Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
R U L I N G
On the compliance of the 31 January 1991 Supreme
Council of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution
"On Writing of Names and Family Names in Passports
of Citizens of the Republic of Lithuania" with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
Vilnius, 21 October 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, and Stasys Stačiokas,
with the secretary of the hearing-Daiva Pitrėnaitė,
in the presence of:
the representative of the party concerned-the Seimas of
the Republic of Lithuania-Onutė Buišienė, a senior consultant
to the Law Department of the Seimas Chancery, and Danguolė
Mikulėnienė, Chairman of the State Commission of the Lithuanian
Language under the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania,
pursuant to Part 1 of Article 102 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and Part 1 of Article 1 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on the Constitutional Court, on 12
October 1999 in its public hearing conducted the investigation
of Case No. 14/98 subsequent to the petition submitted to the
Court by the petitioner-the Vilnius Regional Court-requesting
to investigate if the 31 January 1991 Supreme Council of the
Republic of Lithuania Resolution "On Writing of Names and
Family Names in Passports of Citizens of the Republic of
Lithuania" was in conformity to Articles 18, 22 29 and 37 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
The petitioner-the Vilnius Regional Court-was
investigating a civil case under cassation procedure in which
the plaintiff requested to obligate a police commissioner's
office which was issuing the plaintiff a new passport of the
citizen of the Republic of Lithuania to enter his name and
family name in the plaintiff's native language.
By its ruling the said court suspended the investigation
of the case at law and appealed to the Constitutional Court
with a petition requesting to investigate whether the 31
January 1991 Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution "On Writing of Names and Family Names in Passports
of Citizens of the Republic of Lithuania" (Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 1991, No. 5-132; hereinafter referred to as
the Resolution of the Supreme Council) was in conformity to
Articles 18, 22, 29 and 37 of the Constitution.
The petitioner points out that in the said case the
dispute concerns the peculiarities of writing of the names and
family names of citizens of the Republic of Lithuania who are
of Polish nationality. The Resolution of the Supreme Council
provided that in passports the names and family names of
citizens of the Republic of Lithuania who are of Lithuanian and
non-Lithuanian nationality shall be written in Lithuanian
letters. The petitioner maintains that such regulation might
contradict Articles 18, 22, 29 and 37 of the Constitution.
II
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, the representative of the party
concerned D. Mikulėnienė presented the following written
explanations to the Constitutional Court hearing.
The Resolution of the Supreme Council is in compliance
with Article 14 of the Constitution wherein it is established
that Lithuanian shall be the State language, therefore in the
passport of the citizen of the Republic of Lithuania the names
and family names of individuals, as well as other entries, are
written in the state language of the Republic of Lithuania,
i.e. in Lithuanian letters.
Article 18 of the Constitution providing that the rights
and freedoms of individuals shall be inborn is of common nature
and is not to be linked with the spelling rules peculiar to one
or another language.
Article 22 of the Constitution does not contain any
provision which might be linked with writing of names and
family names in the citizen's passport as the said article
guarantees inviolability of the private life of an individual.
The disputed resolution does not regulate the private life of
an individual as the said resolution concerns only the
passport, i.e. an official document which certifies the
relation of an individual with the state.
Article 29 of the Constitution establishes equality of all
persons. The Resolution of the Supreme Council does not grant
privileges to anyone on the basis of nationality or the
language. The principle is established therein whereby the
names and family names of all citizens of the Republic of
Lithuania must be written in the same manner, i.e. in the state
language.
The disputed resolution which provides for the right of
citizens of Lithuania who are of non-Lithuanian nationality to
retain in their passports the morphological forms (i.e. the
suffixes and inflexions peculiar to the corresponding language)
of their names and family names does not violate the right of
citizens who belong to ethnic communities to foster their
language as provided for in Article 37 of the Constitution. The
resolution does not regulate the use of personal names in
various spheres of unofficial communication, the press of
ethnic minorities etc.
