Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
DECISION
ON THE PETITION OF A GROUP OF MEMBERS OF THE SEIMAS, THE
PETITIONER, REQUESTING TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER CHAPTER XXXVIII
OF THE STATUTE OF THE SEIMAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA AND
CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER, AS WELL AS SEIMAS OF THE
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA RESOLUTION NO. IX-1954 "ON THE FORMATION
OF THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATION COMMISSION" OF 23 DECEMBER 2003
ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA, ALSO WHETHER THE REGULATION OF THE SPECIAL
INVESTIGATION COMMISSION FORMED BY SEIMAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA RESOLUTION NO. IX-1954 OF 23 DECEMBER 2003, APPROVED
BY DECISION NO. 1 OF 30 DECEMBER 2003 OF THE SPECIAL
INVESTIGATION COMMISSION IN ORDER TO INVESTIGATE THE
REASONABLENESS AND SERIOUSNESS OF THE CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST
THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC ROLANDAS PAKSAS AND TO DRAW UP A
CONCLUSION REGARDING THE PROPOSAL TO INSTITUTE THE IMPEACHMENT
PROCEEDINGS FORMED BY SEIMAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
RESOLUTION NO. IX-1954 AND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THIS
REGULATION ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, THE PROVISIONS OF THE EUROPEAN
CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL
FREEDOMS, THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL
RIGHTS, AND OF THE STATUTE OF THE SEIMAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
16 April 2004
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,
pursuant to Articles 25 and 28 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, on 16 April
2004 in its procedural sitting considered the petition of a
group of members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
requesting to investigate whether:
"- Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania and, in particular, Art. 238 of the
Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, in which
the structure of sittings of the special investigation
commission is established, also in which the persons
participating in the sittings are named, which, however,
indicates neither procedural rights of the persons
participating in the sittings of the special investigation
commission, nor provides for the procedure of effective
implementation of procedural rights (the mechanism of their
implementation and procedural guarantees), in their content are
not in conflict with Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania and the provision '[...] the
procedure for impeachment proceedings which shall be
established by the Statute of the Seimas' of Article 74 and the
constitutional principle of 'a state under the rule of law',
- Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania and, in particular, Par. 1 Art. 236 and
Par. 3 Art. 238 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania, which consolidate the right of the initiators of
impeachment proceedings or their representatives to accomplish,
in special investigation commission sittings, the functions of
both the accuser and the person who adopts the final procedural
decision, as to their content, are not in conflict with 'the
prohibition to be a judge in one's own case' derived from the
constitutional principle of 'a state under the rule of law',
- Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No.
IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special Investigation
Commission' of 23 December 2003 is not in conflict with Pars.
1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania and the provision '[...] the procedure for
impeachment proceedings which shall be established by the
Statute of the Seimas' of Article 74 and the constitutional
principle of 'a state under the rule of law',
- 'The Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission
formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No.
IX-1954 of 23 December 2003', approved by Decision No. 1 of 30
December 2003 of the Special Investigation Commission formed by
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. IX-1954 'On
the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission' of 23
December 2003, as to its form as well as the procedure of its
adoption, publishing and entry into effect, is not in conflict
with Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania and the provision '[...] the procedure for
impeachment proceedings which shall be established by the
Statute of the Seimas' of Article 74 and the constitutional
principle of 'a state under the rule of law',
- 'The Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission
formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No.
IX-1954 of 23 December 2003', approved by Decision No. 1 of 30
December 2003 of the Special Investigation Commission formed by
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. IX-1954 'On
the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission' of 23
December 2003, as to its form as well as the procedure of its
adoption, publishing and entry into effect, is not in conflict
with Pars. 1 and 2 Art. 5, Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 and Par. 2
Art. 67 of the Constitution,
- Item 16 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of
'a state under the rule of law', the principle of fair (just)
bringing of a person to legal responsibility and the right to
be heard as consolidated in Par. 2 Art. 31 of the Constitution,
Par. 1 Art. 6, Art. 13 of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of
the Covenant, as well as with the right to defence consolidated
in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 3.c Art. 6,
Art. 13 of the Convention, and Par. 3.d Art. 14 of the
Covenant,
- Item 19 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of
'a state under the rule of law', the principle of independence
and impartiality of the institution deciding the issue of
constitutional responsibility as well as the principle of
functional equality of the accusation and defence parties that
are entrenched in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution,
Par. 1 Art. 6 of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the
Covenant, as well as with Par. 3 Art. 238 of the Statute of the
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania,
- 'The Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission
formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No.
IX-1954 of 23 December 2003', approved by Decision No. 1 of 30
December 2003 of the Special Investigation Commission formed by
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. IX-1954 'On
the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission' of 23
December 2003, (in particular, Items 16 and 20 of the
Regulation), is not in conflict with the constitutional
principle of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to have
an opportunity to prepare for effective legal defence and
realise the right either to defend himself or with the help of
an advocate of one's choice, which is consolidated in Pars. 1,
2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6, Art.
13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d of Art. 14 of the
Covenant as well as with the principle of functional equality
of the accusation and defence parties that is entrenched in
Par. 2 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6, of the
Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the Covenant,
- Item 20 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to have enough
time and opportunities to prepare for effective legal defence
and realise the right either to defend himself or with the help
of an advocate of one's choice, which is consolidated in Pars.
1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6,
Art. 13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d Art. 14 of the
Covenant,
- Item 21 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to have a real
opportunity for preparation of effective legal defence and to
realise the right to defence, which is consolidated in Pars. 1,
2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6, Art.
13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d Art. 14 of the
Covenant, as well as with the principle of functional equality
of the accusation and defence parties that is entrenched in
Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6 of the
Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the Covenant,
- Item 26 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to have a real
opportunity for preparation of effective legal defence and to
realise the right to defence, which is consolidated in Pars. 1,
2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6, Art.
13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d of Art. 14 of the
Covenant,
- Item 29 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to be heard and
the right to defence which are consolidated in Pars. 1, 2, 6
Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars.1, 3.d, Art. 6, Art. 13 of
the Convention, and Pars. 1.d, 3.d Art. 14 of the Covenant, and
the principle of functional equality of the accusation and
defence parties that is entrenched in Par. 6 Art. 31 of the
Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6 of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art.
14 of the Covenant,
- Item 30 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', and the principle of
functional equality of the accusation and defence parties that
is entrenched in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution,
Par. 1 Art. 6 of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the
Covenant,
- Item 33 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to defence and
the right to question by himself witnesses of the accusation
and to have an opportunity that such witnesses be questioned,
also the right to demand that witnesses of the defence be
summoned and questioned under the same conditions that are
applied to witnesses of the accusation, which are consolidated
in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c
Art. 6, Art. 13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.d, 3.e Art. 14
of the Covenant, as well as with the principle of functional
equality of the accusation and defence parties that is
entrenched in Par. 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6
of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the Covenant."
Note: the text of the petition of the petitioner is quoted
in this Decision of the Constitutional Court as it was
presented by the petitioner, i.e. with accentuations in the
text, abbreviations, etc. which were made by the petitioner
himself.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
1. The petitioner, a group of members of the Seimas, has
applied to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting
to investigate whether:
"- Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania and, in particular, Art. 238 of the
Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, in which
the structure of sittings of the special investigation
commission is established, also in which the persons
participating in the sittings are named, which, however,
indicates neither procedural rights of the persons
participating in the sittings of the special investigation
commission, nor provides for the procedure of effective
implementation of procedural rights (the mechanism of their
implementation and procedural guarantees), in their content are
not in conflict with Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania and the provision '[...] the
procedure for impeachment proceedings which shall be
established by the Statute of the Seimas' of Article 74 and the
constitutional principle of 'a state under the rule of law',
- Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania and, in particular, Par. 1 Art. 236 and
Par. 3 Art. 238 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania, which consolidate the right of the initiators of
impeachment proceedings or their representatives to accomplish,
in special investigation commission sittings, the functions of
both the accuser and the person who adopts the final procedural
decision, as to their content, are not in conflict with 'the
prohibition to be a judge in one's own case' derived from the
constitutional principle of 'a state under the rule of law',
- Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No.
IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special Investigation
Commission' of 23 December 2003 is not in conflict with Pars.
1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania and the provision '[...] the procedure for
impeachment proceedings which shall be established by the
Statute of the Seimas' of Article 74 and the constitutional
principle of 'a state under the rule of law',
- 'The Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission
formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No.
IX-1954 of 23 December 2003', approved by Decision No. 1 of 30
December 2003 of the Special Investigation Commission formed by
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. IX-1954 'On
the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission' of 23
December 2003, as to its form as well as the procedure of its
adoption, publishing and entry into effect, is not in conflict
with Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania and the provision '[...] the procedure for
impeachment proceedings which shall be established by the
Statute of the Seimas' of Article 74 and the constitutional
principle of 'a state under the rule of law',
- 'The Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission
formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No.
IX-1954 of 23 December 2003', approved by Decision No. 1 of 30
December 2003 of the Special Investigation Commission formed by
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. IX-1954 'On
the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission' of 23
December 2003, as to its form as well as the procedure of its
adoption, publishing and entry into effect, is not in conflict
with Pars. 1 and 2 Art. 5, Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 and Par. 2
Art. 67 of the Constitution,
- Item 16 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of
'a state under the rule of law', the principle of fair (just)
bringing of a person to legal responsibility and the right to
be heard as consolidated in Par. 2 Art. 31 of the Constitution,
Par. 1 Art. 6, Art. 13 of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of
the Covenant, as well as with the right to defence consolidated
in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 3.c Art. 6,
Art. 13 of the Convention, and Par. 3.d Art. 14 of the
Covenant,
- Item 19 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of
'a state under the rule of law', the principle of independence
and impartiality of the institution deciding the issue of
constitutional responsibility as well as the principle of
functional equality of the accusation and defence parties that
are entrenched in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution,
Par. 1 Art. 6 of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the
Covenant, as well as with Par. 3 Art. 238 of the Statute of the
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania,
- 'The Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission
formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No.
IX-1954 of 23 December 2003', approved by Decision No. 1 of 30
December 2003 of the Special Investigation Commission formed by
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. IX-1954 'On
the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission' of 23
December 2003, (in particular, Items 16 and 20 of the
Regulation), is not in conflict with the constitutional
principle of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to have
an opportunity to prepare for effective legal defence and
realise the right either to defend himself or with the help of
an advocate of one's choice, which is consolidated in Pars. 1,
2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6, Art.
13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d of Art. 14 of the
Covenant as well as with the principle of functional equality
of the accusation and defence parties that is entrenched in
Par. 2 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6, of the
Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the Covenant,
- Item 20 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to have enough
time and opportunities to prepare for effective legal defence
and realise the right either to defend himself or with the help
of an advocate of one's choice, which is consolidated in Pars.
1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6,
Art. 13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d of Art. 14 of the
Covenant,
- Item 21 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to have a real
opportunity for preparation of effective legal defence and to
realise the right to defence, which is consolidated in Pars. 1,
2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6, Art.
13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d Art. 14 of the
Covenant, as well as with the principle of functional equality
of the accusation and defence parties that is entrenched in
Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6 of the
Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the Covenant,
- Item 26 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to have a real
opportunity for preparation of effective legal defence and to
realise the right to defence, which is consolidated in Pars. 1,
2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6, Art.
13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d Art. 14 of the
Covenant,
- Item 29 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to be heard and
the right to defence which are consolidated in Pars. 1, 2, 6
Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars.1, 3.d, Art. 6, Art. 13 of
the Convention, and Pars. 1.d, 3.d Art. 14 of the Covenant, and
the principle of functional equality of the accusation and
defence parties that is entrenched in Par. 6 Art. 31 of the
Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6 of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art.
14 of the Covenant,
- Item 30 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', and the principle of
functional equality of the accusation and defence parties that
is entrenched in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution,
Par. 1 Art. 6 of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the
Covenant,
- Item 33 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to defence and
the right to question by himself witnesses of the accusation
and to have an opportunity that such witnesses be questioned,
also the right to demand that witnesses of the defence be
summoned and questioned under the same conditions that are
applied to witnesses of the accusation, which are consolidated
in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c
Art. 6, Art. 13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.d, 3.e Art. 14
of the Covenant, as well as with the principle of functional
equality of the accusation and defence parties that is
entrenched in Par. 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6
of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the Covenant."
The Covenant indicated in the petition of the petitioner
is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Convention indicated in the petition of the petitioner
is the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. The petitioner, a group of members of the Seimas,
requests to investigate whether the provisions of the Statute
of the Seimas pointed out by him are not in conflict with the
Constitution, whether the Regulation of the Special
Investigation Commission (hereinafter also referred to as the
Regulation) formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 "On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission" of 23 December 2003 of 23 December
2003, approved by Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the
Special Investigation Commission in order to investigate the
reasonableness and seriousness of the charges brought against
the President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas and to draw up a
conclusion regarding the proposal to institute the impeachment
proceedings (hereinafter also referred to as the Special
Investigation Commission) formed by Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution No. IX-1954 "On the Formation of the
Special Investigation Commission" of 23 December 2003 and
individual items of the said regulation are not in conflict
with the Constitution, the provisions of the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms, the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, and of the Statute of the Seimas.
2. The petition of the petitioner is composed of fourteen
requests, two of which request to investigate whether the
provisions of the Statute of the Seimas are not in conflict
with the Constitution, one of which requests to investigate
whether Seimas Resolution No. IX-1954 "On the Formation of the
Special Investigation Commission" of 23 December 2003 is not in
conflict with the Constitution, and eleven of which request to
investigate whether the Regulation, its individual items are
not in conflict with the Constitution, the provisions of the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, and of the Statute of the Seimas.
3. Although the petition of the petitioner to the
Constitutional Court is composed of fourteen requests to
investigate the compliance of three legal acts (parts thereof)
of different legal power with the Constitution, they are united
and linked by the same arguments: the arguments upon which the
doubts of the petitioner concerning the compliance of the
provisions of the Statute of the Seimas with the Constitution,
as well as the compliance of Seimas Resolution No. IX-1954 "On
the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission" of 23
December 2003 with the Constitution, are inseparable from the
arguments upon which the doubts of the petitioner are based
concerning the compliance of the Regulation and its individual
items with the Constitution, the provisions of the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms, the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, and of the Statute of the Seimas; the arguments upon
which doubts of the petitioner are based concerning the
compliance of the disputed Seimas resolution with the
Constitution are inseparable from the arguments upon which the
compliance of the provisions of the Statute of the Seimas with
the Constitution are based. The basic idea of all these
fourteen requests is that, in the opinion of the petitioner,
the Statute of the Seimas (parts of the Statute of the Seimas
indicated by the petitioner) does not establish certain legal
regulation which, the petitioner believes, should, according to
the Constitution, have been established therein, while since
this the legal regulation in question has not been established,
it was permitted to adopt neither the disputed Seimas
resolution, nor the Regulation. Virtually, the petitioner
asserts that as long as certain legal regulation has not been
established in the Statute of the Seimas (parts of the Statute
of the Seimas indicated by the petitioner), which the
petitioner believes is necessary according to the Constitution,
then neither the proposal to institute impeachment proceedings
and preliminary investigation, nor subsequent impeachment
proceedings in the Seimas, are possible.
