Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
R U L I N G
On the compliance of Article 259 of the Statute of
the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
Vilnius, 11 May 1999
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
composed of the Judges of the Constitutional Court Egidijus
Jarašiūnas, Egidijus Kūris, Zigmas Levickis, Augustinas
Normantas, Vladas Pavilonis, Jonas Prapiestis, Vytautas
Sinkevičius, Stasys Stačiokas, and Teodora Staugaitienė,
with the secretary of the hearing-Daiva Pitrėnaitė,
in the presence of:
the representatives of the petitioners-the representative
of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Gintaras Goda, a
senior consultant at the Law Department of the Chancery of the
Seimas, the representatives of a group of Seimas members Juozas
Bernatonis and Česlovas Juršėnas, both are Seimas members,
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 21
April 1999 in its public hearing conducted the investigation of
Case No. 3/99-5/99 subsequent to the petitions submitted to the
Court by the petitioners-the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania and a group of Seimas members-requesting to
investigate if Article 259 of the Statute of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania was in compliance with Article 74 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
On 22 December 1998, the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania set forth a new wording of its Statute "On the
Amendment to the Statute" (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios,
1999, No. 5-97).
Part VIII Impeachment Proceedings (Articles 227-260) of
the Statute of the Seimas of the new wording regulates the
bases and procedure for carrying out impeachment proceedings at
the Seimas. Along with the other amendments, the procedure for
impeachment proceedings was changed as well. The Statute of the
Seimas was supplemented by Chapter 40 Procedure for Impeachment
at the Seimas Following a Received Copy of Judgement of
Conviction by Court (Articles 259 and 260). Article 259 of the
Statute regulates peculiarities of the procedure for
impeachment at the Seimas following a received copy of
judgement of conviction by court except the issues linked with
the vote on the decision to remove a person from office (this
is dealt with by Article 260).
II
A group of Seimas members appealed to the Constitutional
Court with a petition requesting to investigate whether certain
norms of the Statute of the Seimas of the new wording were in
compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
One of the requests asks to investigate whether the provision
of Article 259 of the Statue whereby the Seimas shall adopt the
decision on the revocation of the mandate of Seimas member
after it has received a copy of an effective judgement of
conviction by court is in compliance with Article 74 of the
Constitution.
The request of the group of Seimas members is based on the
following arguments.
Article 259 of the Statute provides that the Seimas shall
adopt the decision on the revocation of the mandate of Seimas
member after it has received a copy of an effective judgement
of conviction by court, however, Article 74 of the Constitution
provides that the mandate of Seimas member is revoked in
accordance with the procedure for impeachment proceedings.
Article 63 of the Constitution gives an exhaustive list of
circumstances when the powers of a Seimas member are
terminated. This article of the Constitution does not provide
that his powers are terminated after a judgement of conviction
in a criminal case becomes effective. In addition, the Statute
of the Seimas provides that after notification of the
commencement of impeachment proceedings, during the sittings
wherein the said proceedings take place, the Seimas becomes an
impeachment institution and in its sittings the impeached
person shall participate. Meanwhile, it is provided for by
Article 259 of the Statute of the Seimas that the decision on
revocation of the mandate of Seimas member is adopted at a
routine sitting of the Seimas in the absence of the Seimas
member whose mandate is being revoked. Such a decision is
signed by the Chairman of the Seimas, and in the course of
carrying out the impeachment proceedings it is signed by the
chairman of the sitting (the Chairman of the Supreme Court or
any other judge of the said court, Chairman of the
Constitutional Court or any other judge of the said court).
Thus Article 259 of the Statute of the Seimas is not in line
with the provisions of Article 74 of the Constitution and the
common norms of Part VIII Impeachment Proceedings of the
Statute which regulate the procedure for impeachment.
III
By its resolution of 16 March 1999, the Seimas requests to
investigate whether Article 259 of the Statute is in compliance
with Article 74 of the Constitution.
The resolution is based on the fact that "upon approval of
the Statute of the Seimas of the new wording and its coming
into force some members of the Seimas expressed doubts, as in
the instance of the petition of a group of Seimas members to
the Constitutional Court, whether the norms of Article 259 of
the Statute of the Seimas of the new wording were in compliance
with the provisions of Article 74 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania".
IV
By its decision of 13 April 1999, the Constitutional Court
joined the petitions of the Seimas and a group of Seimas
members requesting to investigate the conformity of Article 259
of the Statute of the Seimas with the Constitution into one
case.
V
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, an explanation of G. Goda, a
senior consultant at the Law Department of the Chancery of the
Seimas, was received.
It is maintained in the explanation that under Article 74
of the Constitution, the procedure for impeachment proceedings
shall be established by the Statute of the Seimas. The latter
provides for two possible forms of impeachment proceedings in
cases when the mandate of Seimas member may be revoked because
of the commission of crime.
One form of impeachment consists of two phases: a certain
preliminary investigation and impeachment proceedings at the
Seimas upon its becoming an impeachment institution (Part 3 of
Article 246 of the Statute). In such form impeachment
proceedings may be conducted only in cases when they are
initiated because of a gross violation of the Constitution or
breach of oath.
The second form of impeachment is possible in cases when a
Seimas member is suspected of the commission of crime. Under
Part 3 of Article 231 of the Statute, upon hearing the report
of the Prosecutor General, the Seimas may decide not to begin
the preparatory actions for impeachment proceedings but give
its consent so that the Seimas member may be brought to
criminal responsibility. If, after this, the Seimas receives a
copy of judgement of conviction by court, impeachment procedure
is carried out as provided for by Chapter 40 of the Statute. In
such a case the actual aspect of the crime is not considered
nor is it deliberated anew whether the Seimas member is guilty
of the commission of crime-the Seimas merely votes for the
revocation of the mandate of Seimas member.
Denying the arguments of the group of Seimas members, the
representative of the Seimas contends that elucidating Item 5
of Article 63 of the Constitution one has to investigate the
content of Article 74 of the Constitution. In the latter
article it is provided that the commission of crime is one of
the bases due to which the procedure for impeachment on the
revocation of the mandate of Seimas member is commenced.
Neither Article 63 nor Article 74 of the Constitution
provides for the rules of impeachment proceedings. The
Constitution does not contain any restrictions due to which
impeachment proceedings should be carried out by one way only.
