Lietuviškai
Case No. 17/04
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
RULING
ON THE COMPLIANCE OF PARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLE 230 OF
THE STATUTE OF THE SEIMAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA AND DECREE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA NO. 397 "ON THE PROPOSAL TO
INSTITUTE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
MEMBER OF THE SEIMAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
ARTŪRAS PAULAUSKAS" OF 12 MARCH 2004 WITH THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
15 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,
in the presence of:
the representatives of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania, the petitioner, who were Vytenis Povilas
Andriukaitis, a member of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania, and Girius Ivoška, a senior consultant to the Legal
Department of the Office of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania,
pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and Article 1 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, on 13 April
2004 in its public hearing heard Case No. 17/04 which
originated in the petition set forth in the 16 March 2004
Resolution "On the Application to the Constitutional Court of
the Republic of Lithuania with a Petition Requesting to
Investigate whether the Decree of the President of the Republic
'On the Proposal to Institute Impeachment Proceedings Against
the Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Artūras
Paulauskas' Is Not in Conflict with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania" of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania requesting to investigate whether the said decree is
not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of
law, which is entrenched in the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania, and whether Article 4 of the said decree of the
President of the Republic is not in conflict with the principle
of a state under the rule of law, which is entrenched in the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and Paragraph 2 of
Article 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
1. On 12 March 2004, the President of the Republic issued
Decree No. 397 "On the Proposal to Institute Impeachment
Proceedings Against the Member of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania Artūras Paulauskas" (Official Gazette Valstybės
žinios, 2004, No. 40-1303), whereby he proposed that
impeachment proceedings be instituted against the member of the
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Artūras Paulauskas.
2. On 16 March 2004, the Seimas adopted Resolution No.
IX-2062 "On the Application to the Constitutional Court of the
Republic of Lithuania with a Petition Requesting to Investigate
whether the Decree of the President of the Republic 'On the
Proposal to Institute Impeachment Proceedings Against the
Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Artūras
Paulauskas' Is Not in Conflict with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania" (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios,
2004, No. 41-1325), in which it requests that the
Constitutional Court investigate whether Decree of the
President of the Republic No. 397 "On the Proposal to Institute
Impeachment Proceedings Against the Member of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania Artūras Paulauskas" of 12 March 2004 is
not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of
law, which is entrenched in the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania, and whether Article 4 of the same decree is not in
conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law,
which is entrenched in the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania, and Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Constitution.
II
The request of the Seimas is grounded on these arguments.
1. On 19 February 2004, the Seimas adopted Resolution No.
IX-2038 "On the Beginning of the Impeachment Proceedings
Against the President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas", whereby
in the Seimas impeachment proceedings were commenced against
the President of the Republic himself.
The petitioner doubts whether the President of the
Republic, by proposing by his decree to institute impeachment
proceedings against the member of the Seimas Artūras
Paulauskas, President of the Seimas, seeks to attain the
purposes which are designed by impeachment proceedings, i.e. to
revoke the mandate of a member of the Seimas who has grossly
violated the Constitution or breached the oath of the member of
the Seimas, which are indicated in the text of the decree of
the President of the Republic. In the opinion of the
petitioner, the President of the Republic, while issuing the
disputed decree, attempted to destabilise the situation in the
state and the parliament, and manipulated the powers granted to
him by the Constitution and laws.
2. Article 4 of the disputed decree of the President of
the Republic indicates that "this Decree shall come into force
as of the day of its signing".
