Lietuviškai

           THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF           
                            LITHUANIA                            

                             RULING                              
        ON THE COMPLIANCE OF PARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 27 OF        
                THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON                 
          TELECOMMUNICATIONS (WORDING OF 11 JULY 2000),          
           PARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE REPUBLIC OF           
         LITHUANIA LAW ON THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE 27 OF         
          THE LAW ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS, PARAGRAPH 4 OF          
         ARTICLE 57 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON          
        TELECOMMUNICATIONS (WORDING OF 5 JULY 2002), ITEM        
        4 OF PARAGRAPH 3 OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE REPUBLIC OF         
        LITHUANIA LAW ON OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES (WORDING         
        OF 22 MAY 1997), ITEM 6 OF PARAGRAPH 3 OF ARTICLE        
        7 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON OPERATIONAL        
        ACTIVITIES (WORDING OF 20 JUNE 2002), PARAGRAPH 1        
           OF ARTICLE 48 (WORDING OF 26 JUNE 1961) AND           
        PARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLE 75 (WORDING OF 29 JANUARY         
         1975) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OF THE          
       REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE        
                      REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA                      

                        19 September 2002                        
                             Vilnius                             

     The  Constitutional  Court  of  the  Republic  of Lithuania,
composed  of  the  Justices  of  the Constitutional Court Armanas
Abramavičius,   Egidijus  Jarašiūnas,  Egidijus  Kūris,  Kęstutis
Lapinskas,   Zenonas   Namavičius,  Augustinas  Normantas,  Jonas
Prapiestis, Vytautas Sinkevičius, and Stasys Stačiokas,
     with the secretary of the hearing-Daiva Pitrėnaitė,
     in the presence of:
     the  representative  of  a group of members of the Seimas of
the  Republic  of  Lithuania,  the  petitioner, who was Vasilijus
Popovas, a Seimas member,
     the  representatives  of  the  Seimas  of  the  Republic  of
Lithuania,  the  party  concerned,  who  were Algirdas Bloznelis,
the  Head  of  the  Board of the State Security Department of the
Republic   of   Lithuania,   Mindaugas   Girdauskas,   a   senior
consultant  to  the Legal Department of the Office of the Seimas,
Vaidotas  Bacevičius,  an  advisor  to  the Committee on National
Security   and   Defence   of  the  Seimas  of  the  Republic  of
Lithuania,
     pursuant  to  Articles  102  and  105 of the Constitution of
the  Republic  of  Lithuania  and  Article  1  of the Republic of
Lithuania  Law  on the Constitutional Court, on 22 August 2002 in
its   public   hearing   heard   Case   No.  34/2000-28/01  which
originated in the following petitions:
     1)  the  3  October  2000  petition of a group of members of
the   Seimas  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania,  the  petitioner,
requesting  to  consider  whether the second section of Article 1
of  the  Republic of Lithuania Law on the Amendment of Article 27
of  the  Law on Telecommunications was in compliance with Article
22  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania, also
whether  the  second  section  of  Article  1  and Paragraph 1 of
Article  2  of the same law were in compliance with Article 23 of
the Constitution;
     2)  the  8  May  2001  petition of a group of members of the
Seimas  of  the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting
to  consider  whether the provision "telecommunications operators
must   <...>  under  procedure  established  by  the  Government,
supply  gratis  information  in  the  scope  established  by  the
Government  to  entities of operational activities, interrogative
and   investigating   bodies  for  restraint,  investigation  and
solution  of  crimes  about objects of operational activities and
other   subscribers   and   their  telecommunications  which  are
necessary  for  investigation"  of  Article  1 of the Republic of
Lithuania  Law  on  the  Amendment  of  Article  27 of the Law on
Telecommunications,  the  provision "carrying out the preparatory
investigations,  the  investigator  shall independently adopt all
decisions   regarding   the  course  of  the  investigations  and
performance  of  investigatory  acts  save the cases when the law
provides  that  a  sanction  from the prosecutor is necessary" of
Article  48  of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of
Lithuania,   the   provision   "the  interrogator,  investigator,
prosecutor  <...>  shall  have  the  right, in the cases at their
command,  <...>  to  demand that the enterprises, establishments,
organisations  and  citizens  submit  items  and  documents which
might  be  important  in  the  case,  to  demand  that  audits be
carried  out.  These  requirements  must  be  carried  out by all
citizens,   enterprises,  establishments  and  organisations"  of
Article  75  of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of
Lithuania,  the  provision  of  "Item  4  of  Paragraph  3 of the
Republic  of  Lithuania  Law  on  Operational  Activities"  that,
under  the  procedure established by the Government, the entities
of  operational  activities  shall  have the right to make use of
information    held    by    enterprises,    establishments   and
organisations,  were  in  compliance  with  the  principles of an
open,  just,  civil  society  and a law-governed state entrenched
in   the   Preamble  to  the  Constitution  of  the  Republic  of
Lithuania,  Articles  1,  22  and  23  of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania.
     By  its  decision  of  27 May 2002, the Constitutional Court
joined the petitions into one case.

     The Constitutional Court
                        has established:                         

                                I                                
     1.   On  11  July  2000,  the  Seimas  of  the  Republic  of
Lithuania   enacted   the   Republic  of  Lithuania  Law  on  the
Amendment   of  Article  27  of  the  Law  on  Telecommunications
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2000, No. 61-1830).
     2.  On  22 May 1997, the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
enacted  the  Republic of Lithuania Law on Operational Activities
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1997, No. 50-1190).
     3.  On  26  June  1961  the  Code  of Criminal Procedure was
adopted  (Official  Gazette  Valstybės žinios, 1961, No. 18-148).
On  29  January  1975,  the  disputed provision of Paragraph 1 of
Article  75  of  the Code of Criminal Procedure (Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 1975, No. 3-22) was changed.
     4.  The  petitioners, groups of the members of the Seimas of
the Republic of Lithuania, request to consider whether:
     the   second  section  of  Article  1  of  the  Law  on  the
Amendment  of  Article  27 of the Law on Telecommunications is in
compliance  with  Article  22  of  the Constitution, also whether
the  second  section of Article 1 and Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of
the   same   law  are  in  compliance  with  Article  23  of  the
Constitution,
     the   provision  "telecommunications  operators  must  <...>
under  procedure  established  by  the  Government, supply gratis
information  in  the  scope  established  by  the  Government  to
entities    of    operational   activities,   interrogative   and
investigating  bodies  for  restraint, investigation and solution
of  crimes  about  objects  of  operational  activities and other
subscribers  and  their  telecommunications  which  are necessary
for  investigation"  of  Article 1 of the Law on the Amendment of
Article 27 of the Law on Telecommunications,
     the     provision     "carrying    out    the    preparatory
investigations,  the  investigator  shall independently adopt all
decisions   regarding   the  course  of  the  investigations  and
performance  of  investigatory  acts  save the cases when the law
provides  that  a  sanction  from the prosecutor is necessary" of
Article 48 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
     the  provision  "the  interrogator, investigator, prosecutor
<...>  shall  have  the  right,  in  the  cases at their command,
<...>   to   demand   that   the   enterprises,   establishments,
organisations  and  citizens  submit  items  and  documents which
might  be  important  in  the  case,  to  demand  that  audits be
carried  out.  These  requirements  must  be  carried  out by all
citizens,   enterprises,  establishments  and  organisations"  of
Article 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
     the  provision  of  Item 4 of Paragraph 3 of the Republic of
Lithuania   Law   on   Operational  Activities  that  "under  the
procedure   established   by  the  Government,  the  entities  of
operational  activities  shall  have  the  right  to  make use of
information    held    by    enterprises,    establishments   and
organisations",
     are  in  compliance  with  the  principles of an open, just,
civil   society  and  a  law-governed  state  entrenched  in  the
Preamble  to  the  Constitution,  Articles  1,  22  and 23 of the
Constitution.

                               II                                
     The  requests  of the petitioners are based on the following
arguments.
     1.  The  Law  on  the  Amendment of Article 27 of the Law on
Telecommunications  amended  Paragraph 2 of Article 27 of the Law
on    Telecommunications   and   set   it   forth   as   follows:
"Telecommunications  operators  must trace all telecommunications
events  and  their  participants, ensure and constantly maintain,
at   their   expense  and  by  their  facilities,  the  technical
opportunity  for  entities  of operational activities in order to
control,  under  procedure  established  by  laws, the content of
the   information  transmitted  via  telecommunication  networks,
also,  under  procedure  established  by  the  Government, supply
gratis  information  in  the  scope established by the Government
to   entities   of   operational  activities,  interrogative  and
investigating  bodies  for  restraint, investigation and solution
of  crimes  about  objects  of  operational  activities and other
subscribers  and  their  telecommunications  which  are necessary
for  investigation.  When  the entities of operational activities
need   additional   information,   if  compared  with  the  scope
established   by   the  Government,  they  shall  compensate  the
telecommunications   operators   the  necessary  expenditures  of
supply  of  such  information."  Paragraph  1 of Article 2 of the
Law   on   the   Amendment   of   Article   27   of  the  Law  on
Telecommunications  prescribes:  "The  Government  shall  finance
the  acquisition  of  the  facilities,  designated to control the
content     of    the    information    transmitted    via    the
telecommunication    networks,    for    the   telecommunications
operators  which  received  licences  prior  to  the  entry  into
effect  of  this  Law.  The  telecommunications  operators  shall
renew  the  said  facilities  and  maintain  their  technological
capacities at their expense."
     In  the  opinion  of  the  petitioner (petition of 3 October
2000),  under  the provision established in the second section of
Article  1  of  the Law on the Amendment of Article 27 of the Law
on   Telecommunications,  the  telecommunications  operators  are
obligated  to  trace all their subscribers. Until the adoption of
the   disputed   law,   the   telecommunications  operators  were
permitted  to  accumulate,  use  and store the data regarding the
network  subscribers  only  inasmuch  as it was necessary for the
service   of   the   subscribers   or   for   the  needs  of  the
communication  network.  According  to the petitioner, the Law on
the  Amendment  of  Article  27  of the Law on Telecommunications
obligates    telecommunications    operators    to    trace   all
telecommunications  events,  meanwhile,  taking  account  of  the
fact  that  under  the  existing  GSM  900  and GSM (or DCS) 1800
technologies,  the  stations  of  the  operators  and  the mobile
telephones   continually   and  regularly  send  each  other  the
information  about  their  status,  the  operators, while tracing
all  telecommunications  events, would collect the data about the
life  of  the  subscriber, i.e. the information about the private
life of the person.
     2.  The  petitioner  (petition of 3 October 2000) points out
that  under  Article  22 of the Constitution, the private life of
an  individual  shall  be  inviolable;  personal  correspondence,
telephone    conversations,   telegraph   messages,   and   other
intercommunications  shall  be inviolable; information concerning
the  private  life  of an individual may be collected only upon a
justified  court  decision  and  in  accordance with the law; the
law  and  the  court  shall protect individuals from arbitrary or
unlawful  interference  in their private or family life, and from
encroachment upon their honour and dignity.
     The  petitioner  asserts  that the second section of Article
1  of  the  Law  on  the  Amendment  of  Article 27 of the Law on
Telecommunications   obligates  telecommunications  operators  to
collect  information  about  the  private  life of individuals in
the absence of a court decision.
     3.  In  the  opinion  of  the  petitioner (petition of 8 May
2001),  the  striving  for  an  open,  just  and harmonious civil
society  and  law-governed  state  entrenched in the Constitution
also  implies  the  security  of  every individual as well as the
entire  society  from  criminal  attempts. In the course of their
restraint  and  prosecution,  the  state  institutions of law and
order  are  granted, by law, the rights to apply various specific
measures.  However,  one  must  combat crime by legal means, they
may  not  violate  the  constitutional  rights  and freedoms of a
person.   The   petitioner   notes   that   Article   22  of  the
Constitution    establishes    a   principal   requirement   that
information  concerning  the private life of an individual may be
collected  only  upon  a  justified  court  decision.  Since  the
Constitution  is  an  integral  act,  this  constitutional  human
right,  in  the opinion of the petitioner, must be treated as the
consequence  of  the striving for and principles of an open, just
and harmonious civil society and law-governed state.
     The  petitioner  (petition  of  8 May 2001) asserts that the
data  about  telecommunications,  including  the telephone number
of  a  person  or belonging of a telephone number, the numbers of
the   subscribers  who  made  calls  and  who  were  called,  the
messages  sent  and  received  or  other  information  about  the
rendered  services,  their  time,  place  and  duration,  but not
confining  to  them,  is  information about the private life of a
person,  therefore,  without a court sanction, telecommunications
operators  do  not  have  the  right  to supply these data to the
entities    of    operational   activities,   interrogative   and
investigating    bodies   about   the   subscribers   and   their
telecommunications  which  are  necessary  for the investigation;
in  the  opinion  of  the petitioner, the entities of operational
activities,  only  upon  receiving  a  court  sanction,  have the
right  to  make  use  of  the  information  held  at enterprises,
establishments  and  organisations concerning the private life of
a  person;  the  interrogator,  investigator and prosecutor, only
upon  receiving  a  court  sanction, have the right, in the cases
at    their    command,   to   demand   that   the   enterprises,
establishments,   organisations  and  citizens  submit  documents
about the private life of a person.
     According  to  the  petitioner,  the provision "carrying out
the    preparatory   investigations,   the   investigator   shall
independently  adopt  all  decisions  regarding the course of the
investigations  and  performance  of  investigatory acts save the
cases  when  the law provides that a sanction from the prosecutor
is  necessary"  of  Article 48 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
the  provision  "the interrogator, investigator, prosecutor <...>
shall  have  the  right,  in the cases at their command, <...> to
demand  that  the  enterprises, establishments, organisations and
citizens  submit  items and documents which might be important in
the   case,   to   demand  that  audits  be  carried  out.  These
requirements  must  be  carried out by all citizens, enterprises,
establishments  and  organisations"  of Article 75 of the Code of
Criminal  Procedure,  the  provision  of Item 4 of Paragraph 3 of
Article  7  of  the Law on Operational Activities that "under the
procedure   established   by  the  Government,  the  entities  of
operational  activities  shall  have  the  right  to  make use of
information    held    by    enterprises,    establishments   and
organisations"  and  the  provision "telecommunications operators
must   <...>  under  procedure  established  by  the  Government,
supply  gratis  information  in  the  scope  established  by  the
Government  to  entities of operational activities, interrogative
and   investigating   bodies  for  restraint,  investigation  and
solution  of  crimes  about objects of operational activities and
other   subscribers   and   their  telecommunications  which  are
necessary  for  investigation"  of  Article  1  of the Law on the
Amendment  of  Article  27  of  the Law on Telecommunications are
not  in  line  with  the  requirement  of  the  Constitution that
information  concerning  the private life of an individual may be
collected only upon a justified court decision.
     In  the  opinion of the petitioner (petition of 8 May 2001),
the  disputed  provisions  of  the  said  laws  conflict with the
principles  of  an  open,  just,  harmonious  civil  society  and
law-governed   state   entrenched   in   the   Preamble   to  the
Constitution  as  well  as  Articles 1 and 22 of the Constitution
since  the  information  concerning  the  subscribers  and  their
telecommunications  is  as  inviolable  as information concerning
the private life of an individual.
     4.  The  petitioner  (petition of 3 October 2000) points out
that,  under  Article  23  of the Constitution, 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.
     The  petitioner  maintains (petition of 8 May 2001) that the
disputed   laws   also   establish   a   duty   for  enterprises,
establishments,  organisations  and citizens, in the absence of a
court  decision,  to  collect,  store  and supply the information
held  by  them  to  respective  institutions  of  law  and order,
however,  no  compensation  is  provided for such restrictions of
the  right  of  ownership.  Therefore,  in  the  opinion  of  the
petitioner,   the   disputed  laws  violate  Article  23  of  the
Constitution,  as  well as the principles of an open, just, civil
society   and   a  law-governed  state,  and  Article  1  of  the
Constitution.
     5.  The  petitioner  (petition  of 3 October 2000) maintains
that  after  one  established  the  provision in Article 1 of the
Law   on   the   Amendment   of   Article   27   of  the  Law  on
Telecommunications  that  the  telecommunications operators must,
under  procedure  established  by  the  Government, supply gratis
information  in  the  scope  established  by  the  Government  to
entities    of    operational   activities,   interrogative   and
investigating  bodies  for  restraint, investigation and solution
of  crimes  about  objects  of  operational  activities and other
subscribers  and  their  telecommunications  which  are necessary
for   investigation,  as  well  as  after  one  consolidated  the
provision  in  Paragraph  1 of Article 2 of the same law that the
telecommunications   operators   shall   renew   the   facilities
designated   to   control   the   content   of   the  information
transmitted  via  the  telecommunication  networks  and  maintain
their    technological   capacities   at   their   expense,   one
established  seizure  of the funds of the operators for the needs
of society.