Therefore the said two opportunities of the manner of Seimas
behaviour after it becomes clear that a Seimas member is
suspected of the commission of crime, as provided for by the
Statute, may not be regarded as contradicting the Constitution.
Article 259 of the Statute does not mention the fact that
the Seimas, voting on the revocation of the mandate, becomes an
impeachment institution. In cases when impeachment proceedings
are conducted under the rules set down by Chapter 39 of the
Statute, the Seimas becomes an impeachment institution (Part 3
of Article 246 of the Statute), therefore the Seimas member
suspected of the commission of crime has an opportunity to
participate in the sitting (Article 250 of the Statute). In the
course of such impeachment it is attempted to clarify in
essence the actual circumstances and establish if the Seimas
member is guilty of the commission of the deed. Virtually the
structure of such impeachment proceedings corresponds to that
of judicial process.
It was held in the effective judgement of conviction by
court, a copy of which was received by the Seimas, that a
Seimas member had committed a criminal deed and was guilty of
it. The Seimas may not hold contrarily as under Article 109 of
the Constitution, in the Republic of Lithuania the courts shall
have the exclusive right to administer justice. Therefore
simplified impeachment proceedings are carried out-the Seimas
members are given an opportunity to decide if the mandate of
Seimas member should be revoked because of the crime committed.
To become effective, such a decision must be adopted by not
less than 3/5 of Seimas members.
VI
During the judicial investigation, the representative of
the petitioner-a group of Seimas members-J. Bernatonis, a
Seimas member, explained that the procedure established by
Article 259 of the Statute of the Seimas is not to be
considered impeachment proceedings also due to the fact that it
virtually deviates from the common norms of Part VIII of the
Statute which regulate the impeachment institution: it is
established in Part 1 of Article 230 of the Statute of the
Seimas that a group comprising not less than 1/4 of all Seimas
members is entitled to propose that impeachment proceedings be
initiated, meanwhile under Article 259 of the Statute, either
the Chairman of the Seimas or Deputy Chairman, i.e. one Seimas
member, may initiate impeachment proceedings; by Article 235,
in order to investigate the validity and seriousness of the
charges and to prepare a conclusion on the proposal to
institute impeachment proceedings, the Seimas shall form a
special investigatory commission, and, in addition, under Part
1 of Article 244 of the Statute the Seimas shall decide whether
to institute impeachment proceedings, meanwhile Article 259 of
the Statute does not provide for the determination of the
Seimas whether to institute impeachment proceedings or not; in
the course of carrying out impeachment under Article 259, the
sitting of the Seimas is not presided over by a judge (Chairman
of the Supreme Court or a judge of the said court, or the
Chairman of the Constitutional Court or a judge of the said
court), as is stipulated by the common rules of impeachment
proceedings (Part 1 of Article 246 of the Statute) but the
Chairman of the Seimas, which is a violation of the principle
of openness; under Part 3 of Article 246 of the Statute of the
Seimas, during a sitting of impeachment proceedings the Seimas
shall become an impeachment institution, while by Article 259
the decision on the revocation of the mandate is adopted by a
non-impeachment institution; under Article 247 of the Statute,
impeachment proceedings at the Seimas consist of five
constituent phases: preparation, interrogation, pleadings, the
final word of the impeached person, and the vote on the
presented charges, meanwhile Article 259 does not provide for
impeachment proceedings at all; by the norms of Chapter 39 of
the Statute of the Seimas, the impeached person has the right
to be heard; having received particularised formulations of the
charge, he may demand that the interrogation be continued; he
is entitled to participate in the pleadings with the
prosecutor; he also enjoys other procedural rights. Meanwhile,
under Article 259, not only is the impeached person prohibited
to speak but he is even not allowed to participate at the
sitting of the Seimas.
In the opinion of J. Bernatonis, the conclusion that the
procedure for revocation of the mandate as provided for by
Article 259 of the Statute of the Seimas is not regarded as
impeachment proceedings is confirmed by the fact that that the
said article does not use the notion of impeachment: Part 1 of
the said article obligates the Chairman (Deputy Chairman) of
the Seimas to acquaint Seimas members with the received
judgement of conviction; under Part 2 thereof the date is
established for the Seimas sitting during which the issue of
the revocation will be discussed, however, the impeachment
proceedings are not mentioned therein; Part 3 thereof provides
that the question of removing a person from office or that of
revocation of the mandate shall be decided by a resolution
adopted by the Seimas; Part 4 thereof presents the content of
such a resolution; Part 5 thereof presents a redundant norm
whereby in the course of submission of the draft resolution,
deliberation on it and its adoption, the judgement of
conviction by court shall not be discussed, nor its validity
nor lawfulness be disputed; Part 6 thereof prohibits the
impeached person to participate in the Seimas sitting. The only
place where the procedure for impeachment is mentioned in this
article is the wording of the draft resolution of the Seimas
given by Part 4 whereby the mandate shall be revoked (one shall
be removed from office) in accordance with the procedure for
impeachment, in fact, however, impeachment proceedings are not
carried out.
J. Bernatonis maintained that Part 6 of Article 259
prohibiting a person who is serving his sentence in confinement
to participate in the sitting of the Seimas wherein the
question of the revocation of his mandate (his removal from
office) is decided is incompatible with the standards of the
democratic state nor those of a democratic legal system. Thus
this norm also contradicts Article 1 of the Constitution
whereby the State of Lithuania shall be a democratic republic,
as well as the international commitments of the State deriving
from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms.
According to J. Bernatonis, the resolution of the Seimas
and the procedure for its adoption as provided for by Article
259 of the Statute of the Seimas contradict Article 74 of the
Constitution not only by its content but also by its form. The
Constitution provides for situations when the Seimas adopts
decisions (Part 4 of Article 58 establishing that pre-term
elections to the Seimas may be held on the decision of the
Seimas; Part 3 of Article 59 providing that 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 Seimas
member and the Seimas shall adopt a corresponding resolution
thereon; Item 3 of Article 67 providing that the Seimas shall
adopt resolutions for the organisation of referendums; Item 2
of Article 94 providing that the Government shall implement
laws and resolutions of the Seimas concerning the
implementation of laws). The Constitution, however, does not
provide for an opportunity to revoke the mandate of Seimas
member nor to remove a person from office by a Seimas
resolution.