Official publication of laws, while keeping to the
procedure established in the Constitution and laws, is a
necessary condition not only for the laws to become valid, but
also for the purpose that subjects of legal relations might
know what laws are valid, what their content is, and that they
might follow them. In a democratic state under the rule of law
there may not be any unpublished laws. The notion "published"
employed in Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Constitution also
means that laws must be published publicly. The constitutional
requirement that only laws which are published are valid is an
important precondition of legal certainty. This constitutional
requirement is inseparable from the constitutional principle of
a state under the rule of law. In Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of
the Constitution, the constitutional principle is reflected
that law cannot be non-public. Only the legal acts that were
published while paying heed to the requirements of official and
public publishing of legal act, which are entrenched in the
Constitution, may be recognised as being in compliance with the
requirements of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Constitution,
thus, as being valid. The petitioner maintains that Article 4
of Decree of the President of the Republic No. 397 "On the
Proposal to Institute Impeachment Proceedings Against the
Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Artūras
Paulauskas" of 12 March 2004 is in conflict with the principle
of a state under the rule of law, which is entrenched in the
Constitution, and Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Constitution,
which provides that "only laws which are published shall be
valid".
III
In its 22 March 2002 Decision "On Accepting a Petition of
the Petitioner", the Constitutional Court held that the
petition set forth in the 16 March 2004 Seimas Resolution "On
the Application to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania with a Petition Requesting to Investigate whether the
Decree of the President of the Republic 'On the Proposal to
Institute Impeachment Proceedings Against the Member of the
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Artūras Paulauskas' Is Not
in Conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania"
was grounded upon legal arguments. In the same decision the
Constitutional Court also noted that non-legal arguments were
presented in the petition as well.
IV
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
petitioner, who were V. P. Andriukaitis, a member of the
Seimas, and G. Ivoška, a senior consultant to the Legal
Department of the Office of the Seimas.
1. It is asserted in the explanations that in the course
of the implementation of the striving for an open, just,
harmonious civil society and state under the rule of law, one
must ensure the balance of interests, evade fortuity and
arbitrariness. It is impossible to strive for a state under the
rule of law and justice by recognising the interests of only
one group or a single person. At the junction of constitutional
values one must find solutions, by making sure that not a
single of such values would be denied, otherwise, the balance
of constitutional values would be disturbed. The
representatives of the petitioner emphasised that the President
of the Republic is an entity who cannot be an initiator of a
proposal to institute impeachment proceedings and an impeached
person at the same time. The President of the Republic is the
Head of State. He may not adopt any such decisions by which the
interests of a single person would be satisfied, by setting
them off against the interests of a group of persons, etc. The
disputed decree gives priority to private interests, but not
those of the state and the Nation, since, after the impeachment
proceedings had been commenced, by a Seimas resolution, against
the President of the Republic R. Paksas himself, on the grounds
that he had discredited the authority of the institution of the
President of the Republic of Lithuania, the President of the
Republic R. Paksas proposed that impeachment proceedings be
commenced against the member of the Seimas A. Paulauskas, on
the grounds that the latter discredited the authority of the
institution of the President of the Republic.
2. The representatives of the petitioner also pointed out
that law may not be non-public. The constitutional requirement
that only the laws which are published shall be valid is an
important precondition of legal certainty, it is inseparable
from the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of
law. Only the legal acts which have been published while paying
heed to the requirements of publicity of publishing of legal
acts, which are entrenched in the Constitution, can be
recognised as being in compliance with the Constitution, thus
also as valid. Therefore, in the opinion of the representatives
of the petitioner, the entry of a decree of the President of
the Republic into effect may not be limited by a calendar date
or event, which, in the sequence of time, would take place
prior to the publishing of the decree of the President of the
Republic in the official gazette "Valstybės žinios".
V
By his Ordinance No. 128 "On the Empowering for
Representation of the President of the Republic at the
Constitutional Court" of 31 March 2004, the President of the
Republic R. Paksas empowered Liutauras Ulevičius, an advisor to
the President of the Republic, and Jurius Petreikis, a
consultant to the President of the Republic, to represent the
President of the Republic at the Constitutional Court.
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations were
received from the representatives of the President of the
Republic who were Liutauras Ulevičius, an advisor to the
President of the Republic, and Jurius Petreikis, a consultant
to the President of the Republic.
