Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
R U L I N G
On the compliance of Paragraph 1 of Article 55 of
the Republic of Lithuania Code of Civil Procedure
and Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 15 and Item 1 of
Paragraph 2 of Article 32 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Prosecutor's Office with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
Vilnius, 22 February 2001
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 representative of the party concerned-the Seimas of
the Republic of Lithuania-Jurgis Orlauskas, a senior consultant
to the Law Department of the Office of the Seimas,
pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Article 102 of the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania and Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Constitutional Court, on
14 February 2001 in its public hearing conducted the
investigation of Case No. 19/99 subsequent to the petition
submitted to the Court by the petitioner-the Šiauliai Regional
Court-requesting to investigate if Article 55 of the Republic
of Lithuania Code of Civil Procedure and Paragraphs 2 and 3 of
Article 15 as well as Article 32 of the Republic of Lithuania
Law on the Prosecutor's Office were in compliance with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
1. The petitioner-the Šiauliai Regional Court-was
investigating a civil case. By its ruling of 9 July 1999 the
said court suspended the investigation of the case and appealed
to the Constitutional Court requesting investigation of:
1) whether bringing in an action for an independent legal
person pursuant to the common rules of transactions according
to Articles 253, 270 of the Republic of Lithuania Civil Code
(hereinafter referred to as the CC) and other norms of the CC
regulating liabilities is compulsory to courts;
2) whether bringing in an action for an independent legal
person pursuant to the common rules of transactions according
to Articles 253, 270 of the CC and other norms of the CC
regulating liabilities is in compliance with the Constitution,
Article 55 of the Republic of Lithuania Code of Civil Procedure
(hereinafter also referred to as the CCP) and Article 3 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on the Prosecutor's Office;
3) whether Article 55 of the CCP and Article 32 of the Law
on the Prosecutor's Office are in compliance with the
Constitution;
4) whether Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 15 of the Law on
the Prosecutor's Office are in compliance with the
Constitution.
5) whether Article 55 of the CCP and Paragraphs 2 and 3 of
Article 15 and Article 32 of the Law on the Prosecutor's Office
are in conformity with the norms of the CCP regulating
cognizance rules.
In addition, in its ruling the Šiauliai Regional Court
expressed doubts whether it is within a prosecutor's competence
to bring in an action at a court of another region without
instruction by the Office of the Prosecutor General of the
Republic of Lithuania.
2. By its decision of 29 September 1999, the
Constitutional Court accepted the petition of the petitioner
requesting investigation of the compliance of Article 55 of the
CCP (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1994, No. 93-1809) and
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 15 and Article 32 of the Law on
the Prosecutor's Office (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, No.
81-1514) with the Constitution. By this decision the
Constitutional Court refused to investigate the following
requests: to investigate whether bringing in an action for an
independent legal person pursuant to the common rules of
transactions according to Articles 253, 270 and other norms of
the CC regulating liabilities is compulsory to courts and
whether bringing in of such an action is in compliance with the
Constitution, Article 55 of the CCP and Article 3 of the Law on
the Prosecutor's Office; to investigate whether Article 55 of
the CCP and Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 15 and Article 32 of
the Law on the Prosecutor's Office are in conformity with the
norms of the CCP regulating cognizance rules; to investigate
whether it is within a prosecutor's competence to bring in an
action at a court of another region without instruction by the
Office of the Prosecutor General.
II
1. The request of the petitioner regarding investigation
of the compliance of Article 55 of the CCP and Article 32 of
the Law on the Prosecutor's Office with the Constitution is
based on the following arguments.
