Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
RULING
ON THE COMPLIANCE OF ARTICLE 573 OF THE CIVIL CODE
OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (WORDING OF 17 MAY
1994) WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
4 March 2002
Vilnius
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, who is Darius Karvelis, a senior
consultant of 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
21 February 2002 in its public hearing heard Case No. 17/2000
which originated in a petition of the Panevėžys City District
Court, the petitioner, requesting to determine whether Article
573 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of
17 May 1994) was in compliance with Articles 23, 29 and 59 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
The petitioner, the Panevėžys City District Court, was
investigating a civil case. By its order of 28 March 2000, the
said court suspended the investigation of the case and appealed
to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting to
determine whether Items 1 and 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 573
of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 17
May 1994; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1994, No. 44-805)
(hereinafter also referred to as the CC) were in compliance
with Articles 23, 29 and 59 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania.
II
The request of the petitioner is based on the following
arguments.
Article 52 of the Constitution establishes the right of
citizens to social assistance in the event of unemployment,
sickness, widowhood, loss of breadwinner, and other cases
provided by law. The constitutional provision obligates the
state not to worsen the material situation of socially
unprotected individuals as well as invalid dependants,
meanwhile on 17 May 1994, after Article 573 of the CC had been
amended, this situation was made worse.
Article 573 of the CC (wording of 17 May 1994) provides
for unequal opportunities to inherit the property of a deceased
for the invalid dependants who had been supported by the
deceased for not less than one year prior to his/her death. In
case of the absence of a will of the deceased, the said persons
were deprived of an opportunity to be successors together with
the heirs of the first order of succession, while in case of a
testamentary succession, they are entitled to the obligatory
portion of the inheritance. Thus, the opportunities of
succession depend not on the status of individuals but other
circumstances. In the opinion of the petitioner, the presence
of a testament may not have any impact on an opportunity for
the invalid heirs and dependants to inherit property. Article
573 of the CC (wording of 17 May 1994) provides for unequal
opportunities for individuals to inherit property since the
right to succession of invalid dependants depends on a manner
of succession.
Due to this, the petitioner doubts whether Items 1 and 2
of Paragraph 1 of Article 573 of the CC (wording of 17 May
1994) are in compliance with Articles 23, 29 and 52 of the
Constitution.
III
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
judicial investigation, written explanations were received from
the representative of the party concerned, the Seimas, who is
V. Stankevičius, a senior consultant of the Legal Department of
the Office of the Seimas.
1. The representative of the party concerned pointed out
that the Constitution does not regulate the relations of
succession. They are regulated by laws. The determination of
the legislature to amend the provisions of Article 573 of the
CC is to be linked with the adoption of the Constitution. In
his opinion, after the Constitution had been adopted, the legal
regulation of ownership and family relations became essentially
different.
2. Paragraph 1 of Article 46 of the Constitution provides
for the priority of private ownership, while Paragraph 1 of
Article 23 thereof guarantees inviolability of property. Under
Paragraph 1 of Article 38 of the Constitution, the family shall
be the basis of society and the state. The family and the
ownership are entrenched in the Constitution as the most
important values of the society. It is established in Paragraph
2 of Article 23 of the Constitution that the rights of
ownership shall be protected by law, therefore, the
representative of the party concerned is of the opinion that
the legal norms regulating succession ought to serve for the
protection of private ownership, to stimulate augmentation of
property and ensure continuance of ownership. Lithuania's
economy shall be based on the right to private ownership
(Paragraph 1 of Article 46 of the Constitution), therefore
preservation and fostering of private ownership is of utmost
importance for the society. In the opinion of the
representative of the party concerned, in case of legal
succession, the heirs' order of succession is determined not by
the person who left his/her property but by the legislature.
The legislature, while taking account of the said provisions of
the Constitution, held the most suitable heirs capable of
continuing the legal relations of ownership of the deceased to
be his/her children (adopted children), spouse, parents (foster
parents), who, under Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 573 of
the CC (wording of 17 May 1994), were in the first order of
succession.
3. The legislature, after it had established in Item 1 of
Paragraph 1 of Article 573 of the CC (wording of 17 May 1994)
that the spouse, the children (adopted children), the parents
(foster parents) are the heirs of the first order of
succession, attempted to strengthen family relations. The
implementation of the provision of the Constitution that the
family shall be the basis of society and the state ought to be
related to legal regulation of not only family relations but
also those of succession and other relations. The provisions of
Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 573 of the CC (wording of 17
May 1994) grant the same opportunities for the spouse, the
children (adopted children), the parents (foster parents) to
legal succession. Such regulation of succession concerning the
aforementioned family members strengthens their mutual
relations.