III
In the course of the preparation of the case for judicial
investigation the explanations by G. Balčiūnas, Minister of
Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, R. Pikutis, Acting
Chairman of the Department for Law and International Agreements
at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Lithuania, V. Vadapalas, Director General of the European Law
Department under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania,
T. Birmontienė, Director of the Lithuanian Centre for Human
Rights, L. Bilkis, Acting Head of the Division of the Whole of
Proper Names of the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, were
received wherein its is maintained that the 31 January 1991
Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution "On
Writing of Names and Family Names in Passports of Citizens of
the Republic of Lithuania" is in compliance with the
Constitution.
IV
1. In the Constitutional Court hearing the representative
of the party concerned D. Mikulėnienė virtually reiterated the
arguments set forth in the written explanations.
2. In the Constitutional Court hearing the representative
of the party concerned O. Buišienė presented the following
explanations.
Human rights and fundamental freedoms are established in
Chapter 2 of the Constitution entitled The Individual and the
State. In Article 18 of this chapter the most important and
priority provision is established: "The rights and freedoms of
individuals shall be inborn." This provision is particularised
and developed by the other constitutional norms establishing
individuals' right to life, freedom, inviolability of the
person, dignity and the private life, the right of citizens who
belong to ethnic communities to foster their language, culture,
customs etc.
Article 14 of the Constitution provides that Lithuanian
shall be the state language. The purpose of this norm is to
ensure the identity of the nation as a creator of the state, as
well as national consciousness and self-expression, harmonious
functioning of state authority, bodies of administration,
various institutions, establishments, organisations and
enterprises, and protection of the rights and freedoms of
citizens. Following this constitutional provision, the Seimas
adopted the Republic of Lithuania Law on the State Language
which regulates the use of the state language in the public
life of Lithuania but does not regulate the use of language in
unofficial, informal relations of people in oral communication
or in the events of ethnic communities or those of religious
communities. This is in line with the principles of
inviolability of the private life of an individual, those of
personal correspondence, telephone conversations, telegraph
messages and other intercommunications and those of recognition
and respect of human pride and dignity as established Article
22 of the Constitution.
Under Article 6 of the Law on the Sate Language, heads,
employees and officers of state and local government
institutions, establishments, services, as well as heads,
employees and officers of other institutions must know the
state language according to the language knowledge categories
established by the Government. This requirement is applicable
to all said persons without exceptions including citizens who
belong to ethnic communities. Citizens who belong to ethnic
communities may implement their rights and make use of their
freedoms regardless of the fact whether they know the state
language or not. This is in line with the principle of equality
of people entrenched in Article 29 of the Constitution. Under
the said principle, 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 right of citizens who belong to ethnic communities to
foster their language, culture and customs provided for in
Article 37 of the Constitution is concretised and
particularised in the Law on the State Language. The preamble,
Part 1 of Article 1 and Article 2 of the Law on Ethnic
Minorities promulgate an obligation by the state to guarantee
the implementation of the promulgated human rights. Under Part
3 of the preamble to this law, the residents of Lithuania of
all nationalities must observe the Constitution and the laws,
to protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the
State of Lithuania, take part in the creation of the
independent and democratic state, respect the state language,
the culture of the state, its traditions and customs. The
state, taking account of the interests of ethnic communities,
shall guarantee, under procedure established by laws, their
said rights in the area of language, culture and fostering of
customs, and the right to state support to foster their ethnic
culture and education.
In the opinion of the representative of the party
concerned, the Resolution of the Supreme Council is in
compliance with Articles 18, 22, 29 and 37 of the Constitution.
V
Also the specialist S. Vidtmann, Deputy Director of the
Department for Ethnic Minorities and Emigration under the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania, spoke at the
Constitutional Court hearing. In the opinion of the specialist,
the Resolution of the Supreme Council is conformity to the
Constitution.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. On 31 January 1991, the Supreme Council of the Republic
of Lithuania, taking account of the proposals made by the State
Commission of the Lithuanian Language, by its Resolution "On
Writing of Names and Family Names in Passports of Citizens of
the Republic of Lithuania" established:
"1. In the passport of the citizen of Republic of
Lithuania the names and family names shall be written in
Lithuanian letters according to the Lithuanian entries in
existing passports or other personal documents on the basis
whereof the passport is issued.