                               III                               
     In  the  course  of  the  preparation  of  the  case for the
judicial  investigation,  written explanations were received from
the   representatives   of   the  Seimas,  the  party  concerned,
Algirdas  Bloznelis,  the Head of the Board of the State Security
Department,  M.  Girdauskas,  a  senior  consultant  to the Legal
Department   of   the   Office   of   the  Seimas,  and  Vaidotas
Bacevičius,  an  advisor  to  the  Seimas  Committee  on National
Security and Defence.
     1.  The  representative  of the party concerned A. Bloznelis
maintains  that  the  Law  on  the Amendment of Article 27 of the
Law   on   Telecommunications  regulated  in  a  new  manner  the
relations  of  content control of the information transmitted via
telecommunications  network.  In the opinion of A. Bloznelis, the
previously  effective  provision  of the law concerning reception
of   compensation  by  telecommunications  operators  had  to  be
altered  as  it  conflicted with the fundamental principle of law
and  order  regarding  the obligation of persons to render gratis
all  the  information  prescribed  by  laws  about a committed or
prepared violation of law.
     A.  Bloznelis  notes that effective Article 27 of the Law on
Telecommunications  is  a  compromise  solution  of three trends:
(1)  capabilities  of the state to ensure sufficient financing of
the  activities  of  the  institutions  of  law  and  order;  (2)
preparation  and  maintenance of the telecommunications operators
operating  in  the  market  in the course of their performance of
their   obligations   to  society,  connected  with  ensuring  of
security   of   society;   (3)   creation  of  non-discriminatory
conditions for new operators.
     2.  The  representative of the party concerned M. Girdauskas
explained  that  the  provision  "carrying  out  the  preparatory
investigations,  the  investigator  shall independently adopt all
decisions   regarding   the  course  of  the  investigations  and
performance  of  investigatory  acts  save the cases when the law
provides  that  a  sanction  from the prosecutor is necessary" of
Article  48  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  is a norm of
common  character,  regulating the powers of the investigator. In
itself,   this   provision  does  not  grant  the  right  to  the
investigator  to  collect  information  about the private life of
an  individual,  also  without the sanction of the court (judge).
The  legitimate  conditions  of  collection  of  information  are
established  by  other,  special  norms  of  the Code of Criminal
Procedure,    individually    regulating   the   performance   of
investigatory  actions,  for  example, Articles 188, 196 and 1982
of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  link  the  lawfulness  of
search,  sequester  and seizure of post-telegraph correspondence,
tapping    of    telephone   conversations   performed   by   the
investigator  with  the  existence of a corresponding sanction of
the  judge.  Therefore,  in  the opinion of the representative of
the  party  concerned,  the  said  provision of Article 48 of the
Code  of  Criminal  Procedure may not be assessed as being not in
line  with  the  provision of Article 22 of the Constitution that
information  concerning  the private life of an individual may be
collected only upon a justified court decision.
     M.  Girdauskas  maintains  that Paragraph 3 of Article 22 of
the  Constitution  requires a court decision as to the collection
of  information  concerning  the  private  life  of an individual
only.  Therefore,  the  disputed  provisions of Article 75 of the
Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  are  in  compliance  with the said
paragraph  to  the  extent  that  it  grants  the  right  to  the
interrogator,  investigator  and  prosecutor  to demand items and
documents   that   do   not  reflect  the  private  life  of  the
individual.
     The  representative  of  the  party concerned notes that the
right  to  the inviolability of private life is not absolute. For
instance,  a  person  committing  criminal  and other deeds which
are  contrary  to  law  does not have and may not expect privacy.
The  limits  of  the  protection  of  the  private  life  of  the
individual  end  at  the  point  when  he,  by  his  actions in a
criminal  manner  or  otherwise  in an unlawful manner, infringes
the  interests  protected  by  law, inflicts damage on individual
persons,  society  and the state. The opportunity to restrict the
right  of  the person to inviolability of the private life in the
course  of  collecting  information about him is also established
in  Article  22  of  the  Constitution.  M. Girdauskas notes that
establishments  of  power  may  and  have  the  right  to collect
information  about  the  persons  who  are about to commit or who
have  committed  criminal  deeds.  Therefore,  the  provisions of
Article  75  of  the Code of Criminal Procedure providing for the
ways  of  collecting  of information of significance to the case,
i.e.  for  investigation and consideration of criminal cases, may
not   be   assessed   as  conflicting  with  Article  22  of  the
Constitution  to  the  entire  extent  providing for the right to
demand  items  and  documents  reflecting the private life of the
person.
     M.   Girdauskas   maintains   that  the  legislature,  while
establishing  the  powers for the establishments of law and order
to  collect  information,  including that on the private lives of
persons,   may   not  overstep  the  limits  established  in  the
Constitution.  Therefore,  in  the  opinion of the representative
of   the   party  concerned,  one  is  to  consider  whether  the
provision   "the  interrogator,  investigator,  prosecutor  <...>
shall  have  the  right,  in the cases at their command, <...> to
demand  that  the  enterprises, establishments, organisations and
citizens  submit  items and documents which might be important in
the   case,   to   demand  that  audits  be  carried  out.  These
requirements  must  be  carried out by all citizens, enterprises,
establishments  and  organisations"  of Article 75 of the Code of
Criminal  Procedure  is  in  compliance  with  Article  22 of the
Constitution  to  the  extent  that  it does not require that the
documents  and  items  the  content of which is information about
the  private  life of the person, be collected in the presence of
a justified court decision only.
     M.  Girdauskas  notes  that  it  is to be considered whether
the  disputed  provision  of the Law on Operational Activities is
in  compliance  with  Article  22  of the Constitution not to its
entire  extent  but to the extent that it does not establish that
the  entities  of  operational activities shall have the right to
make  use  of  information  about  the private life of the person
which  is  held  by  enterprises, establishments and organisation
only upon a court decision.
     In   the   opinion   of  the  representative  of  the  party
concerned,  information  about  objects of operational activities
and  other  subscribers  and  their  telecommunications which are
necessary  for  investigation  may  include information about the
private  lives  of  persons,  therefore,  it  is to be considered
whether  the  disputed  provision  of Article 1 of the Law on the
Amendment  of  Article  27 of the Law on Telecommunications is in
compliance  with  Article  22  of  the  Constitution  not  to its
entire  extent  but to the extent that it does not establish that
telecommunications  operators  must  supply all information about
the   private   lives  of  persons  to  entities  of  operational
activities,  interrogative  and  investigating bodies only upon a
justified court decision.
     M.  Girdauskas  maintains  that  the provisions of Article 1
of  the  Law  on  the  Amendment  of  Article  27  of  the Law on
Telecommunications  restrict  the  right of telecommunications to
ownership,   however,   the  said  right  is  not  absolute.  The
striving  for  an  open,  just  and  harmonious civil society and
law-governed   state   enshrined   in   the   Preamble   to   the
Constitution  and  the  general  interest expressed in Article 28
of  the  Constitution  require  that  one  should  bar the way to
crimes,  that  the  crimes  committed  be  solved  and  that  the
culprits   be   brought   to  responsibility.  Telecommunications
operators  render  telecommunications  services to other persons,
which   create   conditions   to   intercommunicate   during  the
preparation  for  and  in  the  course of commission of crimes as
well  as  their  concealment. In the absence of the conditions to
intercept  the  telecommunications,  in certain cases it would be
too   complicated  or  even  impossible  to  implement  the  said
general   interest.   Therefore,  the  law  may  provide  for  an
obligation  for  the  telecommunications  operators to contribute
to  blocking  the  way  to  possible  negative  effects  of their
activities.
     In   the   opinion   of  the  representative  of  the  party
concerned,  while  establishing  the scope of such an obligation,
one  should  take  account  of  the  fact that telecommunications
operators  attempt  to get income from their activities, in other
words,  from  their  property  rights.  However, according to the
principle  of  the unity of rights and obligations, the reception
of  rights  is  inseparable  from  reception  of  obligations. In
other  words,  the state may establish certain conditions for the
persons  who  wish to engage in certain business. The activity of
the   telecommunications   operators  may  create  conditions  to
violate  the  said  general interest, therefore an obligation may
be  established  for  the operators to take measures also so that
the  general  interest would not be violated. This obligation may
include  the  obligation  to  install and maintain the facilities
designated  to  store  the  information about the subscribers and
their  telecommunications,  which  is  necessary to implement the
obligation  to  provide  the  information  to the institutions of
law  and  order,  which is provided for in the disputed provision
of  Article  1  of  the Law on the Amendment of Article 27 of the
Law   on  Telecommunications.  However,  in  the  opinion  of  M.
Girdauskas,  taking  account  of the principle of proportionality
conditioned  by  the  principles  of  a  law-governed  state  and
justice,  which  are  enshrined  in  the  Constitution, one is to
consider  whether  the  disputed  provision  of  the  law  is  in
compliance  with  the Constitution to the extent that it provides
for  an  obligation  of the telecommunications operators to cover
all  the  expenses  necessary  to  implement it. In this respect,
one  is  to  consider,  whether  a  reasonable conformity between
such  restriction  of  the scope of the right of ownership of the
telecommunications  operators  and  the objectives of the general
interest sought by this was retained.
     The  representative  of  the  party  concerned M. Girdauskas
maintains  that  the  question  of  the compliance of Articles 48
and  75  of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Item 4 of Paragraph 3
of  Article  7 of the Law on Operational Activities, Article 1 of
the   Law   on  the  Amendment  of  Article  27  of  the  Law  on
Telecommunications  with  the  principles of an open, just, civil
society  and  a  law-governed state entrenched in the Preamble to
the  Constitution  and  Article  1  of  the  Constitution  may be
considered  after  one  has  established  at  least  one  case of
conflict  of  the  disputed  laws  with Articles 22 and 23 of the
Constitution.
     3.   The   representative   of   the   party   concerned  V.
Bacevičius,  while  assessing  the  compliance  of  the  disputed
provisions  of  the Law on the Amendment of Article 27 of the Law
on  Telecommunications  with  Article  22  of  the  Constitution,
notes  that  the  operators rendering telecommunications services
used   to   trace   all  telecommunications  sessions  and  their
participants,   the   time  and  duration  of  telecommunications
sessions,  other  parameters  (data) also prior to the entry into
effect  of  the  disputed law, however, to collect data about the
participants  of  telecommunications sessions in such a manner is
necessary   for   the   operators   rendering  telecommunications
services,  therefore  this may not be treated as violation of the
private   life   of   the   individual.  In  the  opinion  of  V.
Bacevičius,    the    adopted   law   does   not   obligate   the
telecommunications   operators   to   spy  on  their  subscribers
(entities  of  telecommunications  events), while the information
which  is  required  to  be  supplied (the surname of the person,
the  subscription  number  etc.)  does not violate the privacy of
the  person  since  it  is  not connected with the control of the
content   of   telecommunications.  In  addition,  V.  Bacevičius
emphasises  that  the  information  connected with a violation of
law  (crime)  being  committed  or  committed  is  supplied while
taking  into  consideration  the public interest, i.e. in attempt
to  block  the  way  to  the  violation of law or to solve it and
this  is  in  line  with  the provisions of Articles 48 and 75 of
the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure. The interests of ensuring the
state  security  (public  interest)  require  that  one should be
able,  under  procedure  established  by the law, to restrict the
rights  and  freedoms  of individual persons, to guarantee public
order,  to  apprehend  a  criminal,  to  save the life, health or
property of the individual.
     In   the   opinion   of  the  representative  of  the  party
concerned,  the  principles  are  entrenched  in the Constitution
that  the  rights and freedoms of the person may be restricted by
law  only,  when it is necessary for the safeguard of the health,
honour  and  dignity,  private  life, or morals of an individual,
or  for  the protection of constitutional order. Under Article 28
of   the   Constitution,   while   exercising  their  rights  and
freedoms,  persons  must observe the Constitution and the laws of
the  Republic  of  Lithuania,  and must not impair the rights and
freedoms  of  other  people,  i.e.  they  may not commit criminal
actions.  Thus,  the  person  who  has committed a criminal deed,
does  not  enjoy  complete  inviolability  of  the personal life,
and,  in  the  course  of the investigation of his criminal deeds
under  procedure  established  by  laws,  his rights and freedoms
may be restricted.
     V.  Bacevičius  maintains  that the provisions of the Law on
the  Amendment  of Article 27 of the Law on Telecommunications do
not   provide   for   alienation  of  such  technical  facilities
installed  at  the  expense of the operators, therefore there are
no  grounds  to  maintain  that the requirements of Article 23 of
the   Constitution   are   violated.  These  obligations  of  the
telecommunications  operators  are to be linked with the specific
nature  of  the  licensed activity and the rights of the state to
establish     rules     for    carrying    out    the    licensed
commercial-economic    activity.    In   the   opinion   of   the
representative  of  the  party  concerned, the telecommunications
operators   do   not   conduct   the  telecommunications  content
control:  they  merely  create  opportunities  for an institution
empowered   by   the   Government  to  do  so,  therefore  it  is
purposeless  to  raise  the  question  of  compensation  for  the
telecommunications operators for the services rendered.
     In   the   opinion   of  the  representative  of  the  party
concerned,  the  Law on the Amendment of Article 27 of the Law on
Telecommunications  has  taken  account  of the provisions of the
Constitution  which  guarantee  the  inviolability of the private
life   of   an   individual  and  protection  of  ownership,  the
Convention  for  the  Protection  of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms  which  was  ratified  by  the Republic of Lithuania, as
well  as  the  interests  of  society,  in attempt to protect the
general  interest,  the  security  of  the  state,  to ensure the
protection  of  society  and  bar the way to violations of public
order  and  crimes,  also,  while  taking  into  consideration to
protect  the  health and lives of people, the rights and freedoms
of  persons.  Therefore,  in  the  opinion  of V. Bacevičius, the
disputed  provisions  of  the  law are in compliance with Article
23 of the Constitution.

                               IV                                
     In  the  course  of  the  preparation  of  the  case for the
Constitutional   Court   hearing,   written   explanations   were
received  from  M.  Laurinkus,  Director  General  of  the  State
Security  Department  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania,  J. Ūsas,
Director  of  the  Communications  Department  of the Ministry of
Communications  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania,  O.  Jakštaitė,
Director  of  the  State  Inspectorate  of  Data  Protection,  V.
Valeckaitė,  Acting  Director  of  the  Institute  of Law, and T.
Birmontienė,   Director   of  the  Lithuanian  Centre  for  Human
Rights.