1. It is maintained in the explanations that the Statute
of the Seimas provides for the grounds of impeachment
proceedings, as well as the persons who have the right of
initiative to institute impeachment proceedings. In the opinion
of the representatives of the party concerned, impeachment
proceedings in regard of the entities indicated in the Statute
of the Seimas are, first of all, a form of implementation of
constitutional responsibility. The activity of the President of
the Republic is grounded upon the norms of public law, in which
the imperative method prevails. The legal norms regulating
impeachment proceedings do not provide for any grounds and
cases restricting the right of the President of the Republic to
propose to institute impeachment proceedings.
In their explanations the representatives of the party
concerned point out that the statement that by initiating the
impeachment proceedings against the member of the Seimas
Artūras Paulauskas the President of the Republic seeks to
destabilise the situation in the state denies the right itself
of the President of the Republic to propose to institute
impeachment proceedings-one of the elements of a state under
the rule of law. L. Ulevičius and J. Petreikis maintain that
this right may not be assessed as an attempt to misbalance the
balance of interests, since such a right guaranteed by public
law provides for an opportunity to bar the way to possible
violations of the Constitution and the laws which imply such
balance. The President of the Republic had neither a purpose
nor a theoretical opportunity "to destabilise the situation in
the state and the parliament", because only the Seimas itself
may accomplish the impeachment. In the opinion of the
representatives of the party concerned, the disputed decree is
not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of
law that is entrenched in the Constitution.
2. In their explanations, the representatives of the party
concerned also assert that in the constitutional jurisprudence
the notion "published" of Article 7 of the Constitution is
interpreted as meaning that laws must be published publicly,
that law may not be non-public. Article 3 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law "On the Procedure of Publishing and Entry of Laws
and Other Legal Acts of the Republic of Lithuania into Effect"
provides that decrees of the President of the Republic must be
published in the official gazette "Valstybės žinios", while
under Article 8 of the same law they shall go into effect on
the next day after they are published in the official gazette
"Valstybės žinios" provided a different day of entry into
effect is not indicated in the decrees themselves. In the
opinion of the representatives of the party concerned, this
provision of the law permits to establish the moment of entry
into force of the decrees by assessing the nature of each
particular decree. In cases when the basis of the beginning of
legal relations is certain juridical facts, it is expedient and
rational to link the moment of the entry into effect of the
legal act with the moment of its signing. The disputed decree
of the President of the Republic is not a normative legal act
but an act of application of law, the beginning of validity
whereof is considered its entry into effect as from the moment
of signing of this legal act. According to the representatives
of the party concerned, a possibility of the entry into effect
of decrees of the President of the Republic may not be related
only with the date of their publishing, or provision that their
entry into effect is postponed until later. Therefore, the
representatives of the party concerned believe that Article 4
of the disputed decree of the President of the Republic is not
in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Constitution.
3. On 8 April 2004, the Acting President of the Republic
of Lithuania A. Paulauskas issued Ordinance No. 3 "On Ordinance
No. 128 of 31 March 2004 of the President of the Republic"
whereby it recognised Ordinance No. 128 of 31 March 2004 of the
President of the Republic as no longer valid, whereby L.
Ulevičius, an advisor to the President of the Republic, and J.
Petreikis, a consultant to the President of the Republic, used
to be empowered to represent the President of the Republic at
the Constitutional Court.
VI
At the Constitutional Court, the representatives of the
Seimas, the petitioner, who were the member of the Seimas V. P.
Andriukaitis and G. Ivoška, a senior consultant to the Legal
Department of the Office of the Seimas, virtually reiterated
the arguments set forth in their written explanations.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. On 12 March 2004, the President of the Republic issued
Decree No. 397 "On the Proposal to Institute Impeachment
Proceedings Against the Member of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania Artūras Paulauskas", whereby he applied to the Seimas
and proposed that impeachment proceedings be instituted against
the member of the Seimas Artūras Paulauskas subsequent to the
following charges:
"1) on the grounds that he knowingly revealed information
comprising a state secret to persons who did not have a permit
to work or become familiarised with classified information and
thus violated laws of the Republic of Lithuania and exceeding
the powers that the laws had granted to him, thus upon gross
violation of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and
breach of the oath taken by a member of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania;
2) on the grounds that he discredited the authority of the
President of the Republic of Lithuania as one of institutions
of state power, and thus grossly violated the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and breached the oath taken by a
member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania."