The disputed article is tightly connected with Part 3 of
Article 231 of the Statute, which is disputed by the petition,
whereby the Seimas, upon hearing the report of the Prosecutor
General on the crime committed by the Seimas member, may adopt
only one of the two decisions: either to form a special
investigatory commission empowered to present a recommendation
whether to give the consent to bring the Seimas member to
criminal responsibility or to commence the preparatory actions
for impeachment proceedings. Under the new wording of Articles
23 and 231, the Seimas may no longer freely decide on this
issue (this was possible under the norms of the Statute which
were in effect earlier).
In the course of the judicial investigation, the
representative of the group of Seimas members Č. Juršėnas set
forth the following arguments.
In Lithuania the legal institution of impeachment was
established only after the present Constitution had been
adopted, however in fact it has never been applied. Impeachment
presumably is a decision of the question of constitutional
responsibility under parliamentary procedures, therefore it
should be considered an expression of democracy. They are not
judicial but parliamentary proceedings. Article 74 of the
Constitution provides that only such persons may be impeached
who enjoy particular powers and this may only be done for
particular deeds. Due to the fact that some of these officials
(the President of the Republic and Seimas members) are granted
their mandate in the elections by the people, only by following
a special procedure is it possible to revoke such a mandate.
This statement is based on the formulations of the
Constitution: in all cases when an impeachment institution is
established in the Constitution, the wording "in accordance
with the procedure for impeachment proceedings" is employed
(Item 5 of Article 63, Article 74, Part 2 of Article 86, Item 5
of Part 1 of Article 88, Part 1 of Article 89, Item 5 of
Article 108, Article 116). Therefore it is not permissible to
revoke a mandate or to remove from office without carrying out
the proceedings: the Constitution empowers the Seimas to
establish the procedure for impeachment proceedings but never
to abolish impeachment proceedings themselves which in all
cases, regardless of the reason for the impeachment, must
remain of full value. This requirement is determined by the
need to ensure not only the convenience of the Seimas' work but
also the rights of the persons the question of whose mandate is
decided in accordance with the procedure for impeachment
proceedings. Meanwhile Article 259 of the Statute provides for
a simplified impeachment proceedings. Therefore the revocation
of the mandate of Seimas member under the procedure set down by
Article 259 of the Statute of the Seimas is, presumably, not
impeachment but pseudo- or ersatz impeachment.
This provision of Article 74 of the Constitution may not
be interpreted as entitling the Seimas to establish several
procedures, by singling out those Seimas members who due to
serving their sentence in confinement do not take part in the
Seimas sitting. This violates the principle of the equality of
Seimas members which is also established in the jurisprudence
of the Constitutional Court (Constitutional Court ruling of 26
November 1993). It is not the right of the Seimas to establish
the procedure for impeachment proceedings which is being
questioned but the fact as to how this right is actualised in
Article 259 of the Statute.
Č. Juršėnas is of the opinion that the disputed article
contradicts the Constitution from additional aspect. Article 74
of the Constitution provides that impeachment may be applied
"upon the disclosure of the commission of felony". The word
disclosure may be interpreted in various ways, therefore in
establishing as to what meaning is attached to it by Article 74
of the Constitution, one has to take account of the whole text
of the Constitution. In some cases the Constitution directly
links the impossibility for a person to hold office or his
removal from office with the effective judgement of conviction
by court (Part 2 of Article 56 of the Constitution providing
that persons who have not served their court-imposed sentence
may not be elected members of the Seimas; Item 6 of Article 115
thereof providing that judges shall be dismissed from office
when judgement imposed on them by court comes into force), and
in such cases impeachment proceedings are not carried out.
Presumably, the wording "upon the disclosure of the commission
of felony" ought to be interpreted as not denying the right of
the Seimas to decide in every particular case whether the
judgement by court provides sufficient grounds for the
commencement of impeachment proceedings.
In the opinion of Č. Juršėnas, a simplified procedure for
impeachment also violates the rights of the impeached Seimas
member. For instance, under the regulations for the activities
of the Seimas Commission for Ethics and Procedures which were
approved by the Seimas on 17 January 1995, the Seimas member
who has broken ethics is asked to come to the sittings of this
commission. Neither are there any other parliamentary
procedures prohibiting to participate the person the issue of
whose responsibility is being decided in respective Seimas
sitting nor those forbidding him to speak. Meanwhile, when the
procedure as provided for by Article 259 of the Statute of the
Seimas is conducted, the Seimas member is not asked to take
part in the sitting: in the case that he is convicted for
imprisonment the question of the revocation of his mandate is
decided in his absence. Still, in cases when the impeached
Seimas member is not sentenced to imprisonment and can
participate in the Seimas sitting, a simplified procedure for
impeachment does not provide the Seimas member with an
opportunity to say as to what his position is as impeachment
proceedings are identified with the adoption of the resolution
on the revocation of the mandate.
In the opinion of Č. Juršėnas, the necessity of carrying
out impeachment proceedings in their full value is also
motivated by a possibility of the judicial error. As for this
issue, there exists jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court
(the 9 December 1998 Constitutional Court ruling "On the
compliance of the death penalty provided for by the sanction of
Article 105 of the Republic of Lithuania Criminal Code with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania"). It is because of
the possibility of a court's error that full extent impeachment
proceedings must be conducted at the Seimas before the mandate
of Seimas member is revoked.
VII
During the judicial investigation, the representative of
the Seimas G. Goda supplemented his position set forth in
writing with these arguments.
In the Statute of the Seimas one has chosen a way of
regulating impeachment proceedings which is rational and in
compliance with the Constitution. Under Item 5 of Article 63 of
the Constitution, the powers of a Seimas member shall be
terminated when the Seimas revokes his or her mandate in
accordance with the procedure for impeachment proceedings. The
cases when impeachment proceedings are possible are regulated
by Article 74 of the Constitution. One of such cases is the
commission of crime. Therefore the commission of crime, unlike
than the other bases established by Article 63 of the
Constitution, does not provide any basis for an automatic
revocation of the mandate of Seimas member. If this basis were
entered into Article 63 of the Constitution, the impeachment
proceedings would not be conducted: in such a case the decision
would be adopted by the Central Electoral Committee, or this
question would be decided by other ways. Meanwhile, Article 74
of the Constitution provides that because of the commission of
crime a Seimas member may lose his mandate only in accordance
with the procedure for impeachment proceedings, i.e. the
revocation of the mandate is the consequence of impeachment.