                                V                                
     1.  At  the  Constitutional  Court  hearing, V. Popovas, the
representative  of  the  group of Seimas members, the petitioner,
virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in the petition.
     2.  At  the  Constitutional Court hearing, V. Bacevičius, A.
Bloznelis  and  M. Girdauskas, the representatives of the Seimas,
the  party  concerned,  virtually  reiterated  the  arguments set
forth   in  their  written  explanations  to  the  Constitutional
Court.

     The Constitutional Court
                           holds that:                           

                                I                                
     1.   The  first  petitioner,  a  group  of  Seimas  members,
requests,  by  its  petition  of  3  October  2000,  to  consider
whether  the  second  section  of  Article  1  of  the Law on the
Amendment  of  Article  27 of the Law on Telecommunications is in
compliance  with  Article  22  of  the Constitution, also whether
the  second  section of Article 1 and Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of
the   same   law  are  in  compliance  with  Article  23  of  the
Constitution.
     The   second   petitioner,   a   group  of  Seimas  members,
requests,  by  its petition of 8 May 2001 to consider whether the
provision   "telecommunications   operators   must   <..>  under
procedure   established   by   the   Government,   supply  gratis
information  in  the  scope  established  by  the  Government  to
entities    of    operational   activities,   interrogative   and
investigating  bodies  for  restraint, investigation and solution
of  crimes  about  objects  of  operational  activities and other
subscribers  and  their  telecommunications  which  are necessary
for  investigation"  of  Article 1 of the Law on the Amendment of
Article  27  of  the  Law  on  Telecommunications,  the provision
"carrying  out  the  preparatory investigations, the investigator
shall  independently  adopt all decisions regarding the course of
the  investigations  and  performance  of investigatory acts save
the  cases  when  the  law  provides  that  a  sanction  from the
prosecutor  is  necessary"  of Article 48 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure,   the   provision   "the  interrogator,  investigator,
prosecutor  <...>  shall  have  the  right, in the cases at their
command,  <...>  to  demand that the enterprises, establishments,
organisations  and  citizens  submit  items  and  documents which
might  be  important  in  the  case,  to  demand  that  audits be
carried  out.  These  requirements  must  be  carried  out by all
citizens,   enterprises,  establishments  and  organisations"  of
Article  75  of  the Code of Criminal Procedure, the provision of
Item  4  of  Paragraph  3  of  the  Republic  of Lithuania Law on
Operational  Activities  that  under the procedure established by
the  Government,  the  entities  of  operational activities shall
have  the  right  to make use of information held by enterprises,
establishments  and  organisations,  are  in  compliance with the
principles  of  an  open,  just, civil society and a law-governed
state  entrenched  in  the Preamble to the Constitution, Articles
1, 22 and 23 of the Constitution.
     2.  On  11  July  2000,  the  Seimas  enacted the Law on the
Amendment  of  Article  27  of  the  Law on Telecommunications by
Article  1  whereof  Paragraphs  2 and 3 of Article 27 of the Law
on Telecommunications were altered and set forth as follows:
     "2.    Telecommunications    operators    must   trace   all
telecommunications  events  and  their  participants,  ensure and
constantly  maintain,  at  their expense and by their facilities,
the   technical   opportunity   for   entities   of   operational
activities  in  order  to control, under procedure established by
laws,   the   content   of   the   information   transmitted  via
telecommunication  networks,  also,  under  procedure established
by  the  Government,  supply  gratis  information  in  the  scope
established   by   the  Government  to  entities  of  operational
activities,    interrogative   and   investigating   bodies   for
restraint,  investigation  and  solution  of crimes about objects
of   operational  activities  and  other  subscribers  and  their
telecommunications  which  are  necessary for investigation. When
the   entities   of   operational   activities   need  additional
information,  if  compared  with  the  scope  established  by the
Government,   they   shall   compensate   the  telecommunications
operators   the   necessary   expenditures   of  supply  of  such
information.
     3.  An  institution empowered by the Government-an entity of
operational   activities-shall   organise  and,  under  procedure
established    by    the   Government,   create   the   technical
opportunities  for  every  entity  of  operational  activities to
independently  conduct  the control of the content of information
transmitted via telecommunications networks."
     Article  2  titled  "The  Implementation  of the Law" of the
Law   on   the   Amendment   of   Article   27   of  the  Law  on
Telecommunications provides:
     "1.  The  Government  shall  finance  the acquisition of the
facilities,   designated   to   control   the   content   of  the
information  transmitted  via the telecommunication networks, for
the  telecommunications  operators  which received licences prior
to  the  entry  into  effect  of this Law. The telecommunications
operators  shall  renew  the  said  facilities and maintain their
technological capacities at their expense.
     2.  All  the  telecommunications facilities the exploitation
of  which  began after this law went into effect must comply with
the requirements of Article 1 of this Law."
     2.1.  The  first  petitioner  (petition  of  3 October 2000)
requests  to  consider whether the second section of Article 1 of
the   Law   on  the  Amendment  of  Article  27  of  the  Law  on
Telecommunications  is  in  compliance  with  Article  22  of the
Constitution,  also  whether  the second section of Article 1 and
Paragraph  1  of Article 2 of the same law are in compliance with
Article  23  of the Constitution. The second petitioner (petition
of  8  May  2001)  requests  to  consider  whether  the provision
"telecommunications   operators   must   <...>   under  procedure
established  by  the Government, supply gratis information in the
scope  established  by  the Government to entities of operational
activities,    interrogative   and   investigating   bodies   for
restraint,  investigation  and  solution  of crimes about objects
of   operational  activities  and  other  subscribers  and  their
telecommunications  which  are  necessary  for  investigation" of
Article  1  of  the Law on the Amendment of Article 27 of the Law
on  Telecommunications  is  in  compliance with the principles of
an   open,   just,   civil   society  and  a  law-governed  state
entrenched  in  the  Preamble to the Constitution, Articles 1, 22
and 23 of the Constitution.
     Although  the  first petitioner (petition of 3 October 2000)
requests  to  consider whether the second section of Article 1 of
the   Law   on  the  Amendment  of  Article  27  of  the  Law  on
Telecommunications  is  in  compliance with Articles 22 and 23 of
the  Constitution,  however,  it is clear from the motives of the
petitioner    that    he    doubts    whether    the    provision
"telecommunications  operators  must trace all telecommunications
events  and  their  participants, ensure and constantly maintain,
at   their   expense  and  by  their  facilities,  the  technical
opportunity  for  entities  of operational activities in order to
control,  under  procedure  established  by  laws, the content of
the   information  transmitted  via  telecommunication  networks,
also,  under  procedure  established  by  the  Government, supply
gratis  information  in  the  scope established by the Government
to   entities   of   operational  activities,  interrogative  and
investigating  bodies  for  restraint, investigation and solution
of  crimes  about  objects  of  operational  activities and other
subscribers  and  their  telecommunications  which  are necessary
for  investigation"  of Article 1 of the aforementioned law is in
compliance with Articles 22 and 23 of the Constitution.
     It  has  been  mentioned that the first petitioner (petition
of  3  October 2000) doubts as to the compliance of the aforesaid
provision  of  Article  1  of the Law on the Amendment of Article
27  of  the  Law on Telecommunications with Articles 22 and 23 of
the  Constitution,  while  the  second  petitioner (petition of 8
May  2001)  doubts  as  to  the  compliance  of  the provision of
Article  1  of  the Law on the Amendment of Article 27 of the Law
on  Telecommunications  with  the  principles  of  an open, just,
civil   society  and  a  law-governed  state  entrenched  in  the
Preamble  to  the  Constitution,  Articles  1,  22  and 23 of the
Constitution.
     Thus,  the  3  October  2000  petition  of a group of Seimas
members  to  consider  the  compliance  of  the second section of
Article  1  of  the Law on the Amendment of Article 27 of the Law
on  Telecommunications  with  Article 22 of the Constitution also
encompasses  the  8 May 2001 petition of the second petitioner, a
group  of  Seimas  members,  to  consider  the  compliance of the
disputed  provision  of  Article 1 of the Law on the Amendment of
Article   27   of   the   Law   on  Telecommunications  with  the
Constitution.
     2.2.  On  5  July  2002,  the Seimas enacted the Republic of
Lithuanian    Law    on    the    Amendment   of   the   Law   on
Telecommunications  (Official  Gazette  Valstybės  žinios,  2002,
No.  75-3215)  whereby  the Law on Telecommunications was amended
and  set  forth in a new wording. The Law on the Amendment of the
Law  on  Telecommunications  was published in Valstybės žinios on
26  July  2002.  Article 2 of the said law provides that this Law
on  Telecommunications  shall  go  into  effect  as  of 1 January
2003.  Thus,  Article 2 of the Law on the Amendment of the Law on
Telecommunications  sets  the  date  of  the  commencement of the
application  of  the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 5 July
2002) which is 1 January 2003.
     2.3.   Under   Article   105   of   the   Constitution,  the
Constitutional   Court   shall   consider   and  adopt  decisions
concerning  the  conformity  of laws and other legal acts adopted
by   the   Seimas   with  the  Constitution.  Article  7  of  the
Constitution  prescribes  that  only  laws  which  are  published
shall be valid.
     The  formula  "laws  and  other  legal  acts  adopted by the
Seimas"   employed   in   Paragraph  1  of  Article  105  of  the
Constitution  means  that the Constitutional Court has the powers
to  consider  the  compliance  of  the laws and other acts (parts
thereof)  adopted  by  the  Seimas  and officially published with
the  Constitution  irrespective  of  the  established date of the
commencement  of  the  application  of  such  laws  or other acts
(parts thereof).
     2.4.   Paragraph   4   of   Article   57   of   the  Law  on
Telecommunications   (wording   of   5   July   2002)   provides:
"Telecommunications      operators      and      providers     of
telecommunications  services  must,  under  procedure established
by   legal   acts,  trace  telecommunications  events  and  their
participants,  ensure  and  constantly maintain, at their expense
and  by  their facilities, the technical opportunity for entities
of   operational   activities,  interrogative  and  investigating
bodies,  in  order  to  control,  under  procedure established by
laws  and  upon  a  sanction  issued by court, the content of the
information  transmitted  via  telecommunication  networks, also,
under  procedure  established  by  the  Government, supply gratis
the  information  established  by  the  Government to entities of
operational  activities,  interrogative  and investigating bodies
for   restraint,  investigation  and  solution  of  crimes  about
objects  of  operational  activities  and  other  subscribers and
their  telecommunications  which are necessary for investigation.
When  the  entities  of  operational  activities  need additional
information,   if   compared   with   that   established  by  the
Government,   they   shall   compensate   the  telecommunications
operators   the   necessary   expenditures   of  supply  of  such
information."
     2.5.  Comparing  Paragraph  4  of  Article  57 of the Law on
Telecommunications  (wording  of 5 July 2002) with Paragraph 2 of
Article  27  of the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 11 July
2000),  one  is  to hold that their formulations are different in
that  Paragraph  4 of Article 57 of the Law on Telecommunications
(wording  of  5 July 2002) employs the word "established" instead
of  the  words  "the  scope established", it does not contain the
word   "all",   it   contains   the   words   "and  providers  of
telecommunications  services",  "under  procedure  established by
legal  acts",  "interrogative  and investigating bodies", "upon a
sanction  issued  by  court".  The  indicated  differences do not
change  in  essence the content of the provisions disputed by the
petitioners.  Thus,  the  disputed  provision  of  Paragraph 2 of
Article  27  of the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 11 July
2000)  is  virtually repeated in Paragraph 4 of Article 57 of the
Law on Telecommunications (wording of 5 July 2002).
     2.6.  Taking  account of the fact that, under Article 105 of
the  Constitution,  the  Constitutional  Court shall consider and
adopt  decisions  concerning  the  conformity  of  laws and other
legal   acts   adopted   by  the  Seimas  with  the  Constitution
irrespective   of   what   date  of  the  commencement  of  their
application  is  established,  the  Constitutional  Court has the
powers  to  consider  the compliance of the provisions of the Law
on  Telecommunications  (wording  of  5  July  2002)  the date of
commencement  of  the  application  whereof  is  1  January  2003
irrespective  of  the  fact that at the time of the consideration
of the case at issue the said law is not applicable yet.
     3.   On   22  May  1997,  the  Seimas  enacted  the  Law  on
Operational   Activities   (Official  Gazette  Valstybės  žinios,
1997,  No.  50-1190)  Item  4 of Paragraph 3 of Article 7 whereof
provides   that,   under   the   procedure   established  by  the
Government,  the  entities  of  operational activities shall have
the  right  to  make  use  of  information  held  by enterprises,
establishments and organisations.
     One  of  the  petitioners  (petition of 8 May 2001) requests
to   consider   whether   the   provision  "under  the  procedure
established  by  the  Government,  the  entities  of  operational
activities   shall   have   the   right  <...>  to  make  use  of
information    held    by    enterprises,    establishments   and
organisations"   of  "Item  4  of  Paragraph  3  of  the  Law  on
Operational  Activities"  is in compliance with the principles of
an   open,   just,   civil   society  and  a  law-governed  state
entrenched  in  the  Preamble to the Constitution, Articles 1, 22
and  23  of  the  Constitution.  The petitioner does not indicate
what  article  of  the Law on Operational Activities contains the
provision   disputed  by  him.  The  provision  disputed  by  the
petitioner  is  in  Item 4 of Paragraph 3 of Article 7 of the Law
on Operational Activities.
     3.1.  On  20  June  2002,  the  Seimas  enacted a new Law on
Operational  Activities  (Official  Gazette Valstybės žinios, No.
65-2633)  which  went into effect on 28 June 2002. Upon the entry
into  effect  of the said law, the 22 May 1997 Law on Operational
Activities  became  null  and  void.  Item  6  of  Paragraph 3 of
Article  7  of  the  Law on Operational Activities (wording of 20
June  2002)  provides  that,  under  the procedure established by
the  Government  or the institutions empowered by the latter, the
entities  of  operational  activities  shall  have  the  right to
receive  the  information  from  enterprises,  establishments and
organisations which is necessary for operational activities.
     3.2.  Comparing  Item  6  of Paragraph 3 of Article 7 of the
Law  on  Operational  Activities  (wording  of 20 June 2002) with
Item  4  of  Paragraph  3  of Article 7 of the Law on Operational
Activities  (wording  of  22 May 1997), one is to hold that their
formulations  differ  in  that Item 6 of Paragraph 3 of Article 7
of  the  Law  on Operational Activities (wording of 20 June 2002)
employs  the  word  "receive" instead of the words "make use of",
the  word  "held"  is  absent,  it  contains  the  words  "or the
institutions  empowered  by  the  latter" and "which is necessary
for   operational   activities".  The  indicated  differences  in
essence  do  not  change the content of the provision disputed by
the  petitioner.  Thus,  the  disputed  provision  of  Item  4 of
Paragraph  3  of  Article  7 of the Law on Operational Activities
(wording  of  22  May  1997)  is  virtually repeated in Item 6 of
Paragraph  3  of  Article  7 of the Law on Operational Activities
(wording of 20 June 2002).
     4.  Paragraph  1  of  Article  48  of  the  Code of Criminal
Procedure  (wording  of  26  June 1961) inter alia provides that,
while   carrying   out   the   preparatory   investigations,  the
investigator  shall  independently  adopt all decisions regarding
the   course   of   the   investigations   and   performance   of
investigatory  acts  save  the cases when the law provides that a
sanction  from  the  prosecutor  is  necessary;  Paragraph  1  of
Article  75  of  the same code (wording of 29 January 1975) inter
alia  provides  that  the  interrogator, investigator, prosecutor
shall  have  the  right, in the cases at their command, to demand
that   the   enterprises,   establishments,   organisations   and
citizens  submit  items and documents which might be important in
the  case,  to  demand that audits be carried out, and that these
requirements  must  be  carried out by all citizens, enterprises,
establishments and organisations.
     4.1.  On  14  March  2002, the Seimas enacted the Law on the
Approval,  Entry  into  Effect  and Implementation of the Code of
Criminal  Procedure  (Official  Gazette  Valstybės  žinios, 2002,
No.  37-1341,  see corrections Official Gazette Valstybės žinios,
No.  46,  p.  127).  Article  2 of the said law provides that the
date  of  the  entry  into  effect  of  the  new Code of Criminal
Procedure will be established by a separate law.
     4.2.  The  Code  of  Criminal Procedure (wording of 14 March
2002)  provides  for  virtually  new  rules  of  investigation of
crimes.  For  instance,  one  has introduced the institute of the
judge  of  pre-trial  investigation,  this  judge  is granted the
powers  to  impose  and  sanction  the  application of procedural
forcible  measures,  to accomplish certain procedural actions, to
approve  certain  decisions  of  the  prosecutor etc. It is clear
from  the  total  legal  regulation  established  in  the Code of
Criminal  Procedure  (wording  of 14 March 2002) that it does not
repeat  the  provisions  of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 (wording of
26  June  1961)  and  Paragraph  1  of  Article 75 (wording of 29
January  1975)  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  which are
disputed  by  the  petitioner: the said provisions have undergone
qualitative changes.
     5.  It  has  been  mentioned  that  one  of  the petitioners
(petition  of  8  May  2001)  requests  to  consider  whether the
disputed  provisions  of Article 1 of the Law on the Amendment of
Article  27  of the Law on Telecommunications, Articles 48 and 75
of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  Item 4 of Paragraph 3 of
Article   7   of   the  Law  on  Operational  Activities  are  in
compliance  with  the  principles of an open, just, civil society
and  a  law-governed  state  entrenched  in  the  Preamble to the
Constitution and Article 1 of the Constitution.
     5.1.   The   Preamble  of  the  Constitution  proclaims  the
striving  for  an  open,  just,  harmonious  civil  society and a
law-governed  state.  The  Constitution  shall be an integral act
(Paragraph  1  of  Article 6 of the Constitution). The values and
strivings  enshrined  in  the  Constitution  are expressed in the
constitutional   norms   and   principles  (Constitutional  Court
ruling  of  11  July 2002). Thus, the striving for an open, just,
harmonious  civil  society  and  a  law-governed  state  is to be
construed  inseparably  from  the  norms  and  principles  of the
Constitution, including the principle of a law-governed state.
     The  constitutional  principle  of a law-governed state is a
universal  one  upon  which  the whole Lithuanian legal system as
well  as  the  Constitution  of  the Republic of Lithuania itself
are  based  (Constitutional  Court  ruling  of 23 February 2000).
This  constitutional  principle also embodies the striving for an
open,  just,  harmonious  civil  society and a law-governed state
entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution.
     Therefore  the  Constitutional  Court will consider, whether
the   disputed   provisions  of  the  laws  pointed  out  by  the
petitioner  (petition  of  8 May 2001) are in compliance with the
constitutional principle of a law-governed state.
     5.2.  Article  1 of the Constitution provides: "The State of
Lithuania shall be an independent and democratic republic."
     In   Article   1   of   the   Constitution  the  fundamental
principles   of   the   Lithuanian  State  are  established:  the
Lithuanian  State  is  free  and independent; the republic is the
form  of  governance  of  the  Lithuanian  State; the state power
must  be  organised  in  a  democratic  way,  and there must be a
democratic  political  regime  in  this  country  (Constitutional
Court ruling of 23 February 2000).
     It  is  clear  from  the motives of the petitioner (petition
of  8  May  2001)  that he doubts whether the disputed provisions
of  the  aforementioned laws are in compliance with the provision
of  Article  1  of  the  Constitution that the State of Lithuania
shall be democratic.
     Therefore  the  Constitutional  Court  will consider whether
the   disputed   provisions  of  the  laws  pointed  out  by  the
petitioner  are  in compliance with the provision of Article 1 of
the   Constitution   that   the   State  of  Lithuania  shall  be
democratic.
     6.  Subsequent  to  the petitions of the petitioners, groups
of   Seimas  members,  the  Constitutional  Court  will  consider
whether:
     1)  the  provision  "telecommunications operators must trace
all  telecommunications  events  and  their  participants, ensure
and   constantly   maintain,   at  their  expense  and  by  their
facilities,   the   technical   opportunity   for   entities   of
operational  activities  in  order  to  control,  under procedure
established  by  laws, the content of the information transmitted
via    telecommunication    networks,   also,   under   procedure
established  by  the Government, supply gratis information in the
scope  established  by  the Government to entities of operational
activities,    interrogative   and   investigating   bodies   for
restraint,  investigation  and  solution  of crimes about objects
of   operational  activities  and  other  subscribers  and  their
telecommunications  which  are  necessary  for  investigation" of
Paragraph  2  of  Article  27  of  the  Law on Telecommunications
(wording  of  11  July  2000) is in compliance with the provision
of  Article  1  of  the  Constitution that the State of Lithuania
shall  be  democratic,  Articles  22  and 23 of the Constitution,
and the principle of a state under the rule of law;
     2)  Paragraph  1 of Article 2 of the Law on the Amendment of
Article  27  of  the  Law  on Telecommunications is in compliance
with Article 23 of the Constitution;
     3)   the   provision   "telecommunications   operators   and
providers  of  telecommunications  services must, under procedure
established  by  legal  acts, trace telecommunications events and
their  participants,  ensure  and  constantly  maintain, at their
expense  and  by  their facilities, the technical opportunity for
entities    of    operational   activities,   interrogative   and
investigating  bodies,  in  order  to  control,  under  procedure
established  by  laws  and  upon  a sanction issued by court, the
content  of  the  information  transmitted  via telecommunication
networks,  also,  under  procedure established by the Government,
supply  gratis  the  information established by the Government to
entities    of    operational   activities,   interrogative   and
investigating  bodies  for  restraint, investigation and solution
of  crimes  about  objects  of  operational  activities and other
subscribers  and  their  telecommunications  which  are necessary
for  investigation"  of  Paragraph  4 of Article 57 of the Law on
Telecommunications  (wording  of  5 July 2002) with the provision
of  Article  1  of  the  Constitution that the State of Lithuania
shall  be  democratic,  Articles  22  and 23 of the Constitution,
and the principle of a law-governed state;
     4)  the  provision  of Item 4 of Paragraph 3 of Article 7 of
the  Law  on  Operational  Activities  (wording  of  22 May 1997)
that,  under  the  procedure  established  by the Government, the
entities  of  operational activities shall have the right to make
use  of  information  held  by  enterprises,  establishments  and
organisations  was  in compliance with the provision of Article 1
of  the  Constitution  that  the  State  of  Lithuania  shall  be
democratic,  Articles  22  and  23  of  the Constitution, and the
principle of a law-governed state;
     5)  the  provision  of Item 6 of Paragraph 3 of Article 7 of
the  Law  on  Operational  Activities  (wording  of 20 June 2002)
that,  under  the  procedure established by the Government or the
institutions   empowered   by   the   latter,   the  entities  of
operational  activities  shall  have  the  right  to  receive the
information  from  enterprises,  establishments and organisations
which  is  necessary  for operational activities is in compliance
with  the  provision  of  Article  1 of the Constitution that the
State  of  Lithuania  shall  be democratic, Articles 22 and 23 of
the Constitution, and the principle of a law-governed state;
     6)    the    provision   "carrying   out   the   preparatory
investigations,  the  investigator  shall independently adopt all
decisions   regarding   the  course  of  the  investigations  and
performance  of  investigatory  acts  save the cases when the law
provides  that  a  sanction  from the prosecutor is necessary" of
Paragraph  1  of  Article  48  of  the Code of Criminal Procedure
(wording  of  26  June  1961) is in compliance with the provision
of  Article  1  of  the  Constitution that the State of Lithuania
shall  be  democratic,  Articles  22  and 23 of the Constitution,
and the principle of a law-governed state;
     7)    the   provision   "the   interrogator,   investigator,
prosecutor  <...>  shall  have  the  right, in the cases at their
command,  <...>  to  demand that the enterprises, establishments,
organisations  and  citizens  submit  items  and  documents which
might  be  important  in  the  case,  to  demand  that  audits be
carried  out.  These  requirements  must  be  carried  out by all
citizens,   enterprises,  establishments  and  organisations"  of
Paragraph  1  of  Article  75  of  the Code of Criminal Procedure
(wording   of   29  January  1975)  is  in  compliance  with  the
provision  of  Article  1  of  the Constitution that the State of
Lithuania  shall  be  democratic,  Articles  22  and  23  of  the
Constitution, and the principle of a law-governed state.