2. The Seimas, the petitioner, by its Resolution No.
IX-2062 "On the Application to the Constitutional Court of the
Republic of Lithuania with a Petition Requesting to Investigate
whether the Decree of the President of the Republic 'On the
Proposal to Institute Impeachment Proceedings Against the
Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Artūras
Paulauskas' Is Not in Conflict with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania" of 16 March 2004 requests to investigate
1) whether President of the Republic Decree No. 397 "On
the Proposal to Institute Impeachment Proceedings Against the
Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Artūras
Paulauskas" of 12 March 2004 is not in conflict with the
principle of a state under the rule of law entrenched in the
Constitution;
2) whether Article 4 of President of the Republic Decree
No. 397 "On the Proposal to Institute Impeachment Proceedings
Against the Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Artūras Paulauskas" of 12 March 2004 is not in conflict with
the principle of a state under the rule of law entrenched in
the Constitution and Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the
Constitution.
3. Article 74 of the Constitution provides that for gross
violation of the Constitution, breach of oath, or upon
disclosure of the commission of a crime, the Seimas may, by a
3/5 majority vote of all the members of the Seimas, remove from
office the President of the Republic, the President and
justices of the Constitutional Court, the President and
justices of the Supreme Court, the President and judges of the
Court of Appeal, as well as members of the Seimas, or may
revoke the mandate of a member of the Seimas. This shall be
performed in accordance with the procedure for impeachment
proceedings which shall be established by the Statute of the
Seimas.
Under Article 76 of the Constitution, the Statute of the
Seimas shall have the power of law.
4. Paragraph 1 of Article 230 of the Statute of the Seimas
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1999, No. 47-1470)
provides: "The right to propose to the Seimas the initiation of
impeachment proceedings against a concrete individual for the
reasons specified in Article 228 of this Statute shall be
granted to a group of Seimas members consisting of at least 1/4
of all of the Seimas members, the President of the Republic,
and the Judicial Court of Honour if the case concerns the
Justices of the Supreme Court and the President and Judges of
the Court of Appeal."
One should pay attention to the fact that although
Paragraph 1 of Article 230 of the Statute of the Seimas
contains a reference to Article 228 of the same statute,
however, Article 228 of the Statute of the Seimas establishes
not the grounds to institute impeachment proceedings, but state
officials against whom impeachment proceedings are applied.
Such grounds are established in Article 229 of the Statute of
the Seimas. The legislator must correct this mistake of
Paragraph 1 of Article 230 of the Statute of the Seimas.
5. Article 1 of President of the Republic Decree No. 397
"On the Proposal to Institute Impeachment Proceedings Against
the Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Artūras
Paulauskas" of 12 March 2004 indicates that it is issued on the
grounds of Articles 74, 77 and 85 of the Constitution and
Articles 227, 228, 229, 230 and 233 of the Statute of the
Seimas.
It needs to be noted that the right of the President of
the Republic to propose to institute impeachment proceedings
against a member of the Seimas is established in Paragraph 1 of
Article 230 of the Statute of the Seimas. The decree of the
President of the Republic is a substatutory legal act. It has
been issued on the grounds of inter alia the provision of
Paragraph 1 of Article 203 of the Statute of the Seimas, which
has the power of the law, in which the right of the President
of the Republic to propose to institute impeachment proceedings
against a concrete person is established. Thus, when
investigating the compliance of the decree of the President of
the Republic, a substatutory legal act, with the Constitution,
one must assess the relation of Paragraph 1 of Article 230 of
the Statute of the Seimas, pursuant to which the disputed
decree of the President of the Republic was issued, with the
Constitution.
6. Under Article 74 of the Constitution, the procedure for
impeachment proceedings is established by the Statute of the
Seimas. This provision of the Constitution implies discretion
of the Seimas to establish in the Statute of the Seimas as to
who initiates impeachment, how this is done, the procedure for
conducting of impeachment, the procedure by which a decision is
adopted concerning removal the person from office or revocation
of the mandate of the Seimas member, etc.