2. In the issued passports of citizens of the Republic of
Lithuania the names and family names of individuals of
non-Lithuanian nationality shall be written in Lithuanian
letters. Under a citizen's written request of established form,
his name and family name shall be written:
(a) according to the pronunciation and without conforming
to the grammatical rules (without Lithuanian inflexions)
or
(b) according to the pronunciation and conforming to the
grammatical rules (by adding Lithuanian inflexions).
3. In the issued passports of citizens of the Republic of
Lithuania the names and family names of persons who enjoyed
citizenship of another state may be written according to the
passport of the citizen of the said state or a corresponding
document.
4. The names and family names entered in the passport of
the citizen of the Republic of Lithuania shall be altered under
procedure established by legal acts."
The petitioner-the Vilnius Regional Court-had doubts
whether this Resolution of the Supreme Council was in
compliance with Articles 18, 22, 29 and 37 of the Constitution.
2. Taking account of the motives set down in the petition
of the petitioner, the Constitutional Court will only
investigate the compliance of those norms of the disputed
Resolution of the Supreme Council which regulate writing of
names and family names of individuals of non-Lithuanian
nationality in the passport of the citizen of the Republic of
Lithuania, i.e. those of Item 2 of the Resolution, with the
Constitution.
3. The passport of the citizen of the Republic of
Lithuania is a document certifying the citizenship of the
Republic of Lithuania and personal identity. The name, family
name of the citizen, as well as other data concerning him, are
entered into the passport.
4. Under Article 14 of the Constitution, Lithuanian shall
be the state language. The establishment of the status of the
state language in the Constitution means that Lithuanian is a
constitutional value. The state language preserves the identity
of the nation, it integrates a civil nation, it ensures the
expression of national sovereignty, the integrity and
indivisibility of the state, and a smooth functioning of the
state and local government establishments. The state language
is an important guarantee for the equality of rights of
citizens as it permits all the citizens to associate with state
and local government establishments under the same conditions
and to implement their rights and legitimate interests. The
constitutional establishment of the status of state language
also means that the legislator must establish by law that the
use of this language is ensured in public life, and, in
addition, he must provide for the means of protection of the
state language. Lithuanian, after it has acquired the status of
the state language in the Constitution, must be used in all
state and local government institutions and in all
establishments, enterprises and organisation which are on the
territory of Lithuania; laws and other legal acts must be
promulgated in the state language; office-work, accounting,
accountabilities and financial papers must be in Lithuanian;
state and local government institutions, establishments,
enterprises and organisations correspond with each other in the
state language.
The Constitutional Court emphasises that the
constitutional status of the state language means that
Lithuanian is compulsory only in the public life of Lithuania.
In other spheres of life persons may use any language
acceptable to them without restrictions.
Taking account of the fact that the passport of the
citizen of the Republic of Lithuania is an official document
certifying a permanent legal link between an individual and the
state, i.e. the citizenship of an individual, and the fact that
citizenship relations belong to the sphere of public life of
the state, the name and family name of an individual must be
written in the state language. Otherwise, the constitutional
status of the state language would be denied.
5. Article 18 of the Constitution provides: "The rights
and freedoms of individuals shall be inborn." The norm
entrenched therein is of universal nature. On its basis human
rights and freedoms are secured and protected. The principle
set by this norm is disclosed in the other articles of the
Constitution establishing particular human rights and freedoms.
Therefore, taking into consideration the context of the case at
issue, only after the compliance of the aforesaid resolution
with Articles 22, 29 and 37 of the Constitution pointed out by
the petitioner has been investigated, one will be able to state
whether Item 2 of the Resolution of the Supreme Council is in
compliance with Article 18 of the Constitution.
6. Article 22 of the Constitution provides:
"The private life of an individual shall be inviolable.
Personal correspondence, telephone conversations,
telegraph messages, and other intercommunications shall be
inviolable.
Information concerning the private life of an individual
may be collected only upon a justified court order and in
accordance with the law.