Article 55 of the CCP provides for an opportunity for a
prosecutor to bring in an action so that the rights and
interests of the state and other persons safeguarded by laws
would be protected. In the opinion of the petitioner, this norm
of the CCP is particularised by Article 32 of the Law on the
Prosecutor's Office wherein, inter alia, it is provided that
the prosecutor, having found out violations of law, taking
account of their nature, must bring actions and applications in
courts; participate in judicial hearings in which the civil
cases instituted on the initiative of the prosecutor are
considered; lodge appeals against unlawful or unjustified court
judgements, decisions and rulings in the said cases. The
petitioner is of the opinion that, by bringing in an action, a
prosecutor inflicts damage on property interests of the state,
as in such cases the stamp tax is not paid. Meanwhile, the
Constitution does not provide for the function of the
prosecutor to bring in actions for independent legal persons.
His competence in civil cases is not provided for. According to
the petitioner, Article 118 of the Constitution provides for
the competence of prosecutors in criminal cases only.
2. The request of the petitioner regarding investigation
of the compliance of Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 15 of the
Law on the Prosecutor's Office with the Constitution is based
on the following arguments.
In the said article the powers of regional and district
prosecutors are bound by their territory which corresponds to
the territory of the court. Officers of the prosecutor's office
may discharge functions of the prosecutor in other areas or
courts as well, however, only upon the instruction of the
Prosecutor General. Meanwhile, as it is pointed out by the
petitioner, in the case investigated by the Šiauliai Regional
Court, the prosecutor brought in an action without being
empowered by the Prosecutor General. According to the
petitioner, this is incompatible with the provisions of
Articles 5, 109, 114 and 118 of the Constitution.
III
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, a written explanation was
received from the representative of the party concerned J.
Orlauskas.
1. In the opinion of the representative of the party
concerned, the disputed provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 55
of the CCP that in cases provided by laws the prosecutor may
appeal to court with a petition so that the rights and
interests of the state and other persons safeguarded by laws
would be protected, is virtually equivalent to the provision of
earlier in force Article 53 of CCP that "the prosecutor may
appeal to court with a petition so that the rights and
interests of the state and other persons safeguarded by laws
would be protected". It is pointed out in the explanation that
by its ruling of 15 February 1994, the Constitutional Court
recognised that the latter provision was in compliance with the
Constitution, therefore, in the opinion of J. Orlauskas, the
question of the compliance of disputed Paragraph 1 of Article
55 of the CCP with the Constitution has been decided. Due to
analogous motives, the provisions of Article 32 of the Law on
the Prosecutor's Office, concerning the rights and duties of
the prosecutor in the course of the preparation of material for
institution of a civil case in court and his participation in
judicial investigation of the case, are also in compliance with
the Constitution.
2. The representative of the party concerned also pointed
out that the Constitution does not establish particular
territories for activities of the institutions of the
prosecutor's office. Therefore, in his opinion, disputed
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 15 of the Law on the Prosecutor's
Office are in compliance with the Constitution.
IV
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, a written explanation was
received form then Prosecutor General K. Pėdnyčia, wherein it
is maintained that the disputed articles (paragraphs thereof)
of the CCP and the Law on the Prosecutor's Office were in
conformity with the Constitution.
V
At the Constitutional Court hearing, the representative of
the party concerned J. Orlauskas virtually reiterated the
arguments set down in his written explanation.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. The petitioner requests the Constitutional Court to
investigate whether Article 55 of the CCP and Paragraphs 2 and
3 of Article 15 and Article 32 of the Law on the Prosecutor's
Office are in compliance with the Constitution.
2. Article 55 of the CCP entitled "Participation of the
Prosecutor, State Administration Institutions, Enterprises,
Establishments and Organisations, Natural Persons Who Protect
the Rights of the State and Other Persons in the Procedure"
provides:
"In cases provided for by laws the prosecutor, state
administration institutions, enterprises, establishments and
organisations, as well as natural persons, may appeal to court
with a petition so that the rights and interests of the state
and other persons safeguarded by laws would be protected.
In cases provided for by laws state administration bodies
may be included, by a court order, to participate in the
procedure, or enter into the procedure on their own initiative
so that they would present a conclusion in a case in attempt to
carry out the duties commissioned to them and would protect the
rights of persons and the state interests.