4. The representative of the party concerned maintains
that it is impossible to relate the social guarantees of the
state provided for in Article 52 of the Constitution to the
legal relations of succession. In his opinion, Items 1 and 2 of
Paragraph 1 of Article 573 of the CC (wording of 17 May 1994)
are in compliance with Articles 23, 29 and 59 of the
Constitution.
IV
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, explanations from Assoc. Prof.
Dr. P. Miškinis who works at the Civil and Commercial Law
Department, the Law University of Lithuania, were received.
V
At the Constitutional Court hearing, the representative of
the party concerned D. Karvelis virtually reiterated the
arguments set down in the written explanations by the
representative of the party concerned V. Stankevičius.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. On 17 May 1994, by the Republic of Lithuania Law "On
the Amendment and Supplement of the Civil Code of the Republic
of Lithuania", the Seimas amended Article 573 of the same code
and set it forth as follows:
"Legal Heirs
In case of legal succession, the heirs succeeding to equal
portions shall be the following:
1) the children (including the adopted children) of the
deceased, his/her spouse and parents (adopted parents) shall be
in the first order of succession. A child of the deceased who
is born after the death of the latter shall also be ascribed to
the heirs of the first order of succession.
2) the grandparents of the deceased both from the paternal
and the maternal line, the grandchildren of the deceased, as
well as the invalid persons who had been supported by the
deceased for not less than one year prior to his/her death
shall be in the second order of succession. If the heirs of the
second order of succession are dependants only, they shall
succeed together and by equal portions with the heirs of the
third, fourth or the fifth order of succession who are called
to succession.
3) the brothers and sisters of the deceased, his/her
great-grandchildren, as well as great-grandfathers and
great-grandmothers from the paternal and the maternal line
shall be in the third order of succession;
4) the children of the brother or sister of the deceased
(his/her nephews and nieces), as well as the brothers and
sisters of the father and the mother of the deceased (his/her
uncles and aunts) from the paternal and maternal line shall be
in the fourth order of succession;
5) the children of brothers and sisters of the father and
the mother of the deceased (his/her cousins) from the paternal
and maternal line shall be in the fifth order of succession.
The heirs of the second order of succession are called to
legal succession only in case of the absence of the heirs of
the first order of succession and also if the latter did not
accept or waived it, as well as in cases when the right to
succession has been deprived of all the heirs of the first
order of succession (Articles 572 and 575).
The heirs of the third order of succession are called to
legal succession only in the absence of the heirs of the second
order of succession, the heirs of the fourth order of
succession-only in the absence of the heirs or the third order
of succession, and the heirs of the fifth order of
succession-only in the absence of the heirs of the fourth order
of succession.
The grandchildren and great-grandchildren,
great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers, the nephews, nieces
and cousins of the deceased shall succeed to the portion which
would have belonged to a deceased heir of a corresponding order
of succession called to legal succession. The adopted children
and their descendants, when they succeed to property after the
death of their foster father (foster mother) or their
relatives, shall be equalled to the children and their
descendants of the foster parents. They shall not be entitled
to legal succession after the death of their parents and other
relatives of the first line according to kindred, as well as
after the death of their sisters according to kindred.
The foster parents and their relatives, when they succeed
to property after the death of the adopted child or his
descendants, shall be equalled to the parents or their other
relatives according to kindred. The parents of the adopted
child and their other relatives of the first line according to
kindred shall not be entitled to legal succession after the
death of the adopted child or his descendants."
2. The petitioner doubts whether Items 1 and 2 of
Paragraph 1 of Article 573 of the CC (wording of 17 May 1994)
are in compliance with Articles 23, 29 and 52 of the
Constitution since the invalid individuals who had been
supported by the deceased for not less than one year prior to
his/her death lost the right enjoyed by Paragraph 3 of Article
573 of the CC (wording of 7 July 1964) to legal succession by
equal portions together with the heirs of the first order of
succession.
3. On 18 July 2000, the Seimas enacted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Approval, Coming into Force and
Enforcement of the Civil Code. Upon coming into force of the
new Civil Code on 1 July 2001, the formerly valid Civil Code,
thus Article 573 thereof as well, became voided. The
Constitutional Court has been addressed by the Panevėžys City
District Court which had doubts as to the constitutionality of
Items 1 and 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 573 of the CC (wording
of 17 May 1994) when the said court was investigating a civil
case. The latter suspended the investigation of the civil case
until the decision of the Constitutional Court concerning the
compliance of Items 1 and 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 573 of
the CC (wording of 17 May 1994) with the Constitution.