                               II                                
     On  the  compliance  of Paragraph 2 of Article 27 of the Law
on  Telecommunications  (wording of 11 July 2000), Paragraph 4 of
Article  57  of  the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 5 July
2002),  Item  4  of  Paragraph  3  of  Article  7  of  the Law on
Operational  Activities  (wording  of  22  May  1997),  Item 6 of
Paragraph  3  of  Article  7 of the Law on Operational Activities
(wording  of  20  June  2002),  Paragraph  1 of Article 48 of the
Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  (wording  of  26  June  1961)  and
Paragraph  1  of  Article  75  of  the Code of Criminal Procedure
(wording   of   29   January   1975)   with  Article  22  of  the
Constitution.
     1. Article 22 of the Constitution provides:
     "The private life of an individual shall be inviolable.
     Personal     correspondence,     telephone    conversations,
telegraph   messages,  and  other  intercommunications  shall  be
inviolable.
     Information  concerning  the  private  life of an individual
may  be  collected  only  upon  a justified court decision and in
accordance with the law.
     The  law  and  the  court  shall  protect  individuals  from
arbitrary  or  unlawful  interference  in their private or family
life, and from encroachment upon their honour and dignity."
     2.  The  private  life of an individual is the personal life
of  an  individual,  i.e. the way of life, marital status, living
surroundings,   relations   with   other   persons,   the  views,
convictions,   habits   of   the  individual,  his  physical  and
psychological state, his health, honour, dignity etc.
     The  Constitution  establishes  inviolability of the private
life  of  an individual from which stems the right of a person to
privacy.  In  its  ruling  of 21 October 1999, the Constitutional
Court  held  that  right  of  the  person  to privacy encompasses
private,  family  and  house  life,  physical  and  psychological
inviolability   of   individuals,   his  honour  and  reputation,
secrecy  of  personal facts and prohibition to publicise received
or acquired confidential information etc.
     The  provision  "information  concerning the private life of
an  individual  may  be  collected  only  upon  a justified court
decision  and  in accordance with the law" of Paragraph 3 as well
as   the   provision   "the  law  and  the  court  shall  protect
individuals  from  arbitrary  or  unlawful  interference in their
private  or  family life, and from encroachment upon their honour
and  dignity"  of  Paragraph  4 of Article 22 of the Constitution
are  some  of  the most important guarantees of the inviolability
of  the  private  life  of  a  person. By the said provisions the
private  life  of  the  individual  is protected against unlawful
interference  by  the  state,  other institutions, their officers
and other persons.
     3.  Article  28  of  the  Constitution  provides that "while
exercising  their  rights  and freedoms, persons must observe the
Constitution  and  the  laws  of  the  Republic of Lithuania, and
must not impair the rights and freedoms of other people".
     Under  the  Constitution,  it  is  permitted to restrict the
constitutional  rights  and  freedoms  of  the individual in case
the  following  conditions are observed: this is done by law; the
restrictions  are  necessary  in  a democratic society in attempt
to  protect  the  rights  and  freedoms  of other persons and the
values   entrenched   in   the   Constitution   as  well  as  the
constitutionally  important  objectives;  the restrictions do not
deny  the  nature  and  essence  of  the rights and freedoms; the
constitutional principle of proportionality is followed.
     4.  Article  8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights  and  Fundamental  Freedoms  provides that "there shall be
no  interference  by a public authority with the exercise of this
right  except  such  as  is  in  accordance  with  the law and is
necessary  in  a  democratic society in the interests of national
security,  public  safety  or  the  economic  well-being  of  the
country,  for  the  prevention  of  disorder  or  crime,  for the
protection of the rights and freedoms of others".
     In  the  context of the case at issue, it is noteworthy that
the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  held  in the Malone case
(European  Court  of  Human  Rights,  Malone  Case  judgment of 2
August  1984,  series  A  vol. 82) that the interference with the
private  life  of an individual must be grounded on domestic law,
however,  the  domestic law must be in line with the principle of
supremacy of law in a democratic state.
     The  Constitutional  Court  noted  that the jurisprudence of
the  European  Court  of Human Rights as a source of construction
of  law  is  also  important to construction and applicability of
Lithuanian law (Constitutional Court ruling of 8 May 2000).
     5.   Paragraph   2   of   Article   27   of   the   Law   on
Telecommunications   (wording   of   11   July   2000)  provides:
"Telecommunications  operators  must trace all telecommunications
events  and  their  participants, ensure and constantly maintain,
at   their   expense  and  by  their  facilities,  the  technical
opportunity  for  entities  of operational activities in order to
control,  under  procedure  established  by  laws, the content of
the   information  transmitted  via  telecommunication  networks,
also,  under  procedure  established  by  the  Government, supply
gratis  information  in  the  scope established by the Government
to   entities   of   operational  activities,  interrogative  and
investigating  bodies  for  restraint, investigation and solution
of  crimes  about  objects  of  operational  activities and other
subscribers  and  their  telecommunications  which  are necessary
for investigation."
     5.1.  In  the  opinion  of  the  petitioner  (petition  of 3
October  2000),  under  the  provision established in Paragraph 2
of  Article  27  of  the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 11
July  2000),  the  telecommunications  operators are obligated to
trace  all  their  subscribers.  Until  the  adoption of the said
law,   the   telecommunications   operators   were  permitted  to
accumulate,   use  and  store  the  data  regarding  the  network
subscribers  only  inasmuch  as  it was necessary for the service
of  the  subscribers  or  for  the  needs  of  the  communication
network.  In  the  opinion  of  the  petitioner,  the  Law on the
Amendment   of  Article  27  of  the  Law  on  Telecommunications
obligates    telecommunications    operators    to    trace   all
telecommunications  events,  meanwhile,  taking  account  of  the
fact  that  under  the  existing  GSM  900  and GSM (or DCS) 1800
technologies,  the  stations  of  the  operators  and  the mobile
telephones   continually   and  regularly  send  each  other  the
information  about  their  status,  the  operators, while tracing
all  telecommunications  events, would collect the data about the
life  of  the  subscriber, i.e. the information about the private
life of the person.
     5.2.   In  the  course  of  the  investigation  whether  the
provisions   of   Paragraph  2  of  Article  27  of  the  Law  on
Telecommunications  (wording  of  11 July 2000) are in compliance
with  Article  22  of the Constitution, it needs to be noted that
the  following  duties  of  the  telecommunications operators are
established    in    this    article:    (1)    to    trace   all
telecommunications  events  and their participants; (2) to ensure
and  constantly  maintain  the technical opportunity for entities
of  operational  activities  in order to control, under procedure
established  by  laws, the content of the information transmitted
via  telecommunication  networks;  3) under procedure established
by  the  Government,  supply information in the scope established
by   the   Government  to  entities  of  operational  activities,
interrogative    and    investigating   bodies   for   restraint,
investigation   and   solution   of   crimes   about  objects  of
operational   activities   and   other   subscribers   and  their
telecommunications which are necessary for investigation.
     5.2.1.   Paragraph   2   of   Article   27  of  the  Law  on
Telecommunications  (wording  of  11  July  2000) establishes the
duty    for    telecommunications   operators   to   "trace   all
telecommunications events and their participants".
     Under  Article  2  of the Law on Telecommunications (wording
of  11  July 2000), telecommunications are transmission, sending,
receiving  of  signs,  signals,  written texts, images and sounds
or   other  information  via  wire,  radio,  optical,  and  other
electromagnetic  systems.  The  said information circulates among
the  persons  who use telecommunications services. The law refers
to  such  persons as subscribers, consumers, recipients and users
of  telecommunications  services.  Thus,  on  the  basis  of  the
overall   legal  regulation  of  the  Law  on  Telecommunications
(wording  of  11  July 2000), a telecommunications event is to be
described  as  a  fact  of transmitting, sending and receiving of
information    via    telecommunications    networks,   while   a
participant  of  telecommunications-as  a person who makes use of
telecommunications services.
     It  needs  to be noted that it is necessary to trace certain
telecommunications  events  in  order to ensure the management of
accounting   of   telecommunications   services,  computation  of
payment  for  the  services  rendered,  solution  of the settling
accounts  disputes,  payment  of  taxes  to the state budget etc.
Thus,  certain  data  concerning  telecommunications participants
are  collected  because  this is necessary to ensure the economic
activity  of  the  telecommunications  operators  as  well  as to
ensure the rights of consumers of telecommunications services.
     The  disputed  provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 27 of the
Law   on   Telecommunications   (wording  of  11  July  2000)  is
contained   in  the  article  "Extraordinary  Circumstances".  It
means  that  this  article  is  designated  to  regulate  not the
economic  activity  of  the  telecommunications operators but the
relations which occur in certain extraordinary circumstances.
     The  formula  "must  trace all telecommunications events and
their  participants"  of  Paragraph 2 of Article 27 of the Law on
Telecommunications  (wording  of  11 July 2000) means that a duty
has  been  established  for telecommunications operators to trace
not  only  something  which is necessary to ensure their economic
activity    but   all   telecommunications   events   and   their
participants  in  general,  i.e. something more than necessary to
ensure   the   economic   activity   of   the  telecommunications
operators.   After  the  duty  to  trace  more  information  than
necessary  to  ensure the economic activity had been established,
conditions  were  created  to collect information also concerning
the  private  life  of  an  individual  without a justified court
decision.
     As   it   has  been  mentioned,  under  Article  22  of  the
Constitution,  information  concerning  the  private  life  of an
individual   may   be  collected  only  upon  a  justified  court
decision and in accordance with the law only.
     Taking  account  of  the  arguments  set  forth,  one  is to
conclude  that  the  provision "telecommunications operators must
trace  all  telecommunications  events and their participants" of
Paragraph  2  of  Article  27  of  the  Law on Telecommunications
(wording  of  11  July  2000) to the extent that it establishes a
duty    for    telecommunications    operators   to   trace   the
telecommunications  events  and  their  participants more than it
is   necessary   to   ensure   the   economic   activity  of  the
telecommunications  operators,  thus interfering with the private
life   of  an  individual,  conflicts  with  Article  22  of  the
Constitution.
     5.2.2.   Paragraph   2   of   Article   27  of  the  Law  on
Telecommunications  (wording  of  11  July  2000) establishes the
duty  for  telecommunications  operators to ensure and constantly
maintain  the  technical  opportunity for entities of operational
activities  in  order  to control, under procedure established by
laws,   the   content   of   the   information   transmitted  via
telecommunication     networks.     It     means     that     the
telecommunications   operators  must  always  take  care  of  the
technical  state  of  the facilities held by them so that in case
of  need  the entities of operational activities, under procedure
established  by  laws,  might  be  able to control the content of
the  information  transmitted  via  telecommunications  networks.
The   duty   of   the   telecommunications  operators,  which  is
established  in  the disputed provision, to ensure and constantly
maintain  the  technical  opportunity for entities of operational
activities  in  order  to control, under procedure established by
laws,   the   content   of   the   information   transmitted  via
telecommunication    networks    does    not    mean   that   the
telecommunications  operators  have  the right or duty to collect
information about the private life of an individual.
     The  formula  "under  procedure established by laws" implies
that   the   content   of   the   information   transmitted   via
telecommunications  networks  may  be  controlled by law only and
upon a justified court decision only.
     Taking  account  of  the  arguments  set  forth,  one  is to
conclude  that  the  provision "telecommunications operators must
<..>   ensure   and  constantly  maintain  <...>  the  technical
opportunity  for  entities  of operational activities in order to
control,  under  procedure  established  by  laws, the content of
the  information  transmitted  via telecommunication networks" of
Paragraph  2  of  Article  27  of  the  Law on Telecommunications
(wording  of  11  July  2000) is in compliance with Article 22 of
the Constitution.
     5.2.3.  It  has  been  mentioned  that  under Paragraph 2 of
Article  27  of the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 11 July
2000),  "telecommunications  operators must <...> under procedure
established  by  the  Government, supply <...> information in the
scope  established  by  the Government to entities of operational
activities,    interrogative   and   investigating   bodies   for
restraint,  investigation  and  solution  of crimes about objects
of   operational  activities  and  other  subscribers  and  their
telecommunications which are necessary for investigation".
     Paragraphs  3  and  4  of  Article  22  of  the Constitution
provide:
     "Information  concerning  the  private life of an individual
may  be  collected  only  upon  a justified court decision and in
accordance with the law.
     The  law  and  the  court  shall  protect  individuals  from
arbitrary  or  unlawful  interference  in their private or family
life, and from encroachment upon their honour and dignity."
     These  constitutional  provisions  mean  inter alia that the
legislature  has  the  duty  to  establish  by law a procedure of
collection   of   information   about  the  private  life  of  an
individual,   while   the   law  must  provide  that  information
concerning  the  private  life  of an individual may be collected
upon a justified court decision only.
     According  to  the  disputed provision of the law, the scope
of   information  to  be  supplied  to  entities  of  operational
activities,  interrogative  and  investigating bodies, as well as
the   procedure   of   its   supplying,  is  established  by  the
Government.   The   formula  "telecommunications  operators  must
<...>  under  procedure  established  by  the  Government, supply
<...>  information  in the scope established by the Government to
entities    of    operational   activities,   interrogative   and
investigating  bodies  for  restraint, investigation and solution
of  crimes  about  objects  of  operational  activities and other
subscribers  and  their  telecommunications  which  are necessary
for  investigation"  means  that the Government has the powers to
establish   the   scope   of  the  information  to  be  supplied,
including  that  concerning the private life of an individual, as
well   as   the   procedure  of  its  supplying.  By  such  legal
regulation  the  requirements  of  Article 22 of the Constitution
are violated.
     Taking  account  of  the  arguments  set  forth,  one  is to
conclude  that  the  provision "telecommunications operators must
<...>  under  procedure  established  by  the  Government, supply
<...>  information  in the scope established by the Government to
entities    of    operational   activities,   interrogative   and
investigating  bodies  for  restraint, investigation and solution
of  crimes  about  objects  of  operational  activities and other
subscribers  and  their  telecommunications  which  are necessary
for  investigation"  of  Paragraph  2 of Article 27 of the Law on
Telecommunications  (wording  of 11 July 2000) to the extent that
it  establishes  that  the Government has the powers to establish
the  scope  of  information to be supplied also about the private
