Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
R U L I N G
On the compliance of Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 of
Article 5, Item 3 of Article 12 and Paragraph 3 of
Article 16 as well as Item 5 of Paragraph 9 of the
same article of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
the Restoration of Citizens' Rights of Ownership
to the Existing Real Property with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and on
the compliance of Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 of
Article 5 as well as Item 3 of Article 12 of the
same law with Article 8 of the Constitutional Law
on the Subjects, Procedure, Terms, Conditions and
Restrictions of the Acquisition into Ownership of
Land Plots Provided for in Paragraph 2 of Article
47 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania
Vilnius, 2 April 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 representatives of the petitioner-a group of members
of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania-Saulius Pečeliūnas,
Rytas Kupčinskas, Vladas Vilimas, and the advocate Adolfas
Povilas Zamalaitis,
the representative of the party concerned Vidas
Stankevičius, a senior consultant of the Law Department of the
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania,
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
28 February-1 March 2001 in its public hearing conducted the
investigation of Case No. 18/99 subsequent to the petition
submitted to the Court by the petitioner-a group of members of
the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania-requesting the Court to
investigate if Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Article 5, Item 3
of Article 12 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on the
Restoration of Citizens' Rights of Ownership to the Existing
Real Property were in compliance with the common provisions of
the same law, Articles 23, 29, 46 and 47 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania, Articles 15 and 21 of the Republic
of Lithuania Law on Land, Article 8 of the Constitutional Law
on the Subjects, Procedure, Terms, Conditions and Restrictions
of the Acquisition into Ownership of Land Plots Provided for in
Paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania, and whether the second sentence of Paragraph 3 of
Article 16 and Item 5 of Paragraph 9 of Article 16 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on the Restoration of Citizens'
Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property were in
compliance with Paragraph 3 of Article 23 and Article 29 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
On 1 July 1997, the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
passed the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Restoration of
Citizens' Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1997, No. 65-1558). On 13
May 1999, the Republic of Lithuania Law "On Amending and
Supplementing Articles 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21
of the Law on the Restoration of Citizens' Rights of Ownership
to the Existing Real Property" (Official Gazette Valstybės
žinios, 1999, No. 48-1522) was adopted.
The petitioner-a group of Seimas members-requests the
Constitutional Court to investigate whether Paragraphs 2, 3, 4,
and 5 of Article 5 and Item 3 of Article 12 of the Law on the
Restoration of Citizens' Rights of Ownership to the Existing
Real Property (wording of 13 May 1999; hereinafter also
referred to as the Law) are in compliance with the common
provisions of the same law, Articles 23, 29, 46 and 47 of the
Constitution, Articles 15 and 21 of the Law on Land, Article 8
of the Constitutional Law on the Subjects, Procedure, Terms,
Conditions and Restrictions of the Acquisition into Ownership
of Land Plots Provided for in Paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the
Constitution (hereinafter also referred to as the
Constitutional Law), and on whether the second sentence of
Paragraph 3 of Article 16 and Item 5 of Paragraph 9 of Article
16 of the Law on the Restoration of Citizens' Rights of
Ownership to the Existing Real Property are in compliance with
Paragraph 3 of Article 23 and Article 29 of the Constitution.
II
The request of the petitioner is based on the following
arguments.
1. Certain norms of the Law are not in line with the norms
of the Constitution and common norms of the Law wherein it is
underlined that the rights of ownership acquired by citizens of
the Republic of Lithuania prior to the occupation shall not be
abolished and that they shall enjoy continuity, that the
Constitution shall guarantee and protect the rights and
property of the state and its citizens, that citizens of the
Republic of Lithuania shall be given back the existing real
property, while in the absence of such an opportunity, they
shall be fairly compensated. It is emphasised in the common
provisions of the Law that the existing real property must,
first of all, be returned in kind, and only in the absence of
such an opportunity, the property may be bought out.
2. The petitioner maintains that Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5
of Article 5 of the Law do not provide for returning of the
land in kind, which, prior to 1 June 1995, was situated within
the territories attributed to towns, to the owners who hold
houses or other buildings by the right of ownership. Nor is it
provided to return the land in kind in cases when it is vacant,
not used by anyone, used to satisfy non-public needs or when it
is planned to be used for residential houses construction,
common use of residents or for other public needs in the future
according to planning projects of these vacant territories. It
is impossible to base the non-returning of this land in kind on
public needs as other persons acquire this land for personal
use. Therefore, the petitioner has doubts whether Paragraphs 2,
3, 4 and 5 of Article 5 of the Law are in compliance with
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution.
3. Under the provisions of Article 4 of the Law, in the
course of restoration of the rights to the land lying in a
rural area, vacant, used for non-public needs land or that
which is planned to be utilised for residential houses
construction, public use of residents, or public needs in the
future, as well as the land, which is used or leased by natural
and legal persons or personal enterprises for exploitation of
buildings (under construction or already built), buildings in
places of rest (under construction or already built) which they
hold by the right of ownership, is returned in kind for the
owners, however the land of the same status lying in a town is
not returned. In addition, Paragraph 6 of Article 5 of the Law
provides that the rights of ownership to land situated within
the territories of local governments of the towns of Vilnius,
Kaunas, Klaipėda, Šiauliai, Panevėžys, Alytus, Marijampolė,
Druskininkai, Palanga and Birštonas, which was attributed to
the local governments of these towns after 1 June 1995, shall
be restored in the manner prescribed by Article 4 of this Law
by giving it back in kind. The petitioner is of the opinion
that Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 5 of the Law conflict
with Article 29 of the Constitution as the said paragraphs of
the Law violate the provisions of protection of ownership
rights of citizens and that the rights of ownership are
infringed on the grounds of the social status and origin of
citizens or of property formerly held by them.
4. Paragraph 1 of Article 47 of the Constitution provides
that land, internal waters, forests, and parks may only belong
to the citizens and the State of the Republic of Lithuania by
the right of ownership. The petitioner has doubts whether
Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 5 of the Law are in
compliance with Article 47 of the Constitution, as they do not
require that state-owned land be separated from the pre-war
private land. Due to this, the legal registration of
state-owned land plots is, as a rule, not carried out according
to the procedure provided for in Article 12 of the Law on Land.
