Lietuviškai
Case No. 27/04
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
DECISION
ON THE PETITION OF THE SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE
COURT REQUESTING TO INVESTIGATE THE COMPLIANCE OF
ARTICLE 2 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON
SUPPLEMENT THE LAW ON PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS WITH
ARTICLE 11 AND SUPPLEMENT TO ARTICLE 2 THEREOF
WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
26 May 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 Article 28 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its procedural sitting
considered the request of the Supreme Administrative Court of
Lithuania to investigate as to whether Article 2 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Supplement of the Law on
Presidential Elections with Article 11 and Supplement to
Article 2 Thereof is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of
Article 34, Paragraph 1 of Article 78, and Paragraph 1 of
Article 79 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, the
petitioner, investigated an administrative case. The court
suspended the investigation of the case by its ruling and
applied to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting
to investigate as to whether Article 2 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Supplement of the Law on Presidential
Elections with Article 11 and Supplement to Article 2 Thereof
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2004, No. 75-2568;
hereinafter also referred to as the Law) is not in conflict
with Paragraph 2 of Article 34, Paragraph 1 of Article 78, and
Paragraph 1 of Article 79 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania.
The request of the petitioner has been accepted for the
consideration at the Constitutional Court under Constitutional
Court President Ordinance No. 2B-89 of 17 May 2004.
II
The petition of the petitioner is based on the following
arguments.
The Constitution is a legal act of supreme legal power,
and no law or other legal act may be in conflict with the
Constitution. The petitioner states that the scope of the right
to be elected pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Article 34 of the
Constitution and the procedure of its realisation is usually
established both in the Constitution, and in the laws on
elections. The principle of the supremacy of the Constitution
prohibits, by the laws on elections, from the establishment of
the legal regulation which does not comply with the provisions
of the Constitution.
Paragraph 1 of Article 78, Paragraph 1 of Article 79,
Article 56, and Article 141 of the Constitution provide for the
requirements and restrictions applied to the candidate for the
post of the President of the Republic. No other restrictions in
respect of the person who seeks to be elected are directly
established in the Constitution. The Constitution does not
directly provide for a prohibition to be a candidate for the
post of the President of the Republic for a person who has been
removed from the office in accordance with the procedure for
impeachment proceedings. In the opinion of the petitioner,
Article 2 of the Law, which consolidates the provision that a
person, who has been removed from office or his mandate of the
Seimas member has been revoked by the Seimas in accordance with
the procedure for impeachment proceedings, may not be elected
the President of the Republic if less than 5 years have elapsed
since his removal from office or the revocation of his mandate
of the Seimas member, consolidates an additional restriction
which applies to a person, who seeks to be elected the
President of the Republic.
III
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing written explanations were received
from the representatives of the Seimas, the party concerned,
who were Julius Sabatauskas, a member of the Seimas, Mindaugas
Girdauskas, a senior consultant to the Legal Department of the
Office of the Seimas, and Girius Ivoška, the chief specialist
to the Legal Department of the Office of the Seimas, in which
it is stated that Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Supplement of the Law on Presidential Elections with Article 11
and Supplement to Article 2 Thereof is not in conflict with the
Constitution.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. On 4 May 2004, the Seimas adopted the Law on Amendment
with Article 11 and Amendment to Article 2 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Presidential Elections. It reads:
"Article 1. Supplement to the Law with Article 11
To supplement the Law with Article 11:
"Article 11. Purposes for Supplementing of Article 2 of
this Law
Pursuant to the principles of an open, just, and
harmonious civil society and a state under the rule of law
enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania, as well as Articles 6, 34 and 74 of the
Constitution, the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania adopts
this law."
Article 2. Supplement of Article 2 with Paragraph 2
1. To supplement Article 2 with new Paragraph 2:
"A person, who has been removed from office or his mandate
of the Seimas member has been revoked by the Seimas in
accordance with the procedure for impeachment proceedings, may
not be elected the President of the Republic if less than 5
years have elapsed since his removal from office or the
revocation of his mandate of the Seimas member."
2. To consider former Paragraph 2 of Article 2 as
Paragraph 3."
2. The petitioner requests to investigate as to whether
Article 2 of the Law is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of
Article 34, Paragraph 1 of Article 78, and Paragraph 1 of
Article 79 of the Constitution.
3. The petitioner requests to investigate the compliance
of entire Article 2 the Republic of Lithuania Law on Supplement
of the Law on Presidential Elections with Article 11 and
Supplement to Article 2 Thereof with the Constitution, however
the request of the petitioner reveals that he has no doubts as
to whether the provision "to consider former Paragraph 2 of
Article 2 as Paragraph 3" of Paragraph 2 of this Article is not
in conflict with the Constitution.
