Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
R U L I N G
On the compliance of Paragraph 4 of Article 269 of
the Republic of Lithuania Code of Administrative
Violations of Law with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania
Vilnius, 2 October 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-Pranas Petkevičius, a senior
consultant to the Legal 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 4
September 2001 in its public hearing conducted the
investigation of Case No. 11/2001 subsequent to the petition
submitted to the Court by the petitioner-the Vilnius Regional
Administrative Court-requesting to investigate if the provision
of Paragraph 4 of Article 269 of the Republic of Lithuania Code
of Administrative Violations of Law that in cases of decisions
to impose a fine the driving licence shall not be returned
until the payment of the imposed fine is in compliance with
Paragraph 5 of Article 31 and Paragraph 1 of Article 32 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
The petitioner-the Vilnius Regional Administrative
Court-was investigating an administrative case. The court
suspended the investigation of the case and appealed to the
Constitutional Court requesting the investigation into the
compliance of the provision of Paragraph 4 of Article 269 of
the Code of Administrative Violations of Law (hereinafter also
referred to as the CAVL) that in cases of decisions to impose a
fine the driving licence shall not be returned until the
payment of the imposed fine with Paragraph 5 of Article 31 and
Paragraph 1 of Article 32 of the Constitution.
II
The request of the petitioner is based on the following
arguments.
1. Article 20 of the CAVL provides that an administrative
penalty is a measure of liability designated to punish the
persons who have committed an administrative violation of law
as well as in attempt to educate them so that they will observe
the laws, respect the rules of communal life, and that the
transgressor of law and other persons would not commit new
violations of law. Article 30 of the CAVL provides that a
penalty for an administrative violation of law shall be imposed
under the limits specified in the normative act providing for
liability for the committed violation of law, and strictly in
line with this code and other legal acts concerning
administrative violations of law. As administrative penalties,
the fine and the deprivation of a special right are provided
for in Article 21 of the CAVL.
2. The sanction set down in Paragraph 1 of Article 126 of
the CAVL is an alternative one. It provides for an opportunity,
for the committed violation of law, either to impose a fine on
the transgressor or to deprive him of the right to drive any
vehicle. However, among the other measures, provided by law, of
ensuring the legal proceedings in administrative violations of
law, Paragraph 4 of Article 269 of this code provides for
seizure of the driving licence until the payment of the imposed
fine.
3. In the opinion of the petitioner, after a fine has been
imposed on the driver, an additional restriction of his rights
is applied to him, which is not provided for in the sanction
set in the article concerning the committed violation of law.
Meanwhile, Paragraph 5 of Article 31 of the Constitution
provides that no person may be punished for the same offence
twice, therefore the court has doubts whether the provision of
Paragraph 4 of Article 269 of the CAVL that the driving licence
shall not be returned until the payment of the imposed fine is
in compliance with Paragraph 5 of Article 31 of the
Constitution and the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 32 of
the Constitution that citizens may move and choose their place
of residence in Lithuania freely, and may leave Lithuania at
their own will, as, upon imposition of the fine, due to the
non-returning of the driving licence until the payment of the
fine, the right of the person to travel abroad by car is
restricted.
III
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations were
received from P. Petkevičius, the representative of the party
concerned-the Seimas.
1. The representative of the party concerned pointed out
that provisions of Chapter 19 of the CAVL establish the
measures ensuring the legal proceedings in legal cases of
administrative violations of law. Article 264 of this code
points out that in attempt to put a stop to administrative
violations of law, to draw up protocols, to ensure that cases
be considered timely and fairly and decisions be implemented in
legal cases of administrative violations of law, an
administrative detention, frisk of a person, inspection of
items, seizure of items and documents shall be permissible. In
order to ensure implementation of a decision concerning
imposition of administrative penalty, it is provided for in
Paragraph 4 of Article 269 of the CAVL that, upon commission of
a violation for which either a fine or deprivation of the right
to drive a vehicle may be imposed, the driving licence shall be
seized from the driver until the payment of the imposed fine.