The participation of the aforementioned state
administration bodies in the procedure to present a conclusion
regarding the case is obligatory in case the court recognises
it necessary."
3. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 15 "Powers of Officers of
the Prosecutor's Office in the Territory of the Republic of
Lithuania" of the Law on the Prosecutor's Office provide:
"2. Officers of region and district prosecutor's offices
shall fulfil the powers within their competence in the
territory of the region or district assigned to them and
corresponding to the territory of the respective court of
justice.
3. On the instruction of the Prosecutor General, officers
of the prosecutor's office may also perform the functions of
the prosecutor in another territory or town."
4. Article 32 "The Rights and Duties of the Prosecutor in
Preparing Material for Instituting Civil Proceedings in Court
and Participating in the Hearing" of the Law on the
Prosecutor's Office provides:
"1. When preparing material for instituting civil
proceedings in court, the prosecutor shall have the right to:
1) request that bodies of state administration and
subordinate institutions, state controlled bodies, local
governments, enterprises, establishments, organisations and
banks as well as parties and public organisations present
standard and other legal acts, documents and other information;
2) to charge heads and other officers of bodies of state
administration and state control, enterprises, establishments
and organisations to carry out checks, audits, expert
examinations and to present findings;
3) to summon citizens and officers and receive their
explanations concerning violations of law; and
4) as necessary, perform direct in situ investigation of
the circumstances of violations of civil interest specified in
the applications.
2. Upon establishing violations of law, the prosecutor,
taking into account the character of the violations, must:
1) in the manner established by the law on civil procedure
bring actions and file applications in court; and
2) participate in civil proceedings initiated on the
prosecutor's initiative, appeal against unlawful or unjustified
judgements, decisions or rulings of the court passed in the
said cases."
5. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the
Constitutional Court will investigate whether the provision "in
cases provided for by laws the prosecutor <...> may appeal to
court with a petition so that the rights and interests of the
state and other persons safeguarded by laws would be protected"
of Paragraph 1 of Article 55 of the CCP and Paragraphs 2 and 3
of Article 15 and Item 1 of Paragraph 2 of Article 32 of the
Law on the Prosecutor's Office, which are disputed by the
petitioner, are in compliance with Article 5, Paragraphs 1, 2
and 3 of Article 109, Paragraph 1 of Article 114 and Paragraphs
1 and 3 of Article 118 of the Constitution.
II
On the compliance of the provision "in cases provided for
by laws the prosecutor <...> may appeal to court with a petition
so that the rights and interests of the state and other persons
safeguarded by laws would be protected" of Paragraph 1 of
Article 55 of the Code of Civil Procedure with Paragraphs 1 and
3 of Article 118 of the Constitution.
1. According to the petitioner, the provision "in cases
provided for by laws the prosecutor <...> may appeal to court
with a petition so that the rights and interests of the state
and other persons safeguarded by laws would be protected" of
Paragraph 1 of Article 55 of the CCP conflicts with Paragraphs
1 and 3 of Article 118 of the Constitution.
2. Paragraph 1 of Article 118 of the Constitution
provides: "Public prosecutors shall prosecute criminal cases on
behalf of the State, shall carry out criminal prosecutions, and
shall supervise the activities of the interrogative bodies",
while Paragraph 3 thereof stipulates: "The procedure for the
appointment of public prosecutors and investigators and their
status shall be established by law".
3. Paragraph 1 of Article 118 of the Constitution
establishes the functions of prosecutors, i.e. prosecution of
criminal cases on behalf of the state, carrying out criminal
prosecutions, and supervision of the activities of the
interrogative bodies. It needs to be noted that, under the
Constitution, only the prosecutors may prosecute criminal cases
on behalf of the state, carry out criminal prosecutions, and
supervise the activities of the interrogative bodies. This is
their exceptional competence.
As mentioned, under Paragraph 3 of Article 118 of the
Constitution, the procedure for the appointment of public
prosecutors and their status shall be established by law.