4. Taking account of the fact that under Paragraph 1 of
Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Supplement of the
Law on Presidential Elections with Article 11 and Supplement to
Article 2 Thereof Article 2 (wording of 19 September 1996) of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on Presidential Elections was
supplemented with new Paragraph 2, the fact that the petitioner
has no doubts as to whether Paragraph 2, which changed the
sequence of the paragraphs of Article 2 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Presidential Elections, of Article 2 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Supplement of the Law on
Presidential Elections with Article 11 and Supplement to
Article 2 Thereof is not in conflict with the Constitution, it
is to be held that the petitioner doubts whether Paragraph 2
(wording of 4 May 2004) of Article 2 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Presidential Elections is not in conflict with
the Constitution.
5. On 18 May 2004, the Constitutional Court in its public
hearing heard case No. 24/04 subsequent to the petition of the
petitioner, a group of members of the Seimas, requesting to
investigate as to whether the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Supplement of the Law on Presidential Elections with Article 11
and Supplement to Article 2 Thereof was not in conflict with
the Constitution, and on 25 May 2004 adopted the Ruling "On the
compliance of Article 11 (wording of 4 May 2004) and Paragraph
2 (wording of 4 May 2004) of Article 2 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Presidential Elections with the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania" (Official Gazette Valstybės
žinios, 2004, No. 85-3094), which ruled:
"1. To recognise that Paragraph 2 (wording of 4 May 2004)
of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Presidential
Elections, which establishes that a person, who has been
removed from office or his mandate of the Seimas member has
been revoked by the Seimas in accordance with the procedure for
impeachment proceedings, may not be elected the President of
the Republic, except the provision that 'if less than 5 years
have elapsed since his removal from office or the revocation of
his mandate of the Seimas member', and the provision that a
person, who has been removed from office or his mandate of the
Seimas member has been revoked by the Seimas in accordance with
the procedure for impeachment proceedings for the commission of
a crime by which the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
has not been grossly violated or the oath has not been
breached, is not in conflict with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania.
2. To recognise that the provision of Paragraph 2 (wording
of 4 May 2004) of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Presidential Elections, which reads "if less than 5 years have
elapsed since his removal from office or the revocation of his
mandate of the Seimas member" is in conflict with Paragraph 2
of Article 34, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 59, Article 74,
Paragraph 1 of Article 82, Paragraph 2 of Article 104, and
Paragraph 6 of Article 112 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania, Article 5 of the Law "On the Procedure of the
Entry into Effect of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania", as well as the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law.
3. To recognise that Paragraph 2 (wording of 4 May 2004)
of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Presidential
Elections to the extent that it provides that a person, who has
been removed from office or his mandate of the Seimas member
has been revoked by the Seimas in accordance with the procedure
for impeachment proceedings for the commission of a crime by
which the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania has not
been grossly violated or the oath has not been breached may not
be elected President of the Republic, is in conflict with
Paragraph 2 of Article 34, Paragraph 2 of Article 56, Article
74, and Paragraph 1 of Article 78 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania."
6. The Constitutional Court Ruling "On the compliance of
Article 11 (wording of 4 May 2004) and Paragraph 2 (wording of
4 May 2004) of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Presidential Elections with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania" of 25 May 2004 became effective as of 26 May 2004.
7. The issue of compliance of Paragraph 2 (wording of 4
May 2004) of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Presidential Elections, the compliance of which with the
Constitution is subject to the doubt of the petitioner, the
Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, is solved in the
Constitutional Court Ruling "On the compliance of Article 11
(wording of 4 May 2004) and Paragraph 2 (wording of 4 May 2004)
of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Presidential
Elections with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania"
of 25 May 2004.
8. Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court provides that, by a decision, the
Constitutional Court shall refuse to consider petitions to
investigate the compliance of a legal act with the
Constitution, if the compliance of the legal act with the
Constitution indicated in the petition has already been
investigated by the Constitutional Court and the ruling on this
issue adopted by the Constitutional Court is still in force.
Conforming to Article 28, Item 3 of Paragraph 1 and
Paragraph 2 of Article 69 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:
To refuse to investigate the petition of the Supreme
Administrative Court of Lithuania requesting to investigate as
to whether Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Supplement of the Law on Presidential Elections with Article 11
and Supplement to Article 2 Thereof is not in conflict with
Paragraph 2 of Article 34, Paragraph 1 of Article 78, and
Paragraph 1 of Article 79 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania.
This Constitutional Court ruling is final and not subject
to appeal.
The ruling is promulgated in the name of the Republic of
Lithuania.
Justices of the Constitutional Court: Armanas Abramavičius
Egidijus Jarašiūnas
Egidijus Kūris
Kęstutis Lapinskas
Zenonas Namavičius
Augustinas Normantas
Jonas Prapiestis
Vytautas Sinkevičius
Stasys Stačiokas