Lithuanian
legislator has not defined this constitutional notion clearly
and precisely enough in the election laws, thus, he has created
pre-conditions for its different interpretation and
application. For example, the courts and the Central Electoral
Committee would demand to repudiate an oath of a citizen of
another state and to point it out in their application form. It
was such apprehension which permitted persons who had
citizenship of Lithuania and other states at the same time to
be candidates for Seimas members during elections after they
had repudiated in writing their oath of a citizen of another
state. It is to be noted that the mandates of the persons who
were elected Seimas members under then in force election laws
are legitimate.
The norms of Part 1 of Article 56 of the Constitution
establishes certain conditions to persons claiming to become
members of the people's representatives. The Constitutional
Court notes that the said norms are of double meaning: firstly,
they are linked with the accomplishment of very important
political rights of citizens of the Republic of Lithuania;
secondly, they condition certain regulation of principal
questions concerning formation and composition of the supreme
state institution, i.e. the Seimas. Therefore in the future
(for instance, during the next elections to the Seimas) these
norms must be interpreted and administered very accurately.
In the context of the case at issue, it is necessary to
construe the content of the constitutional notion "who is not
bound by an oath or pledge to a foreign state." First of all it
must be emphasised that this notion is of abstract nature, i.e.
it is to be understood as any oath or pledge to a foreign
state. Second, construing this notion, one has to remember the
main objectives due to which this notion (together with the
other conditions) was set down in the Constitution. These are
essentially political objectives: to ensure a proper formation
of the supreme political state institution which embodies the
idea of the legal representation of the people in the State. It
is evident that the people are represented only by citizens of
that state who are aware and capable of expressing the
expectations and interests of their fellow citizens, and who
comprehend and are capable of forming the political will of
their state. Thus any commitments of political nature to a
foreign state, whether they arise from a formally taken oath or
pledge or whether they occur as a political duty or a political
loyalty requirement linked with the fact of possession of
citizenship of another state are to be treated as a pledge to a
foreign state. The Constitutional Court emphasises that the
best way to meet the constitutional condition, i.e. to be a
person "who is not bound by an oath or pledge to a foreign
state," is repudiation of citizenship of a foreign state. It
goes without saying, the legislator, implementing such content
of the aforesaid constitutional norm, may also establish
additional requirements for implementation of this
constitutional norm. In any case, however, the norms of the law
must be formulated precisely enough so that it would be
possible to block the way to different interpretation of the
constitutional norms.
Thus, there are no grounds to assert that the disputed
provision of the Law on Election to the Seimas by its content
contradicts Part 1 of Article 56 of the Constitution.
3.2. As mentioned, Part 4 of Article 36 of the Law on
Elections to Local Government Councils provides that a citizen
who is a candidate for local government council members, must
himself enter the following data into the application form: his
name, surname, passport number, personal number, date of birth,
address of permanent place of residence, whether he has been
imposed a sentence by court which has not been served, whether
he is not a person serving in active military or alternative
service, whether he is not an officer, non-commissioned officer
or a non-retired from service re-enlistee of the defence
system, or that of the police or that of the internal service,
or a paid officer of another militarised or security service
who has not retired, and whether he has citizenship of another
state, and after this he must put his signature. Persons who
have taken an oath of a citizen of another state must repudiate
it in writing and indicate in the application form as to how
and when they did so. The application form of a candidate for
local government council members may also contain additional
questions established by the Central Electoral Committee to
which the person is entitled not to answer.
Part 3 of Article 119 of the Constitution provides: "The
procedure for the organisation and activities of self-
government institutions shall be established by law." Thus the
constitutional norms do not establish any requirements
regarding the candidates for local government council members.
Therefore, regulating these questions, the legislator is not
bound by any particular constitutional norms. It is also to be
noted that the aforesaid regulation does not restrict suffrage:
it merely establishes certain conditions to the claimants to
local government council members. By the way, European Union
directives urge that the other member states should not hinder
the citizens of other states belonging to the European Union
and who reside in other states to participate in local
government elections. Thus, the practice of local elections is
varied, however they are ultimately regulated by domestic laws.
Having established the same requirements to candidates for
local government council members who at the same time enjoy
citizenship of another state as those to candidates for Seimas
members, the legislator did not violate the Constitution.
Alongside, attention is to be paid to the fact that
Article 2 of the Law on Elections to Local Government Councils
wherein the electoral principles have been set down and the
main requirements to the candidates have been pointed out does
not contain any requirement that a candidate should not be
bound by an oath or pledge to a foreign state. This is to be
treated as a certain legal gap. However, this does not
constitute grounds to conclude that Part 4 of Article 36 of the
Law on Elections to Local Government Councils contradicts Part
2 of Article 119 of the Constitution.
Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and Articles 53, 54, 55 and 56 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on the Constitutional Court, the
Constitutional Court has passed the following
ruling:
1. To recognise that Part 4 of Article 38 of the Republic
of Lithuania Law on Elections to the Seimas is in compliance
with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
2. To recognise that Part 4 of Article 36 of the Republic
of Lithuania Law on Elections to Local Government Councils is
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.