Establishing the status of prosecutors, taking account of the
functions of prosecutors entrenched in Paragraph 1 of Article
118 of the Constitution, the legislator has the competence to
determine the place of prosecutors in the system of state
institutions, to establish powers of prosecutors, to regulate
arrangement of prosecutors' activities and procedures, as well
as to regulate professional and other requirements for
prosecutors, to establish guarantees of their activities etc.
In this area the legislator enjoys discretion within the limits
of the Constitution.
4. The formula "the rights and interests of the state and
other persons safeguarded by laws" employed in Paragraph 1 of
Article 55 of the CCP is to be construed as including the
rights and interests of the state and various persons in cases
of infringement whereof the public interest would be violated
also. Alongside, the said formula is to be construed as
including such rights and interests which cannot, due to
certain circumstances, be defended by their direct possessor by
himself or who has very restricted opportunities to defend
them, which also covers his appeal to court. Attention must be
paid to the fact that in its 14 February 1994 ruling the
Constitutional Court noted that "in case some circumstances
aggravate the opportunity to exercise one's right to legal
protection or make it impossible at all, the pretentious
character of said constitutional right would have to be
recognized. Therefore, empowerment of state institutions or
their officials by law in order to help people in necessary
cases to realize the protection of their constitutional rights,
is expedient and justifiable but only on condition that it is
in compliance with the Constitution".
The legislator is entitled to establish the limits of
public interest in particular relations (Constitutional Court
ruling of 6 May 1997), thus, without violating the
Constitution, the laws may provide for the situations and
procedure when the authorised institutions and officials may
defend the public interest in court. The disputed provision of
Paragraph 1 of Article 55 of the CCP provides that "in cases
provided for by laws" the prosecutor may appeal to court with a
petition so that the rights and interests of the state and
other persons safeguarded by laws would be protected.
5. The disputed provision of Article 55 of the CCP was set
down in Paragraph 33 of Article I of the 8 November 1994 Law
"On Amending and Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania Code
of Civil Procedure" (hereinafter referred to as the law of 8
November 1994). By Paragraph 32 of Article I of the same law,
earlier in force Article 53 of the CCP was abolished, in which
inter alia it had been established that the prosecutor was
entitled to bring in an action if this is required by the
protection of the interests of society and the state or the
rights and interests of citizens safeguarded by laws.
The Constitutional Court notes that after abolishment of
until then in force Article 53 of the CCP and setting down of
Paragraph 1 of Article 55 of the CCP anew by the law of 8
November 1994, the legal regulation establishing the right of
the prosecutor to appeal to court with a petition so that the
rights and interests of the state and other persons safeguarded
by laws would be protected has remained virtually intact.
In its ruling of 14 February 1994, the Constitutional
Court held that then in force provisions of Article 53 of the
CCP pertaining to the prosecutor's right to submit a petition
to court for the protection of other persons' rights and state
interests safeguarded by laws did not contradict the
Constitution.
6. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that the provision "in cases provided for by laws the
prosecutor <...> may appeal to court with a petition so that the
rights and interests of the state and other persons safeguarded
by laws would be protected" of Paragraph 1 of Article 55 of the
CCP is in compliance with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 118 of
the Constitution.
III
On the compliance of the provision "in cases provided for
by laws the prosecutor <...> may appeal to court with a petition
so that the rights and interests of the state and other persons
safeguarded by laws would be protected" of Paragraph 1 of
Article 55 of the Code of Civil Procedure with Paragraphs 1, 2
and 3 of Article 109 of the Constitution.
1. According to the petitioner, the provision "in cases
provided for by laws the prosecutor <...> may appeal to court
with a petition so that the rights and interests of the state
and other persons safeguarded by laws would be protected" of
Paragraph 1 of Article 55 of the CCP conflicts with Paragraphs
1, 2 and 3 of Article 109 of the Constitution.
2. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 109 of the
Constitution provide:
"In the Republic of Lithuania, the courts shall have the
exclusive right to administer justice.
While administering justice, judges and courts shall be
independent.
While investigating cases, judges shall obey only the
law."
3. The right of the prosecutor to appeal to court with a
petition so that the rights and interests of the state and
other persons safeguarded by laws would be protected which is
entrenched in Paragraph 1 of Article 55 of the CCP does not
mean that the function of administration of justice is
attributed to the prosecutor; this provision does not deny the
provisions of the Constitution that, while administering
justice, judges and courts shall be independent, and that,
while investigating cases, judges shall obey only the law. The
disputed legal regulation does not create legal preconditions
for the prosecutor to interfere with administration of justice
nor to violate the independence of judges and courts enshrined
in the Constitution.
4. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that the provision "in cases provided for by laws the
prosecutor <...> may appeal to court with a petition so that the
rights and interests of the state and other persons safeguarded
by laws would be protected" of Paragraph 1 of Article 55 of the
CCP is in compliance with Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 109
of the Constitution.
IV
On the compliance of the provision "in cases provided for
by laws the prosecutor <...> may appeal to court with a petition
so that the rights and interests of the state and other persons
safeguarded by laws would be protected" of Paragraph 1 of
Article 55 of the Code of Civil Procedure with Paragraph 1 of
Article 114 of the Constitution.
1. According to the petitioner, the provision "in cases
provided for by laws the prosecutor <...> may appeal to court
with a petition so that the rights and interests of the state
and other persons safeguarded by laws would be protected" of
Paragraph 1 of Article 55 of the CCP conflicts with Paragraph 1
of Article 114 of the Constitution.
2. Paragraph 1 of Article 114 of the Constitution
provides: "Institutions of State power and administration,
members of the Seimas and other officers, political parties,
political or public organizations, and citizens shall be
prohibited from interfering with the activities of a judge or
the court, and violation of this shall incur liability provided
by law."
The provisions of Article 114 of the Constitution are
directly linked with the constitutional principle of
independence of judges and courts. The said principle is
particularised therein.
3. As held in this Ruling, the provision "in cases
provided for by laws the prosecutor <...> may appeal to court
with a petition so that the rights and interests of the state
and other persons safeguarded by laws would be protected" of
Paragraph 1 of Article 55 of the CCP does not create legal
preconditions for the prosecutor to interfere with
administration of justice nor to violate the independence of
judges and courts enshrined in the Constitution. The right of
the prosecutor to appeal to court with a petition so that the
rights and interests of the state and other persons safeguarded
by laws would be protected does not create legal preconditions
for the prosecutor to interfere with activities of judges or
courts.
4. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that the provision "in cases provided for by laws the
prosecutor <...> may appeal to court with a petition so that the
rights and interests of the state and other persons safeguarded
by laws would be protected" of Paragraph 1 of Article 55 of the
CCP is in compliance with Paragraph 1 of Article 114 of the
Constitution.
V
On the compliance of the provision "in cases provided for
by laws the prosecutor <...> may appeal to court with a petition
so that the rights and interests of the state and other persons
safeguarded by laws would be protected" of Paragraph 1 of
Article 55 of the Code of Civil Procedure with Article 5 of the
Constitution.
1. According to the petitioner, the provision "in cases
provided for by laws the prosecutor <...> may appeal to court
with a petition so that the rights and interests of the state
and other persons safeguarded by laws would be protected" of
Paragraph 1 of Article 55 of the CCP conflicts with Article 5
of the Constitution.
2. Article 5 of the Constitution provides:
"In Lithuania, the powers of the State shall be exercised
by the Seimas, the President of the Republic and the
Government, and the Judiciary.
The scope of powers shall be defined by the Constitution.
Institutions of power shall serve the people."