One is to pay attention to the fact that the petitioner
presented to the Constitutional Court all aforementioned
fourteen requests to investigate the compliance of three legal
acts of different legal power, i.e. the Statute of the Seimas,
Seimas Resolution No. IX-1954 "On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission" of 23 December 2003, and the
Regulation (parts of these legal acts), with the Constitution
(the compliance of the Regulation-with provisions of the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, and of the Statute of the Seimas) as one
petition.
The link between all fourteen formulated requests to the
Constitutional Court is also confirmed by references to the
same articles (parts thereof) of the Constitution and
constitutional principles, which are often repeated (both in
the course of setting forth the arguments of the entire
petition as well in formulating all the fourteen requests to
the Constitutional Court), repetition of the arguments, also
repetition of certain requests from the fourteen (e.g., the
requests to investigate whether "Art. 238 of the Statute of the
Seimas <...> [is] not in conflict with <...> the constitutional
principle of 'a state under the rule of law'" and whether "Par.
3 Art. 238 of the Statute of the Seimas <...> [is] not in
conflict with 'the prohibition to be a judge in one's own case'
derived from the constitutional principle of 'a state under the
rule of law'" are formulated separately; also the requests to
investigate whether Item 20 of the Regulation "is not in
conflict with the constitutional principle of 'a state under
the rule of law', the right to have a real opportunity for
preparation of effective legal defence and to realise the right
to defence, which is consolidated in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of
the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6, Art. 13 of the
Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d of Art. 14 of the Covenant, as
well as with the principle of functional equality of the
accusation and defence parties that is entrenched in Pars. 1,
2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6, of the
Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the Covenant" and whether the
same item "is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to have enough
time and opportunities to prepare for effective legal defence
and realise the right either to defend himself or with the help
of an advocate of one's choice, which is consolidated in Pars.
1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6,
Art. 13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d Art. 14 of the
Covenant").
The link between the requests is also confirmed by the
fact that the petitioner grounds his position concerning the
disputed provisions of the Statute of the Seimas and the
compliance of the disputed Seimas resolution with the
Constitution upon the legal regulation established in the
Regulation confirmed by the a particular special investigation
commission, i.e. the Special Investigation Commission formed by
Seimas Resolution No. IX-1954 "On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission" of 23 December 2003, and disputes the
legal regulation established in the Regulation on the basis of
inter alia provisions of the Statute of the Seimas and/or their
interpretation.
The common and inseparable character of the argumentation
by the petitioner determines the fact that only the entirety of
the arguments and reasoning of all aforementioned fourteen
requests discloses the essence and content of the petition of
the petitioner as well as his position. Therefore, while
deciding whether to accept the petition of the petitioner for
consideration at the Constitutional Court, the arguments
grounding all the fourteen requests are to be assessed as a
whole.
II
1. The petitioner, a group of members of the Seimas,
requests to investigate whether:
"- Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania and, in particular, Art. 238 of the
Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, in which
the structure of sittings of the special investigation
commission is established, also in which the persons
participating in the sittings are named, which, however,
indicates neither procedural rights of the persons
participating in the sittings of the special investigation
commission, nor provides for the procedure of effective
implementation of procedural rights (the mechanism of their
implementation and procedural guarantees), in their content are
not in conflict with Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania and the provision '[...] the
procedure for impeachment proceedings which shall be
established by the Statute of the Seimas' of Article 74 and the
constitutional principle of 'a state under the rule of law',
- Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania and, in particular, Par. 1 Art. 236 and
Par. 3 Art. 238 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania, which consolidate the right of the initiators of
impeachment proceedings or their representatives to accomplish,
in special investigation commission sittings, the functions of
both the accuser and the person who adopts the final procedural
decision, as to their content, are not in conflict with 'the
prohibition to be a judge in one's own case' derived from the
constitutional principle of 'a state under the rule of law',
- Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No.
IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special Investigation
Commission' of 23 December 2003 is not in conflict with Pars.
1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania and the provision '[...] the procedure for
impeachment proceedings which shall be established by the
Statute of the Seimas' of Article 74 and the constitutional
principle of 'a state under the rule of law',
- 'The Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission
formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No.
IX-1954 of 23 December 2003', approved by Decision No. 1 of 30
December 2003 of the Special Investigation Commission formed by
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. IX-1954 'On
the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission' of 23
December 2003, as to its form as well as the procedure of its
adoption, publishing and entry into effect, is not in conflict
with Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania and the provision '[...] the procedure for
impeachment proceedings which shall be established by the
Statute of the Seimas' of Article 74 and the constitutional
principle of 'a state under the rule of law',
- 'The Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission
formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No.
IX-1954 of 23 December 2003', approved by Decision No. 1 of 30
December 2003 of the Special Investigation Commission formed by
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. IX-1954 'On
the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission' of 23
December 2003, as to its form as well as the procedure of its
adoption, publishing and entry into effect, is not in conflict
with Pars. 1 and 2 Art. 5, Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 and Par. 2
Art. 67 of the Constitution,
- Item 16 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of
'a state under the rule of law', the principle of fair (just)
bringing of a person to legal responsibility and the right to
be heard as consolidated in Par. 2 Art. 31 of the Constitution,
Par. 1 Art. 6, Art. 13 of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of
the Covenant, as well as with the right to defence consolidated
in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 3.c Art. 6,
Art. 13 of the Convention, and Par. 3.d Art. 14 of the
Covenant,
- Item 19 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of
'a state under the rule of law', the principle of independence
and impartiality of the institution deciding the issue of
constitutional responsibility as well as the principle of
functional equality of the accusation and defence parties that
are entrenched in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution,
Par. 1 Art. 6 of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the
Covenant, as well as with Par. 3 Art. 238 of the Statute of the
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania,
- 'The Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission
formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No.
IX-1954 of 23 December 2003', approved by Decision No. 1 of 30
December 2003 of the Special Investigation Commission formed by
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. IX-1954 'On
the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission' of 23
December 2003, (in particular, Items 16 and 20 of the
Regulation), is not in conflict with the constitutional
principle of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to have
an opportunity to prepare for effective legal defence and
realise the right either to defend himself or with the help of
an advocate of one's choice, which is consolidated in Pars. 1,
2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6, Art.
13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d of Art. 14 of the
Covenant as well as with the principle of functional equality
of the accusation and defence parties that is entrenched in
Par. 2 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6, of the
Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the Covenant,
- Item 20 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to have enough
time and opportunities to prepare for effective legal defence
and realise the right either to defend himself or with the help
of an advocate of one's choice, which is consolidated in Pars.
1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6,
Art. 13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d Art. 14 of the
Covenant,
- Item 21 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to have a real
opportunity for preparation of effective legal defence and to
realise the right to defence, which is consolidated in Pars. 1,
2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6, Art.
13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d Art. 14 of the
Covenant, as well as with the principle of functional equality
of the accusation and defence parties that is entrenched in
Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6, of
the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the Covenant,
- Item 26 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to have a real
opportunity for preparation of effective legal defence and to
realise the right to defence, which is consolidated in Pars. 1,
2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6, Art.