The Constitution leaves the Seimas to establish by its Statute
as to how one has to conduct impeachment proceedings, as it
does not contain any formal requirements for these proceedings.
Impeachment proceedings are regulated by Part VIII of the
Statute of the Seimas whereby impeachment proceedings may
proceed in two ways: either in pursuance of the longer
procedure which includes the preparatory investigation and
impeachment proceedings at the Seimas or the shorter one
established by Article 259 of the Statute which does not
provide for the investigation of actual circumstances and which
virtually identifies impeachment with the vote on the
revocation of the mandate of Seimas member. The fact that the
Constitution does not establish any formal requirements for
impeachment proceedings means that it permits a variety of
impeachment proceedings. Therefore the Statute of the Seimas,
based on the Constitution, may establish several variants of
impeachment proceedings. Variating impeachment in various ways,
it is important that in all cases of impeachment there should
be an essential element of impeachment-the decision adopted by
the 3/5 majority vote of Seimas members as to whether there are
grounds to revoke the mandate of Seimas member; however, the
fact as to what procedures are conducted prior to this decision
are not of crucial importance.
The constitutional bases for impeachment are varied. In
cases of violations of the Constitution or breach of oath one
has to establish whether this took place. In such cases the
voting at the Seimas on the revocation of the mandate is not
permissible until the factual circumstances of the offence are
found out. Meanwhile, in every case of the commission of crime
the State must carry out criminal prosecution in the course of
which it is established whether the Seimas member actually
performed the criminal deed which could give grounds to
impeachment proceedings and because of which his mandate of
Seimas member may be revoked. This is not so in cases of gross
violations of the Constitution or breach of oath, unless these
bases would also include the commission of crime. Therefore the
procedure established by Article 259 of the Statute of the
Seimas is reasonable as the actual circumstances are found out
by means of criminal procedure. In case one conducted the
investigation at the Seimas (impeachment proceedings with in
their phases) and, on the other hand, the investigation of the
criminal case in accordance with criminal procedure at the same
time, both these investigations would interfere with each
other. While after the case has been investigated and the
judgement passed, to conduct impeachment proceedings at the
Seimas in full scope, including preparatory actions as well,
would not be rational, as the object of both investigations is
the same, which is the essential investigation in both cases
whether the member of the Seimas committed the crime (e.g.,
Part 1 of Article 258 of the Statute provides that a person is
recognised guilty in accordance with the procedure for
impeachment proceedings). Only the purposes (aims) of these two
processes are different: both in criminal process and
parliamentary impeachment process the same question of
culpability is decided, however the wording contained in the
Seimas vote paper expressing that the member of the Seimas is
accused of the commission of crime means that the mandate of
the member of the Seimas is to be revoked. In case impeachment
proceedings in full extent were conducted at the Seimas after
the judgement of conviction has been passed by court and after
the judgement has become effective, all the same the Seimas
would not be capable of adoption of the decision stating that
the member of the Seimas did not commit the crime as the Seimas
is not empowered to deny the court's judgement. Therefore,
Article 259 of the Statute providing for a different procedure
for impeachment merely releases the Seimas from the necessity
to elucidate the actual circumstances of the case, to find
evidence etc. for the second time. Because of this it is not
necessary for the member of the Seimas in whose regard the
effective judgement of conviction by court has been passed to
take part in the Seimas sitting: in the said judgement the
actual circumstances are assessed, while it is not permitted to
discuss its lawfulness nor its validity at the Seimas. Besides
the convicted member of the Seimas has an opportunity to
express his position (e.g. in writing) to the other Seimas
members even without taking part in the Seimas sitting.
G. Goda maintained that the Constitution does not require
that impeachment be conducted on the Seimas becoming an
impeachment institution. Acting in pursuance of Article 259 of
the Statute, the Seimas is not an impeachment institution in
the sense when it is an impeachment institution in the course
of carrying out impeachment under Chapter 39 of the Statute.
But because of the fact that the essential element of
impeachment remains, which is the decision on whether there are
grounds to revoke the mandate of Seimas member passed by the
3/5 majority vote of Seimas members, the Seimas in this case is
also to be held an impeachment institution, only in another
sense: it is an impeachment institution carrying out
"simplified" impeachment proceedings.
Due to the fact that a different procedure for impeachment
is established, the principle of the equality of Seimas members
is not violated. However, their status at the procedures of
impeachment is different: there is an effective judgement of
conviction by court regarding the impeached Seimas member,
while concerning the other Seimas members there is not any such
judgement. As not only the punishment of conviction but also
other punishment may be given for crimes, the status of
convicted persons may be different in the course of procedures
of impeachment as well. This is taken account of by Part 6 of
Article 259 of the Statute which regulates the actions that may
be performed when the impeached person is serving his sentence
in confinement. Besides Article 259 contains special norms
which must only be applied in the situations strictly provided
for, therefore there are no grounds to maintain that the rights
of the Seimas member provided for by Article 9 of the Statute
are violated.
According to G. Goda, it is possible to ground a
possibility of simplified impeachment proceedings on an analogy
from the area of criminal process. The criminal process laws of
many democratic states provide for various variants of
simplified (summary) judicial proceedings, when one abandons
the judicial investigation of the evidence, while the decision
is adopted on the basis of the collected material. Even though
in this case one refers to procedures of different nature,
still it proves that there is a possibility of lawful
simplified proceedings.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. On 22 December 1998, the Seimas by the Statute of the
Seimas "On the Amendment to the Statute" adopted a new wording
of the Statute of the Seimas. The procedure for impeachment
proceedings was also amended thereby. The Statute was
supplemented by Chapter 40 Impeachment Procedure at the Seimas
Following a Received Copy of Judgement of Conviction by Court
(Articles 259 and 260). Article 259 of the Statute entitled
Impeachment Procedure at the Seimas Following a Received Copy
of Judgement of Conviction by Court provides:
"1. Upon reception of a copy of the effective judgement of
conviction by court, the Chairman (Deputy Chairman) of the
Seimas shall promptly acquaint the other Seimas members with
it.