One does not pay heed to the 1940 Lithuanian legal cadastre of
land. Due to the fact that the state-owned land plots in
territories of towns are not separated from pre-war private
land plots, the land seized on the grounds of the
nationalisation of land carried out by the occupation
government is granted to other citizens into ownership as
state-owned land. The petitioner thinks that such transfer of
the pre-war private land to other persons conflicts with
Article 47 of the Constitution as, under Articles 15 and 21 of
the Law on Land, land becomes state-owned only after it has
been registered in the name of the state in the register of the
land cadastre. Concerning this issue, the petitioner has doubts
because the provision consolidated in Article 8 of the
Constitutional Law, which went into effect on 1 February 1998,
prohibits the subjects possessing pre-war private land to sell
it prior to restoration of citizens' rights of ownership to it
and prior to the registration of land ownership in accordance
with the procedure established by law.
5. In the opinion of the petitioner, the provisions of
Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 5 of the Law also conflict
with the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 46 of the
Constitution that Lithuania's economy shall be based on the
right to private ownership, as granting of pre-war private land
to other persons, which can be restored in kind, becomes like
its seizure, and this groundlessly restricts the right of
private ownership of the owners.
6. The petitioner has doubts whether buying out or
transfer into ownership of all land lying in territories of
towns without payment as it is established in Item 3 of Article
12 (with the exception of Paragraph 6 of Article 5), without
taking account of the present status of this land which is
pointed out in the other items of Article 12 is in compliance
with Articles 23, 29, 46 and 47 of the Constitution.
7. The petitioner also doubts if the provisions of the
second sentence of Paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law which
establish different principles of value assessment of town land
from those of value assessment of rural land which are set down
in the first sentence of Paragraph 3 of Article 16 and if Item
5 of Paragraph 9 of Article 16 of the Law which does not
provide for a manner of monetary payment for the land bought
out in territories of towns, are in compliance with Paragraph 3
of Article 23 and Article 29 of the Constitution as they
legitimise the principle of unfair compensation and violate the
provisions of equality of persons before the law.
III
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations by V.
Stankevičius, the representative of the party concerned, were
received.
1. The representative of the party concerned points out
that the part of the petition of the petitioner wherein it is
requested to investigate if Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 of
Article 5, Item 3 of Article 12 of the Law are in compliance
with the common provisions of the same law and Articles 15 and
21 of the Law on Land is, under Article 63 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, not within the jurisdiction of the
Constitutional Court, as the Constitutional Court considers
neither the compliance of norms of a law with the other or
common provisions of the same law, nor with norms of another
law. Under the provisions of Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article
69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the said part of the
petition may not be considered by the Constitutional Court.
2. The representative of the party concerned notes that
both the Preamble and Article 1 of the Law point out that the
Law has been passed after one's taking account of provisions of
the Constitution, rulings of the Constitutional Court and
objectively formed social relations. It is established in the
Preamble to the Constitution that the Lithuanian nation strives
for "an open, just, and harmonious civil society and
law-governed State", while Paragraph 3 of Article 46 of the
Constitution points out that "the State shall regulate economic
activity so that it serves the general welfare of the people".
The Law also reflects the provisions of the rulings of the
Constitutional Court, passed in 1994-1996. In its ruling of 27
May 1994 the Constitutional Court noted that "it is impossible
to impartially reconstruct the complete former system of
property relations which existed in Lithuania in 1940", while
in its ruling of 8 March 1995 it held: "One of the main goals
of law, in the regard as the way of regulation of social life,
is justice. It is impossible to attain justice by satisfying
interests of only one group or one person and by denying
interests of others. While behaving one-sidedly, the humane
purpose of law would be disregarded and probability of social
conflicts would increase."
The restoration of rights of ownership is conditioned by
the fact that during more than 50 years due to objective
social, economic, proprietary and other reasons the social
relations linked with ownership changed entirely. The relations
concerning the land attributed to towns have changed
particularly. The demand to return in kind the land
nationalised under the laws of USSR (LSSR) or seized in other
unlawful manner would mean complete restoration of ownership
relations of urban land. However, restoration of social
relations after 50 years, without violating the existing social
relations, is hardly possible. This would not help to foster
national concord in the land of Lithuania which is consolidated
in the Preamble to the Constitution.
Thus, the conditions for the restoration of the rights of
ownership to land, which, until 1 June 1995, was in the
territory lying in a town, are not linked with its returning in
kind irrespective of any circumstances-neither those pointed
out by the petitioner, i.e. the land is vacant, unused, used
for non-public needs etc., nor any other. The provisions of
Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 5 of the Law do not
conflict with the norms of the Constitution which establish
inviolability of property, as the former provide that the
rights of ownership to land which, prior to 1 June 1995, was
situated within the territory attributed to towns according to
the established procedure, are restored in other ways or it is
compensated for. In the opinion of the representative of the
party concerned, the disputed provisions of the Law, while
taking account of the realities of social life, ensures the
restoration of the rights of ownership to land as much as
possible, which, prior to 1 June 1995, was situated within the
territory attributed to towns according to the established
procedure. In the opinion of V. Stankevičius, Paragraphs 2, 3,
4 and 5 of Article 5 of the Law are in compliance with
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution.
3. The representative of the party concerned maintains
that the provisions of Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 5 of
the Law are in compliance with Article 29 of the Constitution.
Article 4 of the Law regulates the conditions and procedure of
restoration of the rights of ownership to the land lying in a
rural area, while its Article 5-to the land lying in the
territory of a town. The conditions and procedure of
restoration of the rights of ownership to rural and urban land
are different, however, it is hardly possible to be treated as
a violation of the provisions of the Constitution. In its
ruling of 27 October 1998, the Constitutional Court held that
in the norms of Article 29 of the Constitution the principle of
equality of all people is entrenched. This is a constitutional
guarantee for the inborn human right to be treated on the equal
basis with the others. However, as it was emphasised by the
Constitutional Court in its rulings for many a time, by itself
the constitutional principle of equality of all persons does
not deny the fact that the law may establish different legal
regulation with respect to certain categories of persons who
are in different situations. According to the representative of
the party concerned, the fact that different conditions and
procedure were established as regards restoration of the rights
of ownership to the land lying in a rural area or in a town is
neither restriction of citizens' rights nor granting any
privileges for them. The conditions and procedure of the rights
of ownership to the land lying in the territory of a town or a
rural area, as it is pointed out in Article 1 of the Law, are
established upon assessment of the existing objective social
property relations which are different in town and in the
country.