This measure is absolutely lawful and reasonable as it helps
ensure the accomplishment of the imposed penalty and its
efficiency in the course of restraint of frequently committed
violations of law.
2. P. Petkevičius noted that the measures ensuring the
legal proceedings in legal cases of administrative violations
of law provided for in the CAVL (including those pointed out in
Paragraph 4 of Article 269) are not the administrative
penalties the types of which are indicated in Article 21 of
this code. The measures ensuring the legal proceedings in legal
cases of administrative violations of law are of procedural
character, they establish only the procedure of application and
accomplishment of penalties, therefore it would be a mistake to
identify these measures with penalties.
3. In the opinion of the representative of the party
concerned, the non-returning of the driving licence for the
transgressor until the payment of the fine does not infringe
the rights of persons provided for in Paragraph 1 of Article 32
of the Constitution. Under Paragraph 4 of Article 269 of the
CAVL, such a transgressor is issued a temporary permit to drive
a vehicle.
IV
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
judicial investigation, written explanations were received from
G. Švedas, Vice-minister of Justice, and A. Šakočius, Head of
the Police Law Department of the Law University of Lithuania.
V
At the Constitutional Court hearing, the representative of
the party concerned-the Seimas-P. Petkevičius virtually
reiterated the arguments set forth in his written explanations.
At the Constitutional Court hearing the specialist J.
Truska, a commissioner at the Administrative Activities
Division of the Road Police Service, spoke.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. Paragraph 4 of Article 269 of the CAVL provides: "Upon
commission of a violation for which either a fine or
deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle, a river boat or a
small boat may be imposed under this Code, until adoption of a
decision in the legal case, the driving licence from the
driver, or the navigating licence from the navigator of boat
(i.e. navigating licence of a river boat or a small boat or the
registration documents of the vehicle) shall be seized and a
temporary permit to drive a vehicle or to navigate a river boat
or a small boat or a temporary document of registration of the
vehicle shall be issued and this shall be entered into the
protocol of the administrative violation of law. In cases of
decisions to impose a fine or to deprive of the right to drive
a vehicle or navigate a river boat or a small boat, the driving
licence (navigating licence of a river boat or a small boat)
shall not be returned, while the validity of the temporary
permit shall be extended until the expiration of the
established term during which the complaint may be filed, or
until adoption of a decision concerning the complaint, or until
the payment of the imposed fine."
The petitioner doubts whether the provision of Paragraph 4
of Article 269 of the CAVL that in cases of decisions to impose
a fine the driving licence shall not be returned until the
payment of the imposed fine is in compliance with Paragraph 5
of Article 31 and Paragraph 1 of Article 32 of the
Constitution.
2. Assessing the compliance of the disputed provision of
Paragraph 4 of Article 269 of the CAVL with the Constitution,
one has to clarify the content of legal regulation established
therein.
Under Paragraph 4 of Article 269 of the CAVL, upon
commission of a violation for which either a fine or
deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle may be imposed, in
cases of decisions to impose a fine the driving licence is not
returned to the person, but he is issued a temporary permit to
drive a vehicle, which is extended until the payment of the
fine. Such legal regulation means that in all cases when a fine
is imposed for a person for violation of the Road Traffic
Rules, his driving licence, i.e. the document confirming that
the person has the right to drive a vehicle, is seized and a
temporary permit to drive a vehicle is issued instead.
The temporary permit to drive a vehicle is of different
form than the driving licence recognised in other states, and
it is valid only temporarily. The temporary permit to drive a
vehicle confirms the fact that the person may exercise this
right in Lithuania only.
3. Paragraph 5 of Article 31 of the Constitution provides:
"No person may be punished for the same offence twice."
In this constitutional provision the entrenched
constitutional principle non bis in idem means a prohibition to
punish twice for the same offence. This constitutional
principle is also applicable in regard with other committed
violations of law (Constitutional Court ruling of 7 May 2001).