2. In its nearest sitting the Seimas shall fix the date of
the Seimas sitting during which one is to consider the issue of
dismissal from office of the person or that of revocation of
the mandate of Seimas member.
3. The Seimas shall adopt a resolution on the dismissal
from office or the revocation of the mandate of Seimas member.
The draft resolution shall be submitted by the Chairman or the
Deputy Chairman of the Seimas at the sitting of the Seimas.
4. The draft resolution of the Seimas shall be of the
following content:
'The Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution
On the dismissal of ____________ from the office of_________
(name, family name)
(or On the revocation of the mandate of Seimas member from
_____________)
(name, family name)
(Date, No.)
Vilnius
The Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, taking account of
the fact that regarding ___________________ there is an effective
(name, family name)
judgement of conviction passed by _______________________________
(title of the court, date of passing of the judgement of conviction)
under which ____________ is sentenced to __________ under Article
(name, family name) (punishment)
______ of the Republic of Lithuania Criminal Code,
has adopted this resolution:
Article 1
To remove ________________ from the office of ______________
(name, family name) (name of office)
(or To revoke the mandate of Seimas member from _________________)
(name, family name)
in accordance with the procedure for impeachment proceedings.
Article 2
This resolution shall become effective following its
adoption.'
5. In the course of the submission, consideration and
adoption of the draft resolution of the Seimas, the court's
judgement shall not be deliberated, neither its lawfulness nor
its validity shall be disputed.
6. The person concerning whom the draft resolution of the
Seimas is being submitted, has the right to resign from office
and refuse the mandate of Seimas member prior to the beginning
of the vote by presenting his written application. The person
serving the sentence in confinement shall present his
application either by post or through his authorised
representative, and shall not take part in the Seimas sitting
in person. Such an application must be satisfied, while the
deliberation at the Seimas must be ceased and this is
officially registered by a Seimas resolution."
The petitioners-the Seimas and the group of Seimas
members-request to investigate whether Article 259 of the
Statute is in compliance with the Constitution, while the group
of Seimas members in addition requests to investigate whether
the said article is in conformity with the common norms of Part
VIII of the Statute regulating impeachment proceedings. As
under Article 102 of the Constitution the Constitutional Court
shall not decide the question of compatibility of the norms of
the same act, the common norms of the Statute regulating
impeachment will only be investigated in the scope necessary to
reveal the notion of the impeachment institution in the
Lithuanian constitutional doctrine and legal system.
2. By the latitude of the questions which are attempted to
be elucidated, the request of the Seimas includes the request
of the group of Seimas members, as the group of Seimas members
disputes the conformity of Article 259 of the Statute with the
Constitution only in the view that it contains the established
procedure for impeachment whereby the mandate of the Seimas may
be revoked. The Constitutional Court has taken into
consideration the fact that the Seimas did not point out any
other reasons for which the constitutionality of Article 259 of
the Statute is disputed save those presented by the group of
Seimas members.
3. In the Lithuanian constitutional system the institution
of impeachment proceedings is to be linked with the striving
for an open, just, and harmonious civil society and
law-governed State which is declared in the preamble of the
Constitution, as well as the constitutional principles of the
rights of individuals and protection of freedoms.
The compliance of every institution of law to the
Constitution must be assessed on the grounds whether it is in
conformity to the constitutional principles of the state under
the rule of law. The function of the constitutional doctrine is
to reveal the content of the concept of the state under the
rule of law.
As the Constitution is an integral act, the Constitutional
Court, investigating the compliance of Article 259 of the
Statute of the Seimas with the Constitution and taking account
of the requirements which are raised for impeachment by the
principles of law-governed state, those of the protection of
the rights and freedoms of individuals which are established by
the Constitution, must assess whether the procedure for removal
of a person from office or revocation of his mandate of Seimas
member as established by the disputed article is in line with
the concept of impeachment proceedings established by Article
74 of the Constitution.
II
1. As a matter of fact, the principles of the state under
the rule of law in the area of the legal regulation of the
activities of state institutions and officials are implemented
by co-ordinating confidence in state officials with the public
control over them and their responsibility to society.
In a democratic state the officials and institutions must
follow law. Carrying out the functions important to society and
the state, the officials must not face any threat if they
fulfil their duties without violations of law. Various legal
mechanisms help to ensure this: legal regulation of the
competence of state officials and institutions, their social
and material guarantees, absence of the imperative mandate for
the members of elected institutions etc.
On the other hand, in the legal system an opportunity must
be provided for to dismiss those state officials who violate
laws, who place their individual or group interests higher than
those of society, and who discredit by their actions the
authority of the state. The responsibility of authority to
society is a principle of the state under the rule of law which
is established by the Constitution by providing that state
institutions will serve the people, while the citizens shall
have the right to run the country either directly or through
democratically elected representatives, as well as by
guaranteeing an opportunity for citizens to defend their rights
in court, and also the right to criticise, the right of
petition, by regulating the procedure for investigation of
appeals and complaints of citizens etc.
Impeachment is one of self-protection means of a civic
society. In the constitutions of democratic states impeachment
is treated as a special procedure when the question of the
constitutional responsibility of an official is decided.
Providing for a special procedure for dismissal of the highest
officials from office or that for revocation of their mandate,
one ensures public and democratic control over their
activities, alongside, these officials are granted additional
guarantees so that they can fulfil their duties on the basis of
law.
2. Impeachment is linked with strict requirements. First,
it may only be applied to certain officials who are, as a rule,
listed in the Constitution (Head of State, the highest
officials of executive and judicial powers, while in some
states also members of the parliament). Second, impeachment is
permissible only in case there exist specially established
bases for it. As a rule, such bases are breach of oath,
violation of the Constitution, treason, as well as crimes of
various degree of gravity. Third, in most cases impeachment
proceedings take place in the parliament pursuant to the rules
characteristic of judicial investigation, while a qualified
majority of votes is necessary to adopt the decision. Fourth,
the effect of resultful impeachment proceedings is a specific
constitutional sanction: removal of a person from office or
revocation of his mandate. Thus impeachment is not application
of criminal responsibility even though a crime may constitute
its basis.