4. The representative of the party concerned points out
that the provisions of Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 5 of
the Law are in compliance with Paragraph 1 of Article 47 of the
Constitution and Article 8 of the Constitutional Law. The
provisions of the Law do not require that state-owned land be
separated form pre-war private land. The Republic of Lithuania
Law on Land Reform, the Law on Land and other laws regulating
land relationships do not contain such a requirement, either.
The restoration of the rights of ownership to land lying in the
territories attributed to towns is not linked to its returning
in kind, therefore separation of pre-war private land from
state-owned land would be meaningless. The provisions of the
Law are also in compliance with Article 8 of the Constitutional
Law. The norm of the Constitutional Law prohibits to sell not
pre-war private land, as it is maintained by the petitioners,
but the land to which the citizens' ownership rights are being
restored under the laws.
5. The representative of the party concerned is of the
opinion that the provisions of Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 of
Article 5 of the Law are in compliance with Paragraph 1 of
Article 46 of the Constitution. One has mentioned the provision
held by the Constitutional Court that "it is impossible to
impartially reconstruct the complete former system of property
relations which existed in Lithuania in 1940". The provisions
of the Law establish the restoration of the rights of ownership
to land but it does not guarantee giving back of pre-war
private land. It is impossible to consider the establishment of
the conditions of restoration of the rights of ownership to the
land lying in the territory of a town, which does not provide
for returning of the land in kind, to be seizure of this land.
The provisions of the law have been adopted by taking account
of the objective social relations which have formed in towns
and of Paragraph 3 of Article 46 of the Constitution providing
that "the State shall regulate economic activity so that it
serves the general welfare of the people".
6. The representative of the party concerned maintains
that Item 3 of Article 12 of the Law is in compliance with
Articles 23, 29, 46 and 47 of the Constitution. Item 3 of
Article 12 of the Law provides that in the case that the land
which, prior to 1 June 1995 was lying in the territory
attributed to a town according to the established procedure,
shall be bought out by the state from the citizens pointed out
in Article 2 of the Law and it shall be compensated for. This
is a common provision, however, the Law provides for an
exception, too. This provision is not applied when the used
land plot adjoining the buildings is in the land held by the
right of ownership, the said plot is transferred into ownership
without payment. The provisions of the Law are based on
Paragraph 3 of Article 23 of the Constitution establishing that
property may only be seized for the needs of society according
to the procedure established by law and must be adequately
compensated for. The Law on the Restoration of Citizens' Rights
of Ownership to the Existing Real Property provides for the
procedure of buying out of land. The situations of buying out
of land under the exception provided for in the said law are in
line with the existing objective social relations, public needs
and serve the general welfare of the People.
7. The representative of the party concerned points out
that the provisions of the second sentence of Paragraph 3 of
Article 16, as well as Item 5 of Paragraph 9 of Article 16, are
in compliance with Paragraph 3 of Article 23 and Article 29 of
the Constitution. The provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 23 of
the Constitution that property must be adequately compensated
for is implemented in Paragraph 2 of Article 16 of the Law
wherein it is established that in the course of the
compensation for citizens for real property by the state one
follows the principle of equivalence between the property
subject to not being returned and the property transferred for
it by which the property bought out by the state is compensated
for, and in Paragraph 3 of Article 12 of the Law providing that
in the course of the compensation for the property bought out
by the state it is calculated according to the actual value of
the property bought out and property transferred. These are
common provisions of the Law providing for fair compensation as
they also consolidate the principle of value equivalence. These
provisions are also reflected by those of the second sentence
of Paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law.
Paragraph 9 of Article 16 of the Law provides for ways of
compensation for the land bought out by the state. Item 6 of
Paragraph 9 of the said article provides that monetary
compensation is given to the land which was attributed to the
territories lying in towns in the period from 1 August 1991
till 1 June 1995 according to the procedure established by the
Government.
IV
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
judicial investigation written explanations were received from
the representatives of the petitioner S. Pečeliūnas, R.
Kupčinskas, V. Vilimas, and A. P. Zamalaitis.
In addition, written explanations were received from the
specialists V. V. Čeginskas, an advisor to the Seimas in rural
matters, and E. Raugalas, Deputy Director of the Kaunas branch
of the State Enterprise of Cadastre and Register of Land and
other Real Property.
V
At the Constitutional Court hearing the representatives of
the petitioner-a group of Seimas members-virtually reiterated
the arguments set down in the petition of the group of Seimas
members.
At the Constitutional Court hearing the representative of
the party concerned virtually reiterated the arguments set down
in his written explanations.
At the Constitutional Court hearing explanations were
presented by the specialists V. V. Čeginskas, E. Raugalas, as
well as A. Kadūnas, Head of the Division of Organisation of
Land Exploitation of the Department of Organisation of Land
Exploitation and Law which is under the Ministry of
Agriculture.
At the Constitutional Court hearing evidence was given by
the witnesses P. Vilniškis, D. Vaivadienė, S. Vizgirdienė, O.
Kiškienė, R. Jasinskas, R. Liakas, P. Pileckas, A. Venckūnienė,
N. Jasudienė, V. Kirdeikis, D. Narveišienė and J. Petrauskas.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
On the compliance of Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Article
5 and Item 3 of Article 12 of the Law on the Restoration of
Citizens' Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property
with Articles 23 and 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 46, Paragraphs
1 and 2 of Article 47 and Article 8 of the Constitutional Law
on the Subjects, Procedure, Terms, Conditions and Restrictions
of the Acquisition into Ownership of Land Plots Provided for in
Paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the Constitution.
1. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Article 5 of the Law,
which is entitled "Conditions and Procedure for the Restoration
of the Ownership Rights to Urban Land" provide:
"2. The rights of ownership to the land which, prior to 1
June 1995, was situated within the territory that was, in the
prescribed manner, attributed to towns shall be restored:
1) by transferring without payment into the ownership of
the citizens who have residential houses or other structures by
the right of ownership, a plot of land in use by them, the
boundaries whereof are established in the territorial planning
documents, adjoining these structures or a plot of land
designated for another purpose (kitchen garden, garden and
other), established in the territorial planning documents,
except in the territory of Curonian Spit National Park, but not
exceeding 0.2 hectares in Vilnius, Kaunas, Klaipėda, Šiauliai,
Panevėžys, Alytus, Marijampolė, Druskininkai, Palanga,
Birštonas, and not exceeding 0.3 hectares in other towns. When
a utilised plot of land adjoining the structures lies within
the land previously held by the right of ownership, which is
larger than 0.2 or 0.3 hectares respectively, at the request of
the citizen this larger utilised plot of land adjoining the
structures as well as the existing vacant (not built over) area
of land plot adjoining the aforementioned land plot in use
shall be transferred into the right of ownership without
payment (in cases when there are several citizens having the
right to restore the rights of ownership into the said land, at
their request this larger utilised existing vacant (not built
over) area of land plot adjoining the structures shall be
transferred into common ownership or into the ownership of the
owner of these structures without payment), regardless of the
drawn up territorial planning documents of that locality, but
not exceeding 1 hectare of the total area in Vilnius, Kaunas,
Klaipėda, Šiauliai, Panevėžys, Alytus, Marijampolė,
Druskininkai, Palanga, Birštonas, and not exceeding 1.5
hectares of the total area in other towns;
2) by transferring without payment a new plot of land,
either arranged according to the procedure established by the
Government or a non-arranged land plot, into the ownership of a
citizen, when the Government has approved its size in the same
town in which he previously owned the land, with the exception
of the territory of Curonian Spit National Park, or, at the
request of the citizens, in the town where they reside (except
the towns of Vilnius, Kaunas, Klaipėda, Šiauliai, Panevėžys,
Alytus, Marijampolė, Druskininkai, Palanga, Birštonas and the
territory of Curonian Spit National Park). New plots of land in
the parts lying within the areas of towns, which are entered in
the Register of Immovable Cultural Properties of the Republic
of Lithuania (the List of Cultural Areas) shall not be
transferred into ownership for individual building or other
purposes (with the exception of cases when on the land
previously held by the citizens by the right of ownership
individual building is provided for in the territorial planning
documents); utilized plots of land shall be transferred into
ownership without payment only to those persons who own
residential houses or other structures in these parts lying
within the areas of towns by the right of ownership. In cases
when the citizen refuses a new land plot arranged according to
the procedure established by the Government or a non-arranged
land plot (at choice) transferred without payment for
individual building, at his request he shall be paid the
average price of the land plot, established in the said town by
the Government, in accordance with Article 16 of this Law. This
sum of money shall be established by the Government.
3. The size of a new plot of land, transferred without
payment into the ownership of citizens, which is situated
within the territory attributed to a town shall, at the
proposal of the town, district local government, be approved by
the Government. The minimum size of a new plot of land
transferred without payment into ownership shall be 0.04
hectares (with the exception of a smaller plot of land held by
the right of ownership). The maximum size of a new plot of land
transferred without payment into ownership must not exceed 0.2
hectares in Vilnius, Kaunas, Klaipėda, Šiauliai, Panevėžys,
Alytus, Marijampolė, Druskininkai, Palanga and Birštonas, and
0.3 hectares in other towns.
4. If the size of a plot of land, held by the owner, was
at least 0.04 hectares larger than the size of a plot of land
he presently utilises, he shall, if possible, additionally be
transferred into his ownership a new plot of land without
payment, the size whereof is at least 0.04 hectares, designated
for individual building and other purposes. The total area of
the plot of land a citizen utilises, which is transferred into
his ownership without payment, and of the new plot of land,
additionally transferred into his ownership without payment,
must not exceed the size, set by the Government, of the area of
a new plot of land transferred without payment into ownership
for individual building and other purposes in that town.
5. In case the area of a plot of land within the town
limits, which has been restored or transferred without payment
into the ownership of a citizen, is smaller than the area of
the plot of land to which, pursuant to this Law, his rights of
ownership are being restored, the State shall compensate him
for the difference in the plots of land according to Article 16
of this Law."
2. The petitioner maintains that Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5
of Article 5 of the Law do not provide for returning of the
land in kind, which, prior to 1 June 1995, was situated within
the territories attributed to towns. It is not provided to
return the land in kind also in cases when it is vacant, not
used by anyone, used to satisfy non-public needs or when it is
planned to be used for residential houses construction, common
use of residents or for other public needs in the future
according to planning projects of these vacant territories. In
the opinion of the petitioner, it is impossible to base the
non-returning of this land in kind on public needs as other
persons acquire this land for personal use. The petitioner has
doubts whether Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 5 of the Law
are in compliance with Article 23 of the Constitution.
3. As mentioned, the petitioner requests the Court to
investigate whether Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 5 of
the Law are in compliance with Article 23 of the Constitution.
It needs to be noted that the conditions for restoration of the
rights of ownership to urban land are established in Paragraph
2 of Article 5 of the Law. In Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of Article
5 of the Law pointed out by the petitioner the conditions for
restoration of the rights of ownership to urban land are
particularised. Taking account of this, subsequent to the
petition of the petitioner, the Constitutional Court will
investigate if Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Law to the
extent that it provides that vacant (not built over) land shall
not be returned in kind is in compliance with Article 23 of the
Constitution, and if Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 5 of
the Law are in compliance with Article 29, Paragraph 1 of
Article 46, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 47 of the
Constitution and Article 8 of the Constitutional Law.
4. Article 23 of the Constitution provides:
"Property shall be inviolable.
The rights of ownership shall be protected by law.
Property may only be seized for the needs of society
according to the procedure established by law and must be
adequately compensated for."
This article of the Constitution establishes the principle
of inviolability of property, which means that the right is
guaranteed for the subject of ownership to demand that other
persons not violate his rights of ownership. The legislator has
the duty to pass laws protecting owners' rights of ownership
from any unlawful encroachment. The Constitution guarantees
that no one may seize property in an arbitrary manner and not
on the basis of law.
The seizure of property for the needs of society is
understood as an individual decision concerning seizure of
private property held as private ownership which is made in
every concrete case according to the procedure established by
laws (Constitutional Court ruling of 18 June 1998).
Paragraph 3 of Article 23 of the Constitution indicates
the needs of society, for which property may be seized
according to the procedure established by law and must be
adequately compensated for. These are interests of either the
whole or part of society. The state, while implementing its
functions, is constitutionally obligated to secure and satisfy
such interests. When property is seized for the needs of
society, one must strive for the balance between various
legitimate interests of society and its members.
The needs of society, for which property is seized under
Paragraph 3 of Article 23 of the Constitution, are always
particular and clearly expressed needs of society for a
concrete object of property. Under the Constitution, it is
permitted to seize property (by adequately compensating for)
only for such public needs which would not be objectively met
if a certain concrete object of property were not seized.
One must establish fair compensation for the property
seized for the needs of society. This provision of Paragraph 3
of Article 23 of the Constitution means also that the person
whose property is being seized for the needs of society has the
right to demand that the established compensation be equivalent
in value for the property seized.
The Constitutional Court notes that in the context of
Paragraph 3 of Article 23 of the Constitution, wherein seizure
of property for the needs of society by adequately compensating
for is established, the relations regulated in the disputed
legal provisions have certain peculiarities. These
peculiarities are determined by the fact that, according to the
procedure established by the Law, the rights of ownership to
the existing real property (including land) which was
nationalised by the occupation government are restored also by
taking account of the social and economic as well as other
essential changes related to ownership, which took place during
the period after the unlawful nationalisation of the said
property. Due to the aforesaid essential changes, as well as
taking into consideration the actual possibilities of the State
of Lithuania, it is impossible to restore all the rights of
ownership, infringed by the occupation government, by returning
all the existing real property (including land) in kind. It is
held in the Preamble to the Law that the existing real property
shall be returned to the citizens, and in the event it is
impossible to do so, they shall be compensated fairly.
The Constitutional Court holds that the discretion of the
legislator to establish conditions and procedure for
restoration of the rights of ownership is objectively
conditioned by the fact that during the time period after the
unlawful nationalisation the system of ownership relations
changed in essence, however, by establishing conditions and
procedure for restoration of the rights of ownership to the
existing real property (including land) by laws, one is to take
into consideration the constitutional principles of the
protection of the rights of ownership.
5. Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Law provides that the
rights of ownership to the land which, prior to 1 June 1995,
was situated within the territory that was, in the prescribed
manner, attributed to towns shall be restored:
1) by transferring without payment into the ownership of
the citizens, who have residential houses or other structures
by the right of ownership, a plot of land in use by them, the
boundaries whereof are established in the territorial planning
documents (not exceeding 0.2 or 0.3 hectares) adjoining these
structures;
2) by transferring without payment into the ownership of
the citizens a plot of land in use by them, the boundaries
whereof are established in the territorial planning documents
(not exceeding 0.2 or 0.3 hectares) for another purpose
(kitchen garden, garden and other);
3) when a utilised plot of land adjoining the structures
lies within the land previously held by the right of ownership,
which is larger than 0.2 or 0.3 hectares respectively, this
larger utilised plot of land as well as the existing vacant
(not built over) area of land plot in use shall be transferred
into the right of ownership without payment, regardless of the
drawn up territorial planning documents of that locality, but
not exceeding 1 hectare of the total area in Vilnius, Kaunas,
Klaipėda, Šiauliai, Panevėžys, Alytus, Marijampolė,
Druskininkai, Palanga, Birštonas, and not exceeding 1.5
hectares of the total area in other towns;
4) by transferring without payment a new plot of land,
either arranged according to the procedure established by the
Government or a non-arranged land plot, into the ownership of a
citizen for individual building.
A conclusion is to be drawn form these provisions that,
first, in cases when a citizen does not have a residential
house or any other structure adjoining the land previously held
by him by the right of ownership, he is not given back the
vacant (not built over) land in kind, i.e. it is bought out,
and, second, in cases when the utilised plot of land previously
held by him by the right of ownership is adjoining the
residential house or another structure held by the citizen by
the right of ownership, he is given back the plot of land not
exceeding 1 or 1.5 hectares. The remaining portion of the plot
of land, even though it is vacant (not built over), is not
returned but bought out.
6. Article 12 of the Law provides for the cases when the
state buys out the land. Buying out of land means that the land
is not returned in kind. Under Item 3 of Article 12, the land
shall be bought out by the state if it was situated, prior to 1
June 1995, within the territory assigned to towns in the
prescribed manner, excluding the exception laid down in
Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of this Law, when a utilised plot of
land adjoining the residential houses or structures lies within
the land held previously by the right of ownership, the said
plot is transferred into ownership without payment. This
provision means that the portion of land which remains after
the utilised plot of land (not exceeding 1 or 1.5 hectares
respectively) adjoining the residential house or other
structure has been transferred to the citizen without payment
is bought out as well.
As mentioned, it is held in the Preamble to the Law that
the existing real property shall be returned to the citizens,
and in the event it is impossible to do so, they shall be
compensated fairly. The Constitutional Court has held that the
provision that, providing there is no possibility to restore
property in kind, it must be adequately compensated for, does
not contradict the principles of inviolability of property and
protection of property ownership rights, because fair
compensation also ensures restoration of property ownership
rights (rulings of 27 May 1994, 22 December 1995, 18 June
1998). Thus, the fact that the Law provides for buying out of
the land in itself does not violate the principle of
inviolability of property.
Under Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Law, the citizens,
to whom it is impossible to restore the right of ownership to
land in kind to the land they previously held, may be
transferred other plots of land without payment. Under the Law,
for these purposes also the vacant (not built over) land is
used which its owners seek to be given back in kind. Such land
is bought out by the state. It needs to be noted that in such a
manner the rights of ownership to the nationalised land of a
greater number of owners to whom it is impossible to return
their previously held urban land in kind are in part restored
in kind by transferring them the plots of land of the
established area lying in the territories of towns as partial
compensation in kind. While one takes account of the changes of
the ownership-related relations which occurred during the
period after the unlawful nationalisation, buying out of a
certain part of private vacant (not built over) land in attempt
to restore the rights of ownership to the nationalised land for
as many owners as possible by transferring them the plots of
land into ownership without payment reflects the interest of
society.