13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d Art. 14 of the
Covenant,
- Item 29 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to be heard and
the right to defence which are consolidated in Pars. 1, 2, 6
Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars.1, 3.d, Art. 6, Art. 13 of
the Convention, and Pars. 1.d, 3.d Art. 14 of the Covenant, and
the principle of functional equality of the accusation and
defence parties that is entrenched in Par. 6 Art. 31 of the
Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6 of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art.
14 of the Covenant,
- Item 30 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', and the principle of
functional equality of the accusation and defence parties that
is entrenched in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution,
Par. 1 Art. 6 of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the
Covenant,
- Item 33 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to defence and
the right to question by himself witnesses of the accusation
and to have an opportunity that such witnesses be questioned,
also the right to demand that witnesses of the defence be
summoned and questioned under the same conditions that are
applied to witnesses of the accusation, which are consolidated
in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c
Art. 6, Art. 13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.d, 3.e Art. 14
of the Covenant, as well as with the principle of functional
equality of the accusation and defence parties that is
entrenched in Par. 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6
of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the Covenant."
1.1. Under Paragraph 1 of Article 102 of the Constitution,
the Constitutional Court shall decide whether the laws and
other acts of the Seimas are not in conflict with the
Constitution and whether acts of the President of the Republic
and the Government are not in conflict with the Constitution or
laws. Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court provides that the Constitutional Court shall guarantee
the supremacy of the Constitution in the legal system as well
as constitutional legality by deciding, according to the
established procedure, whether the laws and other acts adopted
by the Seimas are not in conflict with the Constitution and
whether acts of the President of the Republic and the
Government are not in conflict with the Constitution or laws.
Under the Constitution, the Seimas passes constitutional
laws, laws, resolutions concerning implementation of laws and
other legal acts (Articles 67, 69, 70, And Item 2 of Article 94
of the Constitution). The laws adopted by the Seimas are signed
and officially promulgated by the President of the Republic
(Paragraph 1 of Article 71 of the Constitution); if the
President of the Republic does not refer back a law adopted by
the Seimas, or if he does not sign this law, then such a law
becomes effective after it has been signed and officially
promulgated by the President of the Seimas (Paragraph 2 of
Article 71 of the Constitution).
The structure and procedure of activities of the Seimas
shall be established by the Statute of the Seimas. The Statute
of the Seimas shall have the power of law (Article 76 of the
Constitution). Under Paragraph 2 of Article 70 of the
Constitution, the Statute of the Seimas and other legal acts
adopted by the Seimas, which are not constitutional laws or
laws, are signed and officially promulgated by the President of
the Seimas.
1.2. By its Resolution No. IX-1954 "On the Formation of
the Special Investigation Commission" of 23 December 2003, the
Seimas formed the Special Investigation Commission in order to
investigate the reasonableness and seriousness of the charges
brought against the President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas
and to draw up a conclusion regarding the proposal to institute
the impeachment proceedings.
1.3. By its Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003, the
Special Investigation Commission confirmed the Regulation of
the Special Investigation Commission formed by Seimas
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003. Differently from
Seimas Resolution No. IX-1954 "On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission" of 23 December 2003, the Regulation
was not published in the official gazette "Valstybės žinios";
it was not signed by the President of the Seimas, either.
1.4. The Regulation confirmed by Special Investigation
Commission Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 is neither the
law nor another legal act adopted by the Seimas, it was
confirmed by the Special Investigation Commission, one of
structural units of the Seimas, by its decision. The Regulation
is a constituent part of Special Investigation Commission
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003.
1.5. Under the Constitution and the Law on the
Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court does not enjoy
powers to investigate legal acts adopted by Seimas commissions
or other structural units of the Seimas.
Thus, the petition of the petitioner to the extent that it
requests to investigate the compliance of the Regulation, its
individual items, with the Constitution, the provisions of the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, and of the Statute of the Seimas, is not
within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.
1.6. Under Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Law
on the Constitutional Court, if the consideration of the
petition does not fall under the jurisdiction of the
Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court shall refuse to
consider the petition to investigate the compliance of a legal
act with the Constitution.
1.7. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the
Constitutional Court shall refuse to investigate the petition
of the group of members of the Seimas, the petitioner, to the
extent that it requests to investigate whether:
"- 'The Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission
formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No.
IX-1954 of 23 December 2003', approved by Decision No. 1 of 30
December 2003 of the Special Investigation Commission formed by
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. IX-1954 'On
the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission' of 23
December 2003, as to its form as well as the procedure of its
adoption, publishing and entry into effect, is not in conflict
with Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania and the provision '[...] the procedure for
impeachment proceedings which shall be established by the
Statute of the Seimas' of Article 74 and the constitutional
principle of 'a state under the rule of law',
- 'The Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission
formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No.
IX-1954 of 23 December 2003', approved by Decision No. 1 of 30
December 2003 of the Special Investigation Commission formed by
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. IX-1954 'On
the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission' of 23
December 2003, as to its form as well as the procedure of its
adoption, publishing and entry into effect, is not in conflict
with Pars. 1 and 2 Art. 5, Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 and Par. 2
Art. 67 of the Constitution,
- Item 16 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of
'a state under the rule of law', the principle of fair (just)
bringing of a person to legal responsibility and the right to
be heard as consolidated in Par. 2 Art. 31 of the Constitution,
Par. 1 Art. 6, Art. 13 of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of
the Covenant, as well as with the right to defence consolidated
in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 3.c Art. 6,
Art. 13 of the Convention, and Par. 3.d Art. 14 of the
Covenant,
- Item 19 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of
'a state under the rule of law', the principle of independence
and impartiality of the institution deciding the issue of
constitutional responsibility as well as the principle of
functional equality of the accusation and defence parties that
are entrenched in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution,
Par. 1 Art. 6 of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the
Covenant, as well as with Par. 3 Art. 238 of the Statute of the
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania,
- 'The Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission
formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No.
IX-1954 of 23 December 2003', approved by Decision No. 1 of 30
December 2003 of the Special Investigation Commission formed by
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. IX-1954 'On
the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission' of 23
December 2003, (in particular, Items 16 and 20 of the
Regulation), is not in conflict with the constitutional
principle of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to have
an opportunity to prepare for effective legal defence and
realise the right either to defend himself or with the help of
an advocate of one's choice, which is consolidated in Pars. 1,
2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6, Art.
13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d of Art. 14 of the
Covenant as well as with the principle of functional equality
of the accusation and defence parties that is entrenched in
Par. 2 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6, of the
Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the Covenant,
- Item 20 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to have enough
time and opportunities to prepare for effective legal defence
and realise the right either to defend himself or with the help
of an advocate of one's choice, which is consolidated in Pars.
1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6,
Art. 13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d Art. 14 of the
Covenant,
- Item 21 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to have a real
opportunity for preparation of effective legal defence and to
realise the right to defence, which is consolidated in Pars. 1,
2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6, Art.
13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d Art. 14 of the
Covenant, as well as with the principle of functional equality
of the accusation and defence parties that is entrenched in
Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6 of the
Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the Covenant,
- Item 26 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to have a real
opportunity for preparation of effective legal defence and to
realise the right to defence, which is consolidated in Pars. 1,
2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6, Art.
13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d of Art. 14 of the
Covenant,
- Item 29 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to be heard and
the right to defence which are consolidated in Pars. 1, 2, 6
Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars.1, 3.d, Art. 6, Art. 13 of
the Convention, and Pars. 1.d, 3.d Art. 14 of the Covenant, and
the principle of functional equality of the accusation and
defence parties that is entrenched in Par. 6 Art. 31 of the
Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6 of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art.