Special requirements for impeachment are determined by the
status of impeached officials. As a rule, they are empowered
not by the parliament, nor are they accountable to the latter.
The parliament is entitled to remove from office those
officials who are responsible and accountable to it in
accordance with some other procedure but not impeachment.
Meanwhile impeachment proceedings are always characteristic of
judicial procedures permitting to base the decision concerning
the application of the constitutional sanction on a thorough,
objective and public investigation of the circumstances of the
case. As a rule, the parliament which is conducting impeachment
is presided over not by its chairman nor by its any other
member. The necessity of procedures of judicial nature is also
grounded on the fact that the constitutional sanction applied
in accordance with the procedure for impeachment is of
irreversible nature.
The parliament carrying out impeachment does not cease
functioning as the supreme representative legislative
institution, in this case it merely performs a particular
function. By way of procedures characteristic of fair judicial
process it is attempted not to take the place of the court but
to ensure that after the circumstances of the impeachable case
are properly investigated, a just decision will be adopted
concerning the constitutional responsibility of respective
officials.
In various states the constitutional regulation of
impeachment is different, however in a democratic state under
the rule of law the impeachment institution encompasses the
said elements. This determines the essential difference of
impeachment from other ways of removal of persons from office
or revocation of their mandates.
3. It is impossible to abstract the application of the
constitutional sanction from the establishment of the fact of
violation. Sometimes the same unlawful acts may incur not only
constitutional but other legal liability, e.g. criminal
liability for a committed crime. The fact whether they, along
with the constitutional responsibility, incur other legal
liability, depends on whether the legal system recognises that
by the same unlawful actions not only constitutional but also
other legal relations may be violated. On the other hand, the
constitutional sanction is, first of all, applied for the fact
that that in the course of the commission of the violation the
person discredited state authority, therefore it is necessary
to remove him from office or to revoke his mandate, otherwise
the confidence of the public in state authority, its
institutions and officials would not be guaranteed. The
question whether to apply the constitutional sanction is
decided by the parliament.
4. One of the essential features of the state under the
rule of law is the protection of the rights and freedoms of
individuals. The norms regulating impeachment must not only
create an opportunity to remove a person from office or to
revoke his mandate but also to ensure the rights of the
impeached persons. It is possible to recognise impeachment
proceedings to be in line with the principles of a state under
the rule of law when they are fair. It means that the
individuals must be equal before both the law and the
institutions carrying out impeachment, they must have the right
to be heard and a legally guaranteed opportunity to defend
their rights. In case one did not follow the principles of fair
judicial process in the course of impeachment, it would
indicate that one is acting against the requirements of the
state under the rule of law.
III
1. In the Lithuanian legal system impeachment is a
constitutional institution. Article 74 of the Constitution
provides: "For gross violation of the Constitution, breach of
oath, or upon the disclosure of the commission of felony, the
Seimas may, by three-fifths majority vote of all the Seimas
members, remove from office the President of the Republic, the
Chairperson and judges of the Constitutional Court, the
Chairperson and judges of the Supreme Court, the Chairperson
and judges of the Court of Appeals, as well as Seimas members,
or may revoke their mandate of Seimas member. Such actions
shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure for
impeachment proceedings which shall be established by the
Statute of the Seimas."
Some other articles of the Constitution are also important
to the impeachment institution: Item 5 of Article 63, Part 2 of
Article 86, Item 5 of Article 88, Part 1 of Article 89, Article
105, Item 5 of Article 108, and Article 116. The norms of these
articles are the constitutional basis for the impeachment
institution.
2. The following elements of impeachment are established
in Article 74 of the Constitution: (1) impeachment as a
parliamentary procedure may be applied only to the President of
the Republic, the Chairperson and judges of the Constitutional
Court, the Chairperson and judges of the Supreme Court, the
Chairperson and judges of the Court of Appeals, as well as
Seimas members; (2) impeachment proceedings may be instituted
only for gross violations of the Constitution, breach of oath
or upon the disclosure of the commission of crime; (3) the
objective of impeachment proceedings is to decide the question
of the constitutional responsibility of the said persons; (4)
impeachment is carried out by the Seimas; (5) to remove a
person from office or to revoke his mandate of Seimas member,
three-fifths majority vote of all the Seimas members is
necessary.
Under Article 74 of the Constitution, establishment of the
procedure for impeachment proceedings is also within the
competence of the Seimas: the latter must define it in the
Statute of the Seimas. Assessing whether the disputed article
of the Statute of the Seimas is in compliance with the
Constitution, one must, first of all, pay attention to the fact
as to whether the procedure established therein encompasses all
constitutional elements of impeachment, and conform to the
requirements which are raised to impeachment by the principles
of the law-governed state enshrined in the Constitution.
3. Part 1 of Article 227 of the Statute of the Seimas
defines impeachment proceedings as a parliamentary procedure
which is applied by the Seimas to persons listed in Article 74
of the Constitution because of the actions performed by them
discrediting the reputation of authorities, by attempting to
decide the question of responsibility of such persons.
Impeachment proceedings are regulated by Part VIII Impeachment
Proceedings of the Statute of the Seimas. The said part
consists of three chapters: Chapter 38 Proposal Regarding
Commencement of Impeachment Proceedings and Preparatory
Investigation, Chapter 39 Impeachment Proceedings at the
Seimas, and Chapter 40 Impeachment Proceedings at the Seimas
Following a Received Copy of Judgement of Conviction by Court.
The norms of Chapters 38 and 39 are common norms regulating
implementation of impeachment proceedings from the moment of
their initiation until the resolution on removal of the person
from office or revocation of his mandate of Seimas member. The
said norms also single out the proposal to commence impeachment
proceedings and the preparatory investigation on the one hand,
and impeachment proceedings at the Seimas on the other hand, as
two phases of impeachment (as a whole).