Alongside, it needs to be noted that the Seimas, while
regulating impeachment proceedings, must pay heed to the norms
and principles of the Constitution, not violate the
constitutional concept of impeachment, and the rights of the
impeached person. Therefore, while assessing the compliance of
the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 230 of the Statute of
the Seimas with the Constitution, one has to ascertain whether
the legal regulation established in Paragraph 1 of Article 230
of the Statute of the Seimas pays heed to the impeachment
concept consolidated in the Constitution.
7. The essential elements of impeachment are entrenched in
Article 74 of the Constitution. Impeachment is a special
parliamentary procedure. By means of procedure for impeachment
proceedings one decides the issue of constitutional
responsibility of the President of the Republic, the President
and justices of the Constitutional Court, the President and
justices of the Supreme Court, the President and judges of the
Court of Appeal, and of members of the Seimas. These persons
may be removed from office (revoked the mandate of a Seimas
member) for actions provided for in the Constitution: gross
violation of the Constitution, breach of oath, commission of a
crime.
In its ruling of 11 May 1999, the Constitutional Court
held that impeachment is only applied to the persons listed in
Article 74 of the Constitution; that it is permitted to
institute impeachment proceedings only for gross violation of
the Constitution, for breach of oath, or upon disclosure of the
commission of a crime; that the objective of impeachment
proceedings is to decide the question of the constitutional
responsibility of the said persons; that impeachment is carried
out by the Seimas; and, to remove a person from office or to
revoke his mandate of the Seimas member, three-fifths majority
vote of all the Seimas members is necessary.
Other articles of the Constitution are related with the
impeachment institute as well: Item 5 of Article 63; Paragraph
2 of Article 86, Item 5 of Article 88, Paragraph 1 of Article
89, Item 4 of Paragraph 3 of Article 105, Item 5 of Article 108
and Article 116 (Constitutional Court ruling of 11 May 1999 and
conclusion of 31 March 2004).
8. Various aspects of the constitutional concept of
impeachment are revealed in the jurisprudence of the
Constitutional Court: Constitutional Court rulings of 11 May
1999 and 30 March 2000 as well as in the conclusion of 31 March
2004. It needs to be noted that the provisions of the Statute
of the Seimas that the right to propose to the Seimas the
initiation of impeachment proceedings against a concrete
individual for the reasons specified in the Statute of the
Seimas shall be granted to a group of Seimas members consisting
of at least 1/4 of all of the Seimas members, the President of
the Republic, and the Judicial Court of Honour if the case
concerns the Justices of the Supreme Court and the President
and Judges of the Court of Appeal, have not been disputed in
the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court has not
investigated the compliance of these provisions with the
Constitution.
9. The Constitution shall be an integral act (Paragraph 1
of Article 6), its norms and principles constitute a harmonious
system, it is not permitted to construe any provision of the
Constitution so that the content of any other constitutional
provision might be distorted or denied, since thus the essence
of the entire constitutional regulation would be distorted, the
balance of values entrenched in the Constitution would be
disturbed.
In the constitutional system of Lithuania, the impeachment
institute is also to be linked with the striving for an open,
just, harmonious civil society and state under the rule of law,
with the constitutional principles of protection of the rights
and freedoms of the person. The constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law is a universal principle upon which
the entire Lithuanian legal system and the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania itself are based. Along with the other
requirements, this principle also implies that all state
institutions and officials must act only on the basis of the
Constitution and law and in compliance with the Constitution
and law, that the Constitution has the supreme legal power and
that laws and other legal acts must be in compliance with the
Constitution.
10. It has been mentioned that impeachment is a special
parliamentary procedure provided for in the Constitution when
the issue of constitutional responsibility of the President of
the Republic, the President and justices of the Constitutional
Court, the President and justices of the Supreme Court, the
President and judges of the Court of Appeal, and of members of
the Seimas is decided. Article 74 of the Constitution provides
that only the Seimas may remove these persons from office or
revoke the mandate of a member of the Seimas.