life  of  a  person,  as  well as the procedure of its supplying,
conflicts with Article 22 of the Constitution.
     6.   Paragraph   4   of   Article   57   of   the   Law   on
Telecommunications  (wording  of 5 July 2002) inter alia provides
that    telecommunications    operators    and    providers    of
telecommunications    services    must:   (1)   under   procedure
established  by  legal  acts, trace telecommunications events and
their  participants;  (2)  ensure  and  constantly  maintain  the
technical  opportunity  for  entities  of operational activities,
interrogative  and  investigating  bodies,  in  order to control,
under  procedure  established  by laws and upon a sanction issued
by   court,  the  content  of  the  information  transmitted  via
telecommunication  networks;  (3)  under procedure established by
the  Government,  supply  gratis  the  information established by
the   Government   to   entities   of   operational   activities,
interrogative    and    investigating   bodies   for   restraint,
investigation   and   solution   of   crimes   about  objects  of
operational   activities   and   other   subscribers   and  their
telecommunications which are necessary for investigation.
     6.1.  It  has  been held in this Constitutional Court Ruling
that:
     1)  the  provision  "telecommunications operators must trace
all   telecommunications   events   and  their  participants"  of
Paragraph  2  of  Article  27  of  the  Law on Telecommunications
(wording  of  11  July  2000) to the extent that it establishes a
duty    for    telecommunications    operators   to   trace   the
telecommunications  events  and  their  participants more than it
is   necessary   to   ensure   the   economic   activity  of  the
telecommunications  operators,  thus interfering with the private
life   of  an  individual,  conflicts  with  Article  22  of  the
Constitution;
     2)  the  provision  "telecommunications operators must <...>
ensure  and  constantly  maintain <...> the technical opportunity
for  entities  of  operational  activities  in  order to control,
under   procedure   established  by  laws,  the  content  of  the
information   transmitted   via  telecommunication  networks"  of
Paragraph  2  of  Article  27  of  the  Law on Telecommunications
(wording  of  11  July  2000) is in compliance with Article 22 of
the Constitution;
     3)  the  provision  "telecommunications operators must <...>
under  procedure  established  by  the  Government,  supply <...>
information  in  the  scope  established  by  the  Government  to
entities    of    operational   activities,   interrogative   and
investigating  bodies  for  restraint, investigation and solution
of  crimes  about  objects  of  operational  activities and other
subscribers  and  their  telecommunications  which  are necessary
for  investigation"  of  Paragraph  2 of Article 27 of the Law on
Telecommunications  (wording  of 11 July 2000) to the extent that
it  establishes  that  the Government has the powers to establish
the  scope  of  information to be supplied also about the private
life  of  a  person,  as  well  as the procedure of its supplying
conflicts with Article 22 of the Constitution.
     6.2.  It  has  been mentioned that the disputed provision of
Paragraph  2  of  Article  27  of  the  Law on Telecommunications
(wording  of  11  July 2000) is virtually repeated in Paragraph 4
of  Article  57  of  the  Law on Telecommunications (wording of 5
July 2002).
     6.3.  Taking  account  of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that:
     1)   the   provision   "telecommunications   operators   and
providers  of  telecommunications  services must, under procedure
established  by  legal  acts, trace telecommunications events and
their  participants"  of  Paragraph 4 of Article 57 of the Law on
Telecommunications  (wording  of  5 July 2002) to the extent that
it  establishes  a  duty  for  telecommunications  operators  and
providers   of   telecommunications   services   to   trace   the
telecommunications  events  and  their  participants more than it
is   necessary   to   ensure   the   economic   activity  of  the
telecommunications  operators,  thus interfering with the private
life   of  an  individual,  conflicts  with  Article  22  of  the
Constitution;
     2)   the   provision   "telecommunications   operators   and
providers  of  telecommunications  services must <...> ensure and
constantly   maintain   <...>   the   technical  opportunity  for
entities    of    operational   activities,   interrogative   and
investigating  bodies,  in  order  to  control,  under  procedure
established  by  laws  and  upon  a sanction issued by court, the
content  of  the  information  transmitted  via telecommunication
networks"   of   Paragraph   4  of  Article  57  of  the  Law  on
Telecommunications  (wording  of  5  July  2002) is in compliance
with Article 22 of the Constitution;
     3)   the   provision   "telecommunications   operators   and
providers   of   telecommunications  services  must  <...>  under
procedure  established  by  the  Government,  supply  gratis  the
information   established   by  the  Government  to  entities  of
operational  activities,  interrogative  and investigating bodies
for   restraint,  investigation  and  solution  of  crimes  about
objects  of  operational  activities  and  other  subscribers and
their  telecommunications  which are necessary for investigation"
of  Paragraph  4  of  Article 57 of the Law on Telecommunications
(wording  of  5 July 2002) to the extent that it establishes that
the   Government  has  the  powers  to  establish  the  scope  of
information  to  be  supplied  also  about  the private life of a
person,  as  well  as  the  procedure of its supplying, conflicts
with Article 22 of the Constitution.
     7.  It  was  provided  in Item 4 of Paragraph 3 of Article 7
of  the  Law  on  Operational Activities (wording of 22 May 1997)
that,  under  the  procedure  established  by the Government, the
entities  of  operational activities shall have the right to make
use  of  information  held  by  enterprises,  establishments  and
organisations.
     One  of  the  petitioners  (petition of 8 May 2001) requests
to   consider  whether  this  provision  is  in  compliance  with
Article 22 of the Constitution.
     It   needs   to  be  noted  that  the  information  held  by
enterprises,    establishments   and   organisations   which   is
mentioned  in  Item  4  of Paragraph 3 of Article 7 of the Law on
Operational   Activities  (wording  of  22  May  1997)  may  also
include  information  about  the  private  life  of a person. The
disputed  provision  that, under the procedure established by the
Government,  the  entities  of  operational activities shall have
the  right  to  make  use  of  information  held  by enterprises,
establishments   and   organisations   means   that,   under  the
procedure   established   by  the  Government,  the  entities  of
operational   activities   have   the   right   to  make  use  of
information    held    by    enterprises,    establishments   and
organisations  concerning  the private life of a person also. The
formula  "information  held  by  enterprises,  establishments and
organisations"  employed  in the disputed provision also includes
collection of such information.
     It   has   been  mentioned,  that  under  the  Constitution,
information  concerning  the  private  life  of  a  person may be
collected   only   upon   a   justified  court  decision  and  in
accordance with the law.
     Taking  account  of  the arguments set forth, one is to draw
a  conclusion  that  the  provision  of  Item 4 of Paragraph 3 of
Article  7  of  the  Law on Operational Activities (wording of 22
May   1997)   that,   under  the  procedure  established  by  the
Government,  the  entities  of  operational activities shall have
the  right  to  make  use  of  information  held  by enterprises,
establishments   and   organisations,   to  the  extent  that  it
established   that   information   may  be  collected  under  the
procedure  established  by  the Government also about the private
life   of   a   person,   conflicted   with  Article  22  of  the
Constitution.
     8.  Item  6  of  Paragraph  3  of  Article  7  of the Law on
Operational  Activities  (wording of 20 June 2002) provides that,
under   the  procedure  established  by  the  Government  or  the
institutions   empowered   by   the   latter,   the  entities  of
operational  activities  shall  have  the  right  to  receive the
information  from  enterprises,  establishments and organisations
which is necessary for operational activities.
     It  has  been  mentioned that the disputed provision of Item
4  of  Paragraph  3  of  Article  7  of  the  Law  on Operational
Activities  (wording  of  22  May  1997) is virtually repeated in
Item  6  of  Paragraph  3  of Article 7 of the Law on Operational
Activities (wording of 20 June 2002).
     It  has  been  held in this Constitutional Court Ruling that
the  provision  of  Item 4 of Paragraph 3 of Article 7 of the Law
on  Operational  Activities  (wording of 22 May 1997) that, under
the  procedure  established  by  the  Government, the entities of
operational  activities  shall  have  the  right  to  make use of
information    held    by    enterprises,    establishments   and
organisations,   to   the   extent   that   it  established  that
information  may  be collected under the procedure established by
the   Government  also  about  the  private  life  of  a  person,
conflicted with Article 22 of the Constitution.
     Taking  account  of  the  arguments  set  forth,  one  is to
conclude  that  the provision of Item 6 of Paragraph 3 of Article
7  of  the  Law  on  Operational  Activities  (wording of 20 June
2002)  that,  under  the  procedure established by the Government
or  the  institutions  empowered  by  the latter, the entities of
operational  activities  shall  have  the  right  to  receive the
information  from  enterprises,  establishments and organisations
which  is  necessary  for  operational  activities, to the extent
that  it  provides  that  information  may be collected under the
procedure  established  by  the  Government  or  the institutions
empowered  by  the  latter  also  about  the  private  life  of a
person, conflicts with Article 22 of the Constitution.
     9.  In  the  case  at  issue,  the  Constitutional Court has
considered  the  provision  of  the Law on Operational Activities
(wording  of  22  May 1997) that, under the procedure established
by  the  Government, the entities of operational activities shall
have  the  right  to make use of information held by enterprises,
establishments  and  organisations  and  the  provision of Law on
Operational  Activities  (wording  of  20  June 2002) that, under
the  procedure  established by the Government or the institutions
empowered  by  the latter, the entities of operational activities
shall   have   the   right   to   receive  the  information  from
enterprises,    establishments   and   organisations   which   is
necessary  for  operational  activities,  only  from  the  aspect
pointed  out  by  the  petitioner, i.e. that of inviolability and
protection  of  the  private  life,  which  is  entrenched in the
Constitution.   The   Constitutional  Court  has  not  considered
whether,   under   the   Constitution,  the  Government  may,  in
general,  be  granted  the  powers to establish a procedure under
which  the  entities  of  operational activities might receive or
make  use  of the information (not only about the private life of
a    person)    held    by    enterprises,   establishments   and
organisations.
     10.  Paragraph  1  of  Article  48  of  the Code of Criminal
Procedure   (wording  of  26  June  1961)  provides  that,  while
carrying  out  the  preparatory  investigations, the investigator
shall  independently  adopt all decisions regarding the course of
the  investigations  and  performance  of investigatory acts save
the  cases  when  the  law  provides  that  a  sanction  from the
prosecutor is necessary.
     One  of  the  petitioners  (petition of 8 May 2001) requests
to  consider  whether  the  said  provision is in compliance with
Article 22 of the Constitution.
     While  deciding  whether the disputed provision of Paragraph
1  of  Article  48  of the Code of Criminal Procedure (wording of
26   June   1961)  is  in  compliance  with  Article  22  of  the
Constitution,  it  needs to be noted that this provision does not
provide  for  a  justified court decision. Although some articles
(for  instance  Articles  188, 196, 1982) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure,  in  which  individual actions of the investigator are
regulated,  provide  for  a  court sanction, however, the formula
of  Paragraph  1  of Article 48 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(wording   of   26  June  1961)  that,  while  carrying  out  the
preparatory     investigations,     the     investigator    shall
independently  adopt  all  decisions  regarding the course of the
investigations  and  performance  of  investigatory acts save the
cases  when  the law provides that a sanction from the prosecutor
is  necessary,  also  means  that the investigator adopts, either
independently  or  with  a sanction of the prosecutor, but in the
absence  of  a  justified  court  decision, certain investigatory
actions  whereby  the  private  life  of the person is interfered
with, too.
     It  has  been  mentioned  that,  under  Article  22  of  the
Constitution,  information  concerning  the  private  life  of  a
person  may  be  collected  upon  a justified court decision only
and in accordance with the law only.
     Taking  account  of  the  arguments  set  forth,  one  is to
conclude  that  the provision "while carrying out the preparatory
investigations,  the  investigator  shall independently adopt all
decisions   regarding   the  course  of  the  investigations  and
performance  of  investigatory  acts  save the cases when the law
provides  that  a  sanction  from the prosecutor is necessary" of
Paragraph  1  of  Article  48  of  the Code of Criminal Procedure
(wording  of  26 June 1961) to the extent that it establishes the
powers  for  the  investigator  to  adopt the decisions regarding
the  investigatory  acts  whereby  the private life of the person
is  interfered  with in the absence of a justified court decision
conflicts with Article 22 of the Constitution.
     11.  Paragraph  1  of  Article  75  of  the Code of Criminal
Procedure  (wording  of  29  January  1975)  prescribes that "the
interrogator,  investigator,  prosecutor  <...>  shall  have  the
right,  in  the  cases at their command, <...> to demand that the
enterprises,  establishments,  organisations  and citizens submit
items  and  documents  which  might  be important in the case, to
demand  that  audits  be  carried out. These requirements must be
carried  out  by  all  citizens,  enterprises, establishments and
organisations".
     One  of  the  petitioners  (petition of 8 May 2001) requests
to  consider  whether  the  said  provision is in compliance with
Article 22 of the Constitution.
     While  deciding  whether the disputed provision of Paragraph
1  of  Article  75  of the Code of Criminal Procedure (wording of
29  January  1975)  is  in  compliance  with  Article  22  of the
Constitution,  it  needs to be noted that the said article of the
Code  of  Criminal Procedure is set forth in the Chapter "General
Provisions"  and  that  the said article establishes, in the most
general  sense,  ways of collection of the evidence necessary for
investigation  of  crimes and investigation of the criminal case.
Individual  ways  of  evidence  collection  and  the procedure of
collection  thereof  are  particularised in other articles of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.
     It  needs  to  be  noted  that,  under the Constitution, the
legislature  has  a  duty  to  establish,  by  law, such ways and
procedure  of  evidence collection that one would demand items or
documents  having  information  about  the  private  life  of the
person only upon a justified court decision.
     The  disputed  provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 75 of the
Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  (wording  of 29 January 1975) does
not  mean  that the interrogator, investigator or prosecutor have
the  powers  to  demand  that  the  enterprises,  establishments,
organisations  and  citizens  submit  items  and  documents which
have  information  about  the  private  life  of  a person in the
absence of a justified court decision.
     Taking  account  of  the  arguments  set  forth,  one  is to
conclude  that  the  provision  "the  interrogator, investigator,
prosecutor  <...>  shall  have  the  right, in the cases at their
command,  <...>  to  demand that the enterprises, establishments,
organisations  and  citizens  submit  items  and  documents which
might  be  important  in  the  case,  to  demand  that  audits be
carried  out.  These  requirements  must  be  carried  out by all
citizens,   enterprises,  establishments  and  organisations"  of
Paragraph  1  of  Article  75  of  the Code of Criminal Procedure
(wording  of  29  January  1975) is in compliance with Article 22
of the Constitution.

