Lietuviškai
Case No. 34/01
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
DECISION
ON RETURNING THE PETITION OF THE VILNIUS REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT, THE PETITIONER, REQUESTING
TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER THE PROVISION "THE
PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 1 <...> OF THIS LAW SHALL
BE APPLICABLE IN THE COURSE OF CALCULATION OF THE
TAXABLE PROFIT FOR THE YEAR 2000 AND SUBSEQUENT
YEARS" OF PARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 12 OF THE
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON TAXES ON PROFITS OF
LEGAL PERSONS IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH PARAGRAPH 2
OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC
OF LITHUANIA AND WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE
AND A STATE UNDER THE RULE OF LAW CONSOLIDATED IN
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA BACK
TO THE PETITIONER
31 March 2005
Vilnius
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court Armanas
Abramavičius, Egidijus Kūris, Kęstutis Lapinskas, Zenonas
Namavičius, Augustinas Normantas, Vytautas Sinkevičius, Stasys
Stačiokas, and Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis
with the secretary of the hearing-Daiva Pitrėnaitė,
in the procedural sitting of the Constitutional Court
considered the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative
Court, the petitioner, requesting to investigate as to whether
the provision "the provisions of Articles 1 <...> of this Law
shall be applicable in the course of calculation of the taxable
profit for the year 2000 and subsequent years" of Paragraph 2
of Article 12 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Taxes on
Profits of Legal Persons is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of
Article 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and
the principles of justice and a state under the rule of law
consolidated in the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner,
was investigating an administrative case. On 4 March 2005, the
said court suspended the investigation of the case and applied
to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting to
investigate as to whether the provision "the provisions of
Articles 1 <...> of this Law shall be applicable in the course
of calculation of the taxable profit for the year 2000 and
subsequent years" of Paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the Law on
Taxes on Profits of Legal Persons is not in conflict with
Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Constitution and the principles
of justice and a state under the rule of law consolidated in
the Constitution.
The petitioner points out that the disputed wording of the
provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the Law on Taxes on
Profits of Legal Persons was established by law No. VIII-1818,
which was adopted by the Seimas on 11 July 2000, and which went
into effect on 31 July 2000.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. The Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania provides for general requirements, concerning the
content, form and attachments, of petitions presented to the
Constitutional Court, requesting to investigate the compliance
of legal acts with the Constitution (Article 66 of the Law on
the Constitutional Court), and special requirements concerning
rulings of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the Court of Appeal
of Lithuania, of regional, and local courts by which one
applies to the Constitutional Court (Article 67 of the Law on
the Constitutional Court). The said requirements are
concretised in Section 1 of Chapter VI of the Rules of the
Constitutional Court.
It needs to be noted that under Item 6 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 precise title of the disputed
legal act, its number, the date of its adoption, and other data
which are necessary for identification thereof, as well as the
source of its publication (if it was published). Under Item 8
of the same paragraph, 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. Under Item 6 of
Paragraph 2 of Article 67 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court, the court ruling must contain a formulated petition of
the court to the Constitutional Court. Under Item 15 of Section
1 of Chapter VI of the Rules of the Constitutional Court, a
duplicate of the whole text of the disputed legal act (part
thereof) is attached to the request to investigate whether laws
are not in conflict with the Constitution; the text of the
legal act which is announced in the official gazette "Valstybės
žinios" is to be considered such a duplicate.
The general requirements, concerning the content, form and
annexes, of petitions presented to the Constitutional Court,
requesting to investigate the compliance of legal acts with the
Constitution and the special requirements concerning rulings of
courts by which one applies to the Constitutional Court, which
are established in the Law on the Constitutional Court and the
Rules of the Constitutional Court, are also applicable to the
rulings of specialised courts, which are provided for in
Paragraph 2 of Article 111 of the Constitution, by which one
applies to the Constitutional Court.
2. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, points out in the resolving part of the petition,
by which it is applying to the Constitutional Court, that the
Constitutional Court is requested to investigate as to whether
a provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the Law on Taxes on
Profits of Legal Persons is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of
Article 7 of the Constitution and the principles of justice and
a state under the rule of law consolidated in the Constitution.
It needs to be noted that in the resolving art of the
ruling the disputed provision is neither cited nor identified
otherwise.
It is clear from the arguments of the petition that the
provision the compliance of which with the Constitution is
doubtful to the petitioner is set forth as follows: "the
provisions of Articles 1 <...> of this Law shall be applicable
in the course of calculation of the taxable profit for the year
2000 and subsequent years".
By specifying it, the petitioner indicates that the
disputed wording of the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 12
of the Law on Taxes on Profits of Legal Persons was established
by law No. VIII-1818, which was adopted by the Seimas on 11
July 2000, and which went into effect on 31 July 2000.
3. On 31 July 1990, the Seimas adopted the Law on Taxes on
Profits of Legal Persons. The articles (parts thereof) of the
said law have been amended and/or supplemented more than once.