3. By establishing the right of the prosecutor to appeal
to court with a petition so that the rights and interests of
the state and other persons safeguarded by laws would be
protected, one does not interfere with the powers of the
institutions which exercise state powers and which are pointed
out in Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Constitution, nor
violates separation of powers, independence and balance between
state powers established in the Constitution, nor creates legal
preconditions for violation of the principle enshrined in
Paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Constitution whereby
institutions of power shall serve the people.
4. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that the provision "in cases provided for by
laws the prosecutor <...> may appeal to court with a petition so
that the rights and interests of the state and other persons
safeguarded by laws would be protected" of Paragraph 1 of
Article 55 of the CCP is in compliance with Article 5 of the
Constitution.
VI
On the compliance of Item 1 of Paragraph 2 of Article 32
of the Law on the Prosecutor's Office with Article 5,
Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 109, Paragraph 1 of Article
114 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 118 of the Constitution.
1. According to the petitioner, Item 1 of Paragraph 2 of
Article 32 of the Law on the Prosecutor's Office conflicts with
Article 5, Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 109, Paragraph 1 of
Article 114 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 118 of the
Constitution.
2. The disputed norm of Item 1 of Paragraph 2 of Article
32 of the Law on the Prosecutor's Office is a blanket one: it
indicates to the law on civil procedure. Under the disputed
norm, the prosecutor has the right to bring actions and file
applications in court only if this is provided in the law on
civil procedure and only under procedure established in the law
on civil procedure.
As held in this Ruling, the provision "in cases provided
for by laws the prosecutor <...> may appeal to court with a
petition so that the rights and interests of the state and
other persons safeguarded by laws would be protected" of
Paragraph 1 of Article 55 of the CCP is in compliance with
Article 5, Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 109, Paragraph 1 of
Article 114 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 118 of the
Constitution.
3. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that Item 1 of Paragraph 2 of Article 32 of the Law on
the Prosecutor's Office is in compliance with Article 5,
Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 109, Paragraph 1 of Article
114 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 118 of the Constitution.
VII
On the compliance of Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 15 of
the Law on the Prosecutor's Office with Article 5, Paragraphs
1, 2 and 3 of Article 109, Paragraph 1 of Article 114 and
Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 118 of the Constitution.
1. According to the petitioner, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of
Article 15 of the Law on the Prosecutor's Office conflict with
Article 5, Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 109, Paragraph 1 of
Article 114 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 118 of the
Constitution.
2. As held in this Ruling, the legislator, establishing
the status of prosecutors, taking account of the functions of
prosecutors entrenched in Paragraph 1 of Article 118 of the
Constitution, enjoys discretion within the limits of the
Constitution to determine the place of prosecutors in the
system of state institutions, to establish powers of
prosecutors, to regulate arrangement of prosecutors' activities
and procedures. Paragraph 2 of Article 15 of the Law on the
Prosecutor's Office provides that officers of region and
district prosecutor's offices shall fulfil the powers within
their competence in the territory of the area or district
assigned to them and corresponding to the territory of the
respective court of justice, while Paragraph 3 thereof provides
that on the instruction of the Prosecutor General, officers of
the prosecutor's office may also perform the functions of the
prosecutor in another territory or town. Article 5, Paragraphs
1, 2 and 3 of Article 109, Paragraph 1 of Article 114 and
Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 118 of the Constitution do not
regulate these relations.
3. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 15 of the Law on
the Prosecutor's Office are in compliance with Article 5,
Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 109, Paragraph 1 of Article
114 and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 118 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 of the Republic of Lithuania has passed
the following
ruling:
1. To recognise that the provision "in cases provided for
by laws the prosecutor <...> may appeal to court with a petition
so that the rights and interests of the state and other persons
safeguarded by laws would be protected" of Paragraph 1 of
Article 55 of the Republic of Lithuania Code of Civil Procedure
is in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania.
2. To recognise that Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 15 and
Item 1 of Paragraph 2 of Article 32 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Prosecutor's Office are in compliance with
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
This Constitutional Court ruling is final and not subject
to appeal.
The ruling is promulgated on behalf of the Republic of
Lithuania.