Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
D E C I S I O N
On the request of the Šiauliai Regional Court to
investigate whether a claim of the public
prosecutor made for an independent legal person is
mandatory to courts, and whether this is in
compliance with Article 55 of the Republic of
Lithuania Code of Civil Proceedings, Article 3 of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Prosecutor's
Office and the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania, and whether Article 55 of the Republic
of Lithuania Code of Civil Proceedings, Article 32
and Parts 2 and 3 of Article 15 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Prosecutor's Office are in
compliance with the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania and the norms of the Republic of
Lithuania Code of Civil Proceedings regulating
cognizance rules.
Vilnius, 29 September 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, Pranas Vytautas
Sinkevičius, Stasys Stačiokas, and Teodora Staugaitienė,
with the secretary of the sitting-Daiva Pitrėnaitė,
in the organisational sitting of the Constitutional Court
has discussed the request of the Šiauliai Regional Court to
investigate whether a claim of the public prosecutor made for
an independent legal person is mandatory to courts, and whether
this is in compliance with Article 55 of the Republic of
Lithuania Code of Civil Proceedings, Article 3 of the Republic
of Lithuania Law on the Prosecutor's Office and the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and whether Article
55 of the Republic of Lithuania Code of Civil Proceedings,
Article 32 and Parts 2 and 3 of Article 15 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Prosecutor's Office are in compliance with
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the norms of
the Republic of Lithuania Code of Civil Proceedings regulating
cognizance rules.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
The petitioner-the Šiauliai Regional Court-appealed to the
Constitutional Court with petitions requesting to investigate
whether a claim of the public prosecutor made for an
independent legal person is mandatory to courts, and whether
this is in compliance with Article 55 of the Republic of
Lithuania Code of Civil Proceedings, Article 3 of the Republic
of Lithuania Law on the Prosecutor's Office (Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 1994, No. 81-1514) and the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania, and whether Article 55 of the
Republic of Lithuania Code of Civil Proceedings, Article 32 and
Parts 2 and 3 of Article 15 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
the Prosecutor's Office are in compliance with the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania and the norms of the Republic of
Lithuania Code of Civil Proceedings regulating cognizance
rules.
II
The petitioner grounds his request on the following
arguments.
1. Under Part 1 of Article 3 of the Republic of Lithuania
Law on the Prosecutor's Office, legally grounded claims issued
by officials of prosecutor's office shall be mandatory to all
persons, therefore claims of prosecutors filed with courts have
become unconditionally mandatory as this is tolerated by the
Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Lithuania.
2. Article 55 of the Republic of Lithuania Code of Civil
Proceedings provides for an opportunity for a public prosecutor
to issue claims so that legally protected rights and interests
of the state and those of other persons might be protected.
This article is particularised by Articles 31 and 32 of the Law
on the Prosecutor's Office. Article 118 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania determines the powers of the
prosecutor in criminal cases only, while his powers concerning
civil cases are not provided for therein. In addition, not a
single article or chapter of the Constitution mentions his
functions concerning issuance of claims for individual legal
persons. In cases when claims are issued by the prosecutor, the
payment of the stamp tax into the budget is evaded, thus the
prosecutor causes damage to state property interests.
3. Under Article 15 of the Law on the Prosecutor's Office,
the powers of district and region prosecutors are confined by
the limits of their territory which corresponds with that of
the court, and only on the commission of the Prosecutor General
may the officials of the prosecutor's office fulfil the
functions of the public prosecutor in other territories or at
another court.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
Under Article 105 of the Constitution and Article 1 of the
Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court shall
investigate and decide whether the laws and other legal acts
adopted by the Seimas are in conformity with the Constitution,
and whether the acts adopted by the President of the Republic
or the Government correspond with the Constitution and laws.
Article 55 of the Republic of Lithuania Code of Civil
Proceedings provides for participation of the public prosecutor
in civil proceedings in order to protect the rights of the
state and those of other persons. The Republic of Lithuania Law
on the Prosecutor's Office provides for the right of the
prosecutor's office and its officials, under the procedure
established by laws and protecting the legitimate interests of
the state and infringed rights of persons, to prepare civil
cases for their subsequent filing with a court and take part
during their investigation in court (Item 7 of Article 1). The
same law provides for an obligation for the prosecutor's office
and its officials, whereby on establishment of violations of
the law, by taking account of these violations, to issue claims
and statements in court, and to participate in court
proceedings during the investigation of civil cases which have
been instituted on the initiative of the prosecutor (Items 1
and 2 of Article 32).