Under the disputed provision of Paragraph 4 of Article 269
of the CAVL, the non-returning of the driving licence until the
payment of the imposed fine is a measure of ensuring the legal
proceedings in administrative cases. The disputed provision of
the law regulates not the relations of imposition of the
administrative penalty for the committed violation of law but
those arising in the course of ensuring of the fulfilment of
the imposed administrative penalty. The non-returning of the
driving licence until the payment of the imposed fine is not a
penalty for the committed violation of the Road Traffic Rules.
The purpose of the non-returning of the driving licence is
different, i.e. to ensure that the imposed fine be paid. From
this one can draw a conclusion that the non-returning of the
driving licence until the payment of the imposed fine may not
be regarded as violating the constitutional principle non bis
in idem.
On the grounds of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that the provision of Paragraph 4 of Article 269 of
the CAVL that in cases of decisions to impose a fine the
driving licence shall not be returned until the payment of the
imposed fine is in compliance with Paragraph 5 of Article 31 of
the Constitution.
4. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 32 of the Constitution
provide:
"Citizens may move and choose their place of residence in
Lithuania freely, and may leave Lithuania at their own will.
This right may not be restricted except as provided by law
and if it is necessary for the protection of State security or
the health of the people, or to administer justice."
The petitioner requests the investigation into the
compliance of the disputed provision of Paragraph 4 of Article
269 of the CAVL with entire Paragraph 1 of Article 32 of the
Constitution, however, in its petition it presents arguments
concerning the compliance of the disputed provision of
Paragraph 4 of Article 269 of the CAVL with not entire
Paragraph 1 of Article 32 of the Constitution but only the
right of citizens to leave Lithuania at their own will which is
entrenched in the said paragraph. Taking account of the
arguments set down in the request of the petitioner, the
Constitutional Court will consider whether the disputed
provision of Paragraph 4 of Article 269 of the CAVL is in
compliance with the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 32 of
the Constitution that citizens may leave Lithuania at their own
will.
The provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 32 of the
Constitution that citizens may leave Lithuania at their own
will means that a citizen has the right to decide by himself
whether to leave Lithuania, to choose the time and a manner of
departure. The right to leave Lithuania at one's own will means
that one may not establish any permission procedure to leave
Lithuania, i.e. one may not establish any procedure whereby a
citizen would have to request a state institution for the
permit to leave Lithuania. The constitutional right to leave
Lithuania at one's own will pre-supposes the duty of the state
to establish such a procedure of one's leaving Lithuania so
that the citizen would not experience unreasonable
restrictions. The right of citizens to leave Lithuania at their
own will consolidated in Paragraph 1 of Article 32 of the
Constitution may be restricted by law only and in case there
are the bases provided for in Paragraph 2 of Article 32 of the
Constitution, i.e., if it is necessary for the protection of
state security or the health of the people, or to administer
justice.
The disputed provision of Paragraph 4 of Article 269 of
the CAVL that upon the imposition of a fine the driving licence
shall not be returned virtually means that the person may not
make use of the document abroad, certifying that he is entitled
to drive a vehicle. However, the fact that the person may not
make use of the said document abroad, certifying that he is
entitled to drive a vehicle, does not mean that the citizen's
right to leave Lithuania at his own will is restricted or
denied.
Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that the provision of Paragraph 4 of Article 269 of
the CAVL that in cases of decisions to impose a fine the
driving licence shall not be returned until the payment of the
imposed fine is in compliance with Paragraph 1 of Article 32 of
the Constitution.
5. The Constitution shall be an integral and directly
applicable statute (Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the
Constitution). In its ruling of 13 June 2000, the
Constitutional Court held that it is impossible to interpret
the norms set forth in the articles of the Constitution which
were pointed out by the petitioner by keeping them separate
from other norms of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court notes that in the course of the
assessment of the conformity of the disputed laws and other
legal acts with the Constitution, it is important to clarify
not only their relation with the norms of the Constitution
pointed out by the petitioner but also the principles set down
in the Constitution.