Paragraph 2 of Article 5 and Item 3 of Article 12 of the
Law are worded in such a manner that in cases when a citizen
does not possess a residential house or another structure
adjoining the land plot previously held by him by the right of
ownership, this vacant (not built over) land is not given back
to him but bought out. When a citizen possesses a residential
house or another structure adjoining the land plot previously
held by him by the right of ownership, he is given back the
plot of land of the established size, while the portion of the
land plot exceeding the size established in the Law is also
bought out. In both cases the vacant (not built over) land is
bought out regardless of the fact whether there is a need of
society for this land or there is not such a need. Such legal
regulation may not be regarded as constitutionally grounded as
the returning or non-returning of the land in kind must be
determined not by the presence or absence of respective
buildings but by real and reasonable need of society for the
particular land.
7. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Law on the
Restoration of Citizens' Rights of Ownership to the Existing
Real Property to the extent that it provides that vacant (not
built over) land is not returned in kind if the citizen does
not have a residential house or another structure adjoining the
land previously held by him by the right of ownership even
though there is not any particular need of society for this
vacant (not built over) land, and Item 3 of Article 12 of the
Law to the extent that it provides that the portion of land
which remains after the utilised plot of land adjoining the
residential house or other structure has been transferred to
the citizen without payment is bought out even though there is
not any particular need of society for this vacant (not built
over) land conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 23 of the
Constitution.
8. The petitioner maintains that Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5
of Article 5 of the Law which establish different conditions of
returning urban and rural land as well as Item 3 of Article 12
of the Law providing for buying out of land attributed to towns
prior to 1 June 1995 conflict with Article 29 of the
Constitution.
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."
In the norms of Article 29 of the Constitution the
principle of equality of all persons is entrenched. It means an
inborn human right to be treated equally with the others.
Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution establishes a
formal equality of all persons. In Paragraph 2 of Article 29 of
the Constitution the principle of non-discrimination of and not
granting privileges to persons is consolidated.
It needs to be noted that the conditions for the
restoration of the rights of ownership to land as established
in Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 5 and Item 3 of Article
12 of the Law differ on the basis of objects but not of
subjects of the rights of ownership, therefore this regulation
does not violate the constitutional principle of equality of
persons.
Taking account of this, one is to conclude that Paragraphs
2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 5 and Item 3 of Article 12 of the Law
on the Restoration of Citizens' Rights of Ownership to the
Existing Real Property are in compliance with Article 29 of the
Constitution.
9. In the opinion of the petitioner, Paragraphs 2, 3, 4
and 5 of Article 5 and Item 3 of Article 12 of the Law conflict
with Paragraph 1 of Article 46 of the Constitution.
Paragraph 1 of Article 46 of the Constitution provides:
"Lithuania's economy shall be based on the right to private
ownership, freedom of individual economic activity, and
initiative."
This provision of the Constitution establishes the main
values upon which Lithuania's economy is based: private
ownership, freedom of individual economic activity, and
initiative. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 5 and Item 3 of
Article 12 of the Law regulate relations of the restoration of
citizens' rights to the existing real property, i.e. different
relations from those the fundamentals whereof are established
in Paragraph 1 of Article 46 of the Constitution.
Taking account of this, one is to conclude that Paragraphs
2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 5 and Item 3 of Article 12 of the Law
on the Restoration of Citizens' Rights of Ownership to the
Existing Real Property are in compliance with Paragraph 1 of
Article 46 of the Constitution.
10. According to the petitioner, Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5
of Article 5 and Item 3 of Article 12 of the Law conflict with
Article 47 of the Constitution. The request was being linked
with Paragraph 1 of Article 47 of the Constitution, as well as
Paragraph 2 of the said article to the extent that it provides
that the non-agricultural land plot acquisition procedure,
terms and conditions, as well as restrictions for the national
entities as well as foreign entities conducting economic
activities in Lithuania which are specified in Paragraph 2 of
the said article shall be established by the constitutional
law.
The Constitutional Court will investigate the compliance
of the disputed provisions with Paragraph 1 of Article 47 of
the Constitution, as well as Paragraph 2 of the said article to
the extent that it provides that the non-agricultural land plot
acquisition procedure, terms and conditions, as well as
restrictions for the national entities as well as foreign
entities conducting economic activities in Lithuania which are
specified in Paragraph 2 of the said article shall be
established by the constitutional law.
10.1. Paragraph 1 of Article 47 of the Constitution
provides: "Land, internal waters, forests, and parks may only
belong to the citizens and the State of the Republic of
Lithuania by the right of ownership."
This norm of the Constitution establishes which objects
may belong to citizens and the State of the Republic of
Lithuania by the right of ownership. One of these objects is
land.
The disputed provisions of the Law do not provide that the
objects, including land, specified in Paragraph 1 of Article 47
of the Constitution might belong not to citizens and the State
of the Republic of Lithuania by the right of ownership.
Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 5 and Item 3
of Article 12 of the Law on the Restoration of Citizens' Rights
of Ownership to the Existing Real Property are in compliance
with Paragraph 1 of Article 47 of the Constitution.
10.2. Paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the Constitution
provides: "Local governments (municipalities), other national
entities as well as those foreign entities conducting economic
activities in Lithuania which are specified by the
constitutional law in compliance with the criteria of European
and Transatlantic integration which the Republic of Lithuania
has embarked on may be permitted to acquire into their
ownership non-agricultural land plots required for the
construction and operation of buildings and facilities
necessary for their direct activities. The land plot
acquisition procedure, terms and conditions, as well as
restrictions shall be established by the constitutional law."
The disputed provisions of the Law regulate relations of
the restoration of citizens' rights to the existing real
property, i.e. different relations from those established in
Paragraph 2 of Article 46 of the Constitution wherein it is
specified that the non-agricultural land plot acquisition
procedure, terms and conditions, as well as restrictions for
the national entities as well as foreign entities conducting
economic activities in Lithuania, which are specified therein,
shall be established by the constitutional law.
Taking account of this, one is to conclude that Paragraphs
2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 5 and Item 3 of Article 12 of the Law
on the Restoration of Citizens' Rights of Ownership to the
Existing Real Property are in compliance with the provision of
Paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the Constitution providing that
the non-agricultural land plot acquisition procedure, terms and
conditions, as well as restrictions for the national entities
as well as foreign entities conducting economic activities in
Lithuania, which are specified therein, shall be established by
the constitutional law.