The law and the court shall protect individuals from
arbitrary or unlawful interference in their private or family
life, and from encroachment upon their honour and dignity."
The norms established in this article of the Constitution
protect individuals' right to privacy. This right encompasses
private, family and house life, physical and psychological
inviolability of individuals, his honour and reputation,
secrecy of personal facts and prohibition to publicise received
or acquired confidential information etc. In case the private
life of an individual is interfered in arbitrary and unlawful
manner, then, alongside, his honour and dignity are encroached.
As mentioned, the sphere of compulsory use of the state
language is the public life of Lithuania. Thus, it is not
compulsory in private life where persons use the language
chosen by them. The Resolution of the Supreme Council does not
regulate private life but merely determines writing of names
and family names in the passport of the citizen of the Republic
of Lithuania. Therefore there are no grounds to maintain that
Item 2 of the Resolution of the Supreme Council contradicts
Article 22 of the Constitution.
7. Article 29 of the Constitution provides:
"All persons shall be equal before the law, the court, and
other State institutions and officers.
A person may not have his rights restricted in any way, or
be granted any privileges, on the basis of his or her sex,
race, nationality, language, origin, social status, religion,
convictions, or opinions."
The principle of persons' equality before law and their
non-discrimination is established in these norms. It needs to
be noted that the norms of the Resolution of the Supreme
Council establishing that the name and family name of an
individual shall be written in Lithuanian letters in the
passport of the citizen of the Republic of Lithuania according
to the pronunciation are applicable to all citizens without
exception regardless of their nationality or other
distinctions. It is the matter of the decision of an individual
to what nationality he belongs, i.e. no one save the individual
himself is competent to decide the question of ascription of
this individual to any nationality, therefore it is impossible
to establish any exclusive rules for the use of the state
language by taking account of the nationality of an individual.
Nor may the nationality of an individual serve the basis for
him to demand that the rules arising from the status of the
state language be not applied as far as he is concerned.
Otherwise, the constitutional principle of equality of all
persons before the law might be violated.
Attention is to be paid to the fact that individuals
residing in Lithuania ascribe themselves to more than a hundred
nationalities. Various letters are used in their languages
which often are totally or in part different from Lithuanian
letters. In case legal norms provided that the names and family
names of these citizens had to be written in other,
non-Lithuanian letters, then not only the constitutional
principle of the state language would be denied but also the
activity of state and local government institutions, that of
other enterprises, establishments and organisations would be
disturbed. Due to this citizens would face more difficulties in
implementing their rights and legitimate interests and the
principle of their equality before the law established in the
Constitution would be violated.
Writing of entries in the passport of the citizen of the
Republic of Lithuania in the state language does not deny the
right of citizens attributing themselves to various national
groups to write their names and family names in any language as
long as it is not linked with the sphere of use of the state
language pointed out in the law.
Taking account of the motives set forth, it is to be
concluded that Item 2 of the Resolution of the Supreme Council
does not contradict Article 29 of the Constitution.
8. Article 37 of the Constitution provides: "Citizens who
belong to ethnic communities shall have the right to foster
their language, culture, and customs."
For the ethnic communities residing on the territory of
Lithuania, this constitutional norm guarantees preservation of
their ethnic identity, continuance of their culture and
national self-expression. It needs to be noted that the
Resolution of the Supreme Council regulates relations of
different nature than those regulated by Article 37 of the
Constitution, therefore the said resolution is in compliance
with Article 37 of the Constitution.
9. On stating that Item 2 of the Resolution of the Supreme
Council is in compliance with Articles 22, 29 and 37 of the
Constitution, one does not have grounds to maintain that it
contradicts Article 18 of the Constitution.
Taking account of the motives set forth, one is to draw a
conclusion that Item 2 of the 31 January 1991 Supreme Council
Resolution "On Writing of Names and Family Names in Passports
of Citizens of the Republic of Lithuania" is in compliance with
Articles 18, 22 29 and 37 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 Item 2 of the 31 January 1991 Supreme
Council of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution "On Writing of
Names and Family Names in Passports of Citizens of the Republic
of Lithuania" 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.