14 of the Covenant,
- Item 30 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', and the principle of
functional equality of the accusation and defence parties that
is entrenched in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution,
Par. 1 Art. 6 of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the
Covenant,
- Item 33 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to defence and
the right to question by himself witnesses of the accusation
and to have an opportunity that such witnesses be questioned,
also the right to demand that witnesses of the defence be
summoned and questioned under the same conditions that are
applied to witnesses of the accusation, which are consolidated
in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c
Art. 6, Art. 13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.d, 3.e Art. 14
of the Covenant, as well as with the principle of functional
equality of the accusation and defence parties that is
entrenched in Par. 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6
of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the Covenant."
2. The petitioner, a group of members of the Seimas,
requests to investigate whether:
"- Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania and, in particular, Art. 238 of the
Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, in which
the structure of sittings of the special investigation
commission is established, also in which the persons
participating in the sittings are named, which, however,
indicates neither procedural rights of the persons
participating in the sittings of the special investigation
commission, nor provides for the procedure of effective
implementation of procedural rights (the mechanism of their
implementation and procedural guarantees), in their content are
not in conflict with Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania and the provision '[...] the
procedure for impeachment proceedings which shall be
established by the Statute of the Seimas' of Article 74 and the
constitutional principle of 'a state under the rule of law',
- Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania and, in particular, Par. 1 Art. 236 and
Par. 3 Art. 238 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania, which consolidate the right of the initiators of
impeachment proceedings or their representatives to accomplish,
in special investigation commission sittings, the functions of
both the accuser and the person who adopts the final procedural
decision, as to their content, are not in conflict with 'the
prohibition to be a judge in one's own case' derived from the
constitutional principle of 'a state under the rule of law'."
2.1. Chapter XXXVIII "The Proposal to Initiate Impeachment
Proceedings and the Preliminary Investigation" of the Statute
of the Seimas is a constituent part of Part VIII "Impeachment
Proceedings" of the Statute of the Seimas. This chapter
regulates only part of the relations linked with bringing of
members of the Seimas and state officials to responsibility
according to the procedure for impeachment proceedings, namely,
the relations linked with the proposal to institute impeachment
proceedings and the preliminary investigation; it does not
regulate the impeachment proceedings in the Seimas (Chapter
XXXIX of the Statute of the Seimas is designed for this), it
does not regulate the proceedings of consideration of the
compliance of concrete actions of the impeached person with the
Constitution at the Constitutional Court (the Law on the
Constitutional Court regulates these relations), nor does it
regulate the proceedings to be conducted in the cases when the
Seimas, after it has heard a report by the Prosecutor General
concerning the crime committed by the person, who may be held
liable according to the procedure for impeachment proceedings
(save the President of the Republic), gives its consent to hold
the concrete person criminally liable (these relations are
regulated by the Code of Criminal Proceedings of the Republic
of Lithuania), nor does this chapter regulate the impeachment
procedure in the Seimas after the reception of a copy of the
judgement of conviction (Chapter XL of the Statute of the
Seimas is designed for this).
Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas includes
Articles 227-243 of the Statute of the Seimas. These articles
define the notion of impeachment proceedings (Article 227), it
provides against which state officials impeachment proceedings
are applied (Article 228), it provides for the grounds for
instituting impeachment proceedings (Article 229), it provides
as to who has the right to propose that the Seimas institute
impeachment proceedings (Article 230), it provides for a report
by the Prosecutor General concerning the state officials who
are suspected of commission of a crime (Article 231), it
provides for the time period of bringing of the charge
concerning the commission of a crime (Article 232), it defines
the form of the proposal to institute impeachment proceedings
(Article 233), it provides for the time period of the proposal
to institute impeachment proceedings (Article 234), it provides
for the formation of the special investigation commission in
order to investigate the reasonableness and seriousness of the
charges and to draw up a conclusion regarding the proposal to
institute the impeachment proceedings (Article 235) and
establishes the procedure for the formation of this commission
(Article 236), it provides for the manner of informing the
press and other mass media about the course of the
investigation (Article 237), it regulates the procedure of
sittings of the special investigation commission (Article 238),
it regulates questioning of witnesses and experts (Article
239), it provides for the application to the Constitutional
Court (Article 240), it provides as to what content of the
conclusion of the special investigation commission there should
be (Article 241), it provides the manner of confirmation of the
conclusion of the special investigation commission (Article
242), it provides for the formulation of the charges and
appointment of the accusers (Article 243).
2.2. Requesting to investigate the compliance of Chapter
XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas and of its individual
articles (parts thereof) with the Constitution, the petitioner
indicates expressis verbis Paragraph 1 of Article 227, Article
235, Paragraph 1 of Article 236, Article 238, Paragraph 1 of
Article 239 of the Statute of the Seimas, as well as certain
provisions of the Constitution, quotes jurisprudence of the
Constitutional Court and interprets it in his own way.
2.3. Summing up his arguments concerning the relation of
the provisions of the Statute of the Seimas with the
Constitution, the petitioner maintains that "it is the Statute
of the Seimas, which has the power of the law, that must
thoroughly define the entire process of the investigation
performed by the special investigation commission: the course
of the investigation (the stages of the investigation and the
order of the performed actions), indicate the adopted
procedural decisions and name the procedural rights of the
impeached person and those of his advocate, the procedure of
their implementation and the procedural guarantees". The
petitioner maintains that "on the grounds of the entirety of
the arguments set forth in this petition, one is to conclude
that Chapter XXXVIII of the Statue of the Seimas, in particular
Art. 238 of the Statute of the Seimas, in which the structure
of sittings of the special investigation commission is defined,
also in which the persons participating in the sittings are
named, which, however, indicates neither procedural rights of
these persons, nor provides for the procedure of effective
implementation of procedural rights (the mechanism of their
implementation and procedural guarantees), in their content are
not in conflict with Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution,
the provision 'the procedure for impeachment proceedings which
shall be established by the Statute of the Seimas' of Article
74 and, alongside, the constitutional principle of 'a state
under the rule of law'."
Thus, the doubt of the petitioner as regards the
compliance of Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas with
the Constitution is based on the fact that, in his opinion,
this chapter does not establish certain legal regulation which,
according to the petitioner, ought to be established in this
chapter. The petitioner virtually disputes not the legal
regulation expressis verbis established in the Statute of the
Seimas, but the legislative omission which, in his opinion
there is in the Statute of the Seimas, i.e. something that this
legal act does not establish, although, in the opinion of the
petitioner, under the Constitution the legislator should have
established it, i.e. the petition disputes the gap in the legal
regulation which, according to the petitioner, is prohibited by
the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court has noted many a time that if the
laws (parts thereof) do not establish certain legal regulation,
the Constitution Court enjoys the powers to investigate the
compliance of these laws (parts thereof) with the Constitution
in the cases when due to the fact that the said legal
regulation has not been established in particularly those laws
(parts thereof) the principles and/or norms of the Constitution
might be violated. In the cases when the petitioner disputes
the fact that the law or another disputed legal act (part
thereof) indicated by the petitioner has not established
certain legal regulation, but the said legal regulation under
the Constitution need not be established in that particular
disputed legal act (part thereof), the Constitutional Court
holds that in the case on the request of the petitioner the
matter of investigation is absent (Constitutional Court ruling
of 25 January 2001, decisions of 6 May 2003 and 13 May 2003).
It must be held that the petition of the petitioner, which
is based on the legislative omission presumed by him, may be
accepted and the case may be commenced subsequent to the
petition of the petitioner only in the case that the arguments
and reasoning are set forth in the petition, which ground that
the legal regulation, not established in the Statute of the
Seimas, must, under the Constitution, be established in the
part of the Statute of the Seimas particularly indicated by the
petitioner.