The investigation of the request of the petitioner-the
Šiauliai Regional Court-to establish whether a claim of the
public prosecutor made for individual legal person under the
common rules of transactions under Article 253 and Article 270
of the Republic of Lithuania Civil Code and the other norms of
the Civil Code regulating liabilities are mandatory to courts
as well as that requesting to establish whether the public
prosecutor is empowered to file a claim with a court which is
in a different region without the commission of the Office of
the Prosecutor General are not within the competence of the
Constitutional Court. The Šiauliai Regional Court had doubts
regarding the rectitude of application of the norms of the Code
of Civil Proceedings and those of the Law on the Prosecutor's
Office but not the compliance of the legal act which must be
applied in a particular case with the Constitution (Part 1 of
Article 67 of the Law on the Constitutional Court). It is the
same regional court that has to remove these doubts by
construing the applied norms. Part 1 of Article 102 and Article
105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, Article 1
and Article 63 of the Law on the Constitutional Court do "not
entitle the Constitutional Court to the right to elucidate the
application of laws" (the 11 July 1994 Constitutional Court
decision), therefore, under Item 2 of Part 1 of Article 69 of
the Law on the Constitutional Court, this constitutes grounds
to refuse to investigate the request.
The investigation of the request of the petitioner to
establish whether a claim of the public prosecutor made for
individual legal person under the common rules of transactions
under Article 253 and Article 270 of the Republic of Lithuania
Civil Code and the other norms of the Civil Code regulating
liabilities is in compliance with Article 55 of the Republic of
Lithuania Code of Civil Proceedings, Article 3 of the Republic
of Lithuania Law on the Prosecutor's Office and the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania is not within the
competence of the Constitutional Court. Part 1 of Article 102
and Article 105 of the Constitution and Article 1 and Article
63 of the Law on the Constitutional Court do not grant the
right to the Constitutional Court to investigate and decide
whether the legal acts adopted by the prosecutor are in
conformity with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
and the laws. Under Item 2 of Part 1 of Article 69 of the Law
on the Constitutional Court this constitutes the grounds to
refuse to investigate the request.
The investigation of the request to establish whether
Article 55 of the Republic of Lithuania Code of Civil
Proceedings, Article 32 and Parts 2 and 3 of Article 15 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on the Prosecutor's Office are in
compliance with the norms of the Republic of Lithuania Code of
Civil Proceedings regulating cognizance rules is not within the
competence of the Constitutional Court. In this case the court
requests to decide, in its opinion, the question of existence
of the rivalry of the legal norms in the Code of Civil
Proceedings and that of inter-compatibility of different norms
of the legal acts of the same power (Republic of Lithuania Code
of Civil Proceedings and Republic of Lithuania Law on the
Prosecutor's Office). Part 1 of Article 102 and Article 105 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, Article 1 and
Article 63 of the Law on the Constitutional Court do not grant
the right to the Constitutional Court to investigate questions
of compatibility of legal norms (this is a prerogative of the
legislator) and those of application of laws (this is a duty of
the state institution applying the law), therefore, under Item
2 of Part 1 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court, this constitutes grounds to refuse to investigate the
request.
Conforming to Part 2 of Article 25, Article 28 and Item 2
of Part 1 of Article 69 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on the
Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court has adopted the
following
decision:
1. To adopt the request to investigate whether Article 55
of the Republic of Lithuania Code of Civil Proceedings, Article
32 and Parts 2 and 3 of Article 15 of the Republic of Lithuania
Law on the Prosecutor's Office are in compliance with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and to begin to
prepare the case for the procedural court sitting.
2. To refuse to investigate the request to establish
whether a claim of the public prosecutor made for individual
legal person under the common rules of transactions under
Article 253 and Article 270 of the Republic of Lithuania Civil
Code and the other norms of the Civil Code regulating
liabilities are mandatory to courts.
3. To refuse to investigate the request whether the public
prosecutor is empowered to file a claim with a court which is
in a different region without the commission of the Office of
the Prosecutor General.
4. To refuse to investigate the request to establish
whether a claim of the public prosecutor made for individual
legal person under the common rules of transactions under
Article 253 and Article 270 of the Republic of Lithuania Civil
Code and the other norms of the Civil Code regulating
liabilities are in compliance with Article 55 of the Republic
of Lithuania Code of Civil Proceedings, Article 3 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law On the Prosecutor's Office and the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
5. To refuse to investigate the request to establish
whether Article 55 of the Republic of Lithuania Code of Civil
Proceedings and Article 32 and Parts 2 and 3 of Article 15 of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Prosecutor's Office are in
compliance with the norms of the Republic of Lithuania Code of
Civil Proceedings regulating cognizance rules
Judges of the Constitutional Court:
Egidijus Jarašiūnas
Egidijus Kūris
Zigmas Levickis
Augustinas Normantas
Vladas Pavilonis
Jonas Prapiestis
Vytautas Sinkevičius
Stasys Stačiokas
Teodora Staugaitienė