It needs to be noted that, under the Constitution, in
order that constitutional responsibility would be applied
reasonably, in cases when impeachment proceedings against the
President of the Republic, the President and justices of the
Constitutional Court, the President and justices of the Supreme
Court, the President and judges of the Court of Appeal, and
members of the Seimas are instituted because of gross violation
of the Constitution or breach of oath, the Seimas must apply to
the Constitutional Court requesting for a conclusion whether
concrete actions of the member of the Seimas and the state
official against whom an impeachment case has been instituted
are in conflict with the Constitution. The Seimas may decide
the issue of removal of this person from office or revocation
of the mandate of a Seimas member only after it receives a
conclusion of the Constitutional Court that concrete actions of
the member of the Seimas and the state official against whom an
impeachment case has been instituted are in conflict with the
Constitution (Item 4 of Paragraph 3 of Article 105 of the
Constitution).
Thus, under the Constitution, only two institutions of
state power enjoy powers in impeachment proceedings, i.e. the
Seimas and the Constitutional Court. According to the
Constitution, the Constitutional Court decides (presents a
conclusion) whether concrete actions of the member of the
Seimas and the state official against whom an impeachment case
has been instituted are in conflict with the Constitution,
whether the Constitution has been violated grossly by these
actions, while the Seimas decides, under procedure for
impeachment proceedings, whether to remove the person from
office (to revoke the mandate of a Seimas member).
As mentioned, under Article 74 of the Constitution, one of
the bases for impeachment is "upon disclosure of the commission
of a crime". It should be noted that it is permitted to provide
for in the Statute of the Seimas, while paying heed to the
concept of impeachment consolidated in the Constitution, that
in cases when the fact of commission of a crime is clear, its
presence may be stated by the Seimas, without investigation of
law institutions, when it conducts impeachment the impeachment.
In its 11 May 1999 ruling, the Constitutional Court stated that
"removal of the person from office or revocation of his mandate
of Seimas member in accordance with the procedure for
impeachment proceedings because of the suspicion of the
commission of crime is not binding to the court". It also needs
to be noted that in cases when the fact of commission of a
crime is not clear, the Seimas, under the Constitution, may not
conduct the impeachment on the grounds of the fact of the
commission of the crime until a court judgement of conviction
is not adopted and gone into effect.
Thus, the Constitution consolidates the concept of
impeachment when the Seimas conducts impeachment, while the
Constitutional Court presents a conclusion whether concrete
actions of the member of the Seimas and the state official
against whom an impeachment case has been instituted are in
conflict with the Constitution. No other institutions are
granted powers by the Constitution to participate in the
conduct of impeachment.
In case the Statute of the Seimas, which has the power of
the law, provided for any such legal regulation under which a
different state institution had powers to participate in the
conduct of impeachment, if this is not provided for in the
Constitution, then one would interfere with the constitutional
powers of the Seimas to conduct impeachment. It needs to be
noted that in case the Constitution consolidates the powers of
a certain state institution, no other institution may interfere
with them. Thus, the Statue of the Seimas, which has the power
of the law, may not contain any such legal regulation under
which the entities, not provided for in the Constitution, would
have the powers in the implementation whereof they would give
rise to a duty of the Seimas to institute impeachment
proceedings.
11. It has been mentioned that, under the Constitution,
the Seimas conducts impeachment, while the Constitutional Court
presents a conclusion whether concrete actions of the state
official or the member of the Seimas against whom an
impeachment case has been instituted are in conflict with the
Constitution. No other institutions are granted powers by the
Constitution to participate in the conduct of impeachment.