Under Paragraph 4 of Article 69 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, the annulment of a disputable legal act
shall be grounds to adopt a decision to dismiss the initiated
legal proceedings. The formula "shall be grounds to adopt a
decision to dismiss the initiated legal proceedings" is to be
construed as establishing the right of the Constitutional Court
to dismiss the initiated legal proceedings while taking account
of the circumstances of the case under investigation, but not
as establishing that in every case when the disputed legal act
is annulled the initiated legal proceedings are to be dismissed
(Constitutional Court ruling of 5 April 2000).
The Panevėžys City District Court has appealed with a
petition to the Constitutional Court, requesting to determine
whether the disputed provision (even though it had been
annulled) was in compliance with the Constitution. It needs to
be noted that if the Constitutional Court did not decide this
question in essence, the doubts of the aforesaid court
concerning the constitutionality of the legal act would not be
removed. If the doubts concerning the constitutionality of the
legal act applicable in the above-mentioned case were not
removed and if the said act were applied, the rights of the
individual in the course of the consideration of the
aforementioned civil case might be infringed.
4. Subsequent to the request of the petitioner, the
Constitutional Court will consider whether Article 573 of the
CC (wording of 17 May 1994) to the extent that it did not
provide that the invalid individuals who had been supported by
the deceased for not less than one year prior to his/her death
were entitled to legal succession together with the heirs of
the first order of succession was in compliance with Articles
23, 29 and 52 of the Constitution.
5. In the course of the determination of the compliance of
Article 573 of the CC (wording of 17 May 1994), one must
ascertain the constitutional meaning of the institution of
succession.
Article 23 of the Constitution establishes inviolability
of property and protection of the rights of ownership. These
provisions of the Constitution also mean that the owner has the
right to state in his will to whom his property will be left
after his death, while in cases when such a will has not been
stated, he has the right that after his death his property will
be inherited by the heirs established by law.
In the course of the systematic construction of the
provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution, in the context of
the entire constitutional regulation, and especially of the
constitutional provisions establishing that the family is the
basis of society and the state and providing for a duty of the
state to take care of the family, motherhood, fatherhood, and
childhood, as well as the right and duty of parents to support
their children until they come of age, and the duty of children
to respect their parents, to care for them in old age, and to
preserve their heritage (Paragraphs 1, 2, 6 and 7 of Article 38
of the Constitution), a duty of the state to protected children
who are under age by law (Paragraph 3 of Article 39 of the
Constitution), also the provisions establishing the
constitutional rights of individuals and their inborn nature
(Article 18 of the Constitution) etc., one is to hold that the
institution of succession stems from the Constitution. The
Constitution guarantees the right to succession.
Under the Constitution, the relations of succession must
be regulated by laws only. The legislature, while regulating
these relations, must observe the principles and norms of the
Constitution. This means inter alia that there may not be any
established legal regulation which, on the one hand, might deny
the will of a testator to leave his property as inheritance to
other persons, and, which, on the other hand, in the absence of
a testament of a deceased, would give priority to other persons
but not those related to the deceased by family relations,
those of parents and children, which are established in the
Constitution. It needs to be noted that the legislature, while
regulating the relations of succession, must ensure a balance
between the right of an individual to leave his property to
other persons on the one part, and the other values protected
by the Constitution on the other part.
6. Under Paragraph 3 of Article 573 of the CC (wording of
7 July 1964), among the heirs who had the right to legal
succession, there were also the invalid individuals who had
been supported by the deceased for not less than one year prior
to his/her death. They had the right to succession together
with the called heirs of corresponding order (including the
first order) of succession. Thus, the support of the said
invalid individuals determined the fact that the said invalid
dependants had the right to succession to a portion of
inheritance of the individual who had supported them. Such
invalid dependants enjoyed the same right even in cases when no
property would be left to them by testament: under Paragraph 1
of Article 576 of the CC (the legal regulation established
therein remained the same also after Article 573 of the CC had
been amended on 17 May 1994) they had the right to succession
to the obligatory portion of the inheritance irrespective of
the content of the testament. The aforesaid invalid dependants
of the testator enjoyed the right to succession together with
the called heirs of the first or another order of succession
irrespective of the fact whether they were children (adopted
children) of the deceased, or his/her spouse, or parents
(foster-parents) or whether they were not related to the
deceased by family relations or those of parents and children.
Such persons had the right to succession irrespective of the
fact on what basis the relations of support had been grounded.