                               III                               
     On  the  compliance  of Paragraph 2 of Article 27 of the Law
on  Telecommunications  (wording of 11 July 2000), Paragraph 4 of
Article  57  of  the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 5 July
2002),  Paragraph  1  of Article 2 of the Law on the Amendment of
Article   27   of  the  Law  on  Telecommunications,  Item  4  of
Paragraph  3  of  Article  7 of the Law on Operational Activities
(wording  of  22 May 1997), Item 6 of Paragraph 3 of Article 7 of
the  Law  on  Operational  Activities  (wording of 20 June 2002),
Paragraph  1  of  Article  48  of  the Code of Criminal Procedure
(wording  of  26  June 1961) and Paragraph 1 of Article 75 of the
Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  (wording  of 29 January 1975) with
Article 23 of the Constitution.
     1. 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."
     2.   The   inviolability   and   protection   of   ownership
entrenched  in  Article  23  of  the  Constitution  mean that the
owner  has  the right to possess, use and dispose of the property
that  belongs  to  him,  also  the  right  to  demand  that other
persons  not  violate  his  rights, while the state has a duty to
defend  and  safeguard  ownership from unlawful encroachment upon
it.  One  may  not  establish  any  legal  regulation  whereby  a
constant  duty  for  non-state  ownership entities is established
to  use  their property to fulfil the state functions which ought
to be financed by state funds.
     Ownership  obligates  (Constitutional  Court  rulings  of 21
December  2000,  14  March  2002):  this  provision  expresses  a
social  function  of  ownership.  The  owner who has the right to
possess,  use  and  dispose of his property, may not violate laws
and   the  rights  of  other  persons.  The  social  function  of
ownership  also  implies  that  a  duty  may  be  established for
non-state  ownership  entities  to  contribute  by means of their
property  to  the  satisfaction of extraordinary needs of society
inasmuch  as  such  a  duty  to contribute to the satisfaction of
these  needs  under  extraordinary circumstances follows from the
Constitution.
     It  also  needs  to  be  noted that, under the Constitution,
the  right  of ownership is not absolute also in the respect that
it  may  be restricted by law in connection with the nature of an
object  of  property,  deeds  committed against law and/or a need
which  is  necessary  for  society  and which is constitutionally
justified.
     Thus,  under  the  Constitution, restriction of the right of
ownership  is  not  impossible,  however,  in  all cases one must
follow  these  conditions:  the  right of ownership is restricted
by  law  only;  the  restrictions  are  necessary in a democratic
society  in  attempt  to protect the rights and freedoms of other
persons,   the  values  entrenched  in  the  Constitution  and/or
constitutionally    important   objectives;   one   follows   the
proportionality  principle  under which the measures provided for
in  laws  must  be  in  line with the sought objectives which are
necessary  to  society  and which are constitutionally justified.
Under  the  Constitution, by any restriction of ownership one may
not  deny  the  essence  of the right of ownership. In its ruling
of  18  April 1996, the Constitutional Court held that if a right
were  restricted  so that reasonable limits were exceeded, or its
legal  protection  were  not ensured, in that case there would be
grounds  to  assert  that  the  essence itself of such a right is
violated,  which  would  be  equivalent  to  the  denial  of this
right.
     The  seizure  of  property  for  the  needs  of society only
according  to  the procedure established by law and with adequate
compensation  as  provided  for in Article 23 of the Constitution
means  inter  alia  that  it  is  not permitted to seize property
from  the  owner  if such seizure is not provided for in the law.
In  its  ruling  of  2  April 2001, the Constitutional Court held
that  the  needs  of  society,  for  which property may be seized
according  to  the  procedure  established  by  law  and  must be
adequately  compensated  for  indicated in Paragraph 3 of Article
23  of  the  Constitution  are  interests  of either the whole or
part   of   society  which  the  state,  while  implementing  its
functions,  is  constitutionally obligated to secure and satisfy;
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  are always particular and clearly expressed
needs  of  society  for  a  concrete  object  of  property; 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; 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.
     3.   In   the  opinion  of  the  petitioners,  the  disputed
provision   of   Paragraph   2  of  Article  27  of  the  Law  on
Telecommunications  (wording  of  11  July  2000)  conflicts with
Article  23  of  the  Constitution  because:  (1)  it is at their
expense   and   by   their   facilities  that  telecommunications
operators  must  ensure  and  constantly  maintain  the technical
opportunity  for  entities  of operational activities in order to
control,  under  procedure  established  by  laws, the content of
the  information  transmitted via telecommunication networks; (2)
telecommunications  operators  must,  under procedure established
by  the  Government,  supply  information  gratis  in  the  scope
established   by   the  Government  to  entities  of  operational
activities,    interrogative   and   investigating   bodies   for
restraint, investigation and solution of crimes.
     3.1.   Paragraph   2   of   Article   27   of   the  Law  on
Telecommunications  (wording  of 11 July 2000) establishes a duty
for   telecommunications   operators  to  ensure  and  constantly
maintain  the  technical  opportunity for entities of operational
activities  in  order  to control, under procedure established by
laws,   the   content   of   the   information   transmitted  via
telecommunication  networks  and  to do this at their expense and
by their facilities.
     Telecommunications  activity  is  economic  activity,  while
telecommunications operators are entities of economic activity.
     One  ascribes  also  such  facilities  to  the facilities to
ensure  and  constantly  maintain  the  technical  opportunity to
control   the   content   of   the  information  transmitted  via
telecommunication  networks  which are pointed out in Paragraph 2
of  Article  27  of  the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 11
July  2000)  which  are  used  in  the  economic  activity of the
telecommunications  operators  and  must  be  maintained  at  the
expense   of  the  telecommunications  operators,  and  also  the
facilities  which  are  not necessary in the economic activity of
the  telecommunications  operators  and  which, should a duty for
telecommunications  operators  were not established to ensure and
constantly  maintain  the  technical  opportunity  to control the
content  of  the  information  transmitted  via telecommunication
networks  for  entities  of  operational  activities at their own
expense  and  by their own facilities, would not be maintained at
the expense of the telecommunications operators.
     Thus,   Paragraph   2   of   Article   27   of  the  Law  on
Telecommunications  (wording  of 11 July 2000) establishes a duty
for    telecommunications    operators-entities    of    economic
activity-to  ensure  and  constantly  maintain, at their expense,
the  technical  opportunities  of  such  facilities  necessary to
control    the    content    of   information   transmitted   via
telecommunications   networks  which  is  necessary  not  in  the
economic  activity  of  the  telecommunications operators, but to
ensure  and  constantly  maintain the opportunity for entities of
operational  activities  to  control  the  content of information
transmitted via telecommunications network.
     It  is  clear  from  the  legal  regulation  established  in
Paragraph  2  of  Article  27  of  the  Law on Telecommunications
(wording  of  11  July  2000)  that  the  content  of information
transmitted  via  telecommunications networks is controlled under
procedure   established   by   laws   in   attempt  to  restrain,
investigate  and  solve  crimes. The restraint, investigation and
solution  of  crimes  is  a constant function of the state, which
must be financed by state funds.
     It   has   been   mentioned   that   the  inviolability  and
protection   of   property   entrenched  in  Article  23  of  the
Constitution  also  means  that  it is not permitted to establish
such  legal  regulation  whereby  a  constant  duty for non-state
ownership  entities  would  be  established to use their property
to  fulfil  the  state  functions  which  ought to be financed by
state  funds;  a  duty may be established for non-state ownership
entities  to  contribute  by  means  of  their  property  to  the
satisfaction  of  extraordinary needs of society inasmuch as such
a  duty  to  contribute  to the satisfaction of these needs under
extraordinary circumstances follows from the Constitution.
     Thus,  under  the  Constitution,  a  duty may be established
for  telecommunications  operators-non-state property entities-to
ensure  and  constantly  maintain  the technical opportunities of
the    facilities   necessary   to   control,   under   procedure
established  by  laws, the content of information transmitted via
telecommunications   networks   for   entities   of   operational
activities,  however,  it is not permitted to establish a duty to
maintain  the  technical  opportunities  of such facilities which
are   not   necessary   in   the   economic   activity   of   the
telecommunications operators at their expense.
     Taking  account  of  the  arguments  set  forth,  one  is to
conclude  that  the  provision "telecommunications operators must
<...>  ensure  and  constantly  maintain, at their expense and by
their  facilities,  the  technical  opportunity  for  entities of
operational  activities  in  order  to  control,  under procedure
established  by  laws, the content of the information transmitted
via  telecommunication  networks" of Paragraph 2 of Article 27 of
the  Law  on  Telecommunications (wording of 11 July 2000) to the
extent   that   a  duty  is  established  for  telecommunications
operators-non-state  property  entities-to  ensure and constantly
maintain,  at  their  expense, the technical opportunities of the
facilities  necessary  to  control  the  content  of  information
transmitted  via  telecommunications  networks, but which are not
necessary  in  the  economic  activity  of the telecommunications
operators, conflicts with Article 23 of the Constitution.
     3.2.   Paragraph   2   of   Article   27   of   the  Law  on
Telecommunications  (wording  of 11 July 2000) establishes a duty
for   telecommunications   operators   to  supply  gratis,  under
procedure  established  by  the  Government,  information  in the
scope  established  by  the Government to entities of operational
activities,    interrogative   and   investigating   bodies   for
restraint,  investigation  and  solution  of crimes about objects
of   operational  activities  and  other  subscribers  and  their
telecommunications which are necessary for investigation.
     It  needs  to  be noted that the information transmitted via
telecommunications    networks    is    not   property   of   the
telecommunications operators.
     Under  the  Constitution, the state must ensure the security
of  society  and  public  order.  It has been mentioned, that the
restraint,  investigation  and  solution  of  crimes  is a public
interest,  therefore,  to  ensure  the  normal  activities of the
institutions  of  law  and  order  that  are  performing the said
functions,  the  necessary  information  must be supplied gratis.
This  is  also  implied  by  the  constitutional  striving for an
open,  just  and  harmonious  civil  society  and  a law-governed
state.
     Taking  account  of  the  arguments  set  forth,  one  is to
conclude  that  the  provision "telecommunications operators must
<...>  under  procedure  established  by  the  Government, supply
gratis  information  in  the  scope established by the Government
to   entities   of   operational  activities,  interrogative  and
investigating  bodies  for  restraint, investigation and solution
of  crimes  about  objects  of  operational  activities and other
subscribers  and  their  telecommunications  which  are necessary
for  investigation"  of  Paragraph  2 of Article 27 of the Law on
Telecommunications  (wording  of  11  July 2000) is in compliance
with Article 23 of the Constitution.
     4.   Paragraph   4   of   Article   57   of   the   Law   on
Telecommunications  (wording  of 5 July 2002) inter alia provides
that    telecommunications    operators    and    providers    of
telecommunications  services:  (1)  must  ensure  and  constantly
maintain,   at   their  expense  and  by  their  facilities,  the
technical  opportunity  for  entities  of operational activities,
interrogative  and  investigating  bodies,  in  order to control,
under  procedure  established  by laws and upon a sanction issued
by   court,  the  content  of  the  information  transmitted  via
telecommunication    networks;    (2)   must,   under   procedure
established  by  the  Government,  supply  gratis the information
established   by   the  Government  to  entities  of  operational
activities,    interrogative   and   investigating   bodies   for
restraint,  investigation  and  solution  of crimes about objects
of   operational  activities  and  other  subscribers  and  their
telecommunications which are necessary for investigation.
     4.1.  It  has  been mentioned that the disputed provision of
Paragraph  2  of  Article  27  of  the  Law on Telecommunications
(wording  of  11  July 2000) is virtually repeated in Paragraph 4
of  Article  57  of  the  Law on Telecommunications (wording of 5
July 2002).
     4.2.  Having  held  that  the  provision "telecommunications
operators  must  <...>  ensure  and constantly maintain, at their
expense  and  by  their facilities, the technical opportunity for
entities  of  operational  activities  in order to control, under
procedure  established  by  laws,  the content of the information
transmitted  via  telecommunication  networks"  of Paragraph 2 of
Article  27  of the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 11 July
2000)   to   the   extent   that   a   duty  is  established  for
telecommunications   operators-non-state   property   entities-to
ensure  and  constantly maintain, at their expense, the technical
opportunities   of   the  facilities  necessary  to  control  the
content   of   information   transmitted  via  telecommunications
networks,  but  which  are not necessary in the economic activity
of  the  telecommunications  operators, conflicts with Article 23
of  the  Constitution,  one  is  also  to hold that the provision
"telecommunications      operators      and      providers     of
telecommunications  services  must  <...>  ensure  and constantly
maintain,   at   their  expense  and  by  their  facilities,  the
technical  opportunity  for  entities  of operational activities,
interrogative  and  investigating  bodies,  in  order to control,
under  procedure  established  by laws and upon a sanction issued
by   court,  the  content  of  the  information  transmitted  via
telecommunication  networks"  of Paragraph 4 of Article 57 of the
Law  on  Telecommunications  (wording  of  5  July  2002)  to the
extent   that   a  duty  is  established  for  telecommunications
operators      and      providers      of      telecommunications
services-non-state  property  entities-to  ensure  and constantly
maintain,  at  their  expense, the technical opportunities of the
facilities  necessary  to  control  the  content  of  information
transmitted  via  telecommunications  networks, but which are not
necessary  in  the  economic  activity  of the telecommunications
operators, conflicts with Article 23 of the Constitution.
     4.3.     Having     held    that    that    the    provision
"telecommunications   operators   must   <...>   under  procedure
established  by  the Government, supply gratis information in the
scope  established  by  the Government to entities of operational
activities,    interrogative   and   investigating   bodies   for
restraint,  investigation  and  solution  of crimes about objects
of   operational  activities  and  other  subscribers  and  their
telecommunications  which  are  necessary  for  investigation" of
Paragraph  2  of  Article  27  of  the  Law on Telecommunications
(wording  of  11  July  2000) is in compliance with Article 23 of
the  Constitution,  one  is  also  to  hold  that  the  provision
"telecommunications      operators      and      providers     of
telecommunications    services   must   <...>   under   procedure
established  by  the  Government,  supply  gratis the information
established   by   the  Government  to  entities  of  operational
activities,    interrogative   and   investigating   bodies   for
restraint,  investigation  and  solution  of crimes about objects
of   operational  activities  and  other  subscribers  and  their
telecommunications  which  are  necessary  for  investigation" of
Paragraph  4  of  Article  57  of  the  Law on Telecommunications
(wording  of  5  July  2002)  is in compliance with Article 23 of
the Constitution.
     5.  Paragraph  1 of Article 2 of the Law on the Amendment of
Article  27  of  the  Law  on Telecommunications prescribes: "The
Government  shall  finance  the  acquisition  of  the facilities,
designated   to   control   the   content   of   the  information
transmitted   via   the   telecommunication   networks,  for  the
telecommunications  operators  which  received  licences prior to
the  entry  into  effect  of  this  Law.  The  telecommunications
operators  shall  renew  the  said  facilities and maintain their
technological capacities at their expense."
     It  needs  to  be  noted  that  Article  2 of the Law on the
Amendment   of  Article  27  of  the  Law  on  Telecommunications
Paragraph  1  whereof  is  disputed  by one of the petitioners is
titled  "Implementation  of  the  Law" and the provisions thereof
are  inseparably  linked  with  the  provisions of Paragraph 2 of
Article  27  of the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 11 July
2000).
     Paragraph  1  of  Article  2  of the Law on the Amendment of
Article  27  of  the Law on Telecommunications establishes a duty
for  telecommunications  operators-non-state property entities-to
ensure  and  constantly  maintain,  at  their  expense,  also the
technical  opportunities  of  such facilities which are necessary
not   in   the   economic   activity  of  the  telecommunications
operators,  but  in order that the opportunity be ensured for the
entities  of  operational  activities  to  control the content of
information transmitted via telecommunications networks.
     It  has  been  held in this Constitutional Court Ruling that
the  provision  "telecommunications  operators  must <...> ensure
and   constantly   maintain,   at  their  expense  and  by  their
facilities,   the   technical   opportunity   for   entities   of
operational  activities  in  order  to  control,  under procedure
established  by  laws, the content of the information transmitted
via  telecommunication  networks" of Paragraph 2 of Article 27 of
the  Law  on  Telecommunications (wording of 11 July 2000) to the
extent   that   a  duty  is  established  for  telecommunications
operators-non-state  property  entities-to  ensure and constantly
maintain,  at  their  expense, the technical opportunities of the
facilities  necessary  to  control  the  content  of  information
transmitted  via  telecommunications  networks, but which are not
necessary  in  the  economic  activity  of the telecommunications
operators,   conflicts  with  Article  23  of  the  Constitution.
Alongside,   one   is   to   hold   that   the   provision   "the
telecommunications  operators  shall  renew  the  said facilities
and  maintain  their  technological  capacities at their expense"
of  Paragraph  1  of  Article  2  of  the Law on the Amendment of
Article  27  of  the Law on Telecommunications to the extent that
a      duty     is     established     for     telecommunications
operators-non-state  property  entities-to  ensure and constantly
maintain,  at  their  expense, the technical opportunities of the
facilities  necessary  to  control  the  content  of  information
transmitted  via  telecommunications  networks, but which are not
necessary  in  the  economic  activity  of the telecommunications
operators, conflicts with Article 23 of the Constitution.
     6.  One  of  the petitioners (petition of 8 May 2001) doubts
whether  the  provision  of Item 4 of Paragraph 3 of Article 7 of
the  Law  on  Operational  Activities  (wording  of  22 May 1997)
that,  under  the  procedure  established  by the Government, the
entities  of  operational activities shall have the right to make
use  of  information  held  by  enterprises,  establishments  and
organisations   is   in   compliance   with  Article  23  of  the
Constitution.
     The   disputed   provisions   of   the  said  law  regulated
different   relations   from   those   of   Article   23  of  the
Constitution,  therefore,  one  is to conclude that the provision
of  Item  4 of Paragraph 3 of Article 7 of the Law on Operational
Activities  (wording  of  22  May 1997) that, under the procedure
established  by  the  Government,  the  entities  of  operational
activities  shall  have the right to make use of information held
by   enterprises,   establishments   and   organisations  was  in
compliance with Article 23 of the Constitution.
     7.  Item  6  of  Paragraph  3  of  Article  7  of the Law on
Operational  Activities  (wording of 20 June 2002) provides that,
under   the  procedure  established  by  the  Government  or  the
institutions   empowered   by   the   latter,   the  entities  of
operational  activities  shall  have  the  right  to  receive the
information  from  enterprises,  establishments and organisations
which is necessary for operational activities.
     It  has  been  mentioned that the disputed provision of Item
4  of  Paragraph  3  of  Article  7  of  the  Law  on Operational
Activities  (wording  of  22  May  1997) is virtually repeated in
Item  6  of  Paragraph  3  of Article 7 of the Law on Operational
Activities (wording of 20 June 2002).
     Having  held  that the provision of Item 4 of Paragraph 3 of
Article  7  of  the  Law on Operational Activities (wording of 22
May   1997)   that,   under  the  procedure  established  by  the
Government,  the  entities  of  operational activities shall have
the  right  to  make  use  of  information  held  by enterprises,
establishments  and  organisations was in compliance with Article
23  of  the  Constitution, one is also to hold that the provision
of  Item  6 of Paragraph 3 of Article 7 of the Law on Operational
Activities  (wording  of  20 June 2002) that, under the procedure
established  by  the  Government or the institutions empowered by
the  latter,  the  entities  of operational activities shall have
the   right   to   receive   the  information  from  enterprises,
establishments   and   organisations   which   is  necessary  for
operational  activities  is  in compliance with Article 23 of the
Constitution.
     8.  One  of  the petitioners (petition of 8 May 2001) doubts
whether   the  provision  "while  carrying  out  the  preparatory
investigations,  the  investigator  shall independently adopt all
decisions   regarding   the  course  of  the  investigations  and
performance  of  investigatory  acts  save the cases when the law
provides  that  a  sanction  from the prosecutor is necessary" of
Paragraph  1  of  Article  48  of  the Code of Criminal Procedure
(wording  of  26  June  1961) is in compliance with Article 23 of
the Constitution.
     The  disputed  provisions of the said law regulate different
relations   from   those  of  Article  23  of  the  Constitution,
therefore,   one   is  to  conclude  that  the  provision  "while
carrying  out  the  preparatory  investigations, the investigator
shall  independently  adopt all decisions regarding the course of
the  investigations  and  performance  of investigatory acts save
the  cases  when  the  law  provides  that  a  sanction  from the
prosecutor  is  necessary"  of  Paragraph  1 of Article 48 of the
Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  (wording  of  26  June 1961) is in
compliance with Article 23 of the Constitution.
     9.  One  of  the petitioners (petition of 8 May 2001) doubts
whether    the   provision   "the   interrogator,   investigator,
prosecutor  <...>  shall  have  the  right, in the cases at their
command,  <...>  to  demand that the enterprises, establishments,
organisations  and  citizens  submit  items  and  documents which
might  be  important  in  the  case,  to  demand  that  audits be
carried  out.  These  requirements  must  be  carried  out by all
citizens,   enterprises,  establishments  and  organisations"  of
Paragraph  1  of  Article  75  of  the Code of Criminal Procedure
(wording  of  29  January  1975) is in compliance with Article 23
of the Constitution.
     The  disputed  provisions of the said law regulate different
relations   from   those  of  Article  23  of  the  Constitution,
therefore,   one   is   to   conclude  that  the  provision  "the
interrogator,  investigator,  prosecutor  <...>  shall  have  the
right,  in  the  cases at their command, <...> to demand that the
enterprises,  establishments,  organisations  and citizens submit
items  and  documents  which  might  be important in the case, to
demand  that  audits  be  carried out. These requirements must be
carried  out  by  all  citizens,  enterprises, establishments and
organisations"  of  Paragraph  1  of  Article  75  of the Code of
Criminal   Procedure   (wording   of   29  January  1975)  is  in
compliance with Article 23 of the Constitution.