The first stage of impeachment proceedings is initiation
of impeachment. Article 74 of the Constitution provides that
the procedure for impeachment proceedings shall be established
by the Statute of the Seimas. Under Article 76 of the
Constitution, the structure and procedure of activities of the
Seimas shall be established by the Statute of the Seimas. As
mentioned, according to the Constitution, impeachment
proceedings take place in the Seimas and no state institutions
are permitted to interfere with the constitutional powers of
the Seimas to conduct impeachment if it is not provided for in
the Constitution. This implies that impeachment may be
initiated only in the Seimas, that, it should be emphasised,
the initiative of impeachment may come only from members of the
Seimas. It needs to be noted that, when one takes account of
the importance of the constitutional institute of impeachment
as means of self-defence of the Nation, which is applied by the
Seimas, also of the fact that impeachment may be applied
against supreme state officials, only a sufficiently big group
of members of the Seimas may have the right to initiate
impeachment proceedings. On the other hand, in case one
established a too big number of members of such group of Seimas
members, one would deny the democratic nature of the
impeachment institute.
It needs to be noted that in case one provides, while
establishing initiation of impeachment in the Statute of the
Seimas, that impeachment might be initiated not in the Seimas,
that the initiative of impeachment might rise not from members
of the Seimas, that other state institutions might propose to
institute impeachment, then one would disregard the
constitutional concept of impeachment and interfere with the
constitutional prerogative of the Seimas to conduct
impeachment.
In this context, one is to note that the legal regulation
of initiation of impeachment in the Statute of the Seimas may,
according to the Constitution, have peculiarities in the case
that a court judgement of conviction is adopted and effective
in regard of the person. In its ruling of 11 May 1999 the
Constitutional Court held that such regulation of the
impeachment procedure, when this is done by Seimas members
themselves, is not the only form possible for initiating
impeachment proceedings. Giving its consent to bring the person
to criminal responsibility, the Seimas also decides that the
actual circumstances of the case will be investigated by
judicial institutions-the interrogation and the court-but not
any special commission formed by the Seimas. It means that in
case the court recognises that the person is guilty of the
commission of crime, later one will not have to submit a
special proposal to institute impeachment because of the
commission of crime. A formal statement of the charges as an
independent action, when this is done by Seimas members
themselves, is not, in this case, a necessary element of
impeachment proceedings.
One must emphasise that after the Seimas has received an
effective court judgement of conviction, the court judgement
and decisions of other courts adopted in the course of the
consideration of the criminal case are not deliberated at the
time of the impeachment proceedings conducted in the Seimas,
nor one discusses their legality and reasonableness. In such a
case in the Seimas one decides only the issue of removal of the
state official from office (revocation of the mandate of a
Seimas member).
12. The Constitution does not name expressis verbis state
power institutions which have the right to propose to institute
impeachment proceedings against the President of the Republic,
the President and justices of the Constitutional Court, the
President and justices of the Supreme Court, the President and
judges of the Court of Appeal, as well as members of the
Seimas. As mentioned, according to Paragraph 1 of Article 230
of the Statute of the Seimas, the right to propose that the
Seimas institute impeachment proceedings against a state
official indicated in Article 74 of the Constitution belongs to
three entities: a group of Seimas members consisting of at
least 1/4 of all of the Seimas members, the President of the
Republic, and the Judicial Court of Honour if the case concerns
the Justices of the Supreme Court and the President and Judges
of the Court of Appeal.
While assessing the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article
230 of the Statute of the Seimas that a group of Seimas members
consisting of at least 1/4 of all of the Seimas members has the
right to propose that the Seimas institute impeachment
proceedings against a concrete person, one is to take into
consideration the fact that under the Constitution impeachment
may only be initiated in the Seimas, that the initiative of
impeachment may rise only from Seimas members. It needs to be
noted that a group of Seimas members consisting of at least 1/4
of all of the Seimas members, which is indicated in Paragraph 1
of Article 230 of the Statute of the Seimas, is of sufficient
size and is not too big. Thus, there are no grounds to assert
that the provision that the right to propose to the Seimas the
initiation of impeachment proceedings against the persons
indicated in Article 74 of the Constitution belongs to a group
of Seimas members consisting of at least 1/4 of all of the
Seimas members is not in line with the constitutional concept
of impeachment.
The provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 230 of the Statute
of the Seimas that the right to propose to the Seimas the
initiation of impeachment proceedings against a concrete person
for the reasons specified in the Statute of the Seimas belongs
to the President of the Republic, and the Judicial Court of
Honour if the case concerns the Justices of the Supreme Court
and the President and Judges of the Court of Appeal.
After the Statute of the Seimas has established that the
right to propose to the Seimas the initiation of impeachment
proceedings against a concrete person belongs to the President
of the Republic, and the Judicial Court of Honour if the case
concerns the Justices of the Supreme Court and the President
and Judges of the Court of Appeal, the powers have been granted
to these institutions in the implementation whereof a duty
arises to the Seimas to institute the impeachment proceedings.
By the said provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 230 of the
Statute of the Seimas one interferes with the constitutional
prerogative of the Seimas to conduct impeachment and deviates
from the constitutional concept of impeachment. These
provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 230 of the Statute of the
Seimas are in conflict with Article 74 of the Constitution.
13. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that Paragraph 1 of Article 230 of the Statute of the
Seimas to the extent that it provides that the right to propose
to the Seimas the initiation of impeachment proceedings against
a concrete individual belongs to the President of the Republic,
and the Judicial Court of Honour if the case concerns the
Justices of the Supreme Court and the President and Judges of
the Court of Appeal, is in conflict with Article 74 of the
Constitution.
14. Having held that Paragraph 1 of Article 230 of the
Statute of the Seimas to the extent that it provides that the
right to propose to the Seimas the initiation of impeachment
proceedings against a concrete individual belongs to the
President of the Republic, and the Judicial Court of Honour if
the case concerns the Justices of the Supreme Court and the
President and Judges of the Court of Appeal, is in conflict
with Article 74 of the Constitution, one is also to hold that
this paragraph of Article 230 of the Statute of the Seimas to
the above stated extent is in conflict with the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law as well.
15. President of the Republic Decree No. 397 "On the
Proposal to Institute Impeachment Proceedings Against the
Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Artūras
Paulauskas" of 12 March 2004 was issued in the course of the
implementation of the right of the President of the Republic to
propose that the Seimas institute impeachment proceedings
against a member of the Seimas, which is provided for in
Paragraph 1 of Article 230 of the Statute of the Seimas.
Having held that Paragraph 1 of Article 230 of the Statute
of the Seimas to the extent that it provides that the right to
propose to the Seimas the initiation of impeachment proceedings
against a concrete individual belongs to the President of the
Republic, and the Judicial Court of Honour if the case concerns
the Justices of the Supreme Court and the President and Judges
of the Court of Appeal, is in conflict with Article 74 of the
Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law, one is also to hold that President of the
Republic Decree No. 397 "On the Proposal to Institute
Impeachment Proceedings Against the Member of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania Artūras Paulauskas" of 12 March 2004 is
in conflict with Article 74 of the Constitution and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
16. Having held that President of the Republic Decree No.
397 "On the Proposal to Institute Impeachment Proceedings
Against the Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Artūras Paulauskas" of 12 March 2004 is in conflict with
Article 74 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle
of a state under the rule of law, in this case the
Constitutional Court will not investigate whether Article 4 of
the disputed decree of the President of the Republic is not in
conflict with the state under the rule of law entrenched in the
Constitution and with Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the
Constitution.
Conforming to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 1, 53, 54, 55 and 56 of
the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania has passed the following
ruling:
1. To recognise that Paragraph 1 of Article 230 of the
Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania to the
extent that it provides that the right to propose to the Seimas
the initiation of impeachment proceedings against a concrete
individual belongs to the President of the Republic, and the
Judicial Court of Honour if the case concerns the Justices of
the Supreme Court and the President and Judges of the Court of
Appeal is in conflict with Article 74 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law.
2. To recognise that President of the Republic of
Lithuania Decree No. 397 "On the Proposal to Institute
Impeachment Proceedings Against the Member of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania Artūras Paulauskas" of 12 March 2004 is
in conflict with Article 74 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law.
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