2.4. Paragraph 1 of Article 64 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court provides that the grounds for the
consideration of a case concerning the compliance of a legal
act with the Constitution in the Constitutional Court shall be
a legally justified doubt that the entire legal act or part
thereof is in conflict with the Constitution according to: (1)
the content of norms; (2) the extent of regulation; (3) form;
(4) the procedure of adoption, signing, publication, and entry
into effect, which is established in the Constitution.
Under Item 8 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Law on
the Constitutional Court, a petition for the investigation of
the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution must
contain the position of the petitioner concerning the
compliance of an appropriate act with the Constitution and
legal support of such position containing references to laws.
It needs to be emphasised that the position of the
petitioner concerning the compliance of a legal act (part
thereof) with the Constitution according to the content of the
norms and/or the scope of regulation must be indicated clearly,
unambiguously, the petition must contain the arguments and
reasoning grounding the doubt of the petitioner that the legal
act (part thereof) is in conflict with the Constitution. Thus,
the petition requesting to investigate the compliance of a
legal act (part thereof) with the Constitution according to the
content of norms and/or the scope of regulation must clearly
indicate concrete articles (parts thereof), items of the legal
act the compliance of which with the Constitution is doubtful
from the petitioner's viewpoint, also concrete provisions-norms
and/or principles-of the Constitution, to which, in the opinion
of the petitioner, contradict the concretely indicated articles
or items of the disputed legal act. The petition requesting to
investigate the compliance of a legal act (part thereof) with
the Constitution according to the content of norms and/or the
scope of regulation must also clearly indicate the legal
arguments grounding the doubt of the petitioner as regards
every concretely indicated article (part thereof) or item of
the disputed legal act, the compliance of which with the
concretely indicated provision of the Constitution is doubtful
to the petitioner. Otherwise, the request to investigate the
compliance of a legal act (part thereof) with the Constitution
according to the content of norms and/or the scope of
regulation must be considered to be not in line with the
requirements of Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court and, on the grounds of Article 70 of this law, is to be
returned to the petitioner; the return of a petition does not
take away the right to apply to the Constitutional Court
according to the common procedure after removal of the
deficiencies thereof (Paragraph 2 of Article 70 of the Law on
the Constitutional Court).
It also needs to be noted that if one does not indicate
concrete articles (parts thereof), items of the legal act, the
compliance of which with the Constitution is doubtful to the
petitioner, nor concrete provisions-norms and/or principles-of
the Constitution to which, in the opinion of the petitioner,
the concretely indicated articles (parts thereof) or items of
the disputed legal act contradict according to the content of
the norms and/or scope of regulation, nor the legal arguments
grounding the doubt of the petitioner concerning each
concretely indicated article (part thereof) or item of the
disputed legal act, the compliance of which with the concretely
indicated provisions of the Constitution according to the
content of norms and/or scope of regulation is doubtful to the
petitioner, and in case such a request was accepted at the
Constitutional Court and a case was commenced subsequent to it,
one would also restrict the rights of the party concerned, the
state institution that has passed the disputed legal act, since
it would be more difficult for the person concerned to present
explanations concerning the arguments of the petitioner and to
prepare for the judicial consideration.
2.5. As mentioned, Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the
Seimas regulates the relations linked with the proposal to
institute impeachment proceedings and with the preliminary
investigation.
2.5.1. The petitioner does not quote, nor does even
mention most of the articles of Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute
of the Seimas, the compliance of which with the Constitution is
requested to be investigated. For instance, the petition does
not mention Articles 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 237,
240, 241, 242, and 243 of the Statute of the Seimas. The
petition does not present any arguments at all as regards the
relation of these articles (parts thereof) of the Statute of
the Seimas with the principles or norms of the Constitution,
nor does it directly formulate a request to investigate the
compliance of any of these articles (parts thereof) with the
Constitution. Instead of that a request of general nature to
the Constitutional is formulated to investigate the compliance
of entire Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas with the
Constitution.
2.5.2. It has been mentioned that in his petition the
petitioner indicates expressis verbis Paragraph 1 of Article
227, Article 235 and Paragraph 1 of Article 239 of the Statute
of the Seimas, however, the petition merely retells the legal
regulation established in these articles of the Statute of the
Seimas, but one does not state any opinion about the relation
of this legal regulation with the principles and norms of the
Constitution. The petitioner has not formulated any request to
investigate the compliance of any of these articles (parts
thereof) with the Constitution.
2.5.3. The petitioner requests expressis verbis to
investigate the compliance of only Paragraph 1 of Article 236
and Article 238 (by separately indicating Paragraph 3 of this
article) of the Statute of the Seimas with the Constitution and
presents arguments only regarding the compliance of these
articles of the statute of the Seimas with the Constitution.
It needs to be noted that, as mentioned, the arguments
upon which the doubt of the petitioner as regards the
compliance of Paragraph 1 of Article 236 and Article 238 of the
Statute of the Seimas with the Constitution is based are
inseparable from the arguments upon which the doubts of the
petitioner as regards the compliance of the Regulation approved
by Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special
Investigation Commission with the Constitution, the provisions
of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, and of the Statute of the Seimas are
based.
It must also be noted that the petitioner has not
presented any arguments grounding the fact that the legislative
omission (gap of the legal regulation prohibited by the
Constitution) pointed out by him should, under the
Constitution, be removed by establishing respective legal
regulation precisely in Paragraph 1 of Article 236 and Article
238 (or in Paragraph 3 of this article, which the petitioner
points out separately) of the Statute of the Seimas.
One should pay attention to the fact that the position of
the petitioner concerning the compliance of the disputed
provisions of the Statue of the Seimas with the Constitution
and the juridical reasoning in favour of this position are
contradictory, incoherent, some arguments deny the other ones.
For example, as mentioned, the petitioner requests to
investigate whether inter alia "Item 19 of the Regulation of
the Special Investigation Commission formed by Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December
2003, approved by Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the
Special Investigation Commission formed by Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation
of the Special Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003,
as to its content is not in conflict with the constitutional
principle of 'a state under the rule of law', the principle of
independence and impartiality of the institution deciding the
issue of constitutional responsibility as well as the principle
of functional equality of the accusation and defence parties
that are entrenched in Par. 2 Art. 31 of the Constitution,
<...> as well as with Par. 3 Art. 238 of the Statute of the
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania". Thus in this part of the
petition the petitioner clearly presumes that Paragraph 3 of
Article 238 of the Statute of the Seimas is not in conflict
with Paragraph 2 of Article 31 of the Constitution and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
Meanwhile, in another part of the petition the petitioner
requests to investigate the compliance of Paragraph 3 of
Article 238 of the Statute of the Seimas with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, and
the compliance of entire Article 238 (thus, including Paragraph
3 thereof) of the Statute of the Seimas with Paragraphs 1, 2
and 6 of Article 31, Article 74 of the Constitution, as well as
the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
The fact that in one part of the petition one grounds his doubt
concerning the compliance of the Regulation with the
Constitution and the Statute of the Seimas upon Article 238 of
the Statute of the Seimas, while in another part one forwards
his doubt concerning the compliance of the said article of the
Statute of the Seimas with the Constitution, makes the legal
reasoning of the actual position of the petitioner concerning
the compliance of the disputed provisions of the Statute of the
Seimas contradictory, thus it makes the position itself of the
petitioner concerning the compliance of the disputed provisions
of the Statute of the Seimas with the Constitution ambiguous
and very unclear.