The norms of Chapter 40 (Articles 259 and 260) regulate a
specific case, which is procedures for impeachment which must
be fulfilled after the Seimas receives a copy of judgement of
conviction by court. As the actual circumstances of the
commission of crime as well as the fact that the person is
guilty of the commission of crime have been established by
court, the Seimas only decides the question of the
constitutional responsibility of the said person. Part 3 of
Article 229 of the Statute provides that in cases when it
becomes clear that the persons listed in Article 74 of the
Constitution have committed a crime and there is an effective
judgement of conviction by court, the impeachment proceedings
are carried out without applying Articles 233-242 as well as
the norms of Chapter 39 of the Statute when the question of
removal the persons from office or that of revocation of the
mandate of Seimas member is decided. It means that in such a
case a special investigatory commission is not formed, nor
Seimas members-prosecutors are appointed, while the impeachment
proceedings at the Seimas do not include the main phases
provided for by Article 247 of the Statute, which are the
preparatory phase, interrogation, pleadings, the final word of
the impeached person, and the vote on the presented
accusations. In the course of the submission of the draft
resolution of the Seimas, deliberation upon it and its
adoption, the judgement by court shall not be deliberated upon,
neither the lawfulness nor the validity of the judgement shall
be discussed (Part 5 of Article 259 of the Statute). The
substitute for the charge is the reception of the effective
judgement of conviction by court at the Seimas. It is provided
for by Part 1 of Article 259 of the Statute that upon reception
of a copy of the judgement at the Seimas, the Chairman (Deputy
Chairman) of the Seimas must promptly acquaint the other Seimas
members with it.
Thus under Article 259 of the Statute of the Seimas,
impeachment proceedings at the Seimas are virtually restricted
to the vote on the adoption of the resolution whereby the
person is removed from office or his mandate of Seimas member
is revoked.
4. The provision "in accordance with the procedure for
impeachment proceedings which shall be established by the
Statute of the Seimas" presumes the discretion of the Seimas in
this area. Several bases for impeachment are established in
Article 74 of the Constitution, therefore in the Statute of the
Seimas such a procedure for impeachment may be established so
that one might take account of the differences of the
constitutional bases of impeachment. The conformity of the
procedure for impeachment to the Constitution depends on
whether the Seimas, establishing peculiarities of impeachment
proceedings, has not diverged from its constitutional concept.
The norms of Chapters 38 and 39 of the Statute of the
Seimas provide for such a procedure for impeachment whereby the
Seimas from the beginning of impeachment proceedings until
their end acts as an institution of impeachment, while
impeachment proceedings at the Seimas consist of the
constituent phases pointed out by Article 247 of the Statute,
which are the preparatory phase, interrogation, pleadings, the
final word of the impeached person, and the vote on the
presented accusations. However, from this one is not to
conclude that this procedure is the only one permitted by
Article 74 of the Constitution. The provision "impeachment
proceedings which shall be established by the Statute of the
Seimas" may be particularised in the Statute by various ways
without overstepping the limits determined by the
constitutional concept of impeachment. Under Article 259 of the
Statute of the Seimas, impeachment proceedings are carried out
without applying Articles 233-242 as well as the norms of
Chapter 39 of the Statute (Part 3 of Article 229 of the
Statute). Such legal regulation of impeachment as established
by Article 259 of the Statute differs from impeachment
proceedings regulated by the norms of Chapters 38 and 39 of the
Statute of the Seimas. However it does not by itself mean that
in such a case the Constitution is violated as the Constitution
does not obligate the Seimas to design every particular
procedure for impeachment under the only model: other
procedures for impeachment may also be established in the
Statute of the Seimas which are to be applied in specific
cases, including those when the actual circumstances of the
case are already established by court.
It needs to be noted that a possibility of regulation of
peculiarities of impeachment proceedings is also determined by
the provision of Part 2 of Article 62 of the Constitution
whereby Seimas members may not be brought to criminal
responsibility without the consent of the Seimas. In the
Constitution analogous guarantees are provided for regarding
the Chairman of the Constitutional Court and the judges,
Chairman of the Supreme Court and the judges, Chairman of the
Court of Appeal and the judges.
5. Impeachment as a parliamentary procedure is only
applied to the persons listed in Article 74 of the
Constitution. Article 259 of the Statute of the Seimas does not
expand this list.
6. Under Article 74 of the Constitution, one of the bases
for impeachment is "the disclosure of the commission of
felony". The wording "the disclosure of the commission of
felony" of Article 74 of the Constitution presumes that not
only is the fact of the establishment of the crime but also the
official who committed the crime is found out. Article 229 of
the Statute of the Seimas provides that an impeachable official
against whom may be brought to constitutional responsibility in
accordance with the procedure for impeachment proceedings
provided he "is suspected of the commission of crime". Under
Part 1 of Article 231 of the Statute of the Seimas, the
Prosecutor General, upon establishment that the person is
suspected of the commission of crime, is obligated to inform
the Seimas about this without delay, and to present respective
documentation. Part 3 of Article 231 of the Statute provides
that upon hearing the report of the Prosecutor General on the
crime committed, the Seimas shall decide whether to give its
consent that a particular person be brought to criminal
responsibility, and whether to commence preparatory actions for
impeachment proceedings. It is also provided in the same part
of the said article that in the case that the Seimas decides to
give its consent to bring the person to criminal
responsibility, neither the preparatory actions for impeachment
proceedings nor the procedure for impeachment proceedings at
the Seimas may be commenced until the question of criminal
responsibility is decided. Thus, in the procedure for
impeachment for the commission of crime as established by the
Statute the provision is set down that there may be two ways of
establishment of the commission of crime and the guilt of the
person: (1) by carrying out full impeachment procedure at the
Seimas itself; such a procedure is finished by voting on the
removal the person from office or revocation of his mandate
provided the Seimas confirms the conclusion of the special
investigatory commission; (2) by entrusting the establishment
of the actual circumstances of the case to interrogative bodies
and the court, however, by leaving an opportunity for the
Seimas to decide the question of removal of the person from
office or that of revocation of his mandate of Seimas member.
As mentioned, one of the bases for constitutional
impeachment is "disclosure of the commission of felony". It is
provided in Article 259 of the Statute that the procedure for
impeachment is commenced at the Seimas "following a copy of the
effective judgement of conviction by court". Comparing these
two wordings one is to conclude that the basis "upon the
disclosure of the commission of felony" as pointed out by
Article 74 of the Constitution by its content encompasses the
said wording of Article 259 of the Statute.