                               IV                                
     On  the  compliance  of Paragraph 2 of Article 27 of the Law
on  Telecommunications  (wording of 11 July 2000), Paragraph 4 of
Article  57  of  the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 5 July
2002),  Item  4  of  Paragraph  3  of  Article  7  of  the Law on
Operational  Activities  (wording  of  22  May  1997),  Item 6 of
Paragraph  3  of  Article  7 of the Law on Operational Activities
(wording  of  20  June  2002),  Paragraph  1 of Article 48 of the
Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  (wording  of  26  June  1961)  and
Paragraph  1  of  Article  75  of  the Code of Criminal Procedure
(wording  of  29 January 1975) with the provision of Article 1 of
the   Constitution   that   the   State  of  Lithuania  shall  be
democratic   and   with   the   constitutional   principle  of  a
law-governed state.
     1.  Article  1  of  the Constitution provides that the State
of  Lithuania  shall  be  an independent and democratic republic.
The  provision  that  the  State of Lithuania shall be democratic
means  that  in  the  state  one must ensure the supremacy of the
Constitution,  the  protection  of human rights and freedoms, the
equality  of  all persons before the law and the court, the right
to  judicial  defence,  free and periodical elections, separation
and  balance  of  powers,  responsibility of authority before the
citizens,  the  democratic  process of decision making, political
pluralism,  opportunities  for  development  of  a civil society,
etc.  It  needs  to be noted that the provision that the State of
Lithuania  shall  be  democratic  is  a constitutional obligation
not  to  deviate  from  the  requirements  of democracy, which is
applicable    to    all   state   institutions,   including   the
legislature.
     By  the  laws  or  other  legal  acts that conflict with the
Constitution,  one  violates  the  principle  of supremacy of the
Constitution  as  well  as  other  constitutional  values, and by
such  aforesaid  laws and legal acts one might also encroach upon
the   elements  of  democracy  entrenched  in  the  Constitution.
However,  in  itself  the statement that a law or other legal act
conflicts   with   the   Constitution  does  not  mean  that  the
provision  of  Article  1  of  the Constitution that the State of
Lithuania  shall  be  democratic  is violated. The Constitutional
Court  must  assess  in  every  individual case whether the legal
regulation   recognised   as   being   in   conflict   with   the
Constitution  does  not  deny  the  provision of Article 1 of the
Constitution that the State of Lithuania shall be democratic.
     It  needs  to  be  noted  that in the Constitution the legal
mechanisms   of   its   protection  are  established,  which  are
designated  to  protect  the  Constitution  itself as well as the
provision  of  Article  1  thereof  that  the  State of Lithuania
shall  be  democratic. An institute of constitutional control has
been  established  in  the  Constitution, which permits to remove
the  laws  and  other  acts  which conflict with the Constitution
from  the  legal system. The fact is also of essential importance
that  the  judicial  protection  of  the  rights  and freedoms is
established  in  the Constitution. Article 30 of the Constitution
provides   that   any   person  whose  constitutional  rights  or
freedoms are violated shall have the right to appeal to court.
     2.  While  deciding  whether  the provisions disputed by the
petitioner  (petition  of  8 May 2001) are in compliance with the
provision  of  Article  1  of  the Constitution that the State of
Lithuania  shall  be  democratic,  it  needs to be noted that the
said  provisions  do not deny the democratic essence of the State
of  Lithuania,  the  right  of a person to appeal to court on the
defence  of  the  violated  rights, therefore, one is to conclude
that  they  are  in compliance with the provision of Article 1 of
the   Constitution   that   the   State  of  Lithuania  shall  be
democratic.
     3.  The  principle of a law-governed state entrenched in the
Constitution  also  implies,  along  with the other requirements,
that  human  rights  and  freedoms  must  be  ensured,  that  all
institutions  implementing  state  power  as  well as other state
institutions  must  act  on  the  basis  of law and in compliance
with  law,  that the Constitution has the supreme legal power and
that  the  laws,  resolutions  of the Government as well as other
legal acts must be in conformity with the Constitution.
     3.1.  It  has  been held in this Constitutional Court Ruling
that:
     the  provision  "telecommunications operators must trace all
telecommunications  events  and  their participants" of Paragraph
2  of  Article 27 of the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 11
July  2000)  to  the  extent  that  it  establishes  a  duty  for
telecommunications  operators  to  trace  the  telecommunications
events  and  their  participants  more  than  it  is necessary to
ensure   the   economic   activity   of   the  telecommunications
operators,   thus   interfering  with  the  private  life  of  an
individual, conflicts with Article 22 of the Constitution,
     the   provision  "telecommunications  operators  must  <...>
under  procedure  established  by  the  Government,  supply <...>
information  in  the  scope  established  by  the  Government  to
entities    of    operational   activities,   interrogative   and
investigating  bodies  for  restraint, investigation and solution
of  crimes  about  objects  of  operational  activities and other
subscribers  and  their  telecommunications  which  are necessary
for  investigation"  of  Paragraph  2 of Article 27 of the Law on
Telecommunications  (wording  of 11 July 2000) to the extent that
it  establishes  that  the Government has the powers to establish
the  scope  of  information to be supplied also about the private
life  of  a  person,  as  well as the procedure of its supplying,
conflicts with Article 22 of the Constitution,
     the  provision  "telecommunications  operators and providers
of    telecommunications    services    must,   under   procedure
established  by  legal  acts, trace telecommunications events and
their  participants"  of  Paragraph 4 of Article 57 of the Law on
Telecommunications  (wording  of  5 July 2002) to the extent that
it  establishes  a  duty  for  telecommunications  operators  and
providers   of   telecommunications   services   to   trace   the
telecommunications  events  and  their  participants more than it
is   necessary   to   ensure   the   economic   activity  of  the
telecommunications  operators,  thus interfering with the private
life   of  an  individual,  conflicts  with  Article  22  of  the
Constitution,
     the  provision  "telecommunications  operators and providers
of   telecommunications   services  must  <...>  under  procedure
established  by  the  Government,  supply  gratis the information
established   by   the  Government  to  entities  of  operational
activities,    interrogative   and   investigating   bodies   for
restraint,  investigation  and  solution  of crimes about objects
of   operational  activities  and  other  subscribers  and  their
telecommunications  which  are  necessary  for  investigation" of
Paragraph  4  of  Article  57  of  the  Law on Telecommunications
(wording  of  5 July 2002) to the extent that it establishes that
the   Government  has  the  powers  to  establish  the  scope  of
information  to  be  supplied  also  about  the private life of a
person,  as  well  as  the  procedure of its supplying, conflicts
with Article 22 of the Constitution,
     the   provision  "telecommunications  operators  must  <...>
ensure  and  constantly  maintain,  at their expense and by their
facilities,   the   technical   opportunity   for   entities   of
operational  activities  in  order  to  control,  under procedure
established  by  laws, the content of the information transmitted
via  telecommunication  networks" of Paragraph 2 of Article 27 of
the  Law  on  Telecommunications (wording of 11 July 2000) to the
extent   that   a  duty  is  established  for  telecommunications
operators-non-state  property  entities-to  ensure and constantly
maintain,  at  their  expense, the technical opportunities of the
facilities  necessary  to  control  the  content  of  information
transmitted  via  telecommunications  networks, but which are not
necessary  in  the  economic  activity  of the telecommunications
operators, conflicts with Article 23 of the Constitution,
     provision  "telecommunications  operators  and  providers of
telecommunications  services  must  <...>  ensure  and constantly
maintain,   at   their  expense  and  by  their  facilities,  the
technical  opportunity  for  entities  of operational activities,
interrogative  and  investigating  bodies,  in  order to control,
under  procedure  established  by laws and upon a sanction issued
by   court,  the  content  of  the  information  transmitted  via
telecommunication  networks"  of Paragraph 4 of Article 57 of the
Law  on  Telecommunications  (wording  of  5  July  2002)  to the
extent   that   a  duty  is  established  for  telecommunications
operators      and      providers      of      telecommunications
services-non-state  property  entities-to  ensure  and constantly
maintain,  at  their  expense, the technical opportunities of the
facilities  necessary  to  control  the  content  of  information
transmitted  via  telecommunications  networks, but which are not
necessary  in  the  economic  activity  of the telecommunications
operators, conflicts with Article 23 of the Constitution,
     the  provision  of Item 4 of Paragraph 3 of Article 7 of the
Law  on  Operational  Activities  (wording  of 22 May 1997) that,
under  the  procedure established by the Government, the entities
of  operational  activities  shall  have the right to make use of
information    held    by    enterprises,    establishments   and
organisations,   to   the   extent   that   it  established  that
information  may  be collected under the procedure established by
the   Government  also  about  the  private  life  of  a  person,
conflicted with Article 22 of the Constitution,
     the  provision  of Item 6 of Paragraph 3 of Article 7 of the
Law  on  Operational  Activities  (wording of 20 June 2002) that,
under   the  procedure  established  by  the  Government  or  the
institutions   empowered   by   the   latter,   the  entities  of
operational  activities  shall  have  the  right  to  receive the
information  from  enterprises,  establishments and organisations
which  is  necessary  for  operational  activities, to the extent
that  it  provides  that  information  may be collected under the
procedure  established  by  the  Government  or  the institutions
empowered  by  the  latter  also  about  the  private  life  of a
person, conflicts with Article 22 of the Constitution,
     the   provision   "while   carrying   out   the  preparatory
investigations,  the  investigator  shall independently adopt all
decisions   regarding   the  course  of  the  investigations  and
performance  of  investigatory  acts  save the cases when the law
provides  that  a  sanction  from the prosecutor is necessary" of
Paragraph  1  of  Article  48  of  the Code of Criminal Procedure
(wording  of  26 June 1961) to the extent that it establishes the
powers  for  the  investigator  to  adopt the decisions regarding
the  investigatory  acts  whereby  the private life of the person
is  interfered  with in the absence of a justified court decision
conflicts with Article 22 of the Constitution.
     3.2.  Having  held  that  the  aforementioned provisions (to
the   extent   pointed   out)   infringe  the  inviolability  and
protection  of  the  private  life  of  a  person, as well as the
protection  and  inviolability  of ownership, which are enshrined
in   the   Constitution,   one   is   to   hold   also  that  the
aforementioned  provisions  (to  the extent pointed out) conflict
with the constitutional principle of a law-governed state.
     3.3.  The  other  provisions  of  the laws the compliance of
which  with  the constitutional principle of a law-governed state
is  disputed  by  the  petitioner  (petition  of  8 May 2001) and
which  are  not  recognised as conflicting with Article 22 and/or
Article  23  of  the  Constitution  are  in  compliance  with the
constitutional principle of a law-governed state.