2.5.4. Taking account of this, one is to conclude that the
petition of the petitioner to the extent that it requests to
investigate the compliance of Chapter XXXVIII and/or its
separate articles (parts thereof) of the Statute of the Seimas
with the Constitution does not meet the requirements of Item 8
of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court.
2.6. Under Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court, in the case that a petition or attachments thereto fail
to comply with the requirements set forth in Article 66, the
President of the Constitutional Court shall return the petition
to the petitioner on his own initiative or on the initiative of
the justice; the return of a petition shall not take away the
right to apply to the Constitutional Court according to the
common procedure after removal of the deficiencies thereof.
Therefore, the petition of the petitioner to the extent
that it requests to investigate the compliance of Chapter
XXXVIII and/or its separate articles (parts thereof) of the
Statute of the Seimas with the Constitution is to be returned
to the petitioner.
2.7. It was held in this Decision of the Constitutional
Court that the Constitutional Court shall refuse to investigate
the petition of the petitioner to the extent that it is
requested to investigate the compliance of the Regulation with
the Constitution, the provisions of the European Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and of
the Statute of the Seimas. Under Article 28 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, inter alia all cases of the refusal to
consider a petition shall be considered in procedural sittings
of the Constitutional Court.
Therefore, the issue of returning of the petition of the
petitioner to the extent that it requests to investigate the
compliance of Chapter XXXVIII and/or its separate articles
(parts thereof) with the Constitution is to be resolved by the
same decision as that concerning the issue of the refusal to
investigate the petition of the petitioner to the extent that
it is requested to investigate the compliance of the Regulation
with the Constitution, the provisions of the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms, the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, and of the Statute of the Seimas.
2.8. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the
Constitutional Court returns the petition to the petitioner, a
group of members of the Seimas, to the extent that it requests
to investigate whether:
"- Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania and, in particular, Art. 238 of the
Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, in which
the structure of sittings of the special investigation
commission is established, also in which the persons
participating in the sittings are named, which, however,
indicates neither procedural rights of the persons
participating in the sittings of the special investigation
commission, nor provides for the procedure of effective
implementation of procedural rights (the mechanism of their
implementation and procedural guarantees), in their content are
not in conflict with Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania and the provision '[...] the
procedure for impeachment proceedings which shall be
established by the Statute of the Seimas' of Article 74 and the
constitutional principle of 'a state under the rule of law',
- Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania and, in particular, Par. 1 Art. 236 and
Par. 3 Art. 238 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania, which consolidate the right of the initiators of
impeachment proceedings or their representatives to accomplish,
in special investigation commission sittings, the functions of
both the accuser and the person who adopts the final procedural
decision, as to their content, are not in conflict with 'the
prohibition to be a judge in one's own case' derived from the
constitutional principle of 'a state under the rule of law'."
As mentioned, the return of a petition does not take away
the right to apply to the Constitutional Court according to the
common procedure after removal of the deficiencies thereof
(Paragraph 2 of Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court).
3. The petitioner, a group of members of the Seimas,
requests to investigate whether:
"- Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No.
IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special Investigation
Commission' of 23 December 2003 is not in conflict with Pars.
1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania and the provision '[...] the procedure for
impeachment proceedings which shall be established by the
Statute of the Seimas' of Article 74 and the constitutional
principle of 'a state under the rule of law'."
3.1. The disputed Seimas resolution is composed of three
articles. The petitioner does not dispute the compliance of
individual articles of this resolution with the Constitution;
in his opinion, the entire legal act-Seimas Resolution No.
IX-1954 "On the Formation of the Special Investigation
Commission" of 23 December 2003-is in conflict with the
Constitution.
3.2. Summing up his arguments concerning the relation of
Seimas Resolution No. IX-1954 "On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission" of 23 December 2003 with the
Constitution, the petitioner maintains that "being aware, or at
least ought to have been aware of the fact that until this day
the entire process of the conducted investigation by the
special investigation commission has not been thoroughly
defined in the Statute of the Seimas, due to which Chapter
XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas, and, in particular, Art.
238 of the Statute of the Seimas is in conflict with Pars. 1.
2. and 6 Art. 31 and Art. 74 of the Constitution, as well as
with the constitutional principle of 'a state under the rule of
law', and that the special investigation commission indicated
in Art. 235 of the Statute of the Seimas cannot objectively
perform the functions assigned to it, since the proceedings, on
the basis of which it ought to act, have not been established,
however, completely disregarding this and, by means of the
Resolution, obligating the Special Investigation Commission to
verify the reasonableness and seriousness of the charges
brought against the President of the Republic on the basis of a
procedure established in neither the Statute of the Seimas, nor
any other legal act (thus, on the basis of arbitrariness), the
Seimas, by adopting the Resolution, violated Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art.
31 and Art. 74 of the Constitution and the constitutional
principle of 'a state under the rule of law'."
Thus, the petitioner grounds his doubt concerning the
compliance of Seimas Resolution No. IX-1954 "On the Formation
of the Special Investigation Commission" of 23 December 2003
upon an assumption that the Seimas, while adopting this
resolution, was aware or "at least" ought to have been aware,
that Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas is in
conflict with the Constitution. Virtually, the petitioner
raises a question that until the legislative omission presumed
by him is removed, then the special investigation commission
provided for in Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas
may not be formed in general, thus, in the opinion of the
petitioner, one was not permitted to form the special
investigation commission that was formed by Seimas Resolution
No. IX-1954 "On the Formation of the Special Investigation
Commission" of 23 December 2003, since it, according to the
petitioner, cannot perform its functions.
3.3. Under the Constitution, the Seimas shall consist of
representatives of the Nation-141 members of the Seimas
(Paragraph 1 of Article 55 of the Constitution). The
Constitutional Court, while investigating the compliance of
legal acts adopted by the Seimas with the Constitution, does
not investigate whether certain members of the Seimas "were
aware" of something, or "were not aware" of something, or
whether they "ought to have been aware of something" or "ought
not to have been aware". The argument of the petitioner that,
allegedly, the Seimas, while adopting the disputed resolution,
was aware or "at least" ought to have been aware of the fact
that Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas is in
conflict with the Constitution is not a legal one.
3.4. The assumption that the Seimas, allegedly, was aware
or "at least" ought to have been aware of the fact that that
Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas is in conflict
with the Constitution is not an argument required by Item 8 of
Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court, upon which it would be permitted to ground the position
of the petitioner in the petition, in which one requests to
investigate also the fact whether Chapter XXXVIII itself of the
Statute of the Seimas is not in conflict with the Constitution,
concerning, according to the petitioner, the compliance of
Seimas Resolution No. IX-1954 "On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission" of 23 December 2003, which is
grounded on the same chapter of the Statute of the Seimas, with
the Constitution.
Therefore, the request of the petitioner to investigate
the compliance with the Constitution of Seimas Resolution No.
IX-1954 "On the Formation of the Special Investigation
Commission" of 23 December 2003, which, as mentioned, is
grounded on the assumption that the Seimas, allegedly, was
aware or "at least" ought to have been aware of the fact that
that Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas is in
conflict with the Constitution, may not be considered as
meeting the requirements of Item 8 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66
of the Law on the Constitutional Court, under which a petition
for the investigation of the compliance of a legal act with the
Constitution must contain the position of the petitioner
concerning the compliance of an appropriate act with the
Constitution and legal support of such position containing
references to laws.
3.5. As mentioned, the arguments upon which doubts of the
petitioner are based concerning the compliance of the disputed
Seimas resolution with the Constitution are inseparable from
the arguments upon which the compliance of the provisions of
the Statute of the Seimas with the Constitution are based,
that, while deciding whether to accept the petition of the
petitioner for consideration at the Constitutional Court, all
arguments grounding the requests of the petitioner are to be
assessed as a whole.
