Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
DECISION
ON THE PETITION OF THE VILNIUS REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT, THE PETITIONER, TO
INVESTIGATE WHETHER GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA RESOLUTION NO. 222 "ON THE CANDIDATE TO
THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GOVERNMENT" OF 27
FEBRUARY 2004 IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE OF A STATE UNDER THE RULE
OF LAW, ITEM 2 OF ARTICLE 94 OF THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, PARAGAPH 3 OF
ARTICLE 9, ITEM 3 OF PARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 10 AND
ARTICLE 13 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON
PUBLIC SERVICE, AS WELL AS ARTICLE 3 OF THE
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON ADMINISTRATIVE
SUPERVISION OF MUNICIPALITIES
2 July 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, and Vytautas Sinkevičius,
with the secretary of the hearing-Daiva Pitrėnaitė,
in the Constitutional Court procedural sitting considered
the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate as to whether Government
of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 222 "On the
Candidate to the Representative of the Government" of 27
February 2004 is not in conflict with the principle of a state
under the rule of law entrenched in the Preamble to the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, Item 2 of Article 94
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, Paragraph 3
of Article 9, Item 3 of Paragraph 2 of Article 10 and Article
13 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Public Service, as well
as Article 3 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Administrative
Supervision of Municipalities.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
1. On 27 February 2004, the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania adopted Resolution No. 222 "On the Candidate to the
Representative of the Government", which was set forth as
follows:
"Pursuant to Item 14 of Article 22 of the Law on the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania (Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 1994, No. 43-772; 1998, No. 41(1)-1131; 2000,
No. 92-2843; 2002, No. 41-1527), Paragraph 2 of Article 2 and
Paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Administrative Supervision of Municipalities (Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 1998, No. 51-1392; 2002, No. 127-5748), Item
6 of Paragraph 3 of Article 9 and Item 3 of Paragraph 2 of
Article 10 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Public Service
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1999, No. 66-2130; 2002,
No. 45-1708; 2003, No. 17-705, No. 112-4993), Paragraph 9 of
Article 9 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Prevention of
Corruption (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No.
57-2297), the Government of the Republic of Lithuania resolves:
1. Not to appoint Paulius Uleckas to the office of the
Representative of the Government for the Marijampolė Region.
2. To empower the Minister of the Interior Virgilijus
Bulovas to select, under procedure established in legal acts, a
candidate to the office of the Representative of the Government
for the Marijampolė Region, and to submit a draft resolution to
the Government of the Republic of Lithuania concerning his
appointment."
2. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, investigated an administrative case, suspended its
investigation and applied to the Constitutional Court with a
petition requesting to investigate whether Government of the
Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 222 "On the Candidate to
the Representative of the Government" of 27 February 2004 is
not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of
law entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, Item 2 of
Article 94 of the Constitution, Paragraph 3 of Article 9, Item
3 of Paragraph 2 of Article 10 and Article 13 of the Law on
Public Service, as well as Article 3 of the Law on
Administrative Supervision of Municipalities.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. The petition of the petitioner maintains the following:
1.1. Article 3 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities provides that a Representative of the Government
is appointed to and dismissed form office under procedure
established by the Law on Public Service. Under Item 3 of
Paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Law on Public Service and
Article 22 of the Law on the Government, the Government
appoints a Representative of the Government to office.
Paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the Law on Public Service has
established general requirements for persons who are admitted
to public service. The procedure of admission of persons to
public service is regulated by the Procedure for Admission into
the Office of a Public Servant confirmed by Government of the
Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 966 "On the Confirmation
of the Procedure for Admission into the Office of a Public
Servant" of 24 June 2002. Under Item 14 of the said procedure,
when applications of candidates are accepted, one must verify
their conformity with the requirements established in Paragraph
1 of Article 9 of the Law on Public Service. Paragraph 3 of
Article 9 of the Law on Public Service does not contain any
directly established prohibition to admit the persons to public
service, whose credibility is doubtful, while under Item 6 of
Paragraph 3 of the same article, persons are not admitted to
public service in cases provided for in other laws.
1.2. The duty to verify the credibility of a person who
seeks to be admitted to an office in public service arises from
Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Prevention of Corruption, under which the person who lost his
credibility may be not admitted to public service. A systemic
analysis of this norm means that this requirement is applied to
career civil servants as well as to civil servants of political
(personal) confidence. According to Paragraphs 6 and 8 of
Article 9 of the Law on Prevention of Corruption, one must
inform the person about the decision to request for
information, while the latter may contest in court the decision
to request for information as well as the content of this
decision.
1.3. Articles 11 and 13 of the Law on Public Service do
not provide for any reasons due to which the person who won the
competition may be not admitted to public service.
2. The petition of the petitioner does not contain any
legal arguments and reasoning due to which, in the opinion of
the petitioner, the disputed Government resolution is in
conflict with the Constitution and the articles indicated by
the petitioner.
3. 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.
According to 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.
4. 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 Articles 66 and 67
of this law, the petition is returned to the petitioner. 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.
Conforming to Paragraph 2 of Article 102 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, Articles 1, 28 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:
To return the petition to the petitioner, the Vilnius
Regional Administrative Court, in which it is requested to
investigated whether Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 222 "On the Candidate to the Representative of
the Government" of 27 February 2004 is not in conflict with the
principle of a state under the rule of law entrenched in the
Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, Item
2 of Article 94 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania, Paragraph 3 of Article 9, Item 3 of Paragraph 2 of
Article 10 and Article 13 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Public Service, as well as Article 3 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities.
Justices of the Constitutional Court: Armanas Abramavičius
Egidijus Jarašiūnas
Egidijus Kūris
Kęstutis Lapinskas
Zenonas Namavičius
Augustinas Normantas
Jonas Prapiestis
Vytautas Sinkevičius