11. The petitioner has doubts whether Paragraphs 2, 3, 4
and 5 of Article 5 and Item 3 of Article 12 of the Law are in
compliance with Article 8 of the Constitutional Law on the
Subjects, Procedure, Terms, Conditions and Restrictions of the
Acquisition into Ownership of Land Plots Provided for in
Paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the Constitution.
11.1. In the course of the consideration of the issue
raised by the petitioner, it needs to be noted that under the
Constitution, constitutional laws are ones which are directly
referred to as such in the Constitution and are adopted
pursuant to the procedure established in Paragraph 3 of Article
69 of the Constitution, as well as the laws entered into the
list of constitutional laws and adopted pursuant to the
procedure established in Paragraph 3 of Article 69 of the
Constitution.
Paragraph 3 of Article 69 of the Constitution provides:
"Constitutional laws of the Republic of Lithuania shall be
deemed adopted if more than half of all the members of the
Seimas vote in the affirmative. Constitutional laws shall be
amended by at least a three-fifths majority vote of all the
Seimas members. The Seimas shall establish a list of
constitutional laws by a three-fifths majority vote of the
Seimas members."
Constitutional laws differ from other laws by the
procedure of their adoption and amendment. The special place of
constitutional laws in the system of legal acts is determined
by the Constitution itself. Constitutional laws may not be
amended or abolished by laws. Thus it is ensured that the
social relations regulated by constitutional laws be not
regulated in a different manner and that greater stability of
the social relations regulated by constitutional laws be
guaranteed. Alongside, it needs to be noted that constitutional
laws may not conflict with the Constitution, while laws may not
conflict with the Constitution and constitutional laws. Under
the Constitution, questions of the compliance of a
constitutional law with the Constitution or that of a law with
a constitutional law shall be considered by the Constitutional
Court.
11.2. Article 8 of the Constitutional Law on the Subjects,
Procedure, Terms, Conditions and Restrictions of the
Acquisition into Ownership of Land Plots Provided for in
Paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the Constitution provides: "The
subject who holds the land to which, under the laws of the
Republic of Lithuania, the rights of ownership of a citizen of
the Republic of Lithuania must be restored may not sell the
land prior to the restoration of said rights. The subjects
specified by this Law may acquire such land only after the
restoration, in accordance with law, of the ownership rights to
the citizen of the Republic of Lithuania and after the
registration of land ownership in accordance with the procedure
established by law."
The disputed provisions of the Law on the Restoration of
Citizens' Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property do
not regulate relations of land sale but other relations, i.e.
those of restoration of citizens' rights to the existing real
property. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 5 and Item 3 of
Article 12 of the Law do not contain any provisions
establishing a different legal regulation than provided for in
Article 8 of the Constitutional Law.
11.3. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 5 and Item 3
of Article 12 of the Law on the Restoration of Citizens' Rights
of Ownership to the Existing Real Property are in compliance
with Article 8 of the Constitutional Law on the Subjects,
Procedure, Terms, Conditions and Restrictions of the
Acquisition into Ownership of Land Plots Provided for in
Paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the Constitution.
II
On the compliance of the provision "When compensating for
the land which is situated within the limits of a town, it
shall be adhered to a stipulation that, the land, assigned to
towns after the unlawful nationalisation of land, shall be
valued at the average market price of agricultural land
situated in suburban areas, and the other land lying within the
town area shall be valued at the average compensation price
fixed by the Government for that town" contained in Paragraph 3
of Article 16 of the Law on the Restoration of Citizens' Rights
of Ownership to the Existing Real Property with Paragraph 3 of
Article 23 and Article 29 of the Constitution.
1. Paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law provides: "When
compensation is provided for the real property bought out by
the State and for the real property which, in the cases
provided for in this Law, citizens do not desire to get back in
kind, compensation (the value of the land, forest, water body
which are transferred without payment, the sum of money paid,
the number of securities issued) shall be calculated according
to the estimating method approved by the Government, taking
into account the actual value of the property that is being
bought out and the other property which is being transferred at
the moment of providing compensation. When compensating for the
land which is situated within the limits of a town, it shall be
adhered to a stipulation that, the land, assigned to towns
after the unlawful nationalisation of land, shall be valued at
the average market price of agricultural land situated in
suburban areas, and the other land lying within the town area
shall be valued at the average compensation price fixed by the
Government for that town."
The petitioner doubts if the provision "When compensating
for the land which is situated within the limits of a town, it
shall be adhered to a stipulation that, the land, assigned to
towns after the unlawful nationalisation of land, shall be
valued at the average market price of agricultural land
situated in suburban areas, and the other land lying within the
town area shall be valued at the average compensation price
fixed by the Government for that town" contained in Paragraph 3
of Article 16 of the Law is in compliance with Paragraph 3 of
Article 23 and Article 29 of the Constitution.
2. The disputed provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 16 of
the Law provides for ways of how the land price is valued when
the land which is situated within the limits of a town is
compensated. It needs to be noted that the place of the
presence of land, as well as the fact as to when the land was
attributed to the territory of a town, whether until or after
its unlawful nationalisation, determines the discretion of the
legislator to establish different ways of evaluation of the
land price. Establishing a manner of land price evaluation, one
may not violate the principle of fair compensation nor the
constitutional principle of equality of persons.
Paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Law does not contain any
legal norms providing for concrete sizes of compensation for
the land bought out. The mere fact that the disputed provision
provides for different ways of land price evaluation in itself
does not mean that under this provision of the Law one would
not fairly compensate for the land bought out, nor that the
constitutional principle of equality of persons is violated.
3. Taking account of the motives set forth, one is to
conclude that the provision "When compensating for the land
which is situated within the limits of a town, it shall be
adhered to a stipulation that, the land, assigned to towns
after the unlawful nationalisation of land, shall be valued at
the average market price of agricultural land situated in
suburban areas, and the other land lying within the town area
shall be valued at the average compensation price fixed by the
Government for that town" contained in Paragraph 3 of Article
16 of the Law on the Restoration of Citizens' Rights of
Ownership to the Existing Real Property is in compliance with
Paragraph 3 of Article 23 and Article 29 of the Constitution.
III
On the compliance of Item 5 of Paragraph 9 of Article 16
of the Law on the Restoration of Citizens' Rights of Ownership
to the Existing Real Property with Paragraph 3 of Article 23
and Article 29 of the Constitution.
1. Item 5 of Paragraph 9 of Article 16 of the Law provides
that the state shall compensate the citizens for the land,
forest and water bodies which are being bought out by the
state, in the following ways: "in cash-by buying out the plots
of land or forest situated in the rural area, with the
exception of the cases specified in Paragraphs 7 and 10 of
Article 4, and Paragraphs 3 and 7 of Article 6, as well as
except the case when the land has been acquired into private
ownership from the vacant land stock, which was not desired by
the citizens, specified in Article 2 of this Law, to be
returned. The amount of the compensation in cash may be
increased up to 15 per cent, provided that the bought out land
to which the rights of ownership are restored to citizens of
the Republic of Lithuania-volunteer soldiers of the 1918-1920
struggles for independence, participants of the opposition
(resistance), political prisoners, deportees or the persons
decorated with the Order of the Cross of Vytis, their spouses,
parents (foster parents), children (adopted children), and that
this land, pursuant to Article 12 of this Law, is assigned to
the land subject to state buy-out and is used for residents'
household farms, peasants' farms or office entitlement
parcels."
In the opinion of the petitioner, Item 5 of Paragraph 9 of
Article 16 of the Law conflicts with Paragraph 3 of Article 23
and Article 29 of the Constitution.
It is evident from the arguments of the petition that the
petitioner doubts as for the conformity of not whole Item 5 of
Paragraph 9 of Article 16 of the Law with the Constitution but
only the compliance of the extent thereof that it does not
provide for monetary compensation for the bought out land lying
within the territory of a town with Paragraph 3 of Article 23
and Article 29 of the Constitution.
2. Paragraph 9 of Article 16 of the Law provides for ways
of compensation for the land bought out by the state. The ways
of buying out depend on the place of the presence of the land
bought out.
While deciding whether the disputed legal regulation is in
compliance with the Constitution, the fact is of crucial
importance that the actual and fair compensation for the land
bought out be secured by such ways but not that as to what ways
of compensation are established.
It needs to be noted that Item 5 of Paragraph 9 of Article
16 of the Law provides for monetary compensation for the land
or forest situated in a rural area. The mere fact that that the
aforementioned item regulating buying out of land or forest
situated in a rural area does not provide for monetary
compensation for the bought out land lying within the territory
of a town in itself does not mean that unfair compensation has
been established for the land lying within the territory of a
town nor that the constitutional principle of equality of
persons is violated.
3. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that Item 5 of Paragraph 9 of Article 16 of the Law on
the Restoration of Citizens' Rights of Ownership to the
Existing Real Property to the extent that it does not provide
for monetary compensation for the bought out land lying within
the territory of a town is in compliance with Paragraph 3 of
Article 23 and Article 29 of the Constitution.
IV
The petitioner doubts whether Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 of
Article 5 and Item 3 of Article 12 Law are in compliance with
the common provisions of the same law and Articles 15 and 21 of
the Law on Land.
Under Paragraph 1 of Article 105 of the Constitution and
Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 63 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court shall consider
and adopt decisions concerning the conformity of laws of the
Republic of Lithuania and legal acts adopted by the Seimas with
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. The
Constitutional Court does not consider the conformity of one
law with another law.
The requests of the petitioner as for the compliance of
the norms of Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Article 5 and Item 3
of Article 12 of the Law on the Restoration of Citizens' Rights
of Ownership to the Existing Real Property with the common
provisions of the same law and Articles 15 and 21 of the Law on
Land are not within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional
Court. Under Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Law on
the Constitutional Court, this is the grounds to refuse to
consider the requests as regards the compliance of the norms of
Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 5 and Item 3 of Article 12
of the Law on the Restoration of Citizens' Rights of Ownership
to the Existing Real Property with the common provisions of the
same law and Articles 15 and 21 of the Law on Land. In this
part the case is to be dismissed (Paragraph 3 of Article 69 of
the Law on the Constitutional Court).
Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and Articles 53, 54, 55, 56 and Paragraph
3 of Article 69 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 Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on the Restoration of Citizens'
Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property to the extent
that it provides that vacant (not built over) land is not
returned in kind if the citizen does not have a residential
house or another structure adjoining the land previously held
by him by the right of ownership even though there is not any
particular need of society for this vacant (not built over)
land, and Item 3 of Article 12 of the same law to the extent
that it provides that the portion of land which remains after
the utilised plot of land adjoining the residential house or
other structure has been transferred to the citizen without
payment is bought out even though there is not any particular
need of society for this vacant (not built over) land conflict
with Paragraph 3 of Article 23 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania.
2. To recognise that Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of Article 5 of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Restoration of Citizens'
Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property, the
provision "When compensating for the land which is situated
within the limits of a town, it shall be adhered to a
stipulation that, the land, assigned to towns after the
unlawful nationalisation of land, shall be valued at the
average market price of agricultural land situated in suburban
areas, and the other land lying within the town area shall be
valued at the average compensation price fixed by the
Government for that town" contained in Paragraph 3 of Article
16 of the same law and Item 5 of Paragraph 9 of Article 16 of
the same law to the extent that it does not provide for
monetary compensation for the bought out land lying within the
territory of a town are in compliance with the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania.
3. To recognise that Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 5
and Item 3 of Article 12 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
the Restoration of Citizens' Rights of Ownership to the
Existing Real Property are in compliance with Article 8 of the
Constitutional Law on the Subjects, Procedure, Terms,
Conditions and Restrictions of the Acquisition into Ownership
of Land Plots Provided for in Paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
4. To dismiss the case as for the request to investigate
the compliance of the norms of Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of
Article 5 and Item 3 of Article 12 of the Republic of Lithuania
Law on the Restoration of Citizens' Rights of Ownership to the
Existing Real Property with the common provisions of the same
law and Articles 15 and 21 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Land.
This Constitutional Court ruling is final and not subject
to appeal.
The ruling is promulgated on behalf of the Republic of
Lithuania.