The legislator, establishing administrative liability for
violations of law, must observe the principles consolidated in
the Constitution. The entire legal system must be based upon
the constitutional principle of a law-governed state, which
also pre-supposes the proportionality of the established legal
liability.
The Constitutional Court has held that the measures
established by the state for violations of law must be
proportional (adequate) for the violation of law, must be in
conformity with legitimate and commonly important objectives,
must not restrict the person more than is reasonably necessary
to achieve these objectives. The constitutional principles of
justice and a law-governed state also mean that that "there
must be a fair balance (proportion) between the attempted
objective and means to attain this objective, between
violations of law and penalties established for these
violations. These principles do not permit to establish such
penalties for violations of law, as well as such sizes of the
fines, which would evidently be disproportional (inadequate) to
the violation of law and the attempted objective"
(Constitutional Court ruling of 6 December 2000).
Thus, in the course of establishment of liability and its
implementation, one must sustain a fair balance between the
interests of society and those of a person so as to evade
unreasonable restriction of the rights of the person. On the
basis of this principle, the rights of a person may be
restricted by laws to the extent only necessary for protection
of public interests, and there must be a reasonable relation
between the adopted measures and the sought legitimate and
commonly important objective. To attain this objective, such
measures may be established which would be sufficient and which
would restrict the rights of the person not more than it is
necessary.
Under the Code of Administrative Violations of Law, the
non-returning of the driving licence until the payment of the
fine is a measure of ensuring of administrative legal
proceedings. Assessing the compliance of the disputed provision
of Paragraph 4 of Article 269 of the CAVL with the
Constitution, one is to pay heed to the fact that the norms of
the CAVL establishing administrative liability for violations
of the Road Traffic Rules provide for fines of varied size,
i.e. from 20 till 5000 litas. Under the disputed provision of
Paragraph 4 of Article 269 of the CAVL, the driving licence is
not returned until the payment of the fine in all cases
irrespective of the degree of danger of the violation of the
Road Traffic Rules committed by the individual, and of the size
of the imposed fine.
It also needs to be noted that under the disputed
provision of Paragraph 4 of Article 269 of the CAVL the driving
licence is not returned also in the cases when the person may
not be deprived of the right to drive a vehicle for the
commission of the Road Traffic Rules, while only a fine may be
imposed for it.
The right to drive a vehicle is an acquired right. This
right is confirmed by the driving licence. The non-returning of
the driving licence until the payment of the imposed fine and
issuance of a temporary permit to drive a vehicle mean a
restriction of the acquired right as one establishes only a
temporary permission to make use of it, meanwhile the
deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle is not imposed as
an administrative penalty.
In this Ruling of the Constitutional Court it has been
held that the non-returning of the driving licence until the
payment of the imposed fine virtually means that the person may
not make use of the document abroad, certifying that he is
entitled to drive a vehicle. A temporary permit to drive a
vehicle also means that the implementation of the right to
drive a vehicle enjoyed by the person is restricted in
Lithuania as such a permit is valid for a certain period only
and its validity must be extended regularly.
The administrative measure of ensuring the legal
proceedings in legal cases established in the disputed
provision of Paragraph 4 of Article 269 of the CAVL is not line
with the principle of proportionality, thus with the
constitutional principle of a law-governed state as well.
Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that the provision of Paragraph 4 of Article 269 of
the CAVL that in cases of decisions to impose a fine the
driving licence shall not be returned until the payment of the
imposed fine conflicts with the principle of a law-governed
state entrenched in 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:
To recognise that the provision of Paragraph 4 of Article
269 of the Republic of Lithuania Code of Administrative
Violations of Law that in cases of decisions to impose a fine
the driving licence shall not be returned until the payment of
the imposed fine conflicts 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.