7. In disclosing the content of Article 259 of the Statute
the fact is of importance that the question of the culpability
of the person of the commission of crime has been decided by
court. In the state under the rule of law every branch of power
(legislative, executive or judicial) fulfils the functions
attributed to it and carries out its competence. Part 1 of
Article 109 of the Constitution provides that in Lithuania the
courts shall have the exclusive right to administer justice,
while under Article 74 of the Constitution the Seimas is
commissioned to carry out impeachment. When in the Seimas
voting on impeachment takes place, the question of the
constitutional but not that of criminal responsibility of the
person is being decided. Removal of the person from office or
revocation of his mandate of Seimas member in accordance with
the procedure for impeachment proceedings because of the
suspicion of the commission of crime is not binding to the
court. In its turn, the independence of legislative and
judicial powers established by the Constitution determines the
fact that a judgement by court is not binding to the Seimas
that adopts a decision on the constitutional responsibility of
the person. Otherwise, the constitutional principle of
separation of powers would be violated.
8. Such regulation of the procedure for impeachment in the
Statute of the Seimas demonstrates that a formal statement of
the charge as presented by Seimas members themselves is not the
only form possible for initiating impeachment proceedings.
Giving its consent to bring the person to criminal
responsibility, the Seimas also decides that the actual
circumstances of the case will be investigated by judicial
institutions-the interrogation and the court-but not any
special commission formed by the Seimas. It means that in case
the Court recognises that the person is guilty of the
commission of crime, later one will not have to submit a
special proposal to institute impeachment because of the
commission of crime. It needs to be noted that a formal
statement of the charges as an independent action, when this is
done by Seimas members themselves, is not, in this case, a
necessary element of impeachment proceedings, however this
would be in line with the constitutional practice of many
states.
9. The constitutional concept of impeachment presupposes
that the objective of impeachment proceedings is a decision of
the question of constitutional responsibility of the persons
listed in Article 74 of the Constitution. It is the Seimas that
decides on the constitutional sanction no matter whether it
conducts full impeachment proceedings or entrusts the
interrogation and the court with establishment of the actual
circumstances of the case. Even in cases when the court has
passed the judgement of conviction, the constitutional
sanction, i.e. removal of the person from office or revocation
of his mandate of Seimas member, is not applied of its own
accord. The person is removed from office or his mandate of
Seimas member is revoked when the qualified majority, i.e. 3/5
of all Seimas members, vote for this. This is also established
by Article 260 of the Statute of the Seimas. It is within the
competence of the Seimas itself to establish as to by which
legal act one must officially register this decision of the
Seimas.
10. As noted above, the Seimas, implementing its
discretion to establish a differentiated procedure for
impeachment proceedings, is bound by the constitutional concept
of impeachment. This concept presupposes fair judicial
proceedings in which priority is given to the protection of the
rights of individuals. Guaranteeing the protection of the
rights of individuals, one has to pay heed to the fundamental
principles of the state under the rule of law which require
that jurisdictional and other law applying institutions be
unbiased and independent, that they attempt to establish the
objective truth and that they pass their decisions on the basis
of law only. This is only possible when the proceedings are
public, the parties to the proceedings enjoy equal rights,
while the pleadings in court, especially those regarding the
rights of individuals, are decided by insuring that the said
person should have the right and opportunity to defend his
rights. In the state under the rule of law the right of an
individual to defend his rights is unquestionable. As the
Seimas, deciding the question of removal of the person from
office or that of revocation of his mandate, acts as a
jurisdictional institution, the same requirements are applied
to impeachment proceedings.
11. When the question of constitutional or any other
responsibility is decided, the aforesaid principles of the
state under the rule of law are implemented through the
procedural rights of the person against whom this sanction is
applied as well as the guarantees of these rights. Recognition
of the rights of an individual is a necessary element of the
rule of law.
Assessing the procedure for impeachment proceedings
established by the Statute of the Seimas, one has to note that
the necessity to ensure the procedural rights of individuals
does not have to be dependent on the fact whether in the Seimas
common or special impeachment proceedings are carried out. Even
though the procedure for constitutional responsibility
impeachment and the basis for criminal responsibility are the
same (the commission of crime in this case), different
institutions apply the constitutional and other sanctions,
which do not bind each other by their decisions. Therefore
procedural rights must be ensured when one decides the question
of criminal as well as that of constitutional responsibility.
In the course of impeachment at the Seimas the right of the
person the question of whose constitutional responsibility is
decided to take part in the proceedings and defend himself must
be ensured. Prior to adoption of its decision, the Seimas must
also hear the other party (audi alteram partem).
Part 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution provides that all
persons shall be equal before the law, the court, and other
State institutions and officers, meanwhile Article 259 of the
Statute of the Seimas does not provide that the impeached
person is entitled to take part in the proceedings as the
accused subject and to defend himself. In this case the absence
of provision for such rights in the Statute means that they are
restricted. For the impeached person no right is ensured to be
acquainted with the charge due to which the question of his
removal from office or revocation of his mandate of Seimas
member is decided, no right is guaranteed to become acquainted
with the procedure for deliberation of this question at the
Seimas, no right to counsel nor that to have other
representatives is ensured, nor that to present evidence having
importance for the decision of the question of his
constitutional responsibility, nor that to take part in the
pleadings, nor that of the last replication, nor that of the
final word. Such proceedings wherein the aforementioned rights
are not guaranteed are not in line with the constitutional
concept of impeachment.
The enjoyment of the right to defence in impeachment
proceedings does not and may not depend on the type of
punishment imposed by court. The person may himself refuse to
take advantage of his rights but it is not permissible that the
Statute of the Seimas would not provide for the right to
defence nor regulate the procedure for the implementation of
this right. In this view Article 259 of the Statute is to be
assessed as violating the rights of the convicted person the
question of whose constitutional responsibility is decided, and
therefore as conflicting the Constitution.
12. Taking account of the motives set forth, one is to
conclude that Article 259 of the Statute of the Seimas in the
scope whereby the right of the convicted person to take part in
the impeachment proceedings as the impeached subject and his
right to defence are restricted contradicts Article 74 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:
To recognise that Article 259 of the Statute of the Seimas
of the Republic of Lithuania in the scope whereby the right of
the convicted person to take part in the impeachment
proceedings as the impeached subject and his right to defence
are restricted contradicts Article 74 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.