Thus, the right of the invalid dependants to succession, who
had been supported by the deceased for not less than one year
prior to his/her death but who were not his/her children
(adopted children), spouse, parents (foster-parents), together
with the called heirs of the first or another order of
succession restricted the right of the children (adopted
children), spouse, parents (foster parents) to succession to
the property of the deceased.
Under Article 573 of the CC (wording of 17 May 1994), the
invalid individuals who had been supported by the deceased for
not less than one year prior to his/her death were attributed
to the heirs of the second order of succession. The invalid
dependants had the right to legal succession only in the
absence of the heirs of the first order of succession and also
if the latter did not accept the legacy or waived it, as well
as in cases when all the heirs of the first order of succession
were deprived of the right to succession (Articles 572 and
575). Thus, under Article 573 of the CC (wording of 17 May
1994), the invalid dependants already did not enjoy the right
to succession together with the heirs of the first order of
succession.
7. 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."
It has already been held in this Ruling of the
Constitutional Court that the Constitution guarantees the right
to succession. Article 23 of the Constitution establishes the
right of the owner to leave his property as inheritance. The
provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 573 of the CC (wording of
17 May 1994), which are pointed out by the petitioner,
virtually mean that in case of the absence of a stated will of
a deceased, the invalid dependants who are not related to the
deceased by family relations, those of parents and children,
have no priority over the individuals related to the deceased
by the said relations, i.e. those of the children (adopted
children), spouse, parents (foster-parents). In itself the fact
that the deceased had supported an invalid individual does not
imply the right of the said invalid individual to succession of
the property of the deceased.
On the grounds of the arguments set forth, one is to draw
a conclusion that Article 573 of the CC (wording of 17 May
1994) to the extent that it did not provide that the invalid
individuals who had been supported by the deceased for not less
than one year prior to his/her death were entitled to legal
succession together with the heirs of the first order of
succession was in compliance with Article 23 of the
Constitution.
8. 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."
These provisions of the Constitution consolidate the
principle of equality of all persons. This principle must be
observed when passing and applying laws, as well as
administering justice. This principle obligates to apply
uniform legal assessment to homogeneous facts and prohibits to
arbitrarily assess essentially homogeneous facts
(Constitutional Court ruling of 24 January 24). This is a
principle of a formal legal equality. The Constitutional Court
has held in its rulings for many a time that this
constitutional principle does not deny the fact that the law
may establish different legal regulation in respect to certain
categories of persons that are in different situations.
Therefore, the legislature, while regulating the relations of
succession, may differentiate this regulation according to what
family or kinship relations certain persons were related with
the deceased.
It has been mentioned that there may not be any
established legal regulation which, on the one hand, might deny
the will of a testator to leave his property as inheritance to
other persons, and, which, on the other hand, in the absence of
a testament of a deceased, would give priority to other persons
but not those related to the deceased by family relations,
those of parents and children, which are established in the
Constitution. In itself the circumstance that the deceased had
supported an invalid individual does not constitute grounds to
establish by law that the invalid dependant has the right to
legal succession together with the heirs of the first order of
succession.
On the grounds of the arguments set forth, one is to draw
a conclusion that Article 573 of the CC (wording of 17 May
1994) to the extent that it did not provide that the invalid
individuals who had been supported by the deceased for not less
than one year prior to his/her death were entitled to legal
succession together with the heirs of the first order of
succession was in compliance with Article 29 of the
Constitution.
9. Article 52 of the Constitution provides: "The State
shall guarantee the right of citizens to old age and disability
pension, as well as to social assistance in the event of
unemployment, sickness, widowhood, loss of breadwinner, and
other cases provided by law."
It needs to be noted that the duty of the state to
guarantee the right to social assistance for individuals who
need it is established in Article 52 of the Constitution,
meanwhile Article 573 of the CC (wording of 17 May 1994)
regulated relations of succession but not those of the right to
social assistance guaranteed by the state.
Taking account of the fact that Article 52 of the
Constitution regulates different relations than those of Item 1
of Article 573 of the CC (wording of 17 May 1994), one is to
conclude that Article 573 of the CC (wording of 17 May 1994) to
the extent that it did not provide that the invalid individuals
who had been supported by the deceased for not less than one
year prior to his/her death were entitled to legal succession
together with the heirs of the first order of succession was in
compliance with Article 52 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:
To recognise that Article 573 of the Civil Code of the
Republic of Lithuania (wording of 17 May 1994) to the extent
that it did not provide that the invalid individuals who had
been supported by the deceased for not less than one year prior
to his/her death were entitled to legal succession together
with the heirs of the first order of succession was 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.