3.6. It was held in this Decision of the Constitutional
Court that the Constitutional Court shall refuse to investigate
the petition of the petitioner to the extent that it is
requested to investigate the compliance of the Regulation with
the Constitution, the provisions of the European Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and of
the Statute of the Seimas.
It was also held that the Constitutional Court returns the
petition to the petitioner to the extent that it requests to
investigate the compliance of Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of
the Seimas and/or its separate articles (parts thereof) with
the Constitution.
3.7. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the
petition of the petitioner to the extent that it requests to
investigate the compliance of Seimas Resolution No. IX-1954 "On
the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission" of 23
December 2003 is to be returned to the petitioner.
3.8. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the
Constitutional Court shall return the petition to the
petitioner, a group of members of the Seimas, to the extent
that it requests to investigate whether:
"- Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No.
IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special Investigation
Commission' of 23 December 2003 is not in conflict with Pars.
1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania and the provision '[...] the procedure for
impeachment proceedings which shall be established by the
Statute of the Seimas' of Article 74 and the constitutional
principle of 'a state under the rule of law'."
It has been mentioned that the return of a petition does
not take away the right to apply to the Constitutional Court
according to the common procedure after removal of the
deficiencies thereof (Paragraph 2 of Article 70 of the Law on
the Constitutional Court).
Conforming to Paragraph 2 of Article 102 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 1, 25,
28, 64, 66, 69 and 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of
the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the
Republic of Lithuania has adopted the following
decision:
1. To refuse to investigate the petition of a group of
members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the
petitioner, to the extent that it requests to investigate
whether:
"- 'The Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission
formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No.
IX-1954 of 23 December 2003', approved by Decision No. 1 of 30
December 2003 of the Special Investigation Commission formed by
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. IX-1954 'On
the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission' of 23
December 2003, as to its form as well as the procedure of its
adoption, publishing and entry into effect, is not in conflict
with Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania and the provision '[...] the procedure for
impeachment proceedings which shall be established by the
Statute of the Seimas' of Article 74 and the constitutional
principle of 'a state under the rule of law',
- 'The Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission
formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No.
IX-1954 of 23 December 2003', approved by Decision No. 1 of 30
December 2003 of the Special Investigation Commission formed by
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. IX-1954 'On
the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission' of 23
December 2003, as to its form as well as the procedure of its
adoption, publishing and entry into effect, is not in conflict
with Pars. 1 and 2 Art. 5, Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 and Par. 2
Art. 67 of the Constitution,
- Item 16 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of
'a state under the rule of law', the principle of fair (just)
bringing of a person to legal responsibility and the right to
be heard as consolidated in Par. 2 Art. 31 of the Constitution,
Par. 1 Art. 6, Art. 13 of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of
the Covenant, as well as with the right to defence consolidated
in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 3.c Art. 6,
Art. 13 of the Convention, and Par. 3.d Art. 14 of the
Covenant,
- Item 19 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of
'a state under the rule of law', the principle of independence
and impartiality of the institution deciding the issue of
constitutional responsibility as well as the principle of
functional equality of the accusation and defence parties that
are entrenched in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution,
Par. 1 Art. 6 of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the
Covenant, as well as with Par. 3 Art. 238 of the Statute of the
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania,
- 'The Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission
formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No.
IX-1954 of 23 December 2003', approved by Decision No. 1 of 30
December 2003 of the Special Investigation Commission formed by
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. IX-1954 'On
the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission' of 23
December 2003, (in particular, Items 16 and 20 of the
Regulation), is not in conflict with the constitutional
principle of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to have
an opportunity to prepare for effective legal defence and
realise the right either to defend himself or with the help of
an advocate of one's choice, which is consolidated in Pars. 1,
2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6, Art.
13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d of Art. 14 of the
Covenant as well as with the principle of functional equality
of the accusation and defence parties that is entrenched in
Par. 2 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6, of the
Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the Covenant,
- Item 20 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to have enough
time and opportunities to prepare for effective legal defence
and realise the right either to defend himself or with the help
of an advocate of one's choice, which is consolidated in Pars.
1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6,
Art. 13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d Art. 14 of the
Covenant,
- Item 21 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to have a real
opportunity for preparation of effective legal defence and to
realise the right to defence, which is consolidated in Pars. 1,
2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6, Art.
13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d Art. 14 of the
Covenant, as well as with the principle of functional equality
of the accusation and defence parties that is entrenched in
Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6 of the
Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the Covenant,
- Item 26 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to have a real
opportunity for preparation of effective legal defence and to
realise the right to defence, which is consolidated in Pars. 1,
2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6, Art.
13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d Art. 14 of the
Covenant,
- Item 29 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to be heard and
the right to defence which are consolidated in Pars. 1, 2, 6
Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars.1, 3.d, Art. 6, Art. 13 of
the Convention, and Pars. 1.d, 3.d Art. 14 of the Covenant, and
the principle of functional equality of the accusation and
defence parties that is entrenched in Par. 6 Art. 31 of the
Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6 of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art.
14 of the Covenant,
- Item 30 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', and the principle of
functional equality of the accusation and defence parties that
is entrenched in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution,
Par. 1 Art. 6 of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the
Covenant,
- Item 33 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003, approved by
Decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003 of the Special Investigation
Commission formed by Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special
Investigation Commission' of 23 December 2003, as to its
content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle
of 'a state under the rule of law', the right to defence and
the right to question by himself witnesses of the accusation
and to have an opportunity that such witnesses be questioned,
also the right to demand that witnesses of the defence be
summoned and questioned under the same conditions that are
applied to witnesses of the accusation, which are consolidated
in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c
Art. 6, Art. 13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.d, 3.e Art. 14
of the Covenant, as well as with the principle of functional
equality of the accusation and defence parties that is
entrenched in Par. 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6
of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the Covenant."
2. To return the petition to the petitioner, a group of
members of the Seimas, to the extent that it requests to
investigate whether:
"- Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania and, in particular, Art. 238 of the
Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, in which
the structure of sittings of the special investigation
commission is established, also in which the persons
participating in the sittings are named, which, however,
indicates neither procedural rights of the persons
participating in the sittings of the special investigation
commission, nor provides for the procedure of effective
implementation of procedural rights (the mechanism of their
implementation and procedural guarantees), in their content are
not in conflict with Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania and the provision '[...] the
procedure for impeachment proceedings which shall be
established by the Statute of the Seimas' of Article 74 and the
constitutional principle of 'a state under the rule of law',
- Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania and, in particular, Par. 1 Art. 236 and
Par. 3 Art. 238 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania, which consolidate the right of the initiators of
impeachment proceedings or their representatives to accomplish,
in special investigation commission sittings, the functions of
both the accuser and the person who adopts the final procedural
decision, as to their content, are not in conflict with 'the
prohibition to be a judge in one's own case' derived from the
constitutional principle of 'a state under the rule of law',
- Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No.
IX-1954 'On the Formation of the Special Investigation
Commission' of 23 December 2003 is not in conflict with Pars.
1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania and the provision '[...] the procedure for
impeachment proceedings which shall be established by the
Statute of the Seimas' of Article 74 and the constitutional
principle of 'a state under the rule of law'."
Justices of the Constitutional Court: Armanas Abramavičius
Egidijus Jarašiūnas
Egidijus Kūris
Kęstutis Lapinskas
Zenonas Namavičius
Augustinas Normantas
Jonas Prapiestis
Vytautas Sinkevičius
Stasys Stačiokas