     Conforming  to  Articles  102 and 105 of the Constitution of
the  Republic  of  Lithuania and Articles 1, 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:
     1.  The  provision  "telecommunications operators must trace
all   telecommunications   events   and  their  participants"  of
Paragraph  2  of  Article  27 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Telecommunications  (wording  of 11 July 2000) to the extent that
it  establishes  a duty for telecommunications operators to trace
the  telecommunications  events  and their participants more than
it   is   necessary  to  ensure  the  economic  activity  of  the
telecommunications  operators,  thus interfering with the private
life   of   an   individual,   conflicts   with  Article  22  the
Constitution    of    the   Republic   of   Lithuania   and   the
constitutional principle of a law-governed state.
     2.  The  provision  "telecommunications operators must <...>
under  procedure  established  by  the  Government,  supply <...>
information  in  the  scope  established  by  the  Government  to
entities    of    operational   activities,   interrogative   and
investigating  bodies  for  restraint, investigation and solution
of  crimes  about  objects  of  operational  activities and other
subscribers  and  their  telecommunications  which  are necessary
for  investigation"  of Paragraph 2 of Article 27 of the Republic
of  Lithuania  Law  on  Telecommunications  (wording  of  11 July
2000)  to  the extent that it establishes that the Government has
the  powers  to establish the scope of information to be supplied
also  about  the  private  life  of  a  person,  as  well  as the
procedure  of  its  supplying,  conflicts  with Article 22 of the
Constitution    of    the   Republic   of   Lithuania   and   the
constitutional principle of a law-governed state.
     3.  The  provision  "telecommunications operators must <...>
ensure  and  constantly  maintain,  at their expense and by their
facilities,   the   technical   opportunity   for   entities   of
operational  activities  in  order  to  control,  under procedure
established  by  laws, the content of the information transmitted
via  telecommunication  networks" of Paragraph 2 of Article 27 of
the  Republic  of Lithuania Law on Telecommunications (wording of
11  July  2000)  to  the  extent  that  a duty is established for
telecommunications   operators-non-state   property   entities-to
ensure  and  constantly maintain, at their expense, the technical
opportunities   of   the  facilities  necessary  to  control  the
content   of   information   transmitted  via  telecommunications
networks,  but  which  are not necessary in the economic activity
of  the  telecommunications  operators, conflicts with Article 23
of  the  Constitution  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania  and  the
constitutional principle of a law-governed state.
     4.  The  provision  "the  telecommunications operators shall
renew  the  said  facilities  and  maintain  their  technological
capacities  at  their expense" of Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the
Law  on  the Amendment of Article 27 of the Republic of Lithuania
Law   on   Telecommunications  to  the  extent  that  a  duty  is
established  for  telecommunications operators-non-state property
entities-to  ensure  and  constantly  maintain, at their expense,
the  technical  opportunities  of  the  facilities  necessary  to
control    the    content    of   information   transmitted   via
telecommunications  networks,  but which are not necessary in the
economic    activity   of   the   telecommunications   operators,
conflicts  with  Article  23  of the Constitution of the Republic
of  Lithuania  and the constitutional principle of a law-governed
state.
     5.   The   provision   "telecommunications   operators   and
providers  of  telecommunications  services must, under procedure
established  by  legal  acts, trace telecommunications events and
their   participants"  of  Paragraph  4  of  Article  57  of  the
Republic  of  Lithuania  Law  on Telecommunications (wording of 5
July  2002)  to  the  extent  that  it  establishes  a  duty  for
telecommunications      operators      and      providers      of
telecommunications   services  to  trace  the  telecommunications
events  and  their  participants  more  than  it  is necessary to
ensure   the   economic   activity   of   the  telecommunications
operators,   thus   interfering  with  the  private  life  of  an
individual,  conflicts  with  Article  22  of the Constitution of
the  Republic  of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a
law-governed state.
     6.   The   provision   "telecommunications   operators   and
providers   of   telecommunications  services  must  <...>  under
procedure  established  by  the  Government,  supply  gratis  the
information   established   by  the  Government  to  entities  of
operational  activities,  interrogative  and investigating bodies
for   restraint,  investigation  and  solution  of  crimes  about
objects  of  operational  activities  and  other  subscribers and
their  telecommunications  which are necessary for investigation"
of  Paragraph  4  of  Article 57 of the Republic of Lithuania Law
on  Telecommunications  (wording  of  5  July 2002) to the extent
that  it  establishes  that  the  Government  has  the  powers to
establish  the  scope  of  information  to be supplied also about
the  private  life  of  a person, as well as the procedure of its
supplying,  conflicts  with Article 22 of the Constitution of the
Republic  of  Lithuania  and  the  constitutional  principle of a
law-governed state.
     7.   The   provision   "telecommunications   operators   and
providers   of   telecommunications  services  must  <...>  under
procedure  established  by  the  Government,  supply  gratis  the
information   established   by  the  Government  to  entities  of
operational  activities,  interrogative  and investigating bodies
for   restraint,  investigation  and  solution  of  crimes  about
objects  of  operational  activities  and  other  subscribers and
their  telecommunications  which are necessary for investigation"
of  Paragraph  4  of  Article 57 of the Republic of Lithuania Law
on  Telecommunications  (wording  of  5  July 2002) to the extent
that  a  duty is established for telecommunications operators and
providers   of   telecommunications  services-non-state  property
entities-to  ensure  and  constantly  maintain, at their expense,
the  technical  opportunities  of  the  facilities  necessary  to
control    the    content    of   information   transmitted   via
telecommunications  networks,  but which are not necessary in the
economic    activity   of   the   telecommunications   operators,
conflicts  with  Article  23  of the Constitution of the Republic
of  Lithuania  and the constitutional principle of a law-governed
state.
     8.  The  provision  of Item 4 of Paragraph 3 of Article 7 of
the   Republic   of   Lithuania  Law  on  Operational  Activities
(wording  of  22  May 1997) that, under the procedure established
by  the  Government, the entities of operational activities shall
have  the  right  to make use of information held by enterprises,
establishments   and   organisations,   to  the  extent  that  it
established   that   information   may  be  collected  under  the
procedure  established  by  the Government also about the private
life   of   a   person,   conflicted   with  Article  22  of  the
Constitution    of    the   Republic   of   Lithuania   and   the
constitutional principle of a law-governed state.
     9.  The  provision  of Item 6 of Paragraph 3 of Article 7 of
the   Republic   of   Lithuania  Law  on  Operational  Activities
(wording  of  20 June 2002) that, under the procedure established
by  the  Government  or the institutions empowered by the latter,
the  entities  of  operational activities shall have the right to
receive  the  information  from  enterprises,  establishments and
organisations  which  is necessary for operational activities, to
the  extent  that  it  provides that information may be collected
under   the  procedure  established  by  the  Government  or  the
institutions  empowered  by  the  latter  also  about the private
life  of  a person, conflicts with Article 22 of the Constitution
of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania and the constitutional principle
of a law-governed state.
     10.  The  provision  "while  carrying  out  the  preparatory
investigations,  the  investigator  shall independently adopt all
decisions   regarding   the  course  of  the  investigations  and
performance  of  investigatory  acts  save the cases when the law
provides  that  a  sanction  from the prosecutor is necessary" of
Paragraph  1  of  Article 48 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of
the  Republic  of  Lithuania  (wording  of  26  June 1961) to the
extent  that  it  establishes  the powers for the investigator to
adopt  the  decisions  regarding  the  investigatory acts whereby
the  private  life  of  the  person  is  interfered  with  in the
absence  of  a justified court decision conflicts with Article 22
of  the  Constitution  of  the  Republic  of  Lithuania  and  the
constitutional principle of a law-governed state.
     11.   The   provision   "the   interrogator,   investigator,
prosecutor  <...>  shall  have  the  right, in the cases at their
command,  <...>  to  demand that the enterprises, establishments,
organisations  and  citizens  submit  items  and  documents which
might  be  important  in  the  case,  to  demand  that  audits be
carried  out.  These  requirements  must  be  carried  out by all
citizens,   enterprises,  establishments  and  organisations"  of
Article  75  of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of
Lithuania  (wording  of  29  January  1975) is 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.
    
     Justices of the Constitutional Court:	Armanas Abramavičius
     						Egidijus Jarašiūnas
     						Egidijus Kūris
     						Kęstutis Lapinskas
     						Zenonas Namavičius
     						Augustinas Normantas
     						Jonas Prapiestis
     						Vytautas Sinkevičius
     						Stasys Stačiokas