Article 12 (parts thereof) of the Law on Taxes on Profits
of Legal Persons that was pointed out by the petitioner was
amended and/or supplemented by the 9 December 1993 Republic of
Lithuania Law "On Supplementing Article 12 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Taxes on Profits of Legal Persons" (whereby
Paragraph 1 of Article 12 of the Law on Taxes on Profits of
Legal Persons was supplemented), by Article 2 of the 17
February 1994 Republic of Lithuania Law "On Amending and
Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania Law on Taxes on Profits
of Legal Persons" (whereby Paragraph 1 of Article 12 of the Law
on Taxes on Profits of Legal Persons was amended), by Article
11 of the 2 July 1998 Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending
Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 41, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 of the
Law on Taxes on Profits of Legal Persons and Supplementing
Thereof with Articles 21 and 22 (whereby entire Article 12 of
the Law on Taxes on Profits of Legal Persons was amended and
set forth in a new wording), and by Article 9 of the 10 July
2001 Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending Articles 1, 2, 3, 5,
7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 21, and 22 of the Law on Taxes on Profits of
Legal Persons (whereby Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 12 of the
Law on Taxes on Profits of Legal Persons were amended).
By Item 1 of Article 60 of the 20 December 2001 Republic
of Lithuania Law on Income Tax, the Law on Taxes on Profits of
Legal Persons was recognised as not valid as of 1 January 2003.
4. According to the petitioner, the disputed wording of
the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the Law on Taxes
on Profits of Legal Persons was established by law No.
VIII-1818, which was adopted by the Seimas on 11 July 2000, and
which went into effect on 31 July 2000.
Law No. VIII-1818, which was adopted by the Seimas on 11
July 2000, which went into effect on 31 July 2000, and which is
indicated by the petitioner is the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Amending and Supplementing Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11,
14, 20, and 21 of the Law on Taxes on Profits of Legal Persons
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, No. 64-1912) which is
actually mentioned by the petitioner. It is the text of this
law (published in the official gazette "Valstybės žinios") the
copy of which has been attached to the petition of the
petitioner.
By the Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 14, 20, and 21 of the Law on Taxes on Profits
of Legal Persons, individual articles (parts thereof) of the
Law on Taxes on Profits of Legal Persons were amended and/or
supplemented, however, Paragraph 2 (which was set forth in the
2 July 1998 wording then) of Article 12 of the Law on Taxes on
Profits of Legal Persons was not amended nor supplemented.
The provision "the provisions of Articles 1 <...> of this
Law shall be applicable in the course of calculation of the
taxable profit for the year 2000 and subsequent years" is set
forth not in Paragraph 2 (of a certain wording) of Article 12
of the Law on Taxes on Profits of Legal Persons, but in
Paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the Law on Amending and
Supplementing Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 14, 20, and 21
of the Law on Taxes on Profits of Legal Persons, which
provides:
"The provisions of Articles 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11
of this Law shall be applicable in the course of calculation of
the taxable profit for the year 2000 and subsequent years. If
the established taxable period does not coincide with the
taxable year, the provisions of Articles 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10,
and 11 of this Law shall be applicable in the course of
calculation of the taxable profit of the taxable period that
began in the year 2000 and of subsequent periods."
Paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the Law on Amending and
Supplementing Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 14, 20, and 21
of the Law on Taxes on Profits of Legal Persons has not been
amended nor supplemented.
5. Thus, although the petitioner formulates his petition
to the Constitutional Court as a petition requesting to
investigate whether the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 12
of the Law on Taxes on Profits of Legal Persons, which is
indicated by him, is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of
Article 7 of the Constitution and the principles of justice and
a state under the rule of law consolidated in the Constitution,
one is to hold that the petitioner actually doubts whether
Paragraph 2 of Article 12 of another law, i.e. the Law on
Amending and Supplementing Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11,
14, 20, and 21 of the Law on Taxes on Profits of Legal Persons,
is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the
Constitution and the principles of justice and a state under
the rule of law consolidated in the Constitution.
Thus the petition (resolving part thereof) of the
petitioner erroneously indicates the title of the legal act the
compliance of which with the Constitution is being disputed.
6. As mentioned, under Item 6 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 inter alia contain the precise title of the
disputed legal act. If the precise title of the disputed legal
act is not indicated, one is to consider that the petition does
not meet the requirements of Article 66 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court.
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 does not take away the right to apply to
the Constitutional Court according to the common procedure
after removal of the deficiencies thereof.
Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania, Article 1, Paragraph 2 of Article 25,
Articles 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 requesting to investigate as to
whether the provision "the provisions of Articles 1 <...> of
this Law shall be applicable in the course of calculation of
the taxable profit for the year 2000 and subsequent years" of
Paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Taxes on Profits of Legal Persons is not in conflict with
Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania and the principles of justice and a state under the
rule of law consolidated in the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania back to the petitioner.
Justices of the Constitutional Court: Armanas Abramavičius
Egidijus Kūris
Kęstutis Lapinskas
Zenonas Namavičius
Augustinas Normantas
Vytautas Sinkevičius
Stasys Stačiokas
Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis