Lietuviškai
Case No. 14/02
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
RULING
ON THE COMPLIANCE OF PARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 7,
PARAGRAPHS 1, 9, AND 10 OF ARTICLE 8, PARAGRAPH 2
OF ARTICLE 13, PARAGRAPH 7 OF ARTICLE 18, AND
PARAGRAPHS 3, 6, AND 7 OF ARTICLE 22 OF THE LAW ON
HUNTING WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
13 May 2005
Vilnius
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court Armanas
Abramavičius, Toma Birmontienė, Egidijus Kūris, Kęstutis
Lapinskas, Zenonas Namavičius, Ramutė Ruškytė, Vytautas
Sinkevičius, Stasys Stačiokas, and Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis,
with the secretary of the hearing-Daiva Pitrėnaitė,
in the presence of:
the representatives of the group of members of the Seimas
of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, who were Gintaras
Steponavičius and Raimondas Šukys,
the representatives of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania, the party concerned, who were Neringa Azguridienė,
an advisor at the Legal Department of the Office of the Seimas,
and Darius Karvelis, a senior advisor to the Committee on
Environment Protection of the Seimas,
pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania, as well as Article 1 and Paragraph 3
of Article 54 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the
Republic of Lithuania, on 5-6 April 2005 and 10 May 2005 in its
public hearing heard Case No. 14/02 which originated in a
petition of a group of members of the Seimas, the petitioner,
requesting to investigate:
1) as to whether the provision "It shall be prohibited to
hunt <...> in the land lots located in hunting plots, if their
owners have prohibited hunting therein upon the procedure
established in Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law" of
Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Hunting, the provision "The owner of a private land lot, whose
land is intended to be assigned to a hunting plot unit
according to the procedure established in Article 8 of this
Law, shall have the right to prohibit hunting in the land owned
by him, if agricultural crops or forest will suffer damage
during the hunting" of Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the same
law, and the provision "The damage inflicted by huntable
animals shall not be recovered, if it is made in the land lots
whose owner has prohibited hunting upon the procedure
established in Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law" of
Paragraph 7 of Article 18 of the same law are not in conflict
with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania;
2) as to whether the provision "A hunting plot unit must
comprise at least 1000 ha of continuous hunting area, save the
cases where smaller hunting plot units are established for
scientific and education purposes upon the proposal of the
Ministry of Environment, or where such units are established in
the territories of fishery ponds upon the proposal of the
Ministry of Agriculture" of Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Hunting is not in conflict with
Paragraph 1 of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
A group of members of the Seimas, the petitioner, applied
to the Constitutional Court with the petition requesting to
investigate:
1) as to whether the provision "It shall be prohibited to
hunt <...> in the land lots located in hunting plots, if their
owners have prohibited hunting therein upon the procedure
established in Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law" of
Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Law on Hunting (Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 65-2634), the provision
"The owner of a private land lot, whose land is intended to be
assigned to a hunting plot unit according to the procedure
established in Article 8 of this Law, shall have the right to
prohibit hunting in the land owned by him, if agricultural
crops or forest will suffer damage during the hunting" of
Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the same law, and the provision
"The damage inflicted by huntable animals shall not be
recovered, if it is made in the land lots whose owner has
prohibited hunting upon the procedure established in Paragraph
2 of Article 13 of the Law" of Paragraph 7 of Article 18 of the
same law are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article
23 of the Constitution;
2) as to whether the provision "A hunting plot unit must
comprise at least 1000 ha of continuous hunting area, save the
cases where smaller hunting plot units are established for
scientific and education purposes upon the proposal of the
Ministry of Environment, or where such units are established in
the territories of fishery ponds upon the proposal of the
Ministry of Agriculture" of Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Law
on Hunting is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 46 of
the Constitution.
II
The petition of the petitioner is based on the following
arguments.
The disputed provisions of Articles 7, 13, and 18 of the
Law on Hunting consolidate the presumption of admissibility of
hunting in private land lots which may unreasonably restrict
the rights of owners to freely use their private property.
Shooting and catching wild animals are objectively dangerous
actions not only to the crops and forest in the lot where the
hunting takes place, but to people in the forest as well.
According to the Law on Hunting, these dangerous actions in a
private lot may be exercised without the owner's knowing about
particular events of hunt. Therefore, in the opinion of the
petitioner, the presumption that it is allowed to hunt in
private lots until it becomes prohibited to do so, violates the
rights of the owners which are entrenched in the Constitution.
The petitioner notes that pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Article 13
of the Law on Hunting, the owner may prohibit hunting in a
private land lot only due to possible damage to forest or
crops, however, the owner has no right to prohibit hunting on
the basis of other reasons, for example due to safety of people
or personal beliefs related to care for animals. For this
reason, the petitioner doubts whether the provisions
consolidated in Item 2 of Paragraph 2 of Article 7, Paragraph 2
of Article 13 and Paragraph 7 of Article 18 of the Law on
Hunting are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article
23 of the Constitution.
The petitioner also states that the provision of Paragraph
1 of Article 8 of the Law on Hunting that a hunting plot unit
must comprise at least 1000 ha of continuous hunting area
unreasonably restricts the rights of private owners to use
lots, the area of which is less than 1000 ha, for hunting and
restricts the private initiative of hunting business. Therefore
the petitioner doubts as to whether this provision of the Law
on Hunting is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 46 of
the Constitution.
III
1. In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations of the
representatives of the party concerned, the Seimas, who were A.
Macaitis, a member of the Seimas, D. Karvelis, a senior
consultant to the Committee on Environment Protection of the
Seimas, and Neringa Azguridienė, the chief expert at the Legal
Department of the Office of the Seimas, were received
It is noted in the explanations of the representatives of
the party concerned that the issue of constitutionality of the
disputed provisions of the Law on Hunting must be solved on the
basis of provisions of Articles 53 and 54 of the Constitution.
In Paragraph 3 of Article 53 of the Constitution one
consolidates the duty of the state and each person to protect
the environment from harmful influences. The guidelines of
implementation of this duty are established in Article 54 of
the Constitution, Paragraph 1 of which provides that the state
shall look after the protection of the natural environment, its
fauna and flora, individual objects of nature and districts of
particular value, and shall supervise that natural resources be
used moderately and that they be restored and augmented.
According to the representatives of the party concerned,
environmental protection is a public interest, therefore
implementation of the ownership rights should not be in
conflict with the provisions of national policy on
environmental protection.
In the opinion of the representatives of the party
concerned, when analysing the compliance of the disputed
provisions of the Law on Hunting with Article 23 of the
Constitution, one must take into account their relation with
other norms of this law, as well as specifics of legal
regulation of respective public relations. Under Article 1 of
the Law on Hunting, the purpose of this law is to set forth
public relations linked to the protection of huntable animals
existing in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania and
their rational use. Huntable animals as a part of wildlife, is
one of the natural resources protected by the laws, as it is a
part of a continuous ecological system. Wild animals, as a part
of environment, are subject to the general principles of
environmental protection: environmental protection is a concern
and duty of the state and every citizen; public and private
interests must be aimed at improving the quality of
environment; reduction of harmful influence upon environment;
rational and complex use of natural resources.
In the explanations of the representatives of the party
concerned one specifies that wild animals that exist in freedom
belong to the state by the ownership right. Alongside, it is
said that wildlife as a national property belongs to all the
citizens of this country, i.e. the society, and the state
administers natural resources, uses them and disposes of them
while paying heed to the interests of the society and according
to its commission.
The representatives of the party concerned have stressed
that under the Law on Hunting the owner of private land is not
only informed about the formation of a hunting plot unit, but
he may also prohibit hunting on the land owned by him, if
agricultural crops or forest will become under threat during
hunting. In the opinion of the representatives of the Seimas,
the content of the notion "damage to a forest" may be
understood quit widely, and the owner of the forest (land lot),
while protecting his ownership not only from a negative
material effect, but from any negative effect on the forest
(for example, destruction of biological variety) as well, has
the right to prohibit hunting. The representatives of the party
concerned state that this is proven by the practise of
application of Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law on Hunting,
which has showed that all the requirements of the owners to
prohibit hunting in their land, whatever were the motives of
such requirements, were granted when forming hunting plot
units.
According to the representatives of the party concerned,
the restrictions of ownership rights, established by the
disputed norms of the Law on Hunting, are determined by the
national environmental protection policy and its aims. The
legislator consolidated certain restrictions of the rights of
owners of land lots in Item 2 of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 and
Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law on Hunting while taking
account of the interest of the entire society (rational use of
wild animals). Therefore, in the opinion of the representatives
of the party concerned, these provisions of the law are not in
conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the
Constitution.
In the opinion of the representatives of the party
concerned, Paragraph 7 of Article 18 of the Law on Hunting is
not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the
Constitution either, as it consolidates the principle of relief
of civil liability originating from actions of the aggrieved
person.
It is noted also in the explanations of the
representatives of the party concerned that the purpose of
formation of a hunting plot unit is to ensure the rational
management of population of huntable animals, their sufficient
protection, as well as proper and safe hunt. Territorial
administration of populations of huntable animals and their
treasured use is possible only when hunting plot units coincide
with the territory of natural migration of these animals.
Therefore, the larger territory is covered by a hunting plot
unit, the more rational is the management of the populations of
huntable animals.
In the opinion of the representatives of the party
concerned, the minimum size of a hunting plot unit established
in Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Law on Hunting in no way
restricts the initiative of private business. Alongside, the
representatives of the Seimas noted that the freedom of a
person's economic activity is not absolute and that the state
regulates economic activity by co-ordinating private and public
interests. In the opinion of the representatives of the party
concerned, the disputed provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 8
of the Law on Hunting is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of
Article 46 of the Constitution.
IV
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
judicial hearing, written explanations were received from A.
Kundrotas, the Minister, and A. Vasiliauskas, the Vice Minister
of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania, I. Jarukaitis, the
Deputy Director General of the European Law Department under
the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, Assoc.
Prof. V. Pakalniškis, the Head of the Civil and Commercial Law
Department at the Faculty of Law of Mykolas Romeris University,
and Assoc. Prof. A. Taminskas who works at the Civil Law and
Civil Procedure Department at the Faculty of Law of Vilnius
University. Moreover, official letters were received from the
Council of the Lithuanian Hunters and Fishers Society, J.
Juozapaitis, the President of the Board of the Pasvalys Unit of
the Lithuanian Hunters and Fishers Society, S. Mizaras, the
President of the Board of the Forest Owners' Association of
Lithuania, R. A. Valiulis, the President of the Private Hunting
Plots' Owners Association of Lithuania, and A. Gaižutis, the
President of the Board of the Forest Owners' Association of
Lithuania, and a joint letter of S. Mizaras, the President of
the Board of the Forest Owners' Association of Lithuania, A.
Venskūnienė, the President of the Land Owners' Union of
Lithuania, and A. Valiulis, the President of the Private
Hunting Plots' Owners Association of Lithuania.
V
1. At the Constitutional Court hearing the representatives
of the group of members of the Seimas, the petitioner, who were
G. Steponavičius and R. Šukys, reiterated the arguments set
forth in the petition of the petitioner and submitted
additional explanations concerning the arguments of the
petitioner.
2. At the Constitutional Court hearing the representatives
of the Seimas, the party concerned, who were N. Azguridienė and
D. Karvelis, reiterated the arguments set forth in the written
explanations.
3. At the Constitutional Court hearing the witnesses, who
were A. A. Brukas, E. Dainauskas, A. Mickūnas, K. Šiaulys, R.
A. Valiulis, and J. Vyšniauskas were questioned.
4. At the Constitutional Court hearing the following
experts took the stand: L. Budrys, the Director of the Nature
Protection Department at the Ministry of Environment, A.
Klimavičius, the head of the Division for the Strategy of
Protected Territories of the Nature Protection Department at
the Ministry of Environment, and V. Vaičiūnas, the Director of
the Forests Department at the Ministry of Environment.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
On 20 June 2002, the Seimas adopted the Law on Hunting
which became effective on 1 October 2002 (Paragraph 1 of
Article 21 of the Law on Hunting), save Paragraphs 1, 2, and 6
of Article 8, and Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 11, which
became effective on 1 April 2003 (Paragraph 3 of Article 21 of
the Law on Hunting), as well as Paragraph 3 of Article 15 and
Paragraph 8 of Article 14, which became effective on 1 April
2004 (Paragraph 4 of Article 21 of the Law on Hunting). It was
established in Paragraph 2 of Article 21 of the Law on Hunting
that Article 6 of this law becomes effective after the adoption
of the Law on Amending the Law on Taxes on National Natural
Resources. On 19 September 2002, the Seimas adopted the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending and Supplementing
Articles 3, 4, 6, 7, and 11 of the Law on Taxes on National
Natural Resources, which became effective on 1 January 2003.
Thus, the date of commencement of application of Article 6 of
the Law on Hunting is 1 January 2003.
On 10 June 2003, the Seimas adopted the Law on Amending
Articles 6, 12, and 18 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Hunting, by which it amended Paragraph 3 of Article 6, Item 4
of Paragraph 1 of Article 12, and Paragraph 4 of Article 18 of
the Law on Hunting (wording of 20 June 2002) and set them forth
in a new wording.
2. The petitioner requests to investigate as to whether:
- the provision "It shall be prohibited to hunt <...> in
the land lots located in hunting plots, if their owners have
prohibited hunting therein upon the procedure established in
Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law" of Paragraph 2 of Article
7 of the Law on Hunting is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1
and 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution;
- the provision "A hunting plot unit must comprise at
least 1000 ha of continuous hunting area, save the cases where
smaller hunting plot units are established for scientific and
education purposes upon the proposal of the Ministry of
Environment, or where such units are established in the
territories of fishery ponds upon the proposal of the Ministry
of Agriculture" of Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Law on
Hunting is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 46 of
the Constitution;
- the provision "The owner of a private land lot, whose
land is intended to be assigned to a hunting plot unit
according to the procedure established in Article 8 of this
Law, shall have the right to prohibit hunting in the land owned
by him, if agricultural crops or forest will suffer damage
during the hunting" of Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law on
Hunting is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article
23 of the Constitution;
- the provision "The damage inflicted by huntable animals
shall not be recovered, if it is made in the land lots whose
owner has prohibited hunting upon the procedure established in
Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law" of Paragraph 7 of Article
18 of the Law on Hunting is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1
and 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution.
In the disputed provisions of the Law on Hunting one
entrenched certain prohibitions on hunting (Paragraph 2 of
Article 7 and Paragraph 2 of Article 13), regulated the size of
hunting plot units (Paragraph 1 of Article 8), as well as
established that the damage inflicted by huntable animals will
not be recovered (Paragraph 7 of Article 18).
3. When deciding, according to the petition of the
petitioner, whether the disputed provisions of the Law on
Hunting (its articles or paragraphs) are not in conflict with
the Constitution, one should note that, as it is specified in
Article 1 of the Law on Hunting, the purpose of this law is to
"set forth public relations linked to the protection of
huntable animals located in the territory of the Republic of
Lithuania and their rational use". The Law on Hunting regulates
the ownership right to huntable animals, the right of use of
the resources of huntable animals, formation of hunting plot
units and procedure of granting of the right to use the
huntable animals' resources in this territory, grating the
right to hunt, liability for violations of this law, recovery
of damage inflicted by huntable animals, etc. It is to be held
that by the Law on Hunting one strives to systemically regulate
relations of hunting and those linked therewith, and to create
a legal basis for detailing and specification of legal
regulation of these relations in substatutory legal acts.
Thus, the disputed provisions of the Law on Hunting
regarding to prohibition of hunting, the size of hunting plot
units and non-recovery of damage inflicted by huntable animals,
may not be systemically unrelated to other provisions of this
law which regulate in various aspects the named public
relations, i.e. relations of hunting and those linked
therewith. Therefore, one must find out what is the link of the
disputed provisions of the Law on Hunting with other provisions
of this law and other laws regulating public relations that are
directly or indirectly linked to inter alia the prohibitions of
hunting, sizes of hunting plot units and recovery or
non-recovery of damage inflicted by huntable animals. Moreover,
one must find out the content of the provisions of the Law on
Hunting which are aimed at ensuring the transition from
relations of hunting and those linked therewith, based on the
former legal regulation, to relations of hunting and those
linked therewith, based on the legal regulation established by
the Law on Hunting, and assess its compliance with the
Constitution.
4. The content of the disputed provisions is to be
construed within the context of the legal regulation of
relations of hunting and those linked therewith, which is
established in other laws as well. It should be noted that
certain relations of hunting and those linked therewith may
also be regulated to some extent by substatutory legal acts.
However, this does not mean that the provisions of the Law on
Hunting may be construed according to the way, in which
particular notions used therein are defined in substatutory
legal acts (inter alia Government resolutions), or the way, in
which particular legal regulation of relations of hunting and
those linked therewith, established in the Law on Hunting, is
detailed or specified in substatutory legal acts (inter alia
Government resolutions). Quite to the contrary, pursuant to the
Constitution, legal regulation established in all substatutory
legal acts (thus, the Government resolutions included)
regulating the relations of hunting and those linked therewith
must be based on the one established in the laws.
5. Within the context of the case of constitutional
justice at issue, it should be noted that in the Law on Hunting
the hunting is defined as "protection of huntable animals and
their rational use in accordance with this Law, other legal
acts regulating the hunting, and by paying heed to the
ecological conditions of the hunting plots, ethical norms and
traditions of the national hunting culture" (Paragraph 8 of
Article 2).
6. Within the context of the case of constitutional
justice at issue, it is important to find out also what
authentic hunting tradition has developed in Lithuania, how
this tradition was reflected in legal acts, what was the
development of legal regulation of hunting relations prior to
the adoption of the Law on Hunting, the compliance of
provisions of which with the Constitution is disputed, and to
find out whether the legal regulation established in the Law on
Hunting continues the tradition of hunting which exists in
Lithuania or is remote from it.
II
In Lithuania, the origins of legal regulation of hunting
relations and those linked therewith have been traced as far
back as the times of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Provisions
designated for hunting, its arrangement, inter alia the
formation and maintenance of hunting areas, are found in the
Kazimieras' Statute-book (1468), the First (1529), Second
(1566) and Third (1588) Lithuanian Statutes, the Valakų Law
(1557), the Royal Woods Ordinance (1639).
The legal acts of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania treated
hunting as an exclusive right of feudal lords, which was
inseparable from their ownership right to land: the feudal
lords could make use of this right on their land unrestricted.
2. After the third partition of the Lithuanian and Polish
Commonwealth, which took place in 1795, hunting relations and
those linked therewith were regulated by the Third Lithuanian
Statute (till 1840), and later by laws of the Russian Empire.
According to the laws of the Russian Empire, which were
effective in Lithuania at that time, hunting was grouped into
big one (hunting of big animals in large woods and state
forests) and small one (hunting of small animals and birds in
the fields, bushes and groves). The hunting right on private
plots of land was linked with the ownership right to land. On
the other hand, the said laws consolidated an opportunity to
transfer the right of hunting to other persons, thus this right
was already treated also as a separate matter of transactions.
It is also worth noticing that the minimum size of the hunting
plot unit was established-it was permitted to hunt on the plot
of no less than 150 margas (approximately 90 ha).
3. After the restoration of the independent state on 16
February 1918, in Lithuania acts of the Russian Empire were
effective for some time, including those that regulated hunting
relations.
The first legal act of the restored State of Lithuania,
which was designated for regulation of hunting relations and
those linked therewith, was "Temporary Rules of Hunting", a
substatutory legal act, a circular note to officials of the
Ministry of Agriculture and State-owned Property, which was
announced by the Vice-minister of Agriculture and State-owned
Property on 15 June 1920.
On 3 April 1925, the Seimas adopted the Law on Hunting.
The President of the Republic promulgated this law on 9 May
1925. The Law on Hunting provided for the basic principles
regarding regulation of hunting relations. According to this
law, the right to hunt on a certain hunting plot was vested in
the manager of the plot in question (Item 1 § 1), while it was
permitted to hunt in another's plot of land only after
receiving a written permission of the manager of the plot of
land (Item 2 § 1). It was also established that huntable
animals and birds injured by a shot that entered into another
hunting plot was property of the manager of the plot in
question (§3). The notion "manager" included both the owners
and other lawful managers. On the other hand, hunting was
limited: the law prohibited hunting of elks, deer, hind,
beavers, wisents and offspring of these animals as well as
certain birds (§11).
4. On 24 October 1935, the President of the Republic
promulgated a new Law on Hunting (certain provisions whereof
were amended and supplemented by the 1936 amendment to the Law
on Hunting). According to this law, the care for the wildlife
and the right of hunting on a certain land was vested in the
manager of this land (Article 1); huntable animals and birds
injured by a shot or wounded in other manner in the course of
hunting (save certain exceptions separately pointed out) that
entered from the hunting plot into another's land would become
property of the manager of the land in question (Article 5).
The same law also established the size of hunting plots: no
less than 100 ha plot of land constituted a hunting farm, while
its owner or lawful manager was permitted to hunt in that farm
either by himself or to transfer this right to another person
(Item 1 of Article 7); if two or more land owners agreed, if
thus the common and continuous plot of land comprised no less
than 100 ha, this common plot could be registered with a
respective county chief as an individual hunting farm unit
(Item 2 of Article 7). Hunting units could also be formed from
state-owned lands, forests and water bodies (Article 8). The
granting of the right to hunt was regulated in this law in this
way: anyone who wished to hunt had to have a hunting
certificate issued by the county chief, which granted the right
to keep a hunting rifle (Article 9); a person had the right to
receive a hunting certificate, who had no less than 100 ha of
territory, which was either his own, or rented for hunting, or
otherwise acquired for the right of hunting, as well as owners
of common management, members of hunting societies, circles and
other hunting collectives, if the owners of such plots,
societies, circles, and collectives had acquired the right to
hunt in a plot of territory of no less than 100 ha for each
member (Article 10). It was prohibited to hunt beavers, elks,
deer, lynxes, hind (including offspring) and certain birds all
year round (Article 47). Hunting in "sanctuaries" (i.e.
reservations) was prohibited (Article 57).
The provisions of the 24 October 1935 Law on Hunting (with
subsequent amendments and supplements) were detailed and
particularised in the Rules of Enforcement of the Law on
Hunting, announced by the Minister of Agriculture on 14 July
1937.
5. Summing up, it is to be held that till 1940 the
tradition of legal regulation of hunting in Lithuania and
relations linked therewith was characteristic of treatment of
hunting as one of the means of guaranteeing protection and
rational use of wildlife and as a pastime activity. Hunting was
an activity regulated by legal acts and controlled by the state
(its institutions). Hunting activity was limited. Such
limitations inter alia included prohibitions to hunt certain
animals all year round or at a certain time (from a certain
date specified in the law till another date specified in the
law), as well as in "sanctuaries" (i.e. reservations), as well
as the establishment of the minimum hunting plot (100 ha). The
laws of Lithuania limited the opportunity to freely engage in
hunting activity also in the aspect that the right of hunting
on a certain plot (lot) of land was vested in the owner or
lawful manager of this plot (lot) of land: without consent of
the land owner or the lawful manager of the land hunting in the
land that belonged to them was prohibited. Thus, the hunting
right on a certain plot (lot) of land was linked with the right
of ownership of the owners to corresponding land, forests and
water bodies. The owner (manager) could transfer this right to
other persons. The owners themselves could form hunting plots
from their own land, while state institutions could form them
only from state-owned lands, forests and water bodies.
6. In this context, it needs to be noted that upon
restoration of the independent State of Lithuania in 1918, the
basics of legal regulation of hunting relations and those
linked therewith were established in legal acts which had the
power of the law, save a short period from 1918 till 1925, when
such legal acts bearing the power of the law that had to
regulate the said relations had not been issued yet.
III
1. In 1940 Lithuania was occupied, annexed and
incorporated into another state-the Soviet Union. The
occupation government nationalised and in other unlawful manner
disseized land, forests and parks, water bodies, a great many
of other objects of private ownership, thus denying the innate
human right itself to private ownership. In the Soviet legal
acts land, forests and parks, water bodies (both those that
used to belong to the State of Lithuania and those that until
then had belonged to private persons by right of ownership)
were treated as exclusive property of the state (as property of
not Lithuania, but of the Soviet Union, i.e. so-called "common
property of the people"). The said objects could be given only
to be used to other entities-state-owned, cooperative and
public enterprises, establishments and organisations. By legal
acts of the Soviet Union all objects of natural environment
were nationalised, including wildlife. During the Soviet years
the legal regulation of organisation of land exploitation, land
use, organisation of forest exploitation, organisation of
hunting, conservation of nature and protection of the
environment in general, and of all other social relations
linked with protection and use of natural environment was based
on nationalisation of all land, all forests and parks, all
water bodies, all of other objects of natural environment.
2. On 22 April 1959, in Lithuania under the Soviet rule
the Law on Protection of Nature and on 19 June 1981 the Law on
Wildlife Protection and Use were adopted. These laws regulated
relations linked with hunting only in certain aspects. The
relations of arrangement of hunting and management of hunting
were mostly regulated by various substatutory legal acts. The
last legal act of the Soviet of Ministers of Lithuania under
the Soviet rule was the Regulations of the Hunting Management
on the Territory of the Lithuanian SSR confirmed by Decision
No. 276 "On the Regulations of the Hunting Management on the
Territory of the Lithuanian SSR" of 30 November 1989 adopted by
the Soviet of Ministers of the Lithuanian SSR, which were
effective till the restoration of the independent State of
Lithuania in 1990 and for some time after that.
3. It was established in the laws and substatutory legal
acts of Lithuania under the Soviet rule that wildlife (thus
also animals that exist in freedom) is "sate-owned property,
the common property of the entire Soviet people". Animals that
existed in freedom constituted the state hunting fund. All
plots of land, forests and water bodies in which animals and
birds could live and which could be used for hunting were
recognised hunting plots. All hunting plots used to be at the
command of corresponding state institutions, which would adopt
decisions regarding attribution or lease of hunting plots to
state establishments or enterprises (e.g., establishments of
science and education, forestry enterprises), or public, as a
rule, hunters' and fishers' organisations (societies), which,
in their turn, used to attribute or lease the hunting plots
attributed to them to circles of hunters. It must be emphasised
that under the legal acts of the period users of hunting plots
could only be state establishments and enterprises, or circles
of hunters. In this context it needs to be noted that during
the years of the Soviet rule legal acts used to consolidate a
duty of land users to lease hunting plots to the attributed
circles of hunters and other users. On the other hand, in
addition to the so-called attributed hunting plots, hunting
plots were picked out also in sanctuaries (for a certain
period-also in reservations), as well as in state hunting
farms; these hunting plots were managed according to
regulations confirmed by respective state establishments.
Minimum sizes of hunting plots were not established.
During the years of the Soviet rule legal acts used for
some time to provide for the so-called hunting plots of common
use, in which all hunters belonging to hunting societies had
the right to hunt. However, in the middle of the fifties of the
20th century there was transition from hunting plots of common
use to the so-called attributed hunting farms, which, as
mentioned, used to be attributed or leased to corresponding
state establishments or public organisations, as a rule, those
of hunters and fishers.
4. Summing up, it needs to be held that the authentic
Lithuanian hunting tradition was denied by legal acts during
the Soviet years in the aspect that the legal regulation of
hunting relations was based on the belonging of all land, all
forests and parks, all water bodies, all other objects of
natural environment, including wild animals that existed in
freedom, solely to the state.
The Lithuanian hunting tradition was denied by legal acts
during the Soviet years also in the aspect that hunting plots
were begun to be distributed in a centralised manner:
institutions of public power would decide that certain
territories were to be used as hunting plots and would
attribute them to state establishments or enterprises (e.g.,
establishments of science and education, forestry enterprises)
or public organisations so that the latter could attribute or
lease these hunting plots to circles of hunters, while users of
land had to lease the plots attributed to them to the
attributed circles of hunters and other users.
Neither natural persons nor most of legal persons could
independently use hunting plots, since only state
establishments and enterprises or circles of hunters could be
users of hunting plots.
On the other hand, during the Soviet years the legal acts
that regulated hunting relations and those linked therewith,
like the legal acts of the State of Lithuania that had been in
effect before, treated hunting as one of the means to guarantee
the protection of wild animals and their rational use, and,
alongside, as a pastime activity.
IV
1. On 11 March 1990, the Supreme Council of the Republic
of Lithuania adopted the Act of the Supreme Council of the
Republic of Lithuania "On the Restoration of the Independent
State of Lithuania". In this Act it was inter alia established
that in Lithuania no constitution of any other state was
effective. On the same day the Supreme Council adopted the
Republic of Lithuania Law "On the Provisional Basic Law of the
Republic of Lithuania" by Article 2 whereof it confirmed the
Provisional Basic Law of the Republic of Lithuania, which was
the provisional constitution of the independent State of
Lithuania. On the basis of the Provisional Basic Law one
started creating the national legal system. One of
peculiarities of the newly created authentic national legal
system of Lithuania and an important precondition for its
further development was the fact that the institute of private
ownership was restored in the legal system of this country.
In this context it needs to be noted that Paragraph 1 of
Article 44 of the Provisional Basic Law used to provide that
"the economic system of Lithuania shall be based on the
property of the Republic of Lithuania, which shall consist of
the private property of its citizens, the property of groups of
citizens (collectives), and state property."
Paragraph 1 of Article 45 of the Provisional Basic Law
used to provide that "the land, its mineral resources, inland
and territorial waters, forests, flora and fauna, and other
natural resources shall be the national wealth of Lithuania and
the exclusive property of the Republic of Lithuania", also that
"other property belonging exclusively to the Republic of
Lithuania may also be owned by citizens of Lithuania and their
groups (collectives)".
It is to be held that the formula "exclusive property of
the Republic of Lithuania" of Paragraph 1 of Article 45 of the
Provisional Basic Law is to be construed while one takes
account of the tasks for the just restored State of Lithuania.
By the said provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 45 of the
Provisional Basic Law it was first of all sought to consolidate
that certain objects as national property of Lithuania may
belong as private ownership only to a single state, the
Republic of Lithuania, and that it may not belong to any other
states; this textual form was chosen in order to stress that
the said objects cannot be treated as belonging to the Soviet
Union. Thus, especially while one bears in mind that under
Paragraph 1 of Article 45 of the Provisional Basic Law "other
property objects belonging exclusively to the Republic of
Lithuania may also be owned by citizens of Lithuania and their
groups (collectives)", it is impossible to attach the same
meaning to the formula "exclusive property of the Republic of
Lithuania" that is employed in the provision "the land, its
mineral resources, inland and territorial waters, forests,
flora and fauna, and other natural resources shall be the
national wealth of Lithuania and the exclusive property of the
Republic of Lithuania" as that of virtually analogous formulas
in regard of their textual form which were used in the
provision "The right of exclusive ownership of the
subterranean, as well as internal waters, forests, parks,
roads, historical, archaeological and cultural objects of State
importance shall belong to the Republic of Lithuania" of
Paragraph 3 (wording of 25 October 1992) of Article 47 of the
Constitution, which was adopted subsequently (after actual
consolidation of the independence of the State of Lithuania and
its international recognition), in the provision "The right of
exclusive ownership of the subterranean, as well as internal
waters, forests, parks, roads, historical, archaeological and
cultural objects of State importance shall belong to the
Republic of Lithuania" of Paragraph 4 (wording of 20 June 1996)
of Article 47 of the Constitution, and in the provision "The
right of exclusive ownership of the subterranean, as well as
internal waters, forests, parks, roads, historical,
archaeological and cultural objects of State importance shall
belong to the Republic of Lithuania" of Paragraph 1 (wording of
23 January 2003) of Article 47 of the Constitution which is
effective at present.
Taking account of this, it is to be held that by Paragraph
1 of Article 45 of the Provisional Basic Law the land, its
mineral resources, inland and territorial waters, forests,
flora and fauna, and other natural resources (unlike the
subterranean) were not nationalised-it merely confirmed
returning of the said objects from the jurisdiction of another
state, the Soviet Union, which was based on the provision of
the Act "On the Restoration of the Independent State of
Lithuania" that in Lithuania no constitution of any other state
was effective.
2. In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue, one is also to mention that the Provisional Basic Law
established the bases of the legal regulation of relations of
use and protection of objects of natural environment, including
fauna: Article 42 of the Provisional Basic Law established a
duty of citizens of Lithuania to protect nature, to preserve
its treasures and build a healthy natural environment.
3. Under Article 3 of the Law "On the Provisional Basic
Law of the Republic of Lithuania", in the Republic of Lithuania
the laws and other legal acts of Lithuania which had been in
force and which were not in conflict with the Provisional Basic
Law continued to be effective. Upon restoration of the
independent State of Lithuania, there occurred a legal
situation where legal acts that had been issued prior to the
restoration of the independent State of Lithuania were in
effect.
In this context, one is to mention that the legal acts
regulating hunting relations remained in force, including the
Law on Wildlife Protection and Use (adopted as far back as 19
June 1981) in which fauna (thus, also wild animals that existed
in freedom) were treated as state property (Paragraph 1 of
Article 3).
Alongside, substatutory legal acts were being issued,
which were designed for regulation of hunting relations and
those linked therewith.
4. On 30 April 1991, the Government adopted Resolution No.
166 "On Hunting Management in the Republic of Lithuania", by
which inter alia the Provisional Regulations for Hunting
Management in the Republic of Lithuania were confirmed. It was
established in the said regulations that huntable animals and
birds and other wild animals and birds are state property (Item
5), that managers and owners of land lease hunting plots to
hunters' organisations and other users (Item 6), also, that it
is prohibited to hunt in lands of the owner without his consent
(Item 6). Under Item 8 of the said regulations, in state
forests the unit of organisation of a hunting farm was the
territory of a forester's district, while in an agrolandscape
zone such a unit was the whole of fields, groves and shrubbery
the total area of which was no less that 200 ha; the lease of
smaller plots of land was decided by the managers and owners of
the land together with respective forest offices. Damage
inflicted by wild animals had to be repaid by users of the
hunting plots who were disposing of the means received from
hunting production (Item 13).
5. By Order No. 6/35 "On Hunting Plot Lease Agreements" of
22 January 1992 issued by the Ministry of Forestry of the
Republic of Lithuania and the Ministry of Agriculture of the
Republic of Lithuania the form of agreements on hunting plot
lease (according to the attached example) was confirmed.
It needs to be noted that the said order (and the form of
agreements on hunting plot lease) did not contain any
provisions which would not permit the owner to use respective
land lots (hunting plots) for other, not hunting purposes,
inter alia to lease these lots (hunting plots) to other persons
so that they could use these lots (hunting plots) not for
hunting, but other purposes. Therefore, although the said
so-called agreement on hunting plot lease, according to which
the owner (manager) permits another person to hunt on the land
lots (hunting plots) that belong to him by right of ownership
(which are managed by him) are referred to as "lease
agreements", they, by their legal content, have never been, nor
are identical to lease agreements on land or other property
which are provided for in civil laws. In their legal content
the said "agreements on hunting plot lease" are agreements on
granting the right to hunt in certain hunting plots to a
certain person; they treat the right to hunt as a separate
matter of transaction.
6. At the time when the Lithuanian national legal system
was being created and one also began to reform the legal
regulation of hunting relations, the restitution process was
taking place during which the existing real property that had
been nationalised and disseized in other unlawful manner by the
occupation government was being returned to the former owners.
Recognising continuity of ownership rights and their
restoration, on 15 November 1990 the Supreme Council adopted a
principle decision and confirmed these provisions: continuity
of ownership rights of citizens of Lithuania is recognised;
citizens of Lithuania have the right, within the limits and
under procedure defined by the law, to retrieve in kind the
property that belonged to them, while in the absence of the
possibility to retrieve it-to receive compensation. On 18 June
1991, the Supreme Council adopted the Republic of Lithuania Law
"On the Procedure and Conditions of Restoration of Citizens'
Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property", which
established to what persons, what property and under what
conditions and procedure the rights of ownership were to be
restored. According to this law (with subsequent amendments and
supplements), limited restitution was carried out-the former
owners were being restored their rights of ownership to land,
forests and water bodies. The restitution process is still
going on; it is regulated by the Republic of Lithuania Law on
the Restoration of Citizens' Rights of Ownership to the
Existing Real Property (with subsequent amendments and
supplements), which was adopted by the Seimas on 1 July 1997,
and which replaced the said Law "On the Procedure and
Conditions of Restoration of Citizens' Rights of Ownership to
the Existing Real Property" (with subsequent amendments and
supplements) which was adopted by the Supreme Council on 18
June 1991.
Land reform was also launched and carried out in parallel.
On 25 July 1991, the Supreme Council adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Land Reform which (with subsequent amendments
and supplements) regulated the relations of land ownership and
procedure of land reform. The goal of the launched land reform
was to implement the right of Lithuanian citizens to land
ownership by returning the expropriated land in accordance with
the procedures and terms established by law, and by buying
land, as well as to create legal, organizational, and economic
preconditions for the development of agricultural production by
freely chosen forms of farming (Article 2 of the Law on Land
Reform). In Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Law on Land Reform
it was inter alia established that during the implementation of
land reform, private and state ownership land-use systems shall
be formed. The ways of acquisition of land were restoration
(restitution) of the right of ownership and purchase (Paragraph
2 of Article 6 of the Law on Land Reform). Land reform was
related with the process of privatisation of state and
municipal property, including land, forests and water bodies.
Laws as well as substatutory acts were passed providing for an
opportunity for citizens to privatise state and municipal
property, as well as property formerly held by Soviet
agricultural enterprises (collective and state farms).
In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue, it needs to be noted that in itself neither the land
reform nor the restitution process changed hunting relations
and those linked therewith, however, after opportunities had
been created for the owners to restore their rights to the
existing real property (including land, forests and water
bodies), also opportunities for citizens to buy land, forests
and water bodies, the legal regulation of hunting relations and
those linked therewith had to be changed in a corresponding
manner, too. In this respect land reform and the privatisation
process related with it, as well as the restitution process,
could not not influence the restructuring of hunting relations
and those linked therewith, thus also the legal regulation of
these relations.
V
1. The Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania was
adopted by referendum which took place on 25 October 1992. It
went into effect on 2 November 1992. Under Article 1 of the Law
of the Republic of Lithuania "On the Procedure of Entry into
Effect of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania", which
was adopted by the Nation by the 25 October 1992 referendum
together with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and
which is a constituent part of the Constitution, upon entry
into effect of the Constitution, the Provisional Basic Law
became null and void. From then on the Lithuanian national
legal system had to be created and developed only on the
grounds of the Constitution.
2. In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue it is worth mentioning that in Article 23 of the
Constitution the imperatives of inviolability of property and
its protection are established. Private ownership as one of the
bases of the national economy is consolidated in Paragraph 1 of
Article 46 of the Constitution. It is inter alia established in
Article 47 of the Constitution as to what objects belong to the
Republic of Lithuania under exclusive right of ownership: under
Paragraph 3 (wording of 25 October 1992) these objects were the
subterranean, as well as internal waters, forests, parks,
roads, historical, archaeological and cultural objects of state
importance. The same objects were indicated in Paragraph 4
(wording of 20 June 1996) of Article 47 of the Constitution;
they are indicated also in Paragraph 1 (wording of 23 January
2003) of Article 47 of the Constitution which is in effect at
present. It is to be held that wildlife has never been nor is
mentioned by the Constitution to be among the objects that
belong to the Republic of Lithuania under the exclusive right
of ownership.
The Constitution also provides for the grounds of the
legal regulation of natural environment, of legal relations of
use and protection of its individual objects. Under Article 54
of the Constitution, the state shall look after the protection
of the natural environment, its fauna and flora, individual
objects of nature and districts of particular value, and shall
supervise that natural resources be used moderately and that
they be restored and augmented (Paragraph 1); the destruction
of land and the subterranean, the pollution of water and air,
environmental degradation as the result of radioactive impact,
and the impoverishment of fauna and flora, shall be prohibited
by law (Paragraph 2).
3. On 7 June 1993, the Government adopted Resolution No.
397 "On Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania" by Item 6 of
which it recognised Government Resolution No. 166 "On Hunting
Management in the Republic of Lithuania" of 30 April 1991 (by
which the Provisional Regulations for Hunting Management in the
Republic of Lithuania had been confirmed) as no longer valid.
By Item 1.1 of Government Resolution No. 397 "On Hunting in the
Republic of Lithuania" of 7 June 1993 the Provisional
Regulations for Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania were
confirmed. It was established in Item 1 of the Provisional
Regulations for Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania that
huntable animals and birds (huntable fauna) on hunting plots
shall be state-owned property, while huntable fauna held in
specially built enclosures shall be property of the manager of
the land. Under Item 6 of the Provisional Regulations for
Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania, managers of state-owned
land had to lease hunting plots for no less than a 10-year
period under a typical agreement (prepared by the Ministry of
Forestry, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Lithuanian
Hunters and Fishers Society, upon coordination with the
Department of Environmental Protection), while owners of land
could lease hunting plots or grant the right to use them also
for a period shorter than 10 years. It was also established in
the same item that hunting plots could be leased only to the
circles or clubs of hunters which had the status of a legal
person and that priority of leasing of hunting plots was to be
given to the collectives of hunters which had hunted in these
plots for prolonged time (it was not clearly defined as to what
time was to be regarded as prolonged). Under this item, the
agreement on hunting plot lease could be cancelled upon expiry
of its validity, upon abolishment of the hunting organisation,
in cases when damage inflicted by animals was not repaid or
important terms of the agreement were not followed. Besides, it
was established in the same item that without the owners'
consent hunting was prohibited in hunting plots which belonged
to the owners and which were not leased. Under established
procedure, in non-leased hunting plots which belonged to owners
hunting without consent of the owners was prohibited (Item 9).
It was established in Item 8 of the said regulations that, as a
rule, the boundaries of hunting farm units which had been
formed long before were not to be changed (one did not clearly
specify as to which boundaries of hunting farm units were to be
held as those that had been formed long before); in vacant
hunting plots hunting farm units had to be formed so that they
constitute continuous no less than 500 ha areas of forests,
fields, groves, shrubbery and water bodies, by taking account
of the elementary populations of the huntable fauna; for the
purpose of hunting small huntable animals and birds (hares,
partridges, ducks etc.) smaller hunting farm units could also
be formed. Damage inflicted by wild hoofed animals to
agriculture and forestry had to be repaid by users of the
hunting plots who were disposing of the hunting production
(Item 14).
By Item 1.3 of Government Resolution No. 397 "On Hunting
in the Republic of Lithuania" of 7 June 1993, the Procedure of
Repayment of Damage Inflicted by Wild Hoofed Animals to Crops
was confirmed. Under Item 1 of the said procedure, damage
inflicted by wild hoofed animals on agricultural crops would be
assessed and calculated under the methods confirmed by the
Ministry of Forestry and the Ministry of Agriculture, by a
commission of damage calculation, which used to be formed by a
decision of the district board, into which (i.e. the
commission) a representative from the board (chairman of the
commission), representatives from the users of agricultural and
forestry plots and the petitioner used to be included.
Under Item 6 of the Provisional Regulations for Hunting in
the Republic of Lithuania, in case land owners refused to lease
hunting plots for hunting, the damage inflicted by huntable
animals and birds would not have to be repaid, while under Item
7, the land owners who did not lease their land property for
hunting, were responsible for care and protection of the fauna
(including huntable animals and birds) that existed in that
land.
4. On 26 August 1993, the Ministry of Agriculture, the
Ministry of Forestry and the Republican Council of the
Lithuanian Hunters and Fishers Society issued Order No.
669/109/5 "On the Typical Form of Agreements on Hunting Plot
Lease" whereby it, together with the Department of
Environmental Protection, confirmed the typical form of
agreements on hunting plot lease.
It needs to be noted that in the said order (in a typical
form of agreements on hunting plot lease), like in Order No.
6/35 "On Hunting Plot Lease Agreements" of 22 January 1992
issued by the Ministry of Forestry and the Ministry of
Agriculture and the form of agreements on hunting plot lease
confirmed by it, there were no provisions which would not
permit the owner to use respective land lots (hunting plots)
for other, not hunting purposes, inter alia to lease these lots
(hunting plots) to other persons so that they could use these
lots (hunting plots) not for hunting, but other purposes. In
their legal content these "agreements on hunting plot lease"
were not agreements on land lot (hunting plots) lease, but
agreements on granting the right to hunt in certain hunting
plots to a certain person.
5. On 31 August 1993, the Government adopted Resolution
No. 674 "On Tariffs of Lease of Forests, Fields and Waters" by
Item 1 whereof it confirmed tariffs of lease of forests, fields
and waters for hunting, while by Item 2 it established that the
lease of forests, fields and waters for hunting was to begun to
be paid as from 1 January 1994.
6. On 19 December 1994, the Government adopted Resolution
No. 1276 "On Hunting Management in the Republic of Lithuania"
by Item 3.1 of which it inter alia recognised the Provisional
Regulations for Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania confirmed
by Government Resolution No. 397 "On Hunting in the Republic of
Lithuania" of 7 June 1993 as no longer valid, and by 1.1 of
which it confirmed the Regulations for Hunting in the Republic
of Lithuania.
It was established in Item 1 of the Regulations for
Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania that huntable animals and
birds on hunting plots shall be state property. It was
established in Item 22 of the regulations that managers of
state land must lease hunting plots and that these plots were
to be leased for no less than a 10-year period according to a
typical agreement (prepared by the Ministry of Environmental
Protection and coordinated with the Ministry of Forestry and
the Lithuanian Hunters and Fishers Society). It was established
in Item 23 of the regulations that land owners can lease the
hunting plots or grant the right to use them; under this item,
the land owner was permitted to hunt, under established
procedure, small huntable fauna in not leased hunting plots
that belonged to him. Like in the Provisional Regulations for
Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania that had been in force
before, it was established in the Regulations for Hunting in
the Republic of Lithuania that hunting plots were only leased
to the circles and clubs of hunters which had the status of a
legal person (Item 24), also that priority for lease of hunting
plots was to be granted to the hunters' organisations which had
hunted in these plots for a long time (no less than 5 years),
and that, as a rule, the formed hunting plot boundaries of the
organisations were not to be changed without consent of the
lessee (Item 25). Under Item 26 of the Regulations for Hunting
in the Republic of Lithuania, new hunting plots of circles and
clubs of hunters were to be formed so that they would
constitute continuous, no less than 1000 ha areas of forest,
fields, groves, shrubbery and water bodies, while taking
account of the territories occupied by the populations of
huntable fauna. Under Item 35 of the said regulations, damage
inflicted by wild hoofed animals on agricultural crops and
forest had to be repaid by the users of the hunting plots who
disposed of the production of hunting. In case land owners
refused in writing to lease hunting plots for hunting or to
permit to hunt on them, damage inflicted by wild hoofed animals
was not to be repaid (Item 32).
7. On 15 March 1995, the Government adopted Resolution No.
371 "On Partial Amendment of the Regulations for Hunting in the
Republic of Lithuania and Confirmation of the Rules of Hunting
in the Republic of Lithuania" by Item 2 of which it confirmed
the Rules of Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania. These rules
particularised as to what kinds of animals were attributed to
big animals and birds, and which to small huntable fauna, they
regulated granting of the right to hunt, the use of implements
of hunting, of hunt dogs and hunt birds, ways and procedure of
hunting, use of hunting production and veterinary requirements
for hunting production, hunting documents, peculiarities of
collective hunting, individual hunting and hunting with hunt
birds, the time of hunting, the insured activity linked with
hunting, safety conduct during hunting, etc. It was established
that the Ministry of Environmental Protection has the right to
change inter alia the list of huntable fauna and the time of
hunting (Item 5).
8. On 6 November 1997, the Seimas adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Wildlife, which went into effect on 28
November 1997. After this law had became effective, the Law on
Wildlife Protection and Use adopted as far back as 19 June 1981
became no longer valid (Article 31 of the Law on Wildlife).
Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Law on Wildlife defined
wildlife as "vertebrate and invertebrate animals and
populations thereof habitually existing in their natural state
in freedom". Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the same law
established that wild animals living in freedom may not belong
to natural or legal persons by right of ownership. The said
provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Law on Wildlife
differs from the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the
Law on Wildlife Protection and Use that wildlife (thus also
fauna that exists in freedom) is state property (Paragraph 1 of
Article 3). It needs to be emphasised that Paragraph 2 of
Article 4 of the Law on Wildlife is to be construed by taking
account of what concept of a legal person was established in
the then effective Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania:
under the then effective Civil Code the state was not a legal
person. Thus, the formula "legal persons" of Paragraph 2 of
Article 4 of the Law on Wildlife did not include the state. On
the other hand, the Law on Wildlife did not expressis verbis
consolidate that wild animals that exist in freedom cannot
belong to the state by right of ownership, either. However,
there are not any preconditions to maintain that the
legislator, while establishing that wild animals that exist in
freedom cannot belong to natural or legal persons by right of
ownership, would seek not to permit the state to be the owner
of free wild animals. Such legal regulation is to be assessed
as a vague one, as one not establishing expressis verbis
whether wild animals (including huntable fauna) belongs to
someone by right of ownership, and if it does, then to whom it
belongs.
Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 15 of the Law on Wildlife
indicated hunting as one of the kinds of wildlife use.
Paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the same law defined hunting as
"lying in wait, tailing, chasing for the purpose of catching or
shooting of the wild animals designated for a hunting object
and also catching and shooting of wild animals". Under
Paragraph 2 of this article, the laws of the Republic of
Lithuania, the Regulations for Hunting in Lithuania and Hunting
Rules, which shall be approved by the Government or its
authorised institutions, shall establish the types of hunting,
procedure for organising such, equipment, terms, safety
conduct, veterinary supervision requirements in hunting, and
other conditions of organising hunts; under Paragraph 3 of the
said article, hunting was permitted only on hunting grounds,
excluding those exceptions stipulated by laws, while the
Regulations for Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania had to
establish the procedure of the lease of hunting grounds and use
thereof for hunting purposes.
9. Under Paragraph 3 of Article 15 of the Law on Wildlife,
the Regulations for the Use of Wild Animals and their norms
were to establish the terms, ways, implements and limits of
wild animal use. By Order No. 200 "On the Implementation of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Wildlife" of 19 October 1998
issued by the Minister of Environment inter alia the List of
the Wild Animals Permitted to be Used in the Republic of
Lithuania was confirmed.
It was established in Item 1 of the List of the Wild
Animals Permitted to be Used in the Republic of Lithuania that
in the Republic of Lithuania, further to this list, inter alia
hunting is permitted under procedure of laws and other legal
acts. The said list listed the kinds of wildlife (mammals,
birds, fish, molluscs, crustaceans, insects, soil
invertebrates) permitted to be hunted or to be used in other
ways defined in this list.
10. On 25 February 1999, the Government adopted Resolution
No. 210 "On the Confirmation of the Amounts of Lease Payment
for Hunting Plots in the Land of the Funds of State Forests,
Available State Land and of State Internal Waters" by Item 3
whereof it recognised Government Resolution No. 674 "On Tariffs
of Rent of Forests, Fields and Waters" of 31 August 1993
(whereby tariffs of lease of forests, fields and waters for
hunting had been confirmed) as no longer valid, while by Item 1
it confirmed the amounts of lease payments of hunting plots in
the land of the funds of state forests, available state land
and of state internal waters. It was established in Item 2.1 of
Government Resolution No. 210 "On the Confirmation of the
Amounts of Lease Payment for Hunting Plots in the Land of the
Funds of State Forests, Available State Land and of State
Internal Waters" of 25 February 1999 that the Ministry of
Environment shall index the amounts confirmed by this
resolution, and in it the indexation procedure was defined.
11. On 14 April 2000, the Government adopted Resolution
No. 425 "On the Confirmation of the Regulations for Hunting in
the Republic of Lithuania" of 19 December 1994 by Article 3 of
which it recognised the Regulations for Hunting in the Republic
of Lithuania confirmed by Resolution No. 1276 "On Hunting
Management in the Republic of Lithuania" as no longer valid,
while by Item 1 it confirmed new Regulations for Hunting in the
Republic of Lithuania. The new Regulations for Hunting in the
Republic of Lithuania went into effect on 20 April 2000, save
its Item 19 which had to become effective on 1 April 2001; the
date of entry into effect of Item 19 of the new Regulations for
Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania was postponed till 1 April
2003 by Government Resolution No. 354 "On Partial Amendment of
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 425 'On
the Confirmation of the Regulations for Hunting in the Republic
of Lithuania' of 14 April 2000" of 30 March 2001.
Under Item 2.2 of Government Resolution No. 425 "On the
Confirmation of the Regulations for Hunting in the Republic of
Lithuania" of 14 April 2000, as of 1 July 2000 Item 2 of
Government Resolution No. 371 "On Partial Amendment of the
Regulations for Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania and
Confirmation of the Rules of Hunting in the Republic of
Lithuania" of 15 March 1995 whereby the Rules of Hunting in the
Republic of Lithuania had been confirmed, became no longer
valid.
In the new Regulations for Hunting in the Republic of
Lithuania, unlike in those valid before, there were no
provisions consolidating expressis verbis that wildlife
(including huntable fauna) belongs to anyone by right of
ownership. It has been mentioned that the Law on Wildlife
(which was in force then) did not establish expressis verbis
whether wildlife (including huntable fauna) belonged to someone
by right of ownership, and if it did, then to whom it belonged.
Alongside, it needs to be noted that Item 6 of the new
Regulations for Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania
established that the right of use of huntable animals on a
concrete plot of land belongs to the owner of that land. Under
Items 7 and 23 of the new Regulations for Hunting in the
Republic of Lithuania, the owner of the land could either make
use of the right of use of huntable animals, or to transfer
this right to other natural or legal persons according to an
agreement on hunting plot lease, or not to make use of this
right. It was prohibited to hunt on hunting plots which
belonged to other persons if one did not enjoy the right to use
the hunting plots which was transferred by an agreement on
hunting plot lease (Item 23).
The Third Section of Item 1 of the new Regulations for
Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania defined hunting plots as
"plots of land, forest and of water bodies in which huntable
animals live or can live and reproduce and in which it is
permitted to hunt them, save the plots in which hunting is
prohibited, provided laws do not provide otherwise".
In Item 24 of the said regulations it was provided that
hunting plots are leased by the owners and managers of the
land, also that land lease for other purposes does not grant
the right to use them for hunting, if one does not enjoy the
right to use the hunting plots which was transferred by an
agreement on hunting plot lease. The managers of state-owned
land (save certain exceptions) were obligated to lease the
hunting plots that were on state-owned land; these lease
agreements had to be concluded for no less than a 10-year
period (Item 25). Upon expiry of the agreement on state land
lease for hunting, it had to be renewed with the lessee who had
fulfilled all terms of the agreement (Item 29).
Under Item 25 of the new Regulations for Hunting in the
Republic of Lithuania, private land was used for hunting upon a
mutual agreement of the parties, by concluding a written
agreement on hunting plot lease. Thus it was established that
upon change of the owner of the land plot, the lease agreement
is effective in regard of the new owner (Item 24).
Within 20 days of their conclusion, the agreements on
hunting plot lease had to be filed with the district agency of
the Regional Department for Environmental Protection for
registration, while a decision regarding the registration of
these agreements had to be taken within 10 working days (Items
33, 34 and 36).
The new Regulations for Hunting in the Republic of
Lithuania also regulated sizes of hunting plot units. A formed
collective unit of hunting plots had to be of continuous land
plot of no less than 1000 ha in size; however, this requirement
could be not applied to hunting plots of less than 1000 ha
which were on state land, provided they had been leased prior
to the entry of these regulations into effect, but for no
longer than it was provided for in the agreement on hunting
plot lease (Item 20).
Under Item 21 of the new Regulations for Hunting in the
Republic of Lithuania, continuous plots of land that belonged
to one or several private persons could constitute an
individual hunting plot unit of no less than 100 ha, but an
individual hunting plot unit could not be bigger than 500 ha in
size, save the case where the user of the hunting plot was the
land owner himself.
Hunting plot units had to be registered with the district
agency of the Regional Department for Environmental Protection
(Items 37, 38, and 39).
In the Regulations for Hunting in the Republic of
Lithuania it was also established that the owners of hunting
plots who owned plots which were less than the minimum area of
individual hunting plot unit, and who have not leased these
plots to other persons for hunting, have the right to hunt
small fauna in the land under procedure established in the
Rules of Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania (Item 22).
As mentioned, Item 19 of the new Regulations for Hunting
in the Republic of Lithuania went into effect of 1 April 2003.
Under this item hunting was permitted only in registered
hunting plot units, which were formed according to projects of
land and forest exploitation, documents confirming the right of
ownership and agreements on hunting plot lease (documents,
according to which schemes and descriptions of boundaries of
hunting plot units are formed), save the case where the owners
of hunting plots, who own plots that are less than the minimum
area of an individual hunting plot and who have not leased
these hunting plots to other persons, have the right to hunt
small fauna on their own land under procedure established in
the Rules of Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania.
Under the new Regulations for Hunting in the Republic of
Lithuania, damage inflicted by hunted animals on the owners of
agricultural crops, forest and of hydrotechnical equipment on
the entire territory of the hunting plot unit had to be repaid
under established procedure by users of the hunting plots,
provided hunting of the animals that inflicted the damage was
not prohibited; if hunting of the animals that inflicted the
damage was prohibited, this damage had to be repaid under
procedure established by the Government (Item 41).
12. On 27 June 2000, the Minister of Environment issued
Order No. 258 "On the Confirmation of the Rules of Hunting in
the Republic of Lithuania" by Item 1 whereof he confirmed the
Rules of Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania. The said rules
have been amended more than once.
13. On 1 September 2000, the Minister of Environment
issued Order No. 358 "On the Confirmation of the Typical Form
of Agreements on Lease of Hunting Plots That Are in State-owned
Land" by Item 2.2 whereof he recognised Order No. 6/35 "On
Hunting Plot Lease Agreements" of 22 January 1992 (whereby the
form of agreements on hunting plot lease had been confirmed)
issued by the Ministry of Forestry and the Ministry of
Agriculture as no longer valid, and by Item 2.1 he recognised
Order No. 669/109/5 "On the Typical Form of Agreements on
Hunting Plot Lease" of 26 August 1993 (whereby it, together
with the Department of Environmental Protection, had confirmed
the typical form of agreements on hunting plot lease) which had
been issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of
Forestry and the Republican Council of the Lithuanian Hunters
and Fishers Society, as no longer valid. By Item 1 of Order No.
358 "On the Confirmation of the Typical Form of Agreements on
Lease of Hunting Plots That Are in State-owned Land" of 1
September 2000 issued by the Minister of Environment the
typical form of agreements on lease of hunting plots that are
in state-owned land was confirmed.
14. On 1 October 2001, the Government adopted Resolution
No. 1178 "On Partial Amendment of Government of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution No. 425 'On the Confirmation of the
Regulations for Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania' of 14
April 2000", which went into effect on 4 October 2001.
By Item 1.4 of Government Resolution No. 1178 "On Partial
Amendment of Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution
No. 425 'On the Confirmation of the Regulations for Hunting in
the Republic of Lithuania' of 14 April 2000" of 1 October 2001
Item 21 (wording of 14 April 2000) of the Regulations for
Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania was recognised as no
longer valid, which used to consolidate the right of private
persons to form and register individual hunting plot units
which are no less that 100 ha, but no more than 500 ha in size
(save the exception established before, where the user of the
hunting plots was the owner of the land himself); on the other
hand, although said Item 21 (wording of 14 April 2000) was
recognised as no longer valid, Item 37 of the Regulations for
Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania was left to be valid,
whereby inter alia a hunting plot unit was regarded as a formed
one and an application of the established form concerning its
registering could be filed with the district agency of the
Regional Department for Environmental Protection, if the common
size of the hunting plots met the requirement of their minimum
size, which were specified in Item 21 (which was recognised as
no longer valid then).
By Item 1.3 of Government Resolution No. 1178 "On Partial
Amendment of Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution
No. 425 'On the Confirmation of the Regulations for Hunting in
the Republic of Lithuania' of 14 April 2000" of 1 October 2001
Item 20 (wording of 14 April 2000) of the Regulations for
Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania, whereby a formed
collective hunting plot unit had to constitute no less that a
1000 ha continuous plot of land, was amended; it was
established that the users of hunting plots who formed hunting
plot units under procedure established in the Regulations for
Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania, which were smaller than
those specified in Item 1.3 of this resolution (i.e. which were
smaller than 1000 ha), were permitted to continue hunting
activity on these plots until 1 April 2003, if the laws did not
provide otherwise (Item 2). In this context, it needs to be
mentioned that the formula "are permitted to continue hunting
activity on these plots until 1 April 2003, if the laws do not
provide otherwise" means that hunting activity could be
continued in corresponding hunting plots until the specified
term only if a different term (that of either before or after 1
April 2003) was not established by the law.
15. On 18 July 2000, the Seimas adopted the Law on
Confirmation, Entry into Effect and Implementation of the Civil
Code of the Republic of Lithuania, by Item 1 of Article 51
whereof the until then valid Civil Code (with subsequent
amendments and supplements) was recognised as no longer valid,
while by Article 1 whereof the new Civil Code was confirmed. It
is established in Article 2 of this law that the Civil Code
shall become effective as from 1 July 2001, save the norms of
this code to which other terms of entry into effect are
established by the law.
Under Paragraph 1 of Article 2.35 of the new Civil Code,
the state and municipalities are legal persons.
A different concept of a legal person entrenched in the
new civil Code, if compared with the legal regulation
established in the laws valid until then, where the state is
also recognised as a legal person, did not change the content
of Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Law on Wildlife under which
wild animals that exist in freedom cannot belong to natural or
legal persons by right of ownership. Upon entry of the new
Civil Code into effect, the legal regulation established in
Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Law on Wildlife had to be
continued to be construed (by inter alia applying teleological
method of construction of law and that of the intention of the
legislator, i.e. by taking account of the purpose of the legal
regulation established in Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Law
on Wildlife and the fact that the legislator, while
establishing that wild animals that exist in freedom cannot
belong by right of ownership to natural and legal persons, did
not, in general, attempt not to permit the state to be the
owner of wild animals that exist in freedom) as not meaning
that wild animals cannot, in general, belong to the state by
right of ownership. On the other hand, as mentioned, the
Regulations for Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania confirmed
by Government Resolution No. 1276 "On Hunting Management in the
Republic of Lithuania" of 19 December 1994, under which
huntable animals and birds on hunting plots shall be state
property, were recognised as no longer valid by Government
Resolution No. 425 "On the Confirmation of the Regulations for
Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania" of 14 April 2000, while
the new Regulations for Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania
confirmed by the latter Government resolution did not contain
the provisions establishing expressis verbis that wild animals
(including huntable fauna) belongs to someone by right of
ownership. Thus, neither laws, nor substatutory legal acts that
regulated hunting relations and those linked therewith did not
expressis verbis establish for some time whether wild animals
(including huntable fauna) belonged to someone by right of
ownership, and if it did, then to whom it belonged.
16. On 11 December 2001, the Seimas adopted the Republic
of Lithuania Law on Amending the Law on Wildlife, by Article 1
whereof it amended the Law on Wildlife (wording of 6 November
1997) and set it forth in a new wording. The Law on Amending
the Law on Wildlife, thus also the Law on Wildlife of the new
wording (11 December 2001), went into effect on 29 December
2001, save Paragraph 2 of Article 13, which went into effect as
from 1 April 2003 (Article 2 of the Law on Amending the Law on
Wildlife).
Paragraph 5 of Article 2 of the Law on Wildlife (wording
of 11 December 2001) denotes wildlife as "entirety of
invertebrate and vertebrate wild fauna existing either in
freedom or in captivity"; Paragraph 4 of the same article
defines wild fauna existing in freedom as "wild fauna the
freedom of which has not been limited by humans". Under
Paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the Law on Wildlife (wording of 11
December 2001), wild fauna existing in freedom belongs to the
state, while Paragraph 3 of Article 3 provides that "the wild
animals which were held in captivity and later escaped, and
whose owner does not capture them within one month of the day
of escaping, are regarded as wild animals existing in freedom
and belonging to the state by right of ownership, save the
cases when escaped wild animals must be captured according to
the requirements of Paragraph 1 of Article 7 and Paragraph 3 of
Article 16 of the Law."
Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Law on Wildlife
(wording of 11 December 2001) indicated hunting as one of the
types of use of wildlife resources (one of ways of taking of
wild animals from their habitats). In Paragraph 1 of Article 13
of the same law hunting is defined as "an activity with the
purpose of taking huntable animals that exist in freedom by
means of tracing, lying in wait, tailing, chasing, shooting or
capturing". Under Paragraph 9 of Article 2 of the same law,
huntable animals are "wild animals which are attributed by the
Rules of Hunting in the Territory of the Republic of Lithuania
to huntable ones due to their value and by taking account of
hunting traditions of this country". Hunting is only permitted
to persons who has a hunter's ticket or an analogous document
issued in foreign countries and other documents established in
the Rules of Hunting in the Territory of the Republic of
Lithuania (Paragraph 1 of Article 13 of the Law on Wildlife
(wording of 11 December 2001)). Hunting had to be regulated by
the Regulations for Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania
confirmed by the Government, the Rules of Hunting in the
Territory of the Republic of Lithuania confirmed by the
Ministry of Environment and other legal acts (Paragraph 3 of
Article 13 of the Law on Wildlife (wording of 11 December
2001)). Article 12 of the Law on Wildlife (wording of 11
December 2001) provides for an opportunity to establish
limitations and prohibitions of use of wildlife resources in
protected territories.
The Law on Wildlife (wording of 11 December 2001) was
amended by the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending Articles
4, 10 and 13 of the Law on Wildlife, which was adopted by the
Seimas on 19 September 2002, the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Amending Articles 4, 8, 10 and 24 of the Law on Wildlife, which
was adopted by the Seimas on 10 June 2003, and the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Amending Articles 2, 9, 10, 11, 14 and 20 of
the Law on Wildlife, which was adopted by the Seimas on 14
April 2005. By means of the first law, which went into effect
on 4 October 2002, Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Law on
Wildlife (wording of 11 December 2001) was amended; it was
established in Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Law on Wildlife
(wording of 19 September 2002) that hunting is regulated by the
Law on Hunting, the Rules of Hunting in the Territory of the
Republic of Lithuania confirmed by the Ministry of Environment
and other legal acts; therefore, thus amended Paragraph 3 of
Article 13 of the Law on Wildlife (wording of 19 September
2002) no longer provided that the Government had to confirm the
Regulations for Hunting in the Territory of the Republic of
Lithuania.
17. On 15 July 2002, the Government adopted Resolution No.
1132 "On Amending Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 425 'On the Confirmation of the Regulations for
Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania' of 14 April 2000" whereby
it amended some items (with subsequent amendments) of the
Regulations for Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania confirmed
by Government Resolution No. 425 "On the Confirmation of the
Regulations for Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania" of 14
April 2000 and established provisional (valid till 1 October
2002) legal regulation of corresponding legal relations (Items
1 and 3), while by Item 5 it recognised that as from 1 October
2002, Government Resolution No. 425 "On the Confirmation of the
Regulations for Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania" of 14
April 2000 (with subsequent amendments) shall no longer be
valid. Government Resolution No. 1132 "On Amending Government
of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 425 'On the
Confirmation of the Regulations for Hunting in the Republic of
Lithuania' of 14 April 2000" of 15 July 2002 went into effect
on 20 July 2002.
It was inter alia established in Item 23 (wording of 15
July 2002) of the Regulations for Hunting in the Republic of
Lithuania that regional departments for environmental
protection of the Ministry of Environment grant the right to
hunt in concrete hunting plots under procedure established in
the Rules of Hunting in the Territory of the Republic of
Lithuania confirmed by the Ministry of Environment by issuing
permits to use resources of wildlife, which exists in freedom,
for hunting, that these permits are issued to lessees of
hunting plots, forestry offices (in commercial hunting plots)
or owners of hunting plots, also that a permit to use resources
of wildlife, which exists in freedom, for hunting in concrete
hunting plots may be issued only to one user of the hunting
plots. It was established in Item 2 of Government Resolution
No. 1132 "On Amending Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 425 'On the Confirmation of the Regulations for
Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania' of 14 April 2000" of 15
July 2002 that "permits to use resources of wildlife, which
exists in freedom, for hunting, must be issued to lessees of
hunting plots while taking account of sizes of the hunting
plots that they are leasing , the agreements on lease of which
have been registered in district agencies of the regional
departments for environmental protection of the Ministry of
environment prior to entry into effect of this Resolution"; it
was established that this item was valid till 1 October 2002
(Item 3).
18. The said amendment (by the Law on Amending Articles 4,
10 and 13 of the Law on Wildlife, which was adopted by the
Seimas on 19 September 2002) to Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of
the Law on Wildlife, also establishment of the provisional
legal regulation of hunting relations and those linked
therewith as well as recognition (by Government Resolution No.
1132 "On Amending Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 425 'On the Confirmation of the Regulations for
Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania' of 14 April 2000" of 15
July 2002) that as from 1 October 2002 Government Resolution
No. 425 "On the Confirmation of the Regulations for Hunting in
the Republic of Lithuania of 14 April 2000 (with subsequent
amendments) shall no longer be valid, are to be linked with
entry into effect of the Law on Hunting, which was adopted by
the Seimas on 20 June 2002, on 1 October 2002 (save the
indicated exceptions).
19. Summarising the legal regulation of hunting relations
and those linked therewith, which is consolidated in the laws
and governmental legal acts which were valid from 1992 till
2002 (from the entry into effect of the Constitution till the
entry into effect of the Law on Hunting (most of its
provisions)), one is to hold:
19.1. In these legal acts wildlife was treated as a value
which must be safeguarded and resources of which must be used
in a rational way. Hunting was treated as one of the means to
secure protection of wildlife and its rational use and,
alongside, as pastime activity. Hunting activity was limited;
the state (its institutions) and municipal institutions were
empowered to control this activity. Liability was established
for illegal hunting and other violations of hunting procedure,
which were specified in laws.
19.2. During the period in question hunting relations and
those linked therewith were virtually regulated by substatutory
legal acts, inter alia Government resolutions. Laws regulated
these relations only in certain aspects.
19.3. It needs to be noted that although some laws and
governmental legal acts valid at that period (or during some of
its segments) which regulated relations linked with the use of
wildlife (including huntable fauna) did not establish expressis
verbis whether wild animals (including huntable fauna) belong
or can belong to anyone by right of ownership, and if they do,
then to whom they belong, the entire legal regulation
established in legal acts of the period in question, which
regulated hunting relations and those linked therewith, was
based on the principle provision that wildlife (including
huntable fauna) is state property. In this context one is to
mention that the legal acts valid at the beginning (November
1992) and at the end (September 2002) of the period in question
expressis verbis established state ownership over wild animals
that existed in freedom (including huntable fauna). Besides,
according to legal acts of that period, wild animals that
existed in freedom (including huntable fauna) could not belong
to any other legal or natural person by right of ownership, but
only to the state.
19.4. In the legal acts valid at the period in question
the right of hunting was linked with the right of ownership of
water bodies (in which hunting plots were being formed); it was
permitted to hunt in the land that belonged to the owner only
upon his consent; in case there was no such consent (if one did
not enjoy the right to use the hunting plots, which was to be
transferred by the so-called agreement on hunting plot lease),
it was prohibited to hunt in hunting plots that belonged to
other persons. Alongside, it is to be held that for some time
in some aspects the legal regulation of hunting relations and
those linked therewith was distanced from the authentic hunting
tradition that had been formed in Lithuania and consolidated in
its legal acts (however, denied by the Soviet government),
according to which the owners could form hunting plots out of
their lands, while state institutions could form them only from
state lands, forests and waters, but one was gradually
returning to this tradition. For example, at the beginning of
the period in question the owners of private lots of land,
forests, and water bodies had the right to lease the hunting
plots to organisations of hunters (circles or clubs of hunters
which had the status of a legal person) and to other users,
without changing, as a rule, the boundaries of hunting units
which "had been formed long before" and by giving priority to
the collectives of hunters that had hunted in these plots "for
a long time"; however, the owners of lots of land, forests, and
water bodies had the right to hunt only small fauna in the
hunting plots that belonged to them and which were not leased
to anyone. The situation became different after the entry into
effect of Government Resolution No. 425 "On the Confirmation of
the Regulations for Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania" of 14
April 2000 by which new Regulations for Hunting in the Republic
of Lithuania (which were valid (with subsequent amendments)
till 1 October 2002) were confirmed: one began to base the
legal regulation upon provisions that the right of use of
huntable animals on a certain land plot belongs to the owner of
this land and that the owner of the land can make use of the
right to use huntable animals either himself, or to transfer it
to other natural or legal persons according to an agreement on
hunting plot lease, or not to make use of this right. Thus, one
abandoned the principle that only circles or clubs of hunters,
i.e. organisations of hunters, had the right to lease hunting
plots (from the owner).
Thus, at the end of the period in question hunting plots
were rented under lease agreements either from land owners or
the state, or the owner could form hunting plots on his own
land provided he had not rented it to other persons, who had
the right to hunt small fauna, for hunting. Managers of state
land were obligated to lease the hunting plots which were on
state land for no shorter than a 10-year period, while private
land could be leased by mutual agreement of the parties by
concluding a written agreement on hunting plot lease (also for
a shorter than a 10-year period). Thus, hunting plot units had
to be formed on the basis of agreements on hunting plot lease,
which were concluded between the lessor (the land owner or
manager of the state land) and the lessee (natural or legal
person) who used the land for hunting.
19.5. During the period in question, legal acts
consolidated the legal regulation whereby hunting was permitted
only in certain formed hunting plot units. By its acts the
Government would establish sizes of hunting plot units, which
were subject to change-they would be increased (however,
exceptions to the general rule used to be established as well,
where the requirement of the minimum size of a hunting plot
unit did not use to be applied). In the 2000-2001 legal acts an
opportunity was established to form collective hunting plot
units, including continuous land plot units of no less than
1000 ha in size and individual hunting plot units from 100 till
500 ha in size (save the case when the user of the hunting
plots was the owner of that land); one of several private
persons had the right to form and register individual hunting
plot units.
It is clear from the case material that under such legal
regulation certain individual hunting plot units were formed,
registered and used for hunting.
However, the legal regulation under which the said
individual hunting plots had been formed and registered (and
began to be used for hunting) was changed. After one Government
resolution (adopted on 14 April 2000) consolidated the right of
private persons to form collective and individual hunting plot
units (provided hunting plot units complied with the
established area requirements), by another Government
resolution (adopted shortly after that, on 1 October 2001) only
one of the formerly established minimum sizes, 1000 hectares,
of a hunting plot unit was left and it was established that
users of hunting plots after they have formed the hunting plots
under established procedure which were smaller than the minimum
size (1000 hectares), may continue hunting activity in these
plots till 1 April 2003 provided the laws did not provide
otherwise. It was mentioned that it meant that hunting activity
could be continued in corresponding hunting plots until the
specified term only if a different term (also that which could
be before 1 April 2003) had not been established by the law.
19.6. The legal acts of the period in question also
consolidated a principle that damage inflicted upon the land
owners by hunted wild animals had to be repaid by the users of
the hunting plots, provided the owners had not prohibited to
hunt in the land lots that belonged to them. In case the land
owners had refused to permit to hunt in the lots that belonged
to them, the damage inflicted upon them by the hunted animals
did not have to be repaid. On the other hand, if legal acts had
prohibited to hunt the hunted animals which inflicted the
damage, the damage had to be repaid by the state under
established procedure.
20. Summing up the legal regulation of hunting relations
and those linked therewith, which was established during the
period in question, i.e. from 1992 till 2002, in the
constitutional justice case at issue one is also to hold that
the legal acts of that time created certain expectations to
certain subjects of the regulated hunting relations, who made
use of the right established by these legal acts, i.e. the
owners of land, forests and water bodies, who, on the basis of
valid legal acts, formed hunting plot units or concluded
agreements on hunting plot lease, by means of which land lots,
forests, water bodies were leased to other persons (users), who
acquired the right to use the hunting plots under such
agreements.
20.1. The owners of private land, forests and water
bodies, who had concluded agreements on hunting plot lease with
other persons (users of these plots) under valid legal acts,
could reasonably expect that these agreements would be kept
during the whole term provided therein and that the state (its
institutions) would not take any measures which would prevent
the lessees from carrying out their duties under these
agreements.
20.2. Natural and legal persons (users of hunting plots),
who had, under valid legal acts, rented land, forests and water
bodies designed for hunting, could reasonably expect that
during the entire term provided in these agreements they would
be able to use the land, forests and water bodies rented for
hunting and that the state (its institutions) would not take
any measures which would prevent them from using their rights
provided for in these agreements.
20.3. The persons who had formed individual hunting plot
units under valid legal acts could reasonably expect that they
would be able to use these hunting plot units for hunting until
there appeared circumstances established in laws due to which
further use of these hunting plot units would reasonably become
impossible. This expectation arose from Government Resolution
No. 425 "On the Confirmation of the Regulations for Hunting in
the Republic of Lithuania" of 14 April 2000, a governmental
legal act, whereby new Regulations for Hunting in the Republic
of Lithuania were confirmed, and the circumstance that the said
persons made use of the right acquired under this legal act to
form and register individual hunting plot units.
VI
1. It has been mentioned that on 20 June 2002 the Seimas
adopted the Law on Hunting, which (save certain exceptions)
became effective on 1 October 2002. Some articles of the Law on
Hunting (their parts, items) were amended by the Law on
Amending Articles 6, 12, and 18 of the Law on Hunting, which
was adopted by the Seimas on 10 June 2003.
It is to be mentioned that the disputed by the petitioner
the provision "It shall be prohibited to hunt <...> in the land
lots located in hunting plots, if their owners have prohibited
hunting therein upon the procedure established in Paragraph 2
of Article 13 of the Law" of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the
Law on Hunting, the provision "A hunting plot unit must
comprise at least 1000 ha of continuous hunting area, save the
cases where smaller hunting plot units are established for
scientific and education purposes upon the proposal of the
Ministry of Environment, or where such units are established in
the territories of fishery ponds upon the proposal of the
Ministry of Agriculture" of Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the
same law, the provision "The owner of a private land lot, whose
land is intended to be assigned or is already assigned to a
hunting plot unit according to the procedure established in
Article 8 of this Law, shall have the right to prohibit hunting
in the land owned by him, if agricultural crops or forest will
suffer damage during the hunting" of Paragraph 2 of Article 13
of the same law, and the provision "The damage inflicted by
huntable animals shall not be recovered, if it is made in the
land lots whose owner has prohibited hunting upon the procedure
established in Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law" of
Paragraph 7 of Article 18 were not amended.
2. It has been mentioned that in 1992 to 2002 (from the
date of coming into effect of the Constitution till the date of
coming into effect of the Law on Hunting (majority of
provisions thereof)) the relations of hunting were virtually
regulated by substatutory legal acts, inter alia Government
resolutions, and that laws regulated these relations only in
certain aspects.
It has been held in this Ruling of the Constitutional
Court that by the Law on Hunting one strived to systemically
regulate relations of hunting and those linked therewith and to
create the legal basis for detailing and specifying the legal
regulation of these relations in substatutory legal acts.
The Constitutional Court has held that Items 2 and 7 of
Article 94 of the Constitution, establishing that the
Government shall implement laws and that it shall discharge
other duties prescribed to it by the Constitution and other
laws, are to be interpreted as the ones establishing a duty to
the Government to supplement its previously adopted acts so
that they become in conformity with subsequently adopted laws
or to repeal its previously adopted acts in case the legal
norms established therein are in conflict with those of the law
(Constitutional Court rulings of 5 April 2000, and 15 May
2001).
Thus it is to be held that after the Law on Hunting had
come into effect, all the substatutory legal acts (including
Government resolutions) had to be harmonised and not be in
conflict with it.
3. The disputed by the petitioner provisions of Paragraph
2 of Article 7, Paragraph 1 of Article 8, Paragraph 2 of
Article 13, and Paragraph 7 of Article 18 of the Law on Hunting
are systemically related to other provisions of Articles 7, 8,
13, and 18 of the Law on Hunting.
3.1. It is established in Article 7 "Hunting Plots and
Territories, Wherein Hunting is Prohibited" of the Law on
Hunting:
"1. All the territories shall be considered hunting plots
and hunting shall be permitted therein, save the territories
specified in Paragraph 2 of this article.
2. Hunting shall be prohibited in:
1) cemeteries, urban territories, national parks located
in national reservations and biospheric reservations, minor
reservations and other territories where it is prohibited to
hunt by laws and other legal acts;
2) land lots located in the hunting plots, if their owners
have prohibited hunting therein upon the procedure established
in Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law;
3) other territories, in which one may not hunt due to
local conditions and which are specified by the institutions
forming hunting plot units upon the procedure set forth in
Article 8 of the Law.
3. The abundance of huntable animals in the territories
listed in Paragraph 2 of this article shall be regulated upon
the procedure established by the Ministry of Environment. If a
threat related to zymotic diseases, which are spread by
huntable animals, originates and compulsory instructions
concerning the regulation of abundance of these animals are to
be fulfilled in the land lot, wherein its owner has prohibited
hunting, the implementation of these instructions shall be
organised by the owner of the land lot."
3.2. It is established in Article 8 "Formation of Hunting
Plot Units and Changing Their Boundaries" of the Law on
Hunting:
"1. Hunting plot units are formed and their boundaries are
changed according to the principles of hunting, by ensuring,
alongside, rational management of the populations of huntable
animals, sufficient protection of huntable animals and orderly
and safe their hunt, as well as by ensuring that a more grave
damage inflicted by huntable animals to the objects of economic
activity of a person is avoided. A hunting plot unit must
comprise at least 1000 ha area of continuous hunting plots,
save the cases where smaller hunting plot units are established
for scientific and education purposes upon the proposal of the
Ministry of Environment, or where such units are established in
the territories of fishery ponds upon the proposal of the
Ministry of Agriculture. The criteria of integrity of the
hunting plot unit and requirements for the establishment of the
boundaries of hunting plot units are approved by the Ministry
of Environment in accordance with the following principles:
1) boundaries of hunting plot units must match clear
natural or artificial margins, they must be in prominent
places, however, they may not be set in the outskirts of a
wood;
2) roads, railway sections, electricity lines, natural and
artificial water streams and other similar objects, if their
shape, size and constructions or equipment located in them does
not prevent from organising a hunting, do not disturb the
integrity of hunting plot units, however, they may not be
considered to be a longitudinal junction between separate
distant parts of the hunting plot unit.
2. Hunting plot units shall be formed and their boundaries
shall be changed in the following cases:
1) when they are formed in the hunting plots, in which,
pursuant to the requirements of this Law, no hunting plot units
are formed or where the users of the existing hunting plots
refused using them;
2) by separating or joining the existing hunting plot
units, where such formation is performed upon the agreement of
users of hunting plots and for the purposes established in
Paragraph 1 of this article;
3) when, upon the establishment of new protected
territories according to the Law on Protected Territories or
upon changing the border of existing protected territories
wherein it is prohibited to hunt, one must provide more details
about boundaries or territories of hunting plot unit, wherein
one permits to hunt;
4) upon the receipt of respective proposal of the persons
drafting a project on hunting administration.
3. Projects on forming hunting plot units and changing
their boundaries shall be prepared in every municipality by the
commission established by the mayor of respective municipality,
which shall comprise the representatives of administration of
the municipality, institutions supervising the environmental
protection, land administration, and public forests, public
organisations of hunters that unite clubs and groups of
hunters, as well as self-government organisations of land and
forest owners. The regulations of activity of the Commission on
Formation of Hunting Plot Units and Changing Their Boundaries
shall be approved by the Ministries of Environment and
Agriculture.
4. Phases of forming of hunting plot unit or changing its
boundaries:
1) submitting a proposal on forming of hunting plot unit
or changing its boundaries;
2) collecting of legal information and preparation of
graphic and ecologic data about the hunting plot unit which is
proposed to be formed or changed;
3) publication of information about the drafted
preliminary project on forming of hunting plot unit or changing
its boundaries in the national and local press;
4) approval of the project on forming of hunting plot unit
or changing its boundaries.
5. Proposals on forming of hunting plot units or changing
their boundaries may be submitted to the commission specified
in Paragraph 3 of this article by:
1) the Ministry of Environment or institutions authorised
by it-in cases related to scientific and educational hunting
plot units and professional hunting plot units, as well as
hunting plot units of common use, if a respective proposal has
been received from the persons drafting a project on hunting
administration;
2) the Ministry of Agriculture or institutions authorised
by it-in cases related to hunting plot units within the
territory of fishing ponds;
3) private or legal persons-in cases related to hunting
plot units of common use.
6. Hunting plot units may be formed and their boundaries
may be changed upon the initiative of the commission specified
in Paragraph 3 of this article, when it is necessary in order
to ensure the requirements set forth in Paragraph 1 of this
article.
7. Professional hunting plot units as well as scientific
and educational hunting plot units shall be formed in the
territories, in which the state owned land exceeds 50 percent,
and in other territories, which are necessary in order to
achieve the objectives set from the point of view of hunting
administration.
8. Fishing ponds, in which hunting is developed under
certain restrictions, shall comprise industrial fishing ponds,
the territories and area of which are approved by the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as other
fishing ponds, a continuous territory of which is at least 150
ha. In such territories, upon the proposal of the Ministry of
Agriculture, special hunting plot units may be formed, in which
users of fishing ponds, upon the procedure established in the
Rules of Hunting in the Territory of the Republic of Lithuania,
shall regulate the abundance of fish eating birds and hunt
small huntable animals.
9. Having drafted a preliminary project on forming of
hunting plot units or changing their boundaries, the commission
specified in Paragraph 3 of this article shall announce this
fact in a national and local press and shall set a 1 month
period, during which the persons indicated in Paragraph 2 of
Article 13 of this Law may submit to the commission of a
respective municipality written requirements, and other
concerned private or legal persons-proposals concerning the
project on forming of hunting plot units or changing its
boundaries. Such written proposals and requirements shall be
submitted to the commission set forth in Paragraph 3 of this
article directly or through wards, in which the land lots owned
by the persons who submit proposals or requirements are
located. When the owner of a land lot changes, such petition
must be submitted through the ward, in which the land lot is
located, within 1 month from the date of registration of the
ownership right at the Real Estate Registry. The commission
indicated in Paragraph 3 of this article shall mark in the plan
of the hunting plot unit the territories, in which hunting is
prohibited according to Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of this Law
until the expiry of the period specified by the persons who set
these requirements. Fees for the use of resources of huntable
animals in the hunting plot unit shall be reduced in proportion
to the size of such territories, still the establishment of
these restrictions shall not disturb the integrity of hunting
plot units.
10. Upon expiry of the period established in Paragraph 9
of this article, the Commission on Formation of Hunting Plot
Units and Changing Their Boundaries, after examining the
received requirements or proposals and assessing whether they
are in compliance with the requirements provided for in
Paragraph 1 of this article, shall decide whether it is
expedient to take account of the received proposals, it shall
amend, if needed, the project on forming of the hunting plot
unit or changing its boundaries, and within 1 month submit this
project for approval to the head of a respective county. The
plan of the hunting plot unit with marked territories, in which
one permits hunting and in which one prohibits hunting, as well
as an annex concerning the size of hunting plot units and their
distribution according to suitability for inhabitation and
reproduction of huntable animals, shall constitute an
inseparable part of forming of a hunting plot unit or changing
its boundaries.
11. Projects on forming of hunting plot units, which are
proposed to be established within a territory of more than one
municipality, shall be drafted together with respective
commissions of other municipalities. If the boundaries of one
hunting plot unit exceed the boundaries of one county, the
project on forming such hunting plot unit must be approved in
the counties, to the territory of which it intrudes."
3.3. It is established in Article 13 "Rights of the Owners
of Land Lots, Related to Formation of Hunting plot units and
Use of Resources of Huntable Animals in Them" of the Law on
Hunting:
"1. Upon agreement of the users of hunting plots, the
owner of a private land lot, who has a hunter's licence, shall
have the right to hunt, according to the procedure established
in the Rules of Hunting in the Territory of the Republic of
Lithuania, together with users of hunting plots in all hunting
plot units, into which the land lot owned by him intrudes.
2. The owner of a private land lot, whose land is intended
to be assigned to a hunting plot unit according to the
procedure established in Article 8 of this Law, shall have the
right to prohibit hunting in the land owned by him, if
agricultural crops or forest will suffer damage during the
hunting. In case a project on forming of hunting plot units or
changing their boundaries is being prepared, he must inform the
commission acting upon the procedure established in Article 8
of this Law about it in writing within the period set forth in
Paragraph 9 of Article 8 of this Law.
3. The owner of a land lot or several communicating land
lots, in which hunting is not prohibited and total area of
which exceeds 1000 ha, may submit to the commission provided
for in Article 8 of this Law a petition requesting to recognise
these lots as a hunting plot unit, which meets requirements
established in Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of this Law. If the
land plots are recognised as a hunting plot unit, and formation
of such hunting plot does not disturb the neighbouring hunting
plot units, and, according to the requirements of Paragraph 1
of Article 10, permission to use resources of huntable animals
in the hunting plot unit may be issued to their owner, a
project on forming of hunting plot units is made and approved
pursuant to the procedure established in Article 8 of this Law,
and a permission to use resources of huntable animals in
hunting plot unit is issued without tender, which is provided
for in Paragraph 2 of Article 10."
3.4. It is established in Article 18 "Recovery of Damage
Inflicted by Huntable Animals" of the Law on Hunting:
"1. Damage inflicted by huntable animals that exist in
freedom to the owners, administrators or users of land, forest
and water bodies shall be recovered, in cases provided for in
Paragraphs 3 and 4 of this article, by the users of hunting
plots or, on behalf of the state, the institutions specified in
Paragraph 4 of this article, unless it is proven that damage
occurred due to force majeure circumstances, intentional
actions of the aggrieved person or other actions indicated in
Article 6.253 of the Civil Code.
2. Damage inflicted by huntable animals that exist in
freedom shall be calculated by a commission on damage
assessment, which shall be formed by a mayor of respective
municipality, pursuant to the Method of Calculation of Damage
Inflicted by Huntable Animals to Agricultural Crops and Forest
which was approved by the Ministries of Environment and
Agriculture.
3. Damage inflicted by huntable animals that exist in
freedom to the owners, administrators or users of land, forest
and water bodies, in which hunting is not prohibited, where it
is related to the damage to agricultural crops, forests and
hydrotechnical equipment, shall be recovered by the user of
hunting plots in the following cases:
1) damage on agricultural crops or hydrotechnical
equipment is inflicted by hoofed animals or beavers, where
their hunting is not prohibited during the whole year;
2) hoofed animals and beavers inflict damage on forest, if
their hunting is not prohibited for the whole year, if a part
of severely damaged or destroyed types of trees meant for
specific purpose in young forests, calculated pursuant to the
Method of Calculation of Damage Inflicted by Huntable Animals
to Agricultural Crops and Forest approved by the Ministries of
Environment and Agriculture, exceeds 20 percent or a part of
severely damaged perspective trees meant for specific purpose
in elder forests exceeds 10 percent, and if limits of hunt of
animals, whose hunt is limited, are not achieved.
4. Upon the procedure established in the Law on Program of
Promotion of Environment Protection and Regulations of the
Municipal Environment Protection Fund, institutions that are
specified in these legal acts, on behalf of the state, shall
recover damage inflicted by huntable animals that exist in
freedom to the owners, administrators or users of land, forest
and water bodies, in which hunting is not prohibited, where the
damage to agricultural crops, forests and hydrotechnical
equipment was made by huntable animals, the hunting of which is
prohibited for the whole year.
5. The owners, administrators or users of land, forest and
water bodies, in which hunting is not prohibited, must
immediately inform a respective ward about damage inflicted by
huntable animals that exist in freedom by sending written
petition on assessment and recovery of damage no later than
within 3 working days from the date of noticing the damage.
Upon receipt of a notice about the inflicted damage, the
administrator of the ward must on the same day inform the user
of the hunting plots and within 7 days and organise an
assessment of the damage, save the cases where the size of
damage, due to its type, may be assessed only upon the expiry
of 7 days period.
6. Recovery of funds for the damage inflicted by huntable
animals that exists in freedom must be paid within one month
from the date of calculation of the size of damage. The party
which does not agree with the calculated size of damage shall
have the right to appeal to court against the decision of
commission on assessment of damage upon the procedure
established by the Law on Administrative Proceedings.
7. Damage inflicted by huntable animals shall not be
recovered, if it is made in land lots, the owner of which has
prohibited hunting according to the procedure established in
Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of this Law.
8. Damage inflicted by huntable animals to owners,
administrators and users of land lots, whose crops were
damaged, shall be recovered, if the owner of agricultural crops
grows the crops pursuant to agrotechnical requirements and
applies measures of protection of crops from damage that is
inflicted by huntable animals, which are approved in the Method
of Calculation of Damage Inflicted by Huntable Animals to
Agricultural Crops and Forest."
After amending Paragraph 2 of Article 18 (wording of 20
June 2002) of the Law on Hunting made by Article 3 of the Law
on Amending Articles 6, 12, and 18 of the Law on Hunting, which
was passed by the Seimas on 10 June 2003 and became effective
on 1 January 2004, this paragraph was set forth as follows:
"Upon the procedure established in the Law on Program of
Promotion of Environment Protection and the Law on Special
Municipal Program of Promotion of Environment Protection,
institutions that are specified in these legal acts, on behalf
of the state, shall recover damage inflicted by huntable
animals that exist in freedom to the owners, administrators or
users of land, forest and water bodies, in which hunting is not
prohibited, where the damage to agricultural crops, forests and
hydrotechnical equipment was made by huntable animals, the
hunting of which is prohibited for the whole year."
4. The disputed by the petitioner provisions of the Law on
Hunting related to prohibition of hunting, size of hunting plot
units and non-recovery of damage inflicted by huntable animals
are linked also with provisions set forth in other articles of
the Law on Hunting, which regulate in various aspects the
relations of hunting and those linked therewith, in particular
the provisions that consolidate the notion the huntable animals
and establish their legal status (inter alia their relation
with the institute of ownership), the right to use resources of
huntable animals that consolidate the notion of the hunting
plot unit, establish rights and duties of users of hunting
plots, as well as rights of owners of land lots located in
hunting plots, etc.
4.1. In Paragraph 8 of Article 2 of the Law on Hunting,
hunting is defined as "protection of huntable animals and their
rational use in accordance with this Law, other legal acts
regulating the hunting, and by paying heed to the ecological
conditions of the hunting plots, ethical norms and traditions
of the national hunting culture"; in Paragraph 9 of this
article hunt is defined as "type of use of resources of
wildlife, when one strives to use resources of huntable animals
that exist in freedom by way of following, waiting, tracking,
shooting or catching"; in Paragraph 7 of this article huntable
animals are defined as "wild animals, who are considered in the
Rules of Hunting in the Territory of the Republic of Lithuania
to be huntable due to values based on public and personal
objectives and having taken account of traditions of national
culture of hunting."
It is established in Article 3 of the Law on Hunting inter
alia that huntable animals that exist in freedom belong to the
state by right of ownership (Paragraph 1), that huntable
animals that exist in freedom, who were caught or shot in
accordance with this Law or other legal acts, become the
ownership of user of the hunting plots that has caught or shot
them, save the hunting trophies which belong by right of
ownership to the person who has huntable the huntable animal
(Paragraph 2), as well as that huntable animals that exist in
captivity belong by right of ownership to private or legal
person, who has purchased them (Paragraph 3).
On the other hand, pursuant to Paragraph 7 of Article 2 of
the Law on Hunting, huntable animals are subjects to limited
civil turnover.
4.2. It has been mentioned that according to Paragraph 7
of Article 2 of the Law on Hunting, huntable animals are wild
animals that "are considered in the Rules of Hunting in the
Territory of the Republic of Lithuania to be huntable due to
values based on public and personal objectives and having taken
account of traditions of national culture of hunting", and
according to Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 11 (wording of 11
December 2001) of the Law on Wildlife, hunting is one of the
types of use of resources of wildlife. The right of use of
resources of huntable animals that is entrenched in the Law on
Hunting, comprises inter alia the right to hunt (or the hunting
right), which is consolidated in legal acts that were in force
prior to the date of coming into effect of the Law on Hunting
as well.
According to the Law on Hunting, the right to use
resources of huntable animals that exist in freedom is granted
by environmental protection departments for the regions at the
Ministry of Environment, by issuing a permission to use
resources of huntable animals in hunting plot units (Paragraph
1 of Article 4). In homesteads and non-residential buildings
and their pertinent, owners, administrators and users of these
objects have the right, without paying heed of the terms of
hunting specified in the Rules of Hunting in the Territory of
the Republic of Lithuania, by applying permissible measures of
catching, which are provided for in these rules, for catching
and taking raptorial huntable animals and "crow" type birds of
the species for which the above-mentioned rules set a
permissible term of hunting; this activity shall not be
considered hunting and a person engaged in it has no obligation
to be hunter (Paragraph 3 of Article 4).
Permission to use resources of huntable animals in a
particular hunting plot unit is issued to private or legal
persons, who meet requirements established in the Law on
Hunting, by environmental protection departments for the
regions at the Ministry of Environment upon the procedure
established by the Ministry of Environment, by organising a
tender on issuance of permission to use resources of huntable
animals in the hunting plot unit (save the specified cases)
(Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 10). Permission to use resources
of huntable animals in the hunting plot unit is issued only to
one user of hunting plot units for the period of at least 10
years (Paragraph 3 of Article 10). Upon the expiry of the
period of the permission to use resources of huntable animals
in hunting plot unit for which it was issued, the permission
may be extended in cases where the recipient of the permission
duly performed all the conditions specified therein and, upon
the expiry of the permission, within the period of 2 months
submitted a petition requesting to extend the period of
validity thereof (Paragraph 5 of Article 10). In Article 11 of
the Law on Hunting one establishes the bases of expiry of the
permission to use resources of huntable animals in a hunting
plot unit (Paragraph 1), as well as bases for annulment of the
permission to use resources of huntable animals in a hunting
plot unit (Paragraph 2).
5. The disputed by the petitioner provisions of the Law on
Hunting related to prohibition of hunting, size of hunting plot
units and non-recovery of damage inflicted by huntable animals
are linked also with provisions of the Law on Hunting, which
are aimed at ensuring a transition from relations of hunting
and those linked therewith, based on former legal regulation,
to relations of hunting and those linked therewith, based on
the legal regulation established by the Law on Hunting. These
provisions are set forth in Articles 22 and 23 of the Law on
Hunting.
5.1. It is established in Article 22 "Implementation of
Articles 8 and 10 of this Law" of the Law on Hunting:
"1. The Commission on Formation of Hunting Plot Units and
Changing Their Boundaries, specified in Paragraph 3 of Article
8 of this Law, must be established in the indicated manner in
each municipality no later than within 2 months from the date
of coming into effect of this Law.
2. The users of hunting plots, who used hunting plots
prior to the date of coming into effect of this Law and who
used them without violating requirements of legal acts, until 1
April 2003 shall submit petitions to the commission indicated
in Paragraph 3 of Article 8 of this Law, and hunting plots used
by them shall be recognised hunting plot units and permissions
to hunt resources of huntable animals that exist in them shall
be issued while following the continuity of use of hunting
plots, and in accordance with the procedure established in this
article.
3. The users of hunting plots that are indicated in
Paragraph 2 of this Law, together with respective petition must
submit the following:
1) agreement on hunting plot lease, which is registered
upon the procedure established in the Regulations on Hunting in
the Republic of Lithuania, concluded with the owners and
administrators of land lots prior to the date of coming into
effect of the Law on Amending the Law on Wildlife (29 December
2001), including schemes of leased hunting plots;
2) documents attesting the allocation of hunting plots
located in a state-owned territory (only in case of
professional hunting plots and plots for scientific and
educational hunting);
3) written minutes of approval of boundaries of hunting
plots by the users of all communicating hunting plots, if any
were made, according to which one approves factual boundaries
of hunting plot units, or, on the basis of these minutes, the
users of communicating hunting plots correct boundaries of
hunting plots in order to achieve objectives set forth in
Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of this Law;
4) other documents attesting the lawful use of hunting
plots.
4. The commission indicated in Paragraph 3 of Article 8 of
this Law, when adopting decision on territories that are
proposed to be included in hunting plot unit, if no documents
specified in Item 1 of Paragraph 3 of this article related to
the use of them are submitted, or not all documents are
submitted, shall take into account proposals made in the
documents that are indicated in Item 3 of Paragraph 3 of this
article or set boundaries of hunting plot unit while taking
account of the objectives set forth in Paragraph 1 of Article 8
of this Law.
5. Boundaries of hunting plots, which were in use prior to
the date of coming into effect of this Law in accordance with
the documents specified in Paragraph 3 of this article and
which where in compliance with the requirements of Paragraph 1
of Article 8 of the Law, may not be changed, save the cases
where users of communicating hunting plot units, while seeking
the objectives of Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of this Law, by
written minutes of approval of boundaries of hunting plots
request to establish different boundaries.
6. Users of hunting plots comprising less than 1000 ha may
agree with users of communicating hunting plots concerning the
increase of hunting plots up to 1000 ha or merger of these
plots, by consolidating this fact in the document specified in
Item 3 of Paragraph 3 of this article and submitting a joint
petition to the commission indicated in Paragraph 3 of Article
8 of this Law on recognising the hunting plots as a hunting
plot unit. In case of failure to reach an agreement on increase
of the hunting plot unit so that it reaches the specified size
by 1 April 2003, the final decision on setting boundaries of
hunting plot units, while taking into account objectives
established in Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of this Law, shall be
made by the aforementioned commission.
7. Before recognising the hunting plots as hunting plot
units under the continuity of their use, one must follow the
conditions specified in Paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 of Article 8
of this Law.
8. Hunting plot units in hunting plots, where no petitions
specified in Paragraph 2 of this article concerning the
inclusion of which into hunting plot units have been submitted
by 1 April 2003, shall be established or such plots shall be
attached to other already formed hunting plot units in
accordance with the procedure established in Article 8 of this
Law.
9. Permissions to the users of hunting plots, whose
hunting plots have been recognised hunting plot units according
to the procedure established in this article, to use resources
of huntable animals in these units shall be issues without
arranging the tender indicated in Paragraph 2 of Article 10 of
this Law."
5.2. It is established in Article 23 "Proposals to the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania" of the Law on Hunting:
"The Government of the Republic of Lithuania, while taking into
account the terms of coming into effect of this Law and certain
articles thereof, shall draft and approve legal acts that are
necessary for implementation of this Law."
6. When deciding, whether the disputed by the petitioner
provisions of the Law on Hunting are not in conflict with the
Constitution, one must find out, what model of planning and
organisation of hunting, thus relations of hunting and those
linked therewith as well, is consolidated in the Law on
Hunting.
7. It has been mentioned that in the Law on Hunting,
hunting is considered to be "protection of huntable animals and
their rational use in accordance with this Law, other legal
acts regulating the hunting, and by paying heed to the
ecological conditions of the hunting plots, ethical norms and
traditions of the national hunting culture" (Paragraph 8 of
Article 2). Apart from the notion "hunting", the notion "hunt"
is used in the Law on Hunting as well: hunt is defined as "type
of use of resources of wildlife, when one strives to use
resources of huntable animals that exist in freedom by way of
following, waiting, tracking, shooting or catching" (Paragraph
9 of Article 2).
Thus, according to the Law on Hunting, hunt constitutes
one of the elements of the institute of hunting; the notion
"hunting" that is used in the Law on Hunting comprises also the
notion "hunt" that is used in this law as well.
8. According to the Law on Hunting, hunting is planned and
organised in hunting plot units. In the Law on Hunting, a
hunting plot unit is defined as "a continuous territory of
hunting plots, which is formed in accordance with the
principles of administration of hunting upon the procedure
established in this Law, and in which one plans and organises
the use of resources of huntable animals" (Paragraph 14 of
Article 2). Thus, only the territories which under the Law on
Hunting are considered to be hunting plots may be included in
hunting plot units. In the Law on Hunting, hunting plots (from
which hunting plot units are formed) are defined as "land,
forest and water bodies, in which hunt may take place upon the
procedure established in the Law" (Paragraph 11 of Article 2).
8.1. It is established in Paragraph 1 of Article 7
"Hunting Plots and Territories, Wherein Hunting is Prohibited"
of the Law on Hunting that "All the territories shall be
considered hunting plots and hunting shall be permitted
therein, save the territories specified in Paragraph 2 of this
article", that indicates territories in which hunting is
prohibited. Thus, hunting plots are defined not in positive,
but in negative manner: the notion "hunting plot" comprises any
territory that is not indicated in Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of
this Law (area of land, forest or water body), in which hunting
is not prohibited. It is established in Paragraph 2 of Article
7 of the Law on Hunting that hunting is prohibited in: (1)
cemeteries, urban territories, national parks located in
national reservations and biospheric reservations, minor
reservations and other territories where this activity is
prohibited by laws and other legal acts; (2) land lots located
in the hunting plots, if their owners have prohibited hunting
therein upon the procedure established in Paragraph 2 of
Article 13 of the Law on Hunting; (3) other territories, in
which one may not hunt due to local conditions and which are
specified by the institutions forming hunting plot units upon
the procedure set forth in Article 8 of the Law on Hunting.
It is to be held that the territories specified in Item 1
of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Law on Hunting (cemeteries,
urban territories, national parks located in national
reservations and biospheric reservations, minor reservations
and other territories where this activity is prohibited by laws
and other legal acts), as well as the territories indicated in
Item 3 of this paragraph (other territories, in which one may
not hunt due to local conditions and which are specified by the
institutions forming hunting plot units upon the procedure set
forth in Article 8 of the Law on Hunting) are not to be
considered as hunting plots.
The land lots specified in Item 2 of Paragraph 2 of
Article 7 of the Law on Hunting, in which their owners have
prohibited hunting upon the procedure established in Paragraph
2 of Article 13 of the Law on Hunting, are to be assessed
differently.
When construing the title of Article 7 "Hunting Plots and
Territories, Wherein Hunting is Prohibited" of the Law on
Hunting only literally (by applying linguistic, verbal method
of law construction only), one could state that, purportedly,
all territories in this law are divided into hunting plots and
territories, in which hunting is prohibited, as follows:
hunting plots are all territories (areas of land, forest and
water bodies), in which hunting is not prohibited (i.e. all
territories that are not specified in Paragraph 2 of Article 7
of the Law on Hunting), while territories, in which hunting is
prohibited (i.e. all territories specified in Paragraph 2 of
Article 7 of the Law on Hunting), are considered to be hunting
plots. One may state the same while literally construing the
provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Law on Hunting
"All the territories shall be considered hunting plots and
hunting shall be permitted therein, save the territories
specified in Paragraph 2 of this article" as well.
When construing the legal regulation established in the
Law on Hunting in this way, the land lots indicated in Item 2
of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of this law, in which their owners
have prohibited hunting pursuant to the procedure set forth in
Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law on Hunting, should not be
considered as hunting plots.
On the other hand, if construing the title of Article 7
"Hunting Plots and Territories, Wherein Hunting is Prohibited"
of the Law on Hunting and the provision of Paragraph 1 of this
law in the above mentioned manner (only literally,
linguistically) one would fail to take into account the
provision "Hunting shall be prohibited in <...> (2) land lots
located in the hunting plots, if their owners have prohibited
hunting therein upon the procedure established in Paragraph 2
of Article 13 of the Law" of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the
Law on Hunting. The formula "land lots located in the hunting
plots" of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Law on Hunting
implies that land lots, whose owners have prohibited hunting
therein upon the procedure established in Paragraph 2 of
Article 13 of the Law on Hunting, that are located in hunting
plots specified in Item 2 of this paragraph, are to be
considered hunting plots as well. It is worth mentioning in
this context that the owner of private land, according to
Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law on Hunting, has the right
to prohibit hunting in the land owned by him, if agricultural
crops or forest shall suffer damage during the hunting (upon
informing the respective commission of his decision in writing
within the established time period). Land lots indicated in
Item 2 of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Law on Hunting are
the land lots, in which, upon the procedure established in the
Law on Hunting, one might hunt, however, having made use of the
right established in Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law on
Hunting, the owners of which have prohibited hunting therein.
Thus, the prohibition to the owner of a private land lot to
hunt in the land lot that he owns, which is provided for in the
Law on Hunting, does not mean that this land lot should not be
considered as a hunting plot in which, if no prohibition of the
owner exists, one may hunt as per procedure established in the
Law on Hunting. In this regard the land lots indicated in Item
2 of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Law on Hunting match the
definition of the notion of hunting plots that is presented in
Paragraph 11 of Article 2 of this law.
It is to be held that the legal regime of land lots
indicated in Item 2 of Paragraph 2 of Article of the Law on
Hunting, which are located in hunting plots, if their owners
have not prohibited hunting therein upon the procedure
established in Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law on Hunting,
is fundamentally different from that of territories indicated
in Item 1 of this paragraph (cemeteries, urban territories,
national parks located in national reservations and biospheric
reservations, minor reservations and other territories where
this activity is prohibited by laws and other legal acts) as
well as territories indicated in Item 3 of this paragraph
(other territories, in which one may not hunt due to local
conditions and which are specified by the institutions forming
hunting plot units upon the procedure set forth in Article 8 of
the Law on Hunting).
The legal regulation which is established in Article 7 of
the Law on Hunting, where one makes an attempt to join
basically different legal categories into one norm of the Law
on Hunting and to regulate basically different relations, is
controversial and equivocal; it should be corrected in essence.
8.2. It is worth stressing that in order to reveal the
concept of hunting plots and hunting plot units, which is
consolidated in the Law on Hunting, inter alia to construe the
legal regulation established in Article 7 of the law, it is not
sufficient to apply solely the verbal method of construction,
one should apply other methods of law construction, including
teleological and systemic, as well.
8.3. When construing teleogically the concept of hunting
plots and hunting plot units, which is consolidated in the Law
on Hunting (inter alia in Article 7), one must pay heed to the
objectives of the legal regulation established in this law and
the purpose of this law, which is defined in this law itself,
as it has been already mentioned, as follows: "<...> establish
public relations linked to the protection of huntable wildlife
that exists in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania and
its rational use" (Article 1).
The objectives and purpose of the legal regulation
established in the Law on Hunting are revealed in various
aspects by various provisions thereof, inter alia the ones that
regulate the formation of hunting plot units and drafting of
projects on hunting administration, for example: hunting is
protection of huntable animals and their rational use inter
alia by taking into account the ecologic conditions of hunting
plots (Paragraph 8 of Article 2); formation of hunting plot
units is "establishment of area and boundaries of the
territory, in which private or legal person, while having a
permission to use resources of huntable animals in the hunting,
may plan and organise the use of resources of huntable animals
as well as protection of huntable animals" (Paragraph 15 of
Article 2); "Hunting plot units are formed and their boundaries
are changed according to the principles of hunting, by
ensuring, alongside, a rational use of the populations of
huntable animals, sufficient protection of huntable animals and
orderly and safe their hunt, as well as by ensuring that a more
grave damage inflicted by huntable animals to the objects of
economic activity of a person is avoided" (Paragraph 1 of
Article 8); criteria of integrity of hunting plot units and
requirements for establishment of boundaries of hunting plot
units are approved by the Ministry of Environment in accordance
with the following principles: (1) boundaries of hunting plot
units must match clear natural or artificial margins, they must
be in a prominent places, however, they may not be set in the
outskirts of a wood; (2) roads, railway sections, electricity
lines, natural and artificial water streams and other similar
objects, if their shape, size and constructions or equipment
located in them do not prevent from organising a hunting, do
not disturb the integrity of hunting plot units, however, they
may not be considered to be a longitudinal junction between
separate distant parts of the hunting plot unit (Paragraph 1 of
Article 8); "at least every 10 years the projects on hunting
administration must be prepared for all hunting plot units that
are formed upon the procedure established in Article 8 of this
Law, in which, upon investigation of bio-ecological conditions
of hunting plots and their changes, one shall establish: (1)
fundamental conditions of use of huntable animals (minimum and
maximum permitted abundance of huntable animals, compulsory
biotechnical measures and other conditions, which are necessary
in order to maintain viable populations of huntable animals and
avoid grave damage that is inflicted by these animals upon
land, forest and fishing farms, as well as other objects of
economic activity of a person; (2) proposals to change
boundaries of hunting plot units, if it is necessary in order
to ensure rational use of resources of huntable animals and by
taking into account the changes of use of the territory"
(Paragraph 1 of Article 9); etc.
These provisions of the Law on Hunting reveal that by
hunting plots and hunting plot units, as the elements of model
of planning and organisation of hunting that is consolidated in
the Law on Hunting, one strives to create pre-requisites for
the rational use of populations of huntable animals, to ensure
their viability and protection, and to use huntable animals in
a rational way.
Thus, it is to be held in this regard, i.e. rational
management of huntable animals' populations and rational use of
huntable animals, that certain territory (area of land lots,
forests, water bodies), under the Law on Hunting, is considered
to be a hunting plot, this means that according to the
aforementioned law this territory is subject to certain legal
regime: under the Law on Hunting these territories in general
may be used for hunt. However, hunting is not permitted in all
territories, which are treated as hunting plots; in order to
use the hunting plots for factual hunting, it is necessary to
include them, upon the procedure established in the Law on
Hunting, into a certain hunting plot unit. Hunting may not be
planned and organised in the hunting plots that are not
included into hunting plot units.
It is to be held also that in regard to rational
management of populations of huntable animals and rational use
of huntable animals, allocation of hunting plots to particular
hunting units means that territories, that are considered to be
hunting plots as per Law on Hunting, are divided into certain
territorial units-hunting plot units, in which hunting may be
planned and organised in the manner enabling one to manage
populations of huntable animals, ensure their viability and
protection, as well as rational use of huntable animals.
According to the Law on Hunting, one may not include in the
hunting plot units the territories in which, despite their
compliance with the attributes of hunting plots, objectives of
legal regulation established in the Law on Hunting would not be
achieved-the populations of huntable animals are not managed,
their viability and protections is not ensured, huntable
animals are not used in a rational way-when planning and
organising the hunting.
8.4. In this context one should state once again that the
criteria of integrity of a hunting plot unit and requirements
for setting boundaries of hunting plot units are approved by
the Ministry of Environment (Paragraph 1 of Article 8). One
should note also that projects on formation of hunting plot
units (and changing their boundaries) are made in every
municipality by a commission established by the mayor of
respective municipality, which includes representatives of
administration of the municipality, institutions supervising
the environmental protection, land administration, and public
forests, public organisations of hunters that unite clubs and
groups of hunters, as well as self-government organisations of
land and forest owners (Paragraph 3 of Article 8); projects on
forming of hunting plot units or changing their boundaries are
submitted for approval to the administrator of respective
county (Paragraph 10 of Article 8); projects on forming of
hunting plot units, which are proposed to be established within
a territory of more than one municipality, are drafted together
with respective commissions of other municipalities, and if the
boundaries of one hunting plot unit exceed the boundaries of
one county, the project on forming such hunting plot unit must
be approved in the counties, to the territory of which it
intrudes (Paragraph 11 of Article 8).
Thus, it is to be held that the legislator chose and
entrenched in the Law on Hunting such model of planning and
organising the hunting, and relations of hunting and those
linked thereto, where the issue, whether certain territories
that are considered to be hunting plots pursuant to the Law on
Hunting are to be included in respective hunting plot units, is
decided by national or municipal institutions provided for in
the Law on Hunting. In order to include certain hunting plots
into hunting plot units, they must be continuous and formed in
accordance with the principles of hunting administration. By
such legal regulation one strives to ensure that hunting takes
place only in such hunting plots, where populations of huntable
animals are administered while planning and organising the
hunt, and their viability and protection is ensured, and
huntable animals are used in a rational way, i.e. it would be
possible to achieve objectives of legal regulation established
in the Law on Hunting.
8.5. When construing the concept of hunting plots and
hunting plot units that is consolidated in the Law on Hunting
(inter alia Article 7), one should take into account provisions
of Article 8 of this law.
According to Paragraph 9 of Article 8 of the Law on
Hunting, "the commission <...> shall mark the territories, in
which hunting is prohibited according to Paragraph 2 of Article
13 of this Law, <...> in the plan of the hunting plot unit",
and according to Paragraph 10 of this article "the plan of the
hunting plot unit with marked territories, in which one permits
hunting and in which one prohibits hunting <...> shall
constitute an inseparable part of forming of a hunting plot
unit or changing its boundaries".
It has been mentioned that it is only the territories
considered to be hunting plots pursuant to the Law on Hunting,
which may be included in hunting plot units. It was mentioned
also that the territories indicated in Item 1 of Paragraph 2 of
Article 7 of the Law on Hunting (cemeteries, urban territories,
national parks located in national reservations and biospheric
reservations, minor reservations and other territories where
this activity is prohibited by laws and other legal acts), as
well as territories indicated in item 3 of this paragraph
(other territories, in which one may not hunt due to local
conditions and which are specified by the institutions forming
hunting plot units upon the procedure set forth in Article 8 of
the Law on Hunting) are not considered to be hunting plots.
Despite the fact of being marked in the plan of respective
hunting plot unit, they are not and they may not be considered
a part of hunting plot unit.
The land plots indicated in Item 2 of Paragraph 2 of
Article 7 of the Law on Hunting, in which their owners have
prohibited hunting therein upon the procedure established in
Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law on Hunting, are to be
considered differently. It was mentioned that these land lots
match the definition of the concept of hunting plots that is
presented in Paragraph 11 of Article 2 of this law. These are
the land lots, in which one might hunt upon the procedure
established by the Law on Hunting, however, the owners of
which, having made use of the right consolidated in Paragraph 2
of Article 13 of the Law on Hunting, prohibited hunting
therein, and in which, if the owners place no prohibition, one
might hunt upon the procedure established in the Law on
Hunting. They may be included in respective hunting plot units
and comprise a part of hunting plot unit.
When construing Article 7 of the Law on Hunting in the
context of Paragraphs 9 and 10 of Article 8 of this law, it is
to be held that one may include in the hunting plot units both
hunting plots, in which hunting is not prohibited, and the land
lots, which are considered to be hunting plots as per this law,
(which are indicated in Item 2 of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of
this law), but in which their owners have prohibited hunting
upon the procedure established in Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of
the Law on Hunting. The issue whether particular hunting plots
may be included in the hunting plot units, and, if they may, in
which namely, is decided by national and municipal institutions
provided for in the Law on Hunting.
8.6. Thus, from the general legal regulation consolidated
in the Law on Hunting, a conclusion is to be made that in this
law all territories (areas of land, forest, and water bodies)
according to the possibility of hunting therein are divided
into: (1) territories, in which hunting is prohibited pursuant
to this law and which are not considered to be hunting plots;
(2) territories, which are considered to be hunting plots as
per this law. The aforementioned areas, in their turn, cover:
(1) hunting plots, in which hunting is not prohibited; (2) land
lots that are located in hunting plots, whose owners have
prohibited hunting therein upon the procedure established in
Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law on Hunting.
9. In the Law on Hunting one has consolidated requirements
of integrity and minimum size of the formed hunting plot units:
a hunting plot unit must comprise at least 1000 ha of
continuous hunting area, save the cases where smaller hunting
plot units are established for scientific and education
purposes upon the proposal of the Ministry of Environment, or
where such units are established in the territories of fishery
ponds upon the proposal of the Ministry of Agriculture
(Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Law on Hunting). Exceptions
are the fishing ponds, the total area of which may be at least
150 ha (Paragraph 8 of Article 8).
It is to be held that the Law on Hunting provides for such
legal regulation, where if certain territorial unit that is
formed from hunting plots meets only one aforementioned
criterion (integrity or minimum size), such hunting plot unit
could not be formed and approved.
10. In the Law on Hunting one has established procedure of
forming hunting plot units and changing their boundaries.
Hunting plot units are formed and their boundaries are changed
in the following cases: (1) when they are formed in the hunting
plots, in which, pursuant to the requirements of this law, no
hunting plot units have been formed or where the users of the
existing hunting plots refused using them; (2) by splitting or
merging the existing hunting plot units, where such formation
is performed upon the agreement of users of hunting plots and
for the purposes established in Paragraph 1 of this article
(i.e. when one strives to ensure rational use of populations of
huntable animals, sufficient protection of huntable animals,
orderly and safe their hunting, as well as to avoid more
significant damage inflicted by huntable animals on the objects
of economic activity of a person); (3) when, upon the
establishment of new protected territories according to the Law
on Protected Territories or upon changing the boundaries of
existing protected territories wherein it is prohibited to
hunt, one must provide more details about boundaries or
territories of hunting plot unit, wherein one permits to hunt;
(4) upon the receipt of respective proposal of the persons
drafting a project on hunting administration (Paragraph 2 of
Article 8). It has been mentioned that projects on Formation of
Hunting Plot Units and Changing Their Boundaries in every
municipality are drafted by the commission established by the
mayor of respective municipality, which shall comprise the
representatives of administration of the municipality,
institutions supervising the environmental protection, land
administration, and public forests, public organisations of
hunters that unite clubs and groups of hunters, as well as
self-government organisations of land and forest owners. The
regulations of activity of the Commission on Formation of
Hunting Plot Units and Changing Their Boundaries are approved
by the Ministries of Environment and Agriculture (Paragraph 3
of Article 8). Proposals on forming of hunting plot units or
changing their boundaries may be submitted to the
abovementioned commission by: (1) the Ministry of Environment
or institutions authorised by it-in cases related to scientific
and educational hunting plot units and professional hunting
plot units, as well as hunting plot units of common use, if a
respective proposal has been received from the persons drafting
a project on hunting administration; (2) the Ministry of
Agriculture or institutions authorised by it-in cases related
to hunting plot units within the territory of fishing ponds;
(3) private or legal persons-in cases related to hunting plot
units of common use (Paragraph 5 of Article 8). Hunting plot
units may be formed and their boundaries may be changed upon
the initiative of the aforementioned commission, when it is
necessary in order to ensure the requirements set forth in
Paragraph 1 of Article 8 (Paragraph 6 of Article 8), i.e. when
one strives to ensure rational use of populations of huntable
animals, sufficient protection of huntable animals, orderly and
safe their hunting, as well as avoid more significant damage
inflicted by huntable animals on the objects of economic
activity of a person. Having drafted a preliminary project on
forming of hunting plot units or changing their boundaries, the
commission announces this fact in the national and local press
and sets a 1 month period, during which the persons indicated
in Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of this law (i.e. owners private
land lots, whose land is intended to be allocated or is
allocated to hunting plot unit) may submit to the commission of
a respective municipality written requirements, and other
concerned private or legal persons-proposals concerning the
project of forming of hunting plot units or changing its
boundaries; such requirements and proposals are submitted to
the commission directly or through wards, in which the land
lots owned by the persons who submit proposals or requirements
are located, and when the owner of a land lot changes, such
petition must be submitted only through the ward, in which the
land lot is located, within 1 month from the date of
registration of the ownership right at the Real Estate Registry
(Paragraph 9 of Article 8). Upon expiry of the established
period, the Commission on Formation of Hunting Plot Units and
Changing Their Boundaries, after examining the received
requirements or proposals and assessing whether they are in
compliance with the requirements provided for in Paragraph 1 of
Article 8 (i.e. when one strives to ensure rational use of
populations of huntable animals, sufficient protection of
huntable animals, orderly and safe their hunting, as well as
avoid more significant damage inflicted by huntable animals on
the objects of economic activity of a person), decides whether
it is expedient to take account of the received proposals, it
shall amend, if needed, the project on forming of the hunting
plot unit or changing its boundaries, and within 1 month submit
this project for approval to the head of a respective county.
It has been mentioned that the plan of the hunting plot unit
with marked territories, in which one permits hunting and in
which one prohibits hunting, as well as an annex concerning the
size of hunting plot units and their distribution according to
suitability for inhabitation and reproduction of huntable
animals, constitutes an inseparable part of forming of a
hunting plot unit or changing its boundaries (Paragraph 10 of
Article 8). It has been mentioned also that projects on forming
of hunting plot units, which are proposed to be established
within a territory of more than one municipality, are drafted
together with respective commissions of other municipalities;
if the boundaries of one hunting plot unit exceed the
boundaries of one county, the project on forming such hunting
plot unit must be approved in the counties, to the territory of
which it intrudes (Paragraph 11 of Article 8).
11. According to Paragraph 3 of Article 13 of the Law on
Hunting, the owner of a land lot or several communicating land
lots, in which hunting is not prohibited and total area of
which exceeds 1000 ha, may submit to the commission provided
for in Article 8 of this Law a petition requesting to recognise
these lots as a hunting plot unit, which meets the requirements
established in Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of this Law; if land
plots are recognised as a hunting plot unit, and formation of
such hunting plot does not disturb the neighbouring hunting
plot units, and, according to the requirements of Paragraph 1
of Article 10, permission to use resources of huntable animals
in the hunting plot unit may be issued to their owner, a
project on forming of hunting plot units is made and approved
pursuant to the procedure established in Article 8 of this Law,
and a permission to use resources of huntable animals in
hunting plot unit is issued without tender, which is provided
for in Paragraph 2 of Article 10.
It should be stressed that the Law on Hunting does not
prevent from appealing against the decision of the commission
indicated in Paragraph 3 of Article 13 to court.
12. In the context of the case of the constitutional
justice at issue, the legal regulation consolidated in the Law
on Hunting is to be construed in regard of the aspect of
protection of rights and legitimate interests of owners of land
lots that are located in hunting plots.
1 2.1. It is established in the Law on Hunting on what
bases and upon what procedure the owner of a land lot that is
located in a hunting plot unit may prohibit hunting in the land
lot owned by him. It was mentioned that pursuant to Paragraph 2
of Article 7 of the Law on Hunting, "hunting is prohibited in:
<...> (2) land lots located in the hunting plots, if their
owners have prohibited hunting therein upon the procedure
established in Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law on
Hunting". It is established in Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the
Law on Hunting that "the owner of a private land lot, whose
land is intended to be assigned or is already assigned to a
hunting plot unit according to the procedure established in
Article 8 of this Law, shall have the right to prohibit hunting
in the land owned by him, if agricultural crops or forest will
suffer damage during the hunting". The above mentioned
provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 and Paragraph 2 of
Article 13 of the Law on Hunting are inseparable from
Paragraphs 9 and 10 of Article 8 of this law as well. For
example, it is established in Paragraph 9 of Article 8 of the
Law on Hunting: "Having drafted a preliminary project on
forming of hunting plot units or changing their boundaries, the
commission specified in Paragraph 3 of this article shall
announce this fact in a national and local press and shall set
a 1 month period, during which the persons indicated in
Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of this law may submit to the
commission of a respective municipality written requirements,
and other concerned private or legal persons-proposals
concerning the project on forming of hunting plot units or
changing its boundaries. Such written proposals and
requirements shall be submitted to the commission set forth in
Paragraph 3 of this article directly or through wards, in which
the land lots owned by the persons who submit proposals or
requirements are located. When the owner of a land lot changes,
such petition must be submitted through the ward, in which the
land lot is located, within 1 month from the date of
registration of the ownership right in the Real Estate
Registry. The commission indicated in Paragraph 3 of this
article shall mark the territories, in which hunting is
prohibited according to Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of this Law
until the expiry of the period specified by the persons who set
these requirements, in the plan of the hunting plot unit. Fees
for the use of resources of huntable animals in hunting plot
unit shall be reduced in proportion to the size of such
territories, still the establishment of these restrictions
shall not disturb the integrity of hunting plot units." It is
established inter alia in Paragraph 10 of Article 8 of the Law
on Hunting: "Upon expiry of the period established in Paragraph
9 of this article, the Commission on Formation of Hunting Plot
Units and Changing Their Boundaries, after examining the
received requirements or proposals and assessing whether they
are in compliance with the requirements provided for in
Paragraph 1 of this article, shall decide whether it is
expedient to take account of the received proposals, it shall
amend, if needed, the project on forming of the hunting plot
unit or changing its boundaries, and within 1 month submit this
project for approval to the head of a respective county".
Thus, the Law on Hunting consolidates such legal
regulation, according to which the owner of a private land lot
has the right to prohibit hunting in the land owned by him, but
he may do so only on the basis and only upon the procedure that
is established in Paragraph 2 of Article 7, Paragraphs 9 and 10
of Article 8, as well as Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law
on Hunting.
It is worth noting that in this regard a difference
between two legal situations should be observed: (1) the owner
enjoys the right to prohibit hunting in a land lot, which is
owned by him and located in hunting plots, when respective
hunting plot unit is still under formation; (2) a person, who
has acquired a land lot as ownership from another owner, which
is already included in a particular already formed and approved
hunting plot unit, may prohibit hunting on that lot.
12.1.1. When describing the first situation, where the
owner has the right to prohibit hunting in the land lot which
is owned by him and located in hunting plots, when the
respective hunting plot unit is still under formation, it
should be stressed that the owner may implement this right of
his own only on the bases established in Paragraph 2 of Article
13 of the Law on Hunting and only upon the procedure
established in Paragraphs 9 and 10 of Article 8 of the Law on
Hunting. In Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law on Hunting, a
sole basis, in the existence of which this right may be
implemented, is entrenched-when damage is inflicted upon
agricultural crops or forest during the hunting. Moreover,
according to Paragraph 10 of Article 8 of the Law on Hunting, a
decision whether to take into account the requirements of the
owner of a land lot and, when forming a respective hunting plot
unit, to prohibit hunting in the land lot which is owned by
this particular owner and located in the hunting plots, is
adopted by the commission provided for in the Law on Hunting.
Thus, in the Law on Hunting one has entrenched such legal
regulation, which provides that even in cases, where the owner
of the land lot which is located in hunting plots does not
agree with hunting in the land lot owned by him, and bases this
disapproval on the threat to agricultural crops or forest, the
commission may disregard the requests of the owner and decide
without his consent that hunting will take place in that land
lot. In this way one creates appearance for origination of such
legal situations, where against the will of the owner of
private land, forest, and water body some commission decides
that hunting will take place in the land lot, forest or water
body owned by him by the ownership right.
When describing the first legal situation, where the owner
has the right to prohibit hunting in the land lot which is
owned by him and located in hunting plots, when respective
hunting plot unit is still under formation, it should be noted
that in Paragraph 9 of Article 8 of the Law on Hunting one has
established a procedure, upon which the owner is informed that
it is intended to assign the land lot owned by him to a hunting
plot unit, and the time period, during which the owner may
submit to the commission indicated in the Law on Hunting
requirements related to the use of land lot which is owned by
him and located in hunting plots for hunting, including the
requirement to prohibit hunting in that land lot: that fact
that a preliminary project on forming of hunting plot unit or
changing its boundaries is made, is announced in national and
local press; within 1 month the owner of a private land lot,
whose land is intended to be assigned to a hunting plot unit
upon the procedure established by the law, may submit to the
commission of a respective municipality in writing his request
concerning the aforementioned project. Having established the
mentioned method of informing the owner and the aforementioned
period of 1 month, one creates prerequisites for origination of
such legal situations, where the owner of the land lot that is
located in hunting plots knows nothing about the formed hunting
plot unit, and therefore is not able to make use of the right
to which he is entitled according to the Law on Hunting, to
submit requests to the commission provided for in the Law on
Hunting, that are related to the use of the land lot which is
owned by him and which is located in hunting plots for hunt,
including the request to prohibit hunting in that land lot.
12.1.2. When describing the second legal situation-when a
person, who has acquired a land lot as ownership from another
owner, which is already included in a particular already formed
and approved hunting plot unit, may prohibit hunting
therein-one should note that, as already mentioned, pursuant to
Paragraph 9 of Article 8 of the Law on Hunting "When the owner
of a land lot changes, such petition must be submitted through
the ward, in which the land lot is located, within 1 month from
the date of registration of the ownership right at the Real
Estate Registry". When construing Paragraph 9 of Article 8 of
the Law on Hunting together with Paragraph 2 of Article 7,
Paragraph 2 of Article 13 and Paragraph 10 of Article 8, it is
to be held that after the change of the owner of a land lot
that is already included in a particular, already formed and
approved, hunting plot unit, pursuant to the Law on Hunting the
latter has the right to prohibit hunting, in accordance with
the Law on Hunting, in that land lot only on the basis of
Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the law, only within a certain
period (within 1 month from the date of registration of the
ownership right at the Real Estate Registry), moreover, the
decision whether or not to grant the request of the new owner
to prohibit hunting in the land lot owned by him, is made not
by the owner himself, but by the commission provided for in the
Law on Hunting.
It should be noted that neither from the provisions
consolidated in item 2 of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Law
on Hunting, Paragraphs 9 and 10 of Article 8, and Paragraph 2
of Article 13, nor any other provisions of this law there
appears the right of the owner of the land lot which is located
in hunting plot units, after the hunting plot unit is already
formed, to prohibit hunting in the land lot that is owned by
him and already included in the particular hunting plot unit
(save the exception when the owner of the land lot changes).
12.2. It is established in Paragraph 1 of Article 13 of
the Law on Hunting that "upon agreement of the users of hunting
plots, owner of a private land lot, who has a hunter's licence,
shall have the right to hunt, according to the procedure
established in the Rules of Hunting in the Territory of the
Republic of Lithuania, together with users of hunting plots in
all hunting plot units, into which the land lot owned by him
intrudes".
12.3. According to Paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the Law on
Hunting, users of hunting plots, who wish to apply in the land
lot owned by the owner and located in hunting plot unit the
biotechnological measures, as well as to build and use
stationary hunting equipment, must get permission of the owner
of that land lot.
13. In the Law on Hunting one has entrenched the
principle, according to which damage inflicted by huntable
animals that exist in freedom to the owners, administrators or
users of land, forest and water bodies, in which hunting is not
prohibited, is recovered upon the procedure established by the
Law on Hunting by the users of hunting plots (Paragraph 3 of
Article 18). Where the owners of the land have prohibited
hunting in the lots owned by them, damage inflicted on them by
huntable animals is not recovered (Paragraph 7 of Article 18).
If damage is inflicted to the owners, administrators or users
of land, forest and water bodies, in which hunting is not
prohibited, by huntable animals, the hunting of which is
prohibited for the whole year, such damage, in the cases
provided for in the Law on Hunting and upon the procedure
established therein, is recovered by the state (Paragraph 4 of
Article 18).
14. It was mentioned that the disputed by the petitioner
provisions of the Law on Hunting on prohibition of hunting,
size of hunting plot units and non-recovery of damage inflicted
by huntable animals are related also to the provisions of
Article 22 and 23 of the Law on Hunting, which are aimed at
ensuring the transition from relations of hunting and those
linked therewith that were based on the former legal regulation
to the relations of hunting and those linked therewith that are
based on the legal regulation established by the Law on
Hunting.
14.1. Pursuant to Article 22 of the Law on Hunting: the
Commission on Formation of Hunting Plot Units and Changing
Their Boundaries, specified in Paragraph 3 of Article 8 of this
law, had to be established in the indicated manner in each
municipality no later than within 2 months from the date of
coming into effect of this Law (Paragraph 1); users of hunting
plots, who used the hunting plots prior to the date of coming
into effect of this law and who used them without violating
requirements of legal acts, until 1 April 2003 could submit
petitions to the commission indicated in Paragraph 3 of Article
8 of this Law, and hunting plots used by them had to be
recognised as hunting plot units and permissions to hunt
resources of huntable animals that exist in them had to be
issued while following the continuity of use of hunting plots,
and in accordance with the procedure established in this
article (Paragraph 2); together with respective petition one
had to submit the following: (1) agreements on hunting plot
lease, which are registered upon the procedure established in
Regulations on Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania, concluded
with owners and administrators of land lots prior to the date
of coming into effect of the Law on Amending the Law on
Wildlife (29 December 2001), including schemes of leased
hunting plots; (2) documents attesting the allocation of
hunting plots located in a state-owned territory (only in case
of professional hunting plots and plots for scientific and
educational hunting); (3) written minutes of approval of
boundaries of hunting plots by the users of all communicating
hunting plots, if any were made, according to which one
approves factual boundaries of hunting plot units, or, on the
basis of these minutes, the users of communicating hunting
plots corrected boundaries of hunting plots in order to achieve
objectives set forth in Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of this Law;
(4) other documents attesting the lawful use of hunting plots
(Paragraph 3); the commission indicated in Paragraph 3 of
Article 8 of the Law on Hunting, when adopting decision on
territories that are proposed to be included in hunting plot
unit, if no documents specified in Item 1 of Paragraph 3 of
this article related to the use of them are submitted, or not
all documents are submitted, had to take into account proposals
made in the documents that are indicated in Item 3 of Paragraph
3 of this article or set boundaries of hunting plot unit while
taking account of the objectives set forth in Paragraph 1 of
Article 8 of this law (Paragraph 4); the boundaries of hunting
plots, which were in use prior to the date of coming into
effect of this Law in accordance with the documents specified
in Paragraph 3 of this article and which where in compliance
with the requirements of Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of this law,
were not changed, save the cases where users of communicating
hunting plot units, while seeking the objectives of Paragraph 1
of Article 8 of this law, by written minutes of approval of
boundaries of hunting plots requested to establish different
boundaries (Paragraph 5); users of hunting plots comprising
less than 1000 ha could agree with users of communicating
hunting plots concerning the increase of hunting plots up to
1000 ha or merger of these plots, by consolidating this fact in
the document specified in Item 3 of Paragraph 3 of this article
and submitting a joint petition to the commission indicated in
Paragraph 3 of Article 8 of this Law on recognising the hunting
plots as a hunting plot unit, and in case of failure to reach
an agreement on increase of the hunting plot unit so that it
reaches the specified size by 1 April 2003, the final decision
on setting boundaries of hunting plot units, while taking into
account objectives established in Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of
this Law, had to be made by the aforementioned commission
(Paragraph 6); before recognising the hunting plots as hunting
plot units under the continuity of their use, one had to follow
the conditions specified in Paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 of Article
8 of the Law on Hunting (Paragraph 7); hunting plot units in
hunting plots, where no petitions specified in Paragraph 2 of
this article concerning the inclusion of which into hunting
plot units have been submitted by 1 April 2003, had to be
established or such plots had to be attached to other already
formed hunting plot units in accordance with the procedure
established in Article 8 of the Law on Hunting (Paragraph 8);
permissions to the users of hunting plots, whose hunting plots
have been recognised as hunting plot units according to the
procedure established in this article, to use resources of
huntable animals in these units had to be issued without
arranging the tender indicated in Paragraph 2 of Article 10 of
this law (Paragraph 9).
Pursuant to Article 23 of the Law on Hunting, the
Government, while taking account of the terms of coming into
effect of this law and certain articles thereof, had to prepare
and approve legal acts that are necessary for the
implementation of this law.
14.2. It is to be held that in Paragraph 2 of Article 22
of the Law on Hunting one has consolidated the general
principles, on the basis for recognising the hunting plots
which were used by the users of hunting plots prior to the date
of coming into effect of this law could be recognised as the
hunting plot units, and the permits to use the resources of
huntable animals in the aforementioned hunting plot units had
to be issued to their users even after the date when the Law on
Hunting became effective.
14.3. The continuity of the use of hunting plots which is
indicated in Paragraph 2 of Article 22 of the Law on Hunting,
on the one hand, means that the users of hunting plots, who
used certain hunting plots prior to the date of coming into
effect of the Law on Hunting, have the right to use these
hunting plots (in the Law on Hunting already called hunting
plot units). On the other hand, according to this paragraph the
hunting plots which were in use prior to the date when the Law
on Hunting became effective, are recognised as hunting plot
units, and permits to use the resources of huntable animals in
these hunting plots are issued upon the procedure established
in Article 22.
It should be noted in this context that under Paragraph 3
of Article 22 of the Law on Hunting, the users of hunting plots
which are indicated in Paragraph 2 of this article, who have
used the hunting plots prior to the date of coming into effect
of this law and who wish to use them after the date of coming
into effect of the Law on Hunting, together with respective
request must submit inter alia agreements on hunting plot lease
concluded with the owners and managers of land lots prior to
the date of coming into effect of the Law on Amending the Law
on Wildlife (29 December 2001), which are registered upon the
procedure established in the Regulations on Hunting in the
Republic of Lithuania, as well as schemes of leased hunting
plots. Thus, pursuant to Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 22 of
the Law on Hunting, the hunting plots which were used by the
users of hunting plots prior to the date of coming into effect
of the Law on Hunting, are recognised as hunting plot units
even after the date of coming into effect of the Law on
Hunting, save the hunting plots (their parts), which were
leased under agreements on hunting plot lease, concluded with
owners and managers of hunting lots on and after 29 December
2001. The material in the case shows that the date of 29
December 2001 was chosen due to the fact that on this
particular date the Law on Wildlife (wording of 11 December
2001), in Paragraph 1 of Article 3 of which one established
that wild animals that exist in freedom belong to the state
under the ownership right, became effective. Due to such legal
regulation, established in Paragraph 3 of Article 22 of the Law
on Hunting, users of hunting plots, who have concluded
agreements on hunting plot lease on and after 29 December 2001,
found themselves in a situation which is unequal to the
situation of other users of hunting plots, who have concluded
agreements on hunting plot lease prior to 29 December 2001.
14.4. It is established in Paragraph 3 of Article 22 of
the Law on Hunting inter alia that the users of hunting plots,
who are mentioned in Paragraph 2 of this article, together with
a respective request, alongside to other documents must submit
"written minutes of approval of boundaries of hunting plots by
the users of all communicating hunting plots, if any were made,
according to which one approves factual boundaries of hunting
plot units, or, on the basis of these minutes, the users of
communicating hunting plots correct boundaries of hunting plots
in order to achieve objectives set forth in Paragraph 1 of
Article 8 of this Law" (Item 3). Such legal regulation means
also that the boundaries of hunting plots that include private
land, forests, and water bodies, may be changed without the
permission of owners of such land, forests, and water bodies.
14.5. The provision "the commission indicated in Paragraph
3 of Article 8 of this Law, when adopting decision on
territories that are proposed to be included in hunting plot
unit, if no documents specified in Item 1 of Paragraph 3 of
this article related to the use of them are submitted, or not
all documents are submitted, shall take into account proposals
made in the documents that are indicated in Item 3 of Paragraph
3 of this article or set boundaries of hunting plot unit while
taking account of the objectives set forth in Paragraph 1 of
Article 8 of this Law" of Paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Law
on Hunting means that when making a decision on inclusion into
the hunting plot units of territories, concerning the use of
which no documents indicated in Item 1 of Paragraph 3 of this
article were submitted or the submitted documents do not
comprise a full set, one does not request a permission of the
owner of the private land, forests, and water bodies which are
intended to be included in a particular hunting plot unit.
14.6. The provision "boundaries of hunting plots, which
were in use prior to the date of coming into effect of this Law
in accordance with the documents specified in Paragraph 3 of
this article and which where in compliance with the
requirements of Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Law, may not be
changed, save the cases where users of communicating hunting
plot units, while seeking the objectives of Paragraph 1 of
Article 8 of this Law, by written minutes of approval of
boundaries of hunting plots request to establish different
boundaries" of Paragraph 5 of Article 22 of the Law on Hunting
means that boundaries of hunting plots, which were used prior
to the date of coming into effect of the Law on Hunting, may be
changed without permission of the owners of private land,
forests, and water bodies that are included in respective
hunting plots.
14.7. The provisions "users of hunting plots comprising
less than 1000 ha may agree with users of communicating hunting
plots concerning the increase of hunting plots up to 1000 ha or
merger of these plots, by consolidating this fact in the
document specified in Item 3 of Paragraph 3 of this article and
submitting a joint petition to the commission indicated in
Paragraph 3 of Article 8 of this Law on recognising the hunting
plots as hunting plot unit" and "in case of failure to reach an
agreement on increase of the hunting plot unit so that it
reaches the specified size by 1 April 2003, the final decision
on setting boundaries of hunting plot units, while taking into
account objectives established in Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of
this Law, shall be made by the aforementioned commission" of
Paragraph 6 of Article 22 of the Law on Hunting mean that if
the users of hunting plots comprising less than 1000 ha fail to
reach a consent with users of communicating plots concerning
the increase of hunting plots up to 1000 ha or merger of these
plots by 1 April 2003, the final decision on setting boundaries
of hunting plot units is made by a commission of respective
municipality. In this way one creates prerequisites for such
legal situations, where persons, who have formed and registered
hunting plot comprising less than 1000 ha may not use them for
hunting after 1 April 2003.
15. In conclusion, it is to be held that in the Law on
Hunting one has established the legal regulation where a model
of relations of hunting and those linked therewith is based on
the following principles that are of importance to the case of
constitutional justice at issue: (1) the principle of national
ownership of huntable animals that exist in freedom, according
to which huntable animals that exist in freedom belong to the
state under the ownership right; (2) the principle of treating
the right to hunt huntable animals that exist in freedom as an
acquired right, according to which the right to hunt huntable
animals that exist in freedom originates from this law and
other legal acts, and is granted to the persons upon the
procedure and on the grounds established in the Law on Hunting
by the state (or its authorised institutions); (3) the
principle of separation of the right to hunt in particular land
lots, forests, and water bodies from the right of ownership of
these land lots, forests, and water bodies, according to which
the right to hunt huntable animals that exist in freedom in
particular land lots, forests, and water bodies constitutes an
individual right acquired under the Law on Hunting and other
legal acts, and which is related to the right of ownership of
these land lots, forests, and water bodies only in certain
cases provided for in this law and only to a certain extent;
(4) the principle of planning and organising the hunting in
hunting plot units, according to which the hunting (as well as
the use of resources of huntable animals in general) is planned
and organised in continuous hunting plots that are assigned to
particular hunting plot units; (5) the principle of continuity
of use of hunting plots, according to which the hunting plots
that meet the requirements of the law, which were used by
certain users prior to the date of coming into effect of this
law without violating the requirements of legal acts, are
recognised as hunting plot units, and permission to continue
hunting (using the resources of huntable animals) in these
hunting plot units are issued to the aforementioned previous
users of respective hunting plots upon the procedure
established in the Law on Hunting; (6) the principle of limited
recovery of damage, according to which the recovery of damage
caused by huntable animals to the owners of land lots, forests,
and water bodies, who own the mentioned land lots, forests, and
water bodies under the ownership right, is linked to the fact
whether or not the owner has prohibited hunting in respective
land lots, forests, and water bodies.
16. Having compared the legal regulation of relations of
hunting and those linked therewith which is established in the
Law on Hunting with the legal regulation of the aforementioned
relations entrenched in legal acts that were effective in
Lithuania prior to 1940, as well as with legal acts that were
effective from 1991 till 2002, it is to be held that the
relations linked with organisation of hunting, formation of
hunting plots (their units), as well as the right of owners of
land, forest and water bodies, whose land, forests, or water
bodies are assigned to hunting plots, are regulated differently
in the Law on Hunting.
First, in the Law on Hunting one has consolidated a
different principle of forming of the hunting plot units:
hunting plot units are formed not on the basis of the agreement
on hunting plot lease, but according to the project of hunting
plot units that are prepared in every municipality by certain
commission of respective municipality and approved by the head
of respective municipality.
Second, the Law on Hunting permits hunting in the hunting
plots that are located in the land lots owned by private
owners, as well, unless their owners have prohibited this upon
the bases and procedure established in the Law on Hunting.
Thus, it is to be held that in Lithuanian legal acts that were
effective prior to the date of coming into effect of the Law on
Hunting the principle of special permission, which meant that
nobody could hunt in a land owned by the owner without his
permission, was replaced with the principle of joint
permission, which means that hunting in a land of the owner is
permitted where the owner has not prohibited this upon the
bases and procedure established in the Law on Hunting.
Third, in the Law on Hunting one has dropped the former
provisions of Lithuanian legal acts that were effective
earlier, according to which land owners could hunt small fauna
in the land which is owned by them and not leased.
In these regards the legal regulation of relations of
hunting and those linked therewith, entrenched in the Law on
Hunting, deviated from the authentic tradition of hunting which
has originated in Lithuania and which had been consolidated in
former legal acts.
17. Upon adoption of the Law on Hunting, the following
substatutory legal acts were harmonised with it, inter alia:
17.1. On 20 March 2002, the Minister of Environment issued
Order No. 124 "On Revision of Hunting Trophies and the Council
of Experts on Hunting Trophies", by Item 3.2 whereof he
recognised Order of the Minister of Environment No. 358 "On the
Confirmation of the Typical Form of Agreements on Lease of
Hunting Plots That Are in State-owned Land" of 1 September 2000
(by which one has approved the form of agreements on lease of
hunting plots that are in state-owned land) as no longer
effective.
17.2. On 23 September 2002, the Minister of Environment
issued Order No. 493 "On Amendment of Order of the Minister of
Environment No. 298 'On Issuing Permissions to Establish
Zoological Gardens and Approval of Procedure of Zoological
Garden Administration and Control over It' of 4 June 2002, and
on Recognising Order of the Minister of Environment No. 200 'On
the Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Wildlife' of 19 October 1998, as well as Order of the Minister
of Environment No. 331 'On Approval of Minimal Norms Applied to
Premises of Keeping Wild Animals in Captivity' of 15 October
1999 as no Longer Effective", by Item 2.1 whereof he recognised
Order of the Minister of Environment No. 200 "On the
Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Wildlife" of
19 October 1998 as no longer effective (whereby one had
approved the list of species of wild animals that may be used
in the Republic of Lithuania).
17.3. On 30 September 2002, the Minister of Environment
issued Order No. 511 "On New Wording of the Rules of Hunting in
the Territory of the Republic of Lithuania that were Approved
by the Order of the Minister of Environment 'On Approval of the
Rules of Hunting in the Territory of the Republic of Lithuania'
of 27 June 2000", by Item 1 whereof he amended the Rules of
Hunting in the Territory of the Republic of Lithuania that were
approved by Item 1 of Order of the Minister of Environment No.
258 "On Approval of the Rules of Hunting in the Territory of
the Republic of Lithuania" of 27 June 2000, and set them forth
in a new wording. The Order of the Minister of Environment of
30 September 2002 became effective on 10 October 2002.
17.4. On 13 January 2003, the Government adopted
Resolution No. 10 "On Approval of Methodology of Calculation of
Tax for the Use of Resources of Huntable Animals and Rate of
Tax for the Use of Resources of Huntable Animals, Amendment of
Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No.
1458 'On Approval of the List of Subjects to the State Levy,
Amounts of the Levy, as well as Procedure of Payment and
Recovery' of 15 December 2000, and Recognition of Resolution
No. 210 'On Approval of Size of Payment for the Rent of Hunting
Plots that are Located in State-owned Forests, Free State-owned
Land and Land in the State-owned Internal Water Funds' of 25
February 1999 as No Longer Effective", by Item 4 whereof it
recognised Government Resolution No. 210 "On Approval of Size
of Payment for the Rent of Hunting Plots that are Located in
State-owned Forests, Free State-owned Land and Land in the
State-owned Internal Water Funds" of 25 February 1999 (by which
the size of payment for the lease of hunting plots that are
located in state-owned forests, free state-owned land and land
in the state-owned internal water funds was approved) as no
longer effective, and by Item 1.1 and 1.2 whereof it approved
the methodology of calculation of tax for the use of resources
of huntable animals and the rates of the tax for the use of
resources of huntable animals respectively. In Item 2 of the
Government Resolution of 13 January 2003 one established that
the Ministry of Environment indexes the approved rates and
defined the procedure of indexation. The methodologies approved
by the Government Resolution of 13 January 2003 were amended by
Government Resolution No. 903 "On Amending Resolution of the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania No.10 'On Approval of
Methodology of Calculation of Tax for the Use of Resources of
Huntable Animals and Rate of Tax for the Use of Resources of
Huntable Animals, Amendment of Resolution of the Government of
the Republic of Lithuania No. 1458 "On Approval of the List of
Subjects to the State Levy, Amounts of the Levy, as well as
Procedure of Payment and Recovery" of 15 December 2000, and
Recognition of Resolution No. 210 "On Approval of Size of
Payment for the Rent of Hunting Plots that are Located in
State-owned Forests, Free State-owned Land and Land in the
State-owned Internal Water Funds" of 25 February 1999' of 13
January 2003 as No Longer Effective" of 14 July 2003.
18. In this case the Constitutional Court will investigate
the compliance of legal regulation established in the Law on
Hunting with the Constitution only concerning the aspects
indicated in the petition of the petitioner, i.e. it will
investigate as to whether the provisions related to particular
prohibitions on hunting, sizes of the hunting plot units and
non-recovery of damage inflicted by the huntable animals that
are disputed by the petitioner are not in conflict with the
Constitution, as well as whether other provisions of the Law on
Hunting that are not indicated by the petitioner and by which
one directly interferes in the legal regulation disputed by the
petitioner are not in conflict with the Constitution. In this
case the Constitutional Court will not investigate as to
whether provisions of the Law on Hunting that are not in any
way directly related to the provisions that are disputed by the
petitioner and that do not directly interfere in the disputed
legal regulation are not in conflict with the Constitution.
VII
1. The petitioner requests to investigate whether the
disputed provisions of the Law on Hunting are not in conflict
with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of
Article 46 of the Constitution.
2. It was mentioned that the Law on Hunting regulates
inter alia the right of use of huntable animals' resources,
formation of hunting plot units and procedure of granting of
the right to use in them the resources of huntable animals,
granting of the right of hunting, etc. The resources of
huntable wildlife that exist in the territory of the Republic
of Lithuania are one of the objects of natural environment that
is protected by the Constitution, which demands that they be
used moderately and that they be restored and augmented.
The constitutional bases of legal regulation of relations
regarding natural environment, the use and protection of its
individual objects are established in Article 54 of the
Constitution.
In its rulings the Constitutional Court has held more than
once that the Constitution is an integral act, that the
principles and norms of the Constitution constitute a
harmonious system, that it is not permitted to construe any
provision of the Constitution only literally, that it is not
permitted to construe any provision of the Constitution so that
the content of another provision of the Constitution could be
distorted or denied, since thus the essence of the entire
constitutional legal regulation would be distorted and the
balance of constitutional values would be disturbed.
Therefore, the provisions of Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article
23 and Paragraph 1 of Article 46 of the Constitution are to be
construed by taking account, in the context of the
constitutional justice case at issue, of the provisions of
Article 54 of the Constitution.
3. Article 54 of the Constitution provides:
"The State shall look after the protection of the natural
environment, its fauna and flora, individual objects of nature
and districts of particular value, and shall supervise that
natural resources be used moderately and that they be restored
and augmented.
The destruction of land and the subterranean, the
pollution of water and air, environmental degradation as the
result of radioactive impact, and the impoverishment of fauna
and flora, shall be prohibited by law."
4. The Constitution treats the natural environment, its
fauna and flora, individual objects of nature and districts of
particular value as national values of universal importance.
The protection of the natural environment, its fauna and flora,
individual objects of nature and districts of particular value
and securing that natural resources be used moderately and that
they be restored and augmented are a public interest the
guaranteeing of which is a constitutional obligation of the
state. In its ruling of 6 May 1997, the Constitutional Court
held that the implementation of the interest of society which
is recognised by the state and is protected by law is one of
the most important conditions of existence and evolution of
society itself.
5. An obligation to the state arises from Article 54 of
the Constitution to establish the legal regulation and to act
so that natural environment and its individual objects be
protected, and that natural resources be used moderately and
that they be restored and augmented. For this purpose a
corresponding system of state institutions must be created and
it must function properly, funds must be provided for in the
state budget, which are necessary to protect natural
environment and to ensure that its individual objects be
protected, and that natural resources be used moderately and
that they be restored and augmented.
Duties to all persons that are in the territory of the
Republic of Lithuania also arise form Article 54 of the
Constitution: they must abstain from the actions by which harm
could be inflicted on land and the subterranean, on water and
air, as well as flora and fauna. The legislator must prohibit
the actions which inflict harm on natural environment and its
objects, and establish legal liability for such actions. The
said prohibitions and legal liability for disregard of these
prohibitions must be established only by means of legislation,
while the procedure of implementation of these prohibitions may
be regulated by substatutory legal acts, too.
The state, being under constitutional obligation to act so
that the protection of natural environment and of its
individual objects, moderate use of natural resources and their
restoration and augmentation are guaranteed, may legislatively
establish the legal regulation under which the use of
individual objects (natural resources) of natural environment
be restricted, while certain subjects of the legal relations
are obligated to act in a respective manner or to abstain from
certain actions.
6. While protecting natural environment and its individual
objects, the state, by attempting to ensure moderate use of
natural resources, their restoration and augmentation, must
guarantee also the balance of values entrenched in the
Constitution.
The state, when it regulates relations linked with
protection of natural environment and its individual objects,
the use of natural resources, their restoration and
augmentation, also when it limits the use of individual objects
of natural environment (natural resources) or when it obligates
certain subjects of legal relations to act in a respective
manner or to abstain from certain actions, is bound by the
imperative of social harmony, the principles of justice,
reasonableness and proportionality which are entrenched in the
Constitution, inter alia when such limitations or obligations
one interferes with the implementation of constitutional rights
and freedoms of the person.
7. Article 54 of the Constitution names various objects of
natural environment, i.e. fauna, flora, land, the subterranean,
waters, air, districts of particular value, as national values
of universal importance.
In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue, it needs to be noted that one is to draw a conclusion
from the provision "The State shall look after the protection
of <...> fauna <...>, and shall supervise that natural
resources be used moderately and that they be restored and
augmented" of Paragraph 1 of Article 54, and from the provision
"the impoverishment of fauna <...> shall be prohibited by law"
of Paragraph 2 of Article 54 of the Constitution that fauna
(its resources), including wildlife, is one of natural
resources which, under the Constitution, must be protected and
whose rational use, restoration and augmentation must be
ensured.
8. Wildlife is part of natural environment, which is very
important to normal functioning and survival of various
ecologic systems. Wildlife is a distinctive aesthetic,
scientific, cultural, recreational and economic value of the
heritage of nature belonging society and the entire humankind.
Due to this, wildlife is not only a national value: it also
bears universal and transnational importance. There is no doubt
that it is necessary to preserve it and pass it on to the
posterity.
Wildlife is a notably broad and generalising notion,
including all kinds of undomesticated animals. The peculiarity
of wildlife, as a value protected and defended by the
Constitution, is also the fact that it is very dynamic, that
wild animals that exist in freedom often change the place of
their presence, therefore the management of wildlife, as a
whole, and disposal of it (like an item) are impossible.
However, from Article 54 of the Constitution an obligation
arises to the state to ensure that populations (kinds) of wild
animals be properly managed (regulated and controlled) so that
protection and rational use of wildlife, as a national value of
universal importance, be ensured. If populations (kinds) of
wild animals were not managed (i.e. not regulated and not
controlled), or managed improperly, other objects of natural
environment as well as certain kinds of wild animals themselves
and various ecological systems could be harmed. In case proper
management (i.e. regulation and control) of populations (kinds)
of wild animals were not ensured, preconditions would be
created for violating the values (life, health, property etc.)
entrenched in and protected and defended by the Constitution,
thus also the rights and interests of the person.
In this context one is to hold that under Article 54 of
the Constitution, the state (institutions that create law) may
and in certain cases, by taking account of various
circumstances, must establish a legal regulation whereby it
would be possible to properly and effectively manage (i.e. to
regulate and control) populations (kinds) of wild animals (the
size, spreading, migration etc. of the populations) so that
protection of wildlife, its rational use, restoration and
augmentation are ensured and that no preconditions are created
to impoverish wildlife-a national value of universal
importance. While regulating the relations linked with
management (i.e. regulation and control) of populations (kinds)
of animals by legal acts, the state must pay heed to
requirements of humane treatment of animals and not tolerate
cruel and inhumane treatment of animals by other persons.
9. The state (its institutions) may choose various ways
and means of proper management of populations (kinds) of wild
animals. On the other hand, while paying heed to the imperative
of social harmony and the principles of justice, reasonableness
and proportionality that are entrenched in the Constitution,
the state (its institutions) cannot choose the ways and means
of management (i.e. regulation and control) of populations
(kinds) of wild animals, which could unreasonably restrict or
in general deny the rights and legitimate interests of persons
and social groups, and which would violate their legitimate
expectations.
10. In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue, it needs to be noted that one of the ways of management
(i.e. regulation and control) of populations (kinds) of wild
animals is hunting, a long standing type of human activity
tradition and social institute. Alongside, it needs to be noted
that hunting is applied together with other ways of management
(i.e. regulation and control) of populations (kinds) of wild
animals, which are of no less importance and of traditions of
no less importance. Hunting cannot be opposed to other types of
human activity, while a reasonable and fair balance must be
found between the rights and legitimate interests of persons
engaged in hunting and the rights and legitimate interests of
other persons.
11. As a type of human activity and social institute,
hunting is a diverse phenomenon, including (1) management (i.e.
regulation and control) of populations (kinds) of wild animals;
(2) pastime activity; (3) economic activity. The said three
aspects of hunting are interrelated.
First, as mentioned, hunting is one of the ways of
management (i.e. regulation and control) of populations (kinds)
of wild animals, thus also one of the means of protection and
rational use of wild animals. If compared to other ways of
management (i.e. regulation and control) of populations (kinds)
of wild animals, the specificity of hunting is inter alia
determined by the fact that traditionally private
persons-hunters, who, as a rule (but not necessarily) are
united into corresponding associations (circles, societies or
other organisations of hunters)-are entrusted with
implementation of such control of populations (kinds) of
animals. However, hunting could also be planned and arranged
not through private persons, hunters, or not through them
alone. No matter upon what organisational principles hunting
relations and those linked therewith are based, under the
Constitution the state cannot opt out of control and
supervision of hunting activity.
Second, as a rule, hunting is pastime activity to hunters
(private persons). Hunting as pastime activity is linked with
implementation of the acquired right: only the persons can
engage in this activity, who have acquired the right of
hunting. It needs to be emphasised that the right of hunting is
not a constitutional right, it arises from legal acts of lower
power and must be implemented in the way that is provided in
the legal acts. This right is defended as an acquired right.
Third, hunting is a type of economic activity or a
constituent part of broader economic activity. In this aspect
one is to note that, on the one hand, professional hunting as a
source of a person's income is possible; on the other hand, a
person's economic activity can also include planning and
arrangement of hunting.
12. As mentioned, the right of hunting is an acquired
right. The Constitution does not employ the notion of hunting.
Hunting relations and those linked therewith are regulated by
laws and substatutory acts.
While choosing a model of planning and arrangement of
hunting, thus of hunting relations and those linked with it,
and establishing it in legal acts, the state enjoys broad
discretion. While implementing this discretion, the state
(lawmaking subjects according to their competence) may
establish a procedure of hunting plots formation, their sizes,
manner of hunting, the time and other conditions of hunting, to
specify wild animals that are either permitted or prohibited to
hunt, etc. While regulating these relations, the state must
create preconditions to ensure rational use of huntable wild
animals and their protection, by taking account of inter alia
the amount of these resources and the need of regulation of
their size. While doing this, lawmaking subjects are bound by
the constitutional imperative of social harmony, the principles
of justice, reasonableness, and proportionality which are
consolidated in the Constitution, as well as other norms and
principles of the Constitution.
It needs to be noted that in the course of management
(i.e. regulation and control) of populations (kinds) of wild
animals, hunting is applied together with other ways of
management (i.e. regulation and control) of populations (kinds)
of wild animals. Thus hunting cannot be opposed to other types
of human activity, while the rights and legitimate interests of
members of society, who are engaged in or otherwise related to
hunting, may not be opposed to the rights and legitimate
interests of other members of society. In the context of the
constitutional justice case at issue, it needs to be emphasised
that from the Constitution an obligation arises to the state,
when it regulates hunting relations and those linked therewith,
to keep a fair balance between the interests of society and the
person, to ensure the public interest and to evade unreasonable
limitation of the rights of the person.
13. Wildlife is a specific constituent part of natural
environment also in the aspect that the living environment of
wild animals inter alia is land lots, forests and water bodies
which in their turn (not relating them with the wild animals
that exist in/on them) can be a matter of various legal
relations. In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue, it needs to be noted that land lots, forests and water
bodies which constitute living surroundings of wild animals may
belong to various persons by right of ownership, inter alia to
those to whom they belong by right of private ownership.
Besides, as mentioned, management (i.e. regulation and
control) of populations (kinds) of wild animals, one types of
which is hunting, may be linked with economic activity as well;
hunting can be a type of economic activity or a constituent
part of broader economic activity.
Thus, when regulating hunting relations and those linked
therewith, one must pay heed to inter alia the provisions of
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution concerning
inviolability and protection of property and the provisions of
Paragraph 1 of Article 46 concerning the values constituting
the basis of the national economy-the right of private
ownership, individual economic freedom and initiative, which
were pointed out by the petitioner.
14. Article 23 of the Constitution provides:
"Property shall be inviolable.
The rights of ownership shall be protected by laws.
Property may only be seized for the needs of society in
accordance with the procedure established by law and shall be
justly compensated for."
15. While construing Article 23 of the Constitution, the
Constitutional Court held more than once in its rulings that
the inviolability of property and protection of ownership which
are consolidated in this article inter alia mean that the owner
has the right to possess the property that belongs to him, to
use and dispose of it, also the right to demand that other
persons not violate these his rights, while the state has a
duty to protect and defend ownership against unlawful
encroachment upon it.
The provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 23 of the
Constitution that the rights of ownership are protected by laws
means that legislative protection of subjective rights of
ownership is guaranteed. As a rule, the subjective right of
ownership is defined as an opportunity of the owner, which is
protected by laws, to possess, at his discretion and in his
interests, the property that belongs to him and to use and
dispose of it, however, the owner cannot overstep the limits
established by laws, nor restrict the rights and freedoms of
other persons (Constitutional Court ruling of 16 March 1999).
The said provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 23 of the
Constitution also means that laws must protect the rights of
ownership of all owners, thus also the right of ownership of
the state as an organisation of the entire society
(Constitutional Court ruling of 30 September 2003).
The constitutional guarantee of protection of the right of
ownership is a status quo guarantee, since it protects, first
of all, the rights of ownership of the person that he enjoys
(Constitutional Court rulings of 27 October 1998, 16 March
1999, and 4 March 2003).
16. The Constitutional Court has also held more than once
that under the Constitution the right of ownership is not
absolute also in the aspect that it can be limited by laws due
to the nature of the object of ownership, due to committed
deeds that are contrary to law and/or due to a need which is
necessary to society and which is constitutionally grounded.
Limitation of the right of ownership is not impermissible,
however, in all case these conditions must be followed: the
right of ownership may be limited only on the grounds of the
law; the limitations must be necessary in a democratic society
in order to protect the rights and freedoms of other persons,
the values entrenched in the Constitution and/or
constitutionally important objectives; the principle of
proportionality must be followed, under which the measures
provided for in laws must be in line with the objectives sought
which are necessary to society and are constitutionally
grounded. It needs to be emphasised that under the Constitution
it is impermissible to deny the essence of the right of
ownership by means of any limitation on the right of ownership;
if the right of ownership is limited so that its implementation
becomes impossible, if it is restricted by overstepping
reasonably comprehensible limits or its legal defence is not
ensured, then there are grounds to assert that the essence of
the right of ownership is violated, while this amounts to
negation of this right.
17. The constitutional imperative of social harmony,
constitutional principles of justice, reasonableness and
proportionality, as well as other provisions of the
Constitution, imply that the inviolability of property and
protection of subjective rights of ownership which are
entrenched in the Constitution cannot be interpreted as grounds
for opposing the right and interests of the owner to the public
interest, as well as the rights, freedoms and legitimate
interests of other persons. Ownership also performs a social
function. While construing the provisions of Article 23 of the
Constitution, the Constitutional Court has held that ownership
includes obligations and that by this provision a social
function of ownership is expressed (Constitutional Court
rulings of 21 December 2000, 14 March 2002, 19 September 2002,
and 30 September 2003).
18. In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue, it needs to be noted that land, forests and water bodies
are among objects of ownership (also of private ownership).
Their proper and rational use is a public interest protected by
the Constitution.
It should especially by emphasised that, from the point of
view of the right of ownership, land, forests and water bodies
are special objects, since proper use and protection of land,
forests and water bodies are a medium of existence of the human
being as a biological and social being, a medium of his
maintenance of social ties and spread, also a condition of
survival and development of the human being and society, and as
the basis of the welfare of the Nation. Ownership includes
obligations. This constitutional imperative, linked with the
aforesaid especially important function of land, forests and
water bodies, as objects of natural environment, and with their
character as of special objects of the right of ownership,
means that under the Constitution a legal regulation must be
established whereby also the obligation of the owners would be
consolidated to contribute to ensuring the public interest
entrenched in the Constitution, which is protection of natural
environment, fauna and flora, individual objects of nature and
districts of particular value and rational use, restoration and
augmentation of natural resources, in the way that the land,
forests and water bodies that belong to them by right of
ownership are used only properly and rationally, that no harm
is inflicted on them as a medium of existence of the human
being and society, which is one of the necessary conditions of
survival and development of the human being and society. This
inter alia implies that laws can establish specific
requirements defining management, use and disposal of land
lots, forests and water bodies and respective limitations and
conditions to the owners of these objects. In this context, one
is to note that in its ruling of 27 May 1994 the Constitutional
Court held that the specific purpose and situation of land, if
compared with other objects of real property, also determines a
special legal regulation of land relations; it was held in
Constitutional Court rulings of 8 March 1995 and 25 September
1996 that in the Constitution land is treated as a universal
value which has a social function, which is to serve the
welfare of the Nation; it was held in Constitutional Court
ruling of 1 June 1998 that a special ecological, social and
economic importance of the forest to the environment and public
interests determines certain limitations and restrictions of
the rights of ownership of the owners of the forest.
On the other hand, it is not permitted to deny the essence
of the right of ownership by the said limitations, restrictions
and other requirements.
19. It also needs to be noted in the context of the
constitutional justice case at issue that, as it has already
been held in this Ruling of the Constitutional Court, wildlife
is a specific constituent part of natural environment also in
the aspect that inter alia land lots, forests, and water
bodies, including those that belongs also to legal and natural
persons by right of ownership, constitute the living
surroundings of wild animals.
Thus, legal situations are possible where the state, while
seeking to ensure the public interest, i.e. protection and
rational use of wildlife (its resources), its restoration and
augmentation, may and in certain cases must establish the legal
regulation whereby the ownership rights of owners of private
land lots, forests and water bodies are, to a certain extent,
interfered with, however the essence of the ownership right of
these owners is not denied.
20. Construing Article 23 of the Constitution within the
context of the imperatives of protection of wildlife and
ensuring of rational use of its resources, which are
consolidated in Article 54 of the Constitution, one must
emphasise that, as held in this Ruling of the Constitutional
Court, the state is under a constitutional obligation to take
care of wildlife and to ensure protection of wildlife as a
national value of universal importance, as well as its
restoration and augmentation, including inter alia management
(i.e. regulation and control) of populations (kinds) of wild
animals. Thus, while protecting and defending the ownership
rights of a person, the public interest that wildlife resources
be used, restored and augmented in a rational manner and that
wildlife be protected must not be violated. At the junction of
these two constitutional values-the ownership rights of a
person and the public interest that wildlife resources be used,
restored and augmented in a rational manner and that wildlife
be protected-it is necessary to find solutions which could
ensure a fair balance of these values, i.e. that none of these
values will be denied. This requirement is also applicable to
passage of the legal acts regulating corresponding social
relations as well as to the legal regulation established
therein.
In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue
it needs to be noted that in the course of regulation of
management (i.e. regulation and control) of populations (kinds)
of wild animals by means of legal acts, the rights of ownership
of owners of private land lots, forests and water bodies may be
limited to the extent that it is necessary to seek the said
socially important objective, i.e. only to the extent that is
necessary to ensure protection of wildlife, rational use of its
resources, as well as its restoration and augmentation. If, at
the time of seeking the said socially important objective it is
inevitably necessary to limit ownership rights (without denying
their essence) to a certain extent, there must be a fair
balance between the said objective and the chosen means of
limitation: only such means of limitation can be established
which would limit the right of the owners not more than
necessary.
21. While construing the provision that arises from the
Constitution that ownership includes obligations with Article
54 of the Constitution, it needs to be emphasised in the
constitutional justice case at issue that the owner of private
land lots, forests and water bodies, while enjoying the right
to possess, use and dispose of his property, cannot violate the
imperatives of protection of wildlife and its rational use, its
restoration and augmentation that are entrenched in Article 54
of the Constitution.
Implementing its constitutional obligation to take care of
wildlife and ensure protection of wildlife as a national value
of universal importance, its protection, rational use,
restoration and augmentation, the state can establish a
corresponding procedure of use of land lots, forests and water
bodies, which will have to be followed by all persons, not
excluding the owners of private land lots, forests and water
bodies. However, the said procedure may not limit the rights
and legitimate interests of other persons, including those of
the private owners of land lots, forests and water bodies, more
than it is necessary in order to achieve the said socially
important objective.
22. As mentioned, hunting is a type of economic activity
or a constituent part of wider economic activity.
The constitutional bases of economic activity are
established in Article 46 of the Constitution, which provides:
"Lithuania's economy shall be based on the right of
private ownership and individual freedom of economic activity
and initiative.
The State shall support economic efforts and initiatives
that are useful to the society.
The State shall regulate economic activity so that it
serves the general welfare of the Nation.
The law shall prohibit monopolisation of production and
the market and shall protect freedom of fair competition.
The State shall defend the interests of the consumer."
23. The petitioner disputes the compliance of Paragraph 1
of Article 8 of the Law on Hunting with Article 46 of the
Constitution only in the aspect that in his opinion the
provision "a hunting unit must comprise at least 1000 ha of
integral hunting area, save the cases where smaller hunting
units are established for scientific and education purposes
upon the proposal of the Ministry of Environment, or where such
units are established in the territories of fishery ponds upon
the proposal of the Ministry of Agriculture" of the said
paragraph is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 46 of the
Constitution.
24. The provision "Lithuania's economy shall be based on
the right of private ownership and individual freedom of
economic activity and initiative" of Paragraph 1 of Article 46
of the Constitution defines the basis of the national economy,
which comprises these values: the right of private ownership,
individual freedom of economic activity, as well as initiative
(Constitutional Court ruling of 14 March 2002). These three
values, the right of private ownership, individual freedom of
economic activity, as well as initiative, are interrelated;
individual freedom of economic activity and initiative cannot
be separated from the right of private ownership. In its
rulings of 20 April 1995 and 14 March 2002, the Constitutional
Court held that freedom of economic activity and initiative are
grounded on the innate human freedom and innate right to
possess property. In its ruling of 14 March 2002, the
Constitutional Court also held that a person's constitutional
right to property is an essential condition for implementation
of individual economic freedom and that if a person's ownership
right is limited, individual economic freedom is limited as
well. In its ruling of 27 October 1998, the Constitutional
Court held that in Paragraph 1 of Article 46 of the
Constitution the fundamental role is attached to private
ownership-one of the main values, upon which the national
economy is based.
In its rulings the Constitutional Court has held more than
once that the freedom of individual economic activity and
initiative is the whole complex of legal opportunities which
creates preconditions for an individual independently to adopt
decisions necessary for his economic activity. The
constitutional freedom of individual economic activity creates
conditions for implementation of various strivings of a person
(Constitutional Court rulings of 6 October 1999, 14 March 2002,
and 26 January 2004).
The provisions of Article 46 of the Constitution must be
construed also in connection with other provisions of the
Constitution. In its rulings the Constitutional Court has held
more than once that the notion of the freedom of individual
economic activity and initiative entrenched in Paragraph 1 of
Article 46 of the Constitution is a broad one: it inter alia
implies the right of a person to freely choose a job and
business (occupation), freedom of conclusion of contracts,
freedom of fair competition, etc. Freedom of individual
economic activity is also inseparable from the requirement to
pay heed to equality of rights of economic entities. Freedom of
individual economic activity and initiative also implies
opportunities to restructure economic entities without
restrictions, to change the character of their activity, not to
obstruct establishment of new economic entities or liquidate
the existing ones when one reacts to changes in the market; it
is inseparable from an opportunity of a person, who is willing
to engage in an economic activity or, conversely, who is
willing to drop it, to get into the market without artificial
barriers and to abandon it without artificial barriers.
The Constitutional Court has stressed that the freedom of
economic activity is not absolute, a person makes use of it
only when he follows certain obligatory requirements and
limitations (Constitutional Court rulings of 20 April 1995, 18
October 2000, 14 March 2002 and 9 April 2002). However, by the
established limitations it is not permitted to deny such
essential provisions of freedom of economic activity as
equality of rights of economic entities, fair competition etc.
Under the Constitution, the state cannot interfere with the
economic activity of a person without limitations
(Constitutional Court ruling of 20 April 1995).
25. The principles entrenched in Article 46 of the
Constitution constitute a whole-the constitutional basis of the
economy of this country (Constitutional Court rulings of 6
October 1999, 6 December 2000, and 17 March 2003). The
Constitutional Court has held that all provisions of Article 46
of the Constitution are interrelated and supplement one another
(Constitutional Court rulings of 23 February 2000, 18 October
2000, and 26 January 2004), that the principles established
therein are coordinated, that there is a balance among them,
that each of these constitutional principles must be construed
without denying another constitutional principle
(Constitutional Court rulings of 6 October 1999 and 17 March
2003).
Thus, in the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue, one is also to mention certain connections of the
provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 46 of the Constitution with
the provisions of Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the same article.
26. In Paragraph 2 of Article 46 of the Constitution, as
well as in other parts of this article, the obligation of the
state to support economic efforts and initiatives that are
useful to the society is consolidated, which is also one of the
main rules of regulation of the economy of this country
(Constitutional Court ruling of 27 October 1998).
While construing the legal regulation entrenched in
Paragraph 2 of Article 46 of the Constitution, the
Constitutional Court has held that the provision "the State
shall support economic efforts and initiatives that are useful
to the society" of this paragraph means that the Constitution
provides for an opportunity of state institutions to assess
areas of economic activity according to their use to society,
that it is permitted to support certain areas of economic
activity or certain economic efforts only upon such assessment,
also that that such assessment of economic activity creates
necessary preconditions for the state to regulate economic
activity so that is serves the general welfare of the Nation
(Constitutional Court ruling of 13 February 1997). The said
provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 46 of the Constitution
creates constitutional legal preconditions for a possible
differentiated regulation of economic activity, the main
criterion of which is the general welfare of the Nation.
This provision also implies a duty of state institutions
and their officials, as well of municipal institutions and
their officials not to hinder by any of their decisions or
actions any expression and development of initiative of
persons, not to disrupt nor bar the way to their economic
efforts provided this initiative or economic activities are not
harmful to society, even if their usefulness to society is not
evident. Any decision or actions of state institutions and
their officials, as well of municipal institutions and their
officials which do not permit expression and development of
initiative of persons and by which one bars the way to certain
economic efforts must be determined by harmfulness of a
respective initiative or economic efforts to society; otherwise
one would deviate from the requirements of Paragraph 2 of
Article 46 of the Constitution.
27. The provision "the State shall regulate economic
activity so that it serves the general welfare of the Nation"
of Paragraph 3 of Article 46 of the Constitution is also
directly linked with the provision "Lithuania's economy shall
be based on the right of private ownership and individual
freedom of economic activity and initiative" of Paragraph 1 of
the same paragraph. While construing the legal regulation
entrenched in Paragraph 3 of Article 46 of the Constitution,
the Constitutional Court has held that in the course of
implementation of individual freedom of economic activity
(which, as mentioned, is not absolute) the interests of society
are touched upon in various respects, therefore the state
regulates economic activity; in its rulings the Constitutional
Court has held more than once that in the provision "the State
shall regulate economic activity so that it serves the general
welfare of the Nation" the constitutional principle is
entrenched, which draws the objectives, guidelines, ways and
limits of regulation of economic activity.
While construing the legal regulation entrenched in
Paragraph 3 of Article 46 of the Constitution in a systemic
manner (by relating it with inter alia the legal regulation
consolidated in Paragraph 1 of the same article), the
Constitutional Court has held that the state, while regulating
economic activity, must follow the principle of coordination of
interests of the person and the society, and ensure the
interests of both the private person (an entity of economic
activity) and the society (Constitutional Court rulings of 18
October 2000, 9 April 2002, 17 March 2003 and 26 January 2004).
As a rule, regulation of economic activity is linked with
establishment of conditions for economic activity, regulation
of certain procedures, control of economic activity, as well as
with certain limitations and prohibitions of this activity. In
its ruling of 31 March 1994, the Constitutional Court held that
when a person participates in an economic activity, special
limitations (inter alia limitations on the right of ownership)
which are established by laws can be applied to him. In its
rulings the Constitutional Court has held more than once that
under the Constitution it is permitted to limit the rights and
freedoms of the person, as well as the freedom of economic
activity, if the following conditions are followed: this is
done by means of legislation; the limitations are necessary in
a democratic society in order to protect the rights and
freedoms of other persons and values entrenched in the
Constitution, as well as constitutionally important objectives;
the limitations do not deny the nature and essence of the
rights and freedoms; the constitutional principle of
proportionality is followed.
It needs to be noted that the formula "the State shall
regulate economic activity" of Paragraph 3 of Article 46 of the
Constitution means not the right of the state to administer all
or certain economic activity at its discretion, but its right
to establish legal regulation of economic activity, i.e.
establishment of limitations (prohibitions) and conditions of
economic activity, regulation of procedures in legal acts, as
well as such control of economic activity which is based upon
limitations (prohibitions), conditions and procedures of
economic activity which are established in legal acts. In this
context it needs to be noted that in its ruling of 6 October
1999 the Constitutional Court, while construing the legal
regulation entrenched in Article 46 of the Constitution, held:
"Legal regulation is a form of establishment of certain social
order. Peculiarities of legal regulation depend on the specific
character of the regulated social relations. One area of such
relations is economic activity. The constitutional principle of
freedom of individual economic activity and initiative
conditions the fact that regulation of economic activity is
characteristic of the method of common permission: everything
is permitted what is not prohibited. Thus prohibitions are one
of the ways to regulate economic activity. Individual economic
activity may be restricted when it is necessary to protect the
interests of consumers, fair competition and the other values
entrenched in the Constitution. The prohibitions provided for
in the law must be reasonable, non-discriminatory and clearly
formulated. Due to complexity of economic activity and dynamism
of particular relations, regulation in this area may not be the
same all the time, i.e. the proportion of prohibitions and
permissions may fluctuate, however, in the course of alteration
of the content of legal regulation the principles of regulation
of the national economy established in the Constitution may not
be denied." It was also held in the same ruling of the
Constitutional Court that "an individual may indulge in any
economic activity which is not prohibited by law. The
prohibition concerning freedom of economic activity of
individuals must be clear in every particular case and must be
designated for the protection of the values entrenched in the
Constitution, i.e. those of fair competition, interests of
consumers etc."
It also needs to be noted that not only the right but also
the obligation of the state to regulate economic activity by
legal acts so that it serves the general welfare of the Nation
is consolidated in the provision "the State shall regulate
economic activity so that it serves the general welfare of the
Nation" of Paragraph 3 of Article 46 of the Constitution. Thus,
the obligation of the state to seek the general welfare of the
Nation and the obligation of the state to regulate, while
seeking the general welfare of the Nation, to regulate the
economic activity in this country are entrenched in the
Constitution. Neither the legislative nor executive power,
while enjoying respective empowerments in the area of economic
activity, may opt out of this constitutional obligation.
Legal regulation of economic activity is not an end in
itself, it is a means of social engineering and a way to seek
welfare of the Nation through law. In its rulings the
Constitutional Court has held that the right of the state to
regulate economic activity which is consolidated in Paragraph 3
of Article 46 of the Constitution creates constitutional
preconditions to pass laws by which one reacts to a situation
of national economy, the variety of and changes in the economic
and social life (Constitutional Court rulings of 28 February
1996, 15 March 1996, and 18 October 2000).
It needs to be stressed that Paragraph 3 of Article 46 of
the Constitution clearly indicates the guideline of the legal
regulation of economic activity: economic activity must serve
the general welfare of the Nation. The Constitutional Court has
held that the general welfare of the people is a rather general
and broad criterion and in its application one may base oneself
on the concept of general welfare as well as the arguments of
purposiveness (Constitutional Court ruling of 13 February
1997). As a rule, the welfare of the Nation is reflected by
consumption of material goods; however, the notion "general
welfare of the Nation" should not be construed by only taking
account of satisfaction of material needs of the individual,
since it is possible to judge the general welfare of the Nation
according to various criteria and on various
manifestations-social development of the Nation, opportunities
of self-expression of the human being etc.; the content of the
notion "general welfare of the Nation" is revealed in each
concrete case by taking account of economic, social and other
important factors (Constitutional Court rulings of 6 October
1999, 18 October 2000, and 26 January 2004). The Constitutional
Court has emphasised that the welfare of the Nation may not be
understood only in material (financial) sense and that hardly
would it be fair and moral to seek material welfare in such a
way which is harmful to people's health (Constitutional Court
ruling of 13 February 1997).
Alongside, it needs to be stressed that the notion
"general welfare of the Nation" of Paragraph 3 of Article 46 of
the Constitution implies that by means of regulation of
economic activity the state must seek the welfare of not
individual persons but precisely the general welfare of the
Nation. On the other hand, the "general welfare of the Nation"
indicated in Paragraph 3 of Article 46 of the Constitution
cannot be opposed to the welfare, rights and legitimate
interests of the economic entity itself, i.e. the entity the
activity of which is regulated, as well as those of other
persons who have established and are running the said economic
entity or are otherwise related to the said entity. While
taking account of the principle of coordination of interests of
the person and society which is established in the
Constitution, as well as the fact that in the Constitution the
individual freedom of economic activity and initiative are
linked with the right of private ownership, it is not permitted
that the regulation by which the rights and legitimate
interests of a certain economic entity are limited more than
necessary to ensure the public interest and to protect
constitutional values be grounded upon or justified by the
general welfare of the Nation indicated in Paragraph 3 of
Article 46 of the Constitution; the legal regulation where a
certain economic activity is unduly limited or prohibited due
to the fact that, from the standpoint of the legislator, it,
purportedly, is not useful, although not harmful, to society,
cannot be justified by serving of the economic activity to the
welfare of the Nation, either. The guideline of legal
regulation of economic activity pointed out in Paragraph 3 of
Article 46 of the Constitution is to be construed as a
constitutional obligation to the legislator and other
institutions of lawmaking to ensure a favourable legal
environment for an economic activity which, while satisfying
the interests of the economic entity, would also serve the
general welfare of the Nation. The Constitutional Court has
held that the state, while regulating economic activity, may
not establish any such legal regulation whereby unfavourable
and unequal economic conditions are established to economic
entities, whereby their initiative is restricted and
opportunities for its manifestation are not created
(Constitutional Court ruling of 9 April 2002). It also needs to
be noted that in its rulings of 14 March 2002 and 26 January
2004 the Constitutional Court held that under the Constitution
no such legal regulation may be established whereby
inappropriate conditions are created for implementation of
freedom of economic activity.
28. The constitutional values upon which the national
economy is grounded are tightly related with other
constitutional values. The provisions of Article 46 of the
Constitution must be construed by relating them with other
provisions of the Constitution.
28.1. For instance, the Constitutional Court has held that
all paragraphs of Article 46 of the Constitution are, first of
all, designed for consolidation and strengthening of private
ownership in the economy of this country (Constitutional Court
ruling of 27 October 1998). If the legal regulation was
established by legal acts, whereby the right of ownership is
denied, the freedom of individual economic activity and
initiative as well as freedom of fair competition established
in Article 46 of the Constitution would be limited in essence
and other provisions of Article 46 of the Constitution would be
violated (Constitutional Court ruling of 23 February 2000).
28.2. Under the Constitution, the state, while regulating
economic activity, must pay heed to the constitutional
requirement of equality of rights of economic entities, which
is directly related to the principle of equal rights of all
persons, which is entrenched in Article 29 of the Constitution.
Otherwise, the legal regulation of economic activity would not
be considered as one serving the general welfare of the Nation.
On the other hand, in its rulings the Constitutional Court has
also held more than once that the constitutional principle of
equality of rights of persons (of economic entities in this
case) in itself does not deny an opportunity to establish
diverse, differentiated legal regulation by means of
legislation with respect to certain persons (economic entities
in this case) which belong to different categories, if there
exist differences between these persons (economic entities in
this case) of such character, which objectively justify such
differentiated regulation. Differentiated legal regulation,
when it is applied to certain groups of persons which are
distinguished by the same signs, and in case it strives for
positive and socially meaningful goals, or if the establishment
of certain limitations or conditions is linked with
peculiarities of regulated social relations, is not regarded as
discrimination (Constitutional Court ruling of 11 November
1998). Singling out of individual economic entities and
differentiated establishment of their legal situation must be
linked with the objectives raised by the state in the sphere of
economy, with the striving for respective arrangement of the
economy of this country, therefore, the legislator, while
taking account of the importance and character of the regulated
economic relations, may regulate this activity in a
differentiated manner or establish certain conditions for it
(Constitutional Court ruling of 18 October 2000).
28.3. As mentioned, due to a specific character, variety
and dynamism of economic activity, regulation of concrete
relations in this area cannot be the same all the time, i.e.
the ratio of prohibitions and permissions is subject to change.
In this context it needs to be noted that the legal regulation
of economic activity may also be changed in order to ensure the
public interest. While changing the legal regulation of
relations of economic activity, the state can also change
conditions of economic activity or generally establish the
legal regulation under which certain economic activity must be
discontinued. However, while changing the conditions of
economic activity or discontinuing certain economic activity,
the state must pay heed to the norms and principles of the
Constitution, as well as the principle of protection of
legitimate expectations.
The Constitutional Court has held more than once that the
principle of protection of legitimate expectations implies a
duty of the state and of other state institutions that
implement state power to follow obligations undertaken by the
state, that this principle also means protection of acquired
rights, i.e. persons have the right to reasonably expect that
the rights acquired under valid laws and other legal acts which
are not in conflict with the Constitution will be retained for
the established time and that it will be possible to implement
these rights in reality, that, under the principle of
legitimate expectations, it is permitted to change legal
regulation only according to a prior established procedure and
without violating norms and principles of the Constitution, and
that it is not permitted that by amendments to the legal
regulation the legitimate interests and legitimate expectations
of a person be violated (Constitutional Court rulings of 18
December 2001, 4 March 2003 and 3 December 2003).
In its ruling of 13 December 2004, the Constitutional
Court held that there may be factual situations, where the
person who meets the conditions established in legal acts,
under the said legal acts acquired particular rights and
therefore gained expectations, which could be considered by
this person to be reasonably legitimate during the period of
validity of the said legal acts, therefore, he could reasonably
expect that if he obeys law, and fulfils the requirements of
the laws, his expectations will be held legitimate by the state
and will be defended and protected. Even the legal acts which,
on the basis and upon the procedure established in the
Constitution and the laws, are later recognised as being in
conflict with the Constitution (substatutory legal acts-as
being in conflict with the Constitution and/or the laws), may
give rise to such expectations.
In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue, it needs to be noted that if an economic entity acquired
the right to engage in a certain economic activity and
implemented this right under valid laws and other legal acts,
thus, when the legal regulation of such economic activity is
changed so that conditions of this economic activity are
worsened or this economic activity is discontinued at all,
while taking account of why the legal regulation of the said
economic activity is changed and to what extent it is changed,
also taking account of other important circumstances, there may
arise a duty to the state to recompense (compensate) the
economic entities and other persons the losses which they
experience due to the changed legal regulation.
29. In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue, it need to be noted that the bases of the national
economy entrenched in Paragraph 1 of Article 46 of the
Constitution are to be construed by taking account of the
provisions of Article 54 as well. The state must regulate
economic activity so that, by not denying the bases of the
national economy-the right of private ownership and individual
freedom of economic activity and initiative-one would also
ensure the public interest consolidated in Article 54 of the
Constitution, which is protection of natural environment, fauna
and flora, individual objects of nature and districts of
particular value, ensuring rational use of natural resources,
and that of their restoration and augmentation, to guarantee
which is a constitutional obligation of the state. By seeking
to ensure this public interest, inter alia seeking to ensure
the protection and rational use, restoration and augmentation
of wild animals (their resources), the state, while regulating
economic activity, can establish specific conditions of
economic activity, procedures and means of control, as well as
certain limitation or prohibitions of economic activity related
with use of respective natural resources.
However, the aforesaid limitations or prohibitions must be
established by means of legislation. Also, it needs to be
stressed that the said limitations, prohibitions, specific
conditions of economic activity, procedures and means of
control must be necessary in a democratic society in order to
seek a socially important objective, they can deny neither the
nature nor the essence of freedoms and rights of the person,
and the constitutional principle of proportionality must be
followed.
In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue, one is to emphasise that the aforesaid limitations,
prohibitions, specific conditions of economic activity,
procedures and means of control cannot deny the rights of
ownership of owners of private land lots, forests and water
bodies, nor their freedom of economic activity and initiative.
VIII
On the compliance of the provision "It shall be prohibited
to hunt <...> in the land lots located in hunting plots, if
their owners have prohibited hunting therein upon the procedure
established in Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law" of
Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Law on Hunting and the
provision "The owner of a private land lot, whose land is
intended to be assigned or is already assigned to a hunting
plot unit according to the procedure established in Article 8
of this Law, shall have the right to prohibit hunting in the
land owned by him, if agricultural crops or forest will suffer
damage during the hunting" of Paragraph 2 of Article 13 with
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution.
1. The petitioner requests to investigate as to whether
the provision "It shall be prohibited to hunt <...> in the land
lots located in hunting plots, if their owners have prohibited
hunting therein upon the procedure established in Paragraph 2
of Article 13 of the Law" of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 and the
provision "The owner of a private land lot, whose land is
intended to be assigned or is already assigned to a hunting
plot unit according to the procedure established in Article 8
of this Law, shall have the right to prohibit hunting in the
land owned by him, if agricultural crops or forest will suffer
damage during the hunting" of Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the
Law on Hunting are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of
Article 23 of the Constitution.
The formula "in the land lots located in hunting plots, if
their owners have prohibited hunting therein upon the procedure
established in Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law" of the
disputed by the petitioner provision of Paragraph 2 of Article
7 of the Law on Hunting is set forth in Item 2 of this
paragraph.
2. It has been mentioned that the disputed provisions
Paragraph 2 of Article 7 and Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the
Law on Hunting may not be separated from Paragraphs 9 and 10 of
Article 8 of this law.
It is inter alia established in Paragraph 9 of Article 8
of the Law on Hunting: "Having drafted a preliminary project on
forming of hunting plot units or changing their boundaries, the
commission specified in Paragraph 3 of this article shall
announce this fact in a national and local press and shall set
a 1 month period, during which the persons indicated in
Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of this Law may submit to the
commission of a respective municipality written requirements,
and other concerned private or legal persons-proposals
concerning the project on forming of hunting plot units or
changing its boundaries. Such written proposals and
requirements shall be submitted to the commission set forth in
Paragraph 3 of this article directly or through wards, in which
the land lots owned by the persons who submit proposals or
requirements are located. When the owner of a land lot changes,
such petition must be submitted through the ward, in which the
land lot is located, within 1 month from the date of
registration of the ownership right at the Real Estate
Registry. The commission indicated in Paragraph 3 of this
article shall mark the territories, in which hunting is
prohibited according to Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of this Law
until the expiry of the period specified by the persons who set
these requirements, in the plan of the hunting plot unit."
It is inter alia established in Paragraph 10 of Article 8
of the Law on Hunting: "Upon expiry of the period established
in Paragraph 9 of this article, the Commission on Formation of
Hunting Plot Units and Changing Their Boundaries, after
examining the received requirements or proposals and assessing
whether they are in compliance with the requirements provided
for in Paragraph 1 of this article, shall decide whether it is
expedient to take account of the received proposals, it shall
amend, if needed, the project on forming of the hunting plot
unit or changing its boundaries, and within 1 month submit this
project for approval to the head of a respective county."
Having taking account of the systemic links between
Paragraph 2 of Article 7 and Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the
Law on Hunting with the indicated provisions of Paragraphs 9
and 10 of Article 8 of this law, in the process of evaluation
whether the disputed provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 and
Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law on Hunting are not in
conflict with the Constitution, one must assess alongside
whether the indicated provisions of Paragraphs 9 and 10 of
Article 8 of this law are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 and
2 of Article 23 of the Constitution.
3. Having systemically construed the provisions of
Paragraph 2 of Article 7 and Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the
Law on Hunting that are disputed by the petitioner together
with the indicated provisions of Paragraphs 9 and 10 of Article
8 of this law, it was held in this Ruling of the Constitutional
Court that in the Law on Hunting one has entrenched the legal
regulation where the owner of a private land lot has the right
to prohibit hunting in the land owned by him, but he may do so
only on the grounds and only upon the procedure that is
established in Paragraph 2 of Article 7, Paragraphs 9 and 10 of
Article 8, and Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law on Hunting.
4. Pursuant to the Constitution the legislator, when
regulating the relations of hunting and those linked therewith,
may not establish the legal regulation where hunting may be
permitted in the private land lots located in the hunting plots
without permission of the owners of these particular land lots.
In this regard the owner may not be subject to any restrictions
on the grounds established in any legal acts, in the absence of
which one could pay no heed of his will that no hunting should
take place in the land, forest, or water body belonging to him
under the ownership right. If it is intended to use a land lot
owned by the person by right of ownership for hunting, the
owner of this lot must be informed in a due manner-directly,
and a reasonable, thus sufficient period must be established,
during which the owner could have a realistic opportunity to
express freely his will concerning the fact of whether one may
or may not hunt in this lot, as well as under what
circumstances does he agree that hunting may take place in this
lot.
In this context it is to be noted that the ownership
rights of the owner would not be automatically violated by such
legal regulation where the fact that the failure of the owner
of the private land lot which is located in hunting plots,
whose land is intended to be used for hunting and who has been
duly informed of this, to express his will whether hunting may
or may not take place in this particular lot within the
reasonable time is considered to be his consent that hunting
may take place in that lot. Moreover, it is worth noting that
by the law one may establish various forms and procedure of
expressing the consent of the owner of the private land lot
which is located in hunting plots that hunting may take place
in that lot, inter alia that agreements may be concluded
concerning the granting of the right to hunt in the land lot of
the owner.
5. It has been held in this Ruling of the Constitutional
Court that while the hunting plot unit is under formation the
owner may implement his right to prohibit hunting in the land
lot which is located in hunting plots owned by him only on the
grounds established in Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law on
Hunting and only upon the procedure established in Paragraphs 9
and 10 of Article 8 of this law. Moreover, it has been held
that in Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law on Hunting the
sole ground, in the existence of which the owner may implement
the aforementioned right of his own, is that agricultural crops
or forest will suffer damage during the hunting. It was held
also that according to Paragraph 10 of Article 8 of the Law on
Hunting a decision whether to take into account the
requirements of the owner of the land lot and, while forming a
respective hunting plot unit to prohibit hunting in the land
lot which is located in hunting plots owned by this particular
owner, is made by the commission indicated in the Law on
Hunting, thus even in the cases where the owner of the land lot
which is located in hunting plots does not agree that hunting
takes place in his land lot and his disagreement is based on
the threat of damage to agricultural crops or forest, the
commission may take no account of the requirements of the owner
and decide without his consent that hunting will take place in
that particular land lot. In addition, it was held that in this
way prerequisites are created for the originations of such
legal situations where against the will of the owner of private
land or a water body certain commission decides on his behalf
that hunting will take place in the land lot, forest of water
body belonging to him under the ownership right.
By such legal regulation one interferes in the right of
the owner of private land, forests or water bodies to decide
whether the land, forests or water bodies belonging to him
under the private ownership right may be used for hunting, thus
the ownership rights of owners of private land, forests, or
water bodies become unreasonably restricted.
6. It has been held also in this Ruling of the
Constitutional Court that the fact that in Paragraph 9 of
Article 8 of the Law on Hunting one has established the
procedure, upon which the owner is informed that the land lot
owned by him is intended to be assigned to hunting plot unit,
and a period (of 1 month) is established, during which the
owner may submit to the commission indicated in the Law on
Hunting the requirements related to the use of the land lot
which is located in hunting plots and owned by him for hunting,
including the requirement to prohibit hunting in that
particular land lot, creates prerequisites for the origination
of such legal situations where the owner of the land lot which
is located in hunting plots does not even know about the formed
hunting plot unit, and thus, he may not make use of his right
that he is entitled to under the Law on Hunting to submit to
the commission indicated in the Law on Hunting the requirements
related to the use of the land lot which is located in hunting
plots and owned by him for hunting, including the requirement
to prohibit hunting in that particular land lot.
Thus, in Paragraph 9 of Article 8 of the Law on Hunting
one has established such way of informing the owner about the
fact that the land lot owned by him is intended to be assigned
to a hunting plot unit and such period, during which the owner
may submit to the commission established in the Law on Hunting
the requirements related to the use of the land lot which is
located in hunting plots and which is owned by him for hunting,
including the requirement to prohibit hunting in that
particular land lot, that the owner may found himself in a
situation where the right, to which he is entitled under the
Law on Hunting, to submit to the commission indicated in the
Law on Hunting the requirements related to the use of the land
lot which is located in hunting plots and which is owned by him
for hunting, including the requirement to prohibit hunting in
that particular land lot, cannot be implemented. By such legal
regulation one interferes in the right to the owner of private
land, forests or water bodies to decide, whether the land,
forests, or water bodies belonging to him by right of ownership
may be used for hunting, thus, the ownership rights of owners
of private land, forests, or water bodies become unreasonably
restricted.
7. It has been held in this Ruling of the Constitutional
Court that a person, who acquired a land lot as ownership from
another owner, which is already included in a particular,
already formed hunting plot unit, has the right under the Law
on Hunting to prohibit hunting in that particular lot, but he
may implement it only on the basis established in Paragraph 2
of Article 13 of this law and only within a certain period
(within 1 month from the date of registration of the ownership
right at the Real Estate Registry), moreover, a decision
whether to grant or not the requirement of the new owner to
prohibit hunting in the land lot owned by him is made not by
the owner himself, but by the commission indicated in the Law
on Hunting.
By such legal regulation one interferes in the right to
the owner of private land, forests or water bodies to decide,
whether the land, forests, or water bodies belonging to him by
right of ownership may be used for hunting. Thus, by such legal
regulation the ownership rights of owners of private land,
forests, or water bodies become unreasonably restricted.
8. It has been held in this Ruling of the Constitutional
Court that according to the Law on Hunting the owner of the
land lot which is located in hunting plots has no right, after
the respective hunting plot unit is formed, to prohibit hunting
in the land lot which is owned by him and already included in
that hunting plot unit. It is established in the Law on Hunting
that only the aforementioned new owner enjoys such a right.
In this regard the ownership rights of owners of private
land, forests, or water bodies become unreasonably restricted
as well.
9. Having taking account of the above mentioned arguments,
a conclusion is to be made that:
- the provision "The owner of a private land lot, whose
land is intended to be assigned or is already assigned to a
hunting plot unit according to the procedure established in
Article 8 of this Law, shall have the right to prohibit hunting
in the land owned by him, if agricultural crops or forest will
suffer damage during the hunting" of Paragraph 2 of Article 13
of the Law on Hunting to the extent that it does not provide
for the right of the owner of a private land lot to prohibit,
without any restrictions, hunting in the land owned by him not
only if damage will be inflicted during hunting upon
agricultural crops or forest, but in all other cases as well,
is in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the
Constitution;
- Paragraph 9 of Article 8 of the Law on Hunting, to the
extent that it establishes that the owner of a private land lot
is informed about the fact that the land lot belonging to him
by right of ownership is intended to be used for hunting not
directly, but only when the commission of a respective
municipality informs in national and local press about the
prepared preliminary project on forming of hunting plot unit or
changing its boundaries, and to the extent that it establishes
the period of 1 month, during which the persons indicated in
Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of this Law may submit to the
commission of a respective municipality written requirements
concerning the project on forming of hunting plot unit or
changing its boundaries, as well as the provision "When the
owner of a land lot changes, such petition must be submitted
only through the ward, in which the land lot is located, within
1 month from the date of registration of the ownership right at
the Real Estate Registry" of Paragraph 9 of Article 8 of the
Law on Hunting, is in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of
Article 23 of the Constitution;
- Paragraph 10 of Article 8 of the Law on Hunting, to the
extent that it establishes that the Commission on Formation of
Hunting Plot Units and Changing Their Boundaries may also take
no account of the will of the owner of a private land, forest,
or water body that no hunting should take place in the private
land, forest, or water body belonging to him by the ownership
right, is in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of
the Constitution.
10. Having held that according to the Constitution the
legislator may not establish such legal regulation where
hunting in the private land lots which are located in hunting
plots is permitted without the consent of the owners of the
aforementioned land lots, and that in this regard the owner may
not be subject to restrictions on any grounds established in
legal acts, in the absence of which one could pay no heed of
his will that no hunting should take place in the land, forest,
or water body belonging to him under the ownership right,
however, by the law one may establish various forms and
procedure of expressing the consent of the owner of the private
land lot which is located in hunting plots that hunting may
take place in that lot, in addition, having held that the
provision "The owner of a private land lot, whose land is
intended to be assigned or is already assigned to a hunting
plot unit according to the procedure established in Article 8
of this Law, shall have the right to prohibit hunting in the
land owned by him, if agricultural crops or forest will suffer
damage during the hunting" of Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the
Law on Hunting to the extent that it does not provide for the
right of the owner of a private land lot to prohibit, without
any restrictions, hunting in the land owned by him not only if
damage will be inflicted during hunting upon agricultural crops
or forest, but in all other cases as well, is in conflict with
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution, one
should hold that in itself the provision "Hunting is prohibited
in: <...> (2) land lots located in the hunting plots, if their
owners have prohibited hunting therein upon the procedure
established in Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law on Hunting"
of Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Law on Hunting is not in
conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the
Constitution.
IX
On the compliance of the provision "A hunting plot unit
must comprise at least 1000 ha of continuous hunting area, save
the cases where smaller hunting plot units are established for
scientific and education purposes upon the proposal of the
Ministry of Environment, or where such units are established in
the territories of fishery ponds upon the proposal of the
Ministry of Agriculture" of Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Law
on Hunting with Paragraph 1 of Article 46 of the Constitution.
1. The petitioner requests to investigate as to whether
the provision "A hunting plot unit must comprise at least 1000
ha of continuous hunting area, save the cases where smaller
hunting plot units are established for scientific and education
purposes upon the proposal of the Ministry of Environment, or
where such units are established in the territories of fishery
ponds upon the proposal of the Ministry of Agriculture" of
Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Law on Hunting is not in
conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 46 of the Constitution.
2. It is obvious from the petition of the petitioner that
he had doubts only concerning the compliance of the part of the
provision "A hunting plot unit must comprise at least 1000 ha
of continuous hunting area", but not the whole provision of
Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Law on Hunting, with Paragraph
1 of Article 46 of the Constitution.
3. It was mentioned that hunting is a type of economic
activity or a constituent part of broader economic activity of
a person. In order to ensure the public interest-protection and
rational use, as well as restoration and augmentation of
wildlife (its resources)-the state, by regulating hunting as an
economic activity, may establish by laws specific conditions of
economic activity, inter alia sizes of hunting plots; they are
established after taking account of inter alia the size of
resources of huntable animals and the need to regulate their
abundance. By doing so, one must follow the constitutional
principle of proportionality and not deny the ownership rights
of owners of private land lots, forests, and water bodies, as
well as freedom and initiative of their economic activity.
4. Moreover, it is worth noting that, as it was held in
this Ruling of the Constitutional Court, pursuant to the
Constitution the legislator may not establish such legal
regulation, where hunting would be permitted in private land
lots, which are located in hunting plots, with the consent of
owners of that land lots, and that in this regard the owner may
not be subject to restrictions on the grounds established in
any legal acts, in the absence of which one could pay no heed
of his will that no hunting should take place in the land,
forest, or water body belonging to him under the ownership
right, however, by the law one may establish various forms and
procedure of expressing the consent of the owner of the private
land lot which is located in hunting plots that hunting may
take place in that lot. It was held also in this Ruling of the
Constitutional Court that the provision "The owner of a private
land lot, whose land is intended to be assigned or is already
assigned to a hunting plot unit according to the procedure
established in Article 8 of this Law, shall have the right to
prohibit hunting in the land owned by him, if agricultural
crops or forest will suffer damage during the hunting" of
Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law on Hunting to the extent
that it does not provide for the right of the owner of a
private land lot to prohibit, without any restrictions, hunting
in the land owned by him not only if damage will be inflicted
during hunting upon agricultural crops or forest, but in all
other cases as well, is in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of
Article 23 of the Constitution;
5. When deciding as to whether the provision "A hunting
plot unit must comprise at least 1000 ha of continuous hunting
area" of Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Law on Hunting is not
in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 46 of the Constitution
in regard to the aspect that it establishes the minimum size of
a hunting plot unit, it is to be held that establishment by a
law of the minimum size of a hunting plot unit as one of the
means by which one strives to ensure a rational use (i.e.
regulation and control) of populations of huntable animals,
does not violate itself the ownership rights of the owners of
private land lots, forests, and water bodies, as well as the
freedom and initiative of their economic activity, that are
defended by inter alia Paragraph 1 of Article 46 of the
Constitution, which is indicated by the petitioner.
6. When deciding whether the provision "A hunting plot
unit must comprise at least 1000 ha of continuous hunting area"
of Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Law on Hunting is not in
conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 46 of the Constitution in
regard to the aspect that the established minimum size of a
hunting plot unit amounts namely to 1000 ha, it is to be held
that there are not enough legal arguments proving that this
size does not match the amount of resources of huntable wild
animals and the need to regulate their abundance and that due
to this it should be different.
7. Having considered the aforementioned arguments it is to
be concluded that the provision "A hunting plot unit must
comprise at least 1000 ha of continuous hunting area" of
Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Law on Hunting is not in
conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 46 of the Constitution.
X
On the compliance of Paragraph 7 of Article 18 of the Law
on Hunting with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the
Constitution.
1. The petitioner requests to investigate, as to whether
Paragraph 7 of Article 18 of the Law on Hunting is not in
conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the
Constitution.
2. It is established in Paragraph 7 of Article 18 of the
Law on Hunting: "The damage inflicted by huntable animals shall
not be recovered, if it is made in the land lots whose owner
has prohibited hunting upon the procedure established in
Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law."
3. When deciding, whether Paragraph 7 of Article 18 of the
Law on Hunting is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of
Article 23 of the Constitution, it should be noted that, as
already held in this Ruling of the Constitutional Court, the
state enjoys the constitutional duty to ensure proper
management (i.e. regulation and control) of populations of wild
animals (their species) and that hunting is one of the ways of
management (i.e. regulation and control) of populations of wild
animals (their species), as well as that having not ensured
proper management (i.e. regulation and control) of populations
of wild animals (their species) prerequisites would be created
to inflict damage upon various values entrenched in and
protected and defended by the Constitution, thus the rights and
interests of a person as well.
In the Constitution one has consolidated the imperative
that ownership includes obligations. It has been held in this
Ruling of the Constitutional Court that according to the
Constitution one must establish such legal regulation, which
would consolidate the duty of the owners themselves to
efficiently contribute to the public interest that is
entrenched in the Constitution-protection of natural
environment, fauna and flora, individual objects of nature and
especially valuable territories, as well as rational use,
restoration and augmentation of natural resources-inter alia
ensuring proper management of populations of wild animals
(their species).
If the owner of private land, forest, or a water body
prohibits hunting in the land owned by him, administration
(i.e. regulation and control) of populations of animals (their
species) in the respective territory becomes also more
difficult in the aspect that in this way one may inflict damage
on legal rights and interests of the owner himself, including
the fact that huntable animals may cause certain damage to the
aforementioned owners. The owner who has prohibited hunting of
huntable animals in the land owned by him accepts respective
risk; there is no reason to require the above mentioned damage
to be recovered by someone else.
4. It is obvious from the petition of the petitioner that
he had doubts concerning the fact whether Paragraph 7 of
Article 18 of the Law on Hunting is not in conflict with
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution and
concerning the fact that in this paragraph reference is made to
Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of this law.
5. It has been held in this Ruling of the Constitutional
Court that the provision "The owner of a private land lot,
whose land is intended to be assigned or is already assigned to
a hunting plot unit according to the procedure established in
Article 8 of this Law, shall have the right to prohibit hunting
in the land owned by him, if agricultural crops or forest will
suffer damage during the hunting" of Paragraph 2 of Article 13
of the Law on Hunting to the extent that it does not provide
for the right of the owner of a private land lot to prohibit,
without any restrictions, hunting in the land owned by him not
only if damage will be inflicted during hunting upon
agricultural crops or forest, but in all other cases as well,
is in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the
Constitution.
However, the fact that in Paragraph 7 of Article 18 of the
Law on Hunting one refers to Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of this
law, which is in conflict with the Constitution to the
aforementioned extent, is not in itself the reason to recognise
that Paragraph 7 of Article 18 of the Law on Hunting is in
conflict with the Constitution (inter alia Paragraphs 1 and 2
of Article 23 thereof) as well.
6. Having taken into account the above mentioned
arguments, it is to be concluded that Paragraph 7 of Article 18
of the Law on Hunting is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and
2 of Article 23 of the Constitution.
XI
On the compliance of certain provisions of Article 22 of
the Law on Hunting with the Constitution.
1. It has been mentioned that the disputed by the
petitioner provisions of the Law on Hunting inter alia on the
prohibitions to hunt and sizes of hunting plot units are also
linked with the provisions of the Law on Hunting that are aimed
at ensuring a transition from relations of hunting and those
linked therewith, based on former legal regulation, to
relations of hunting and those linked therewith, based on the
legal regulation established by the Law on Hunting. These
provisions are set forth inter alia in Article 22 of the Law on
Hunting.
2. It is inter alia established in Article 22 of the Law
on Hunting:
"<...> 2. Users of hunting plots, who used hunting plots
prior to the date of coming into effect of this Law and who
used them without violating requirements of legal acts, until 1
April 2003 shall submit petitions to the commission indicated
in Paragraph 3 of Article 8 of this Law, and hunting plots used
by them shall be recognised hunting plot units and permissions
to hunt resources of huntable animals that exist in them shall
be issued while following the continuity of use of hunting
plots, and in accordance with the procedure established in this
article.
3. Users of hunting plots that are indicated in Paragraph
2 of this Law, together with respective petition must submit
the following:
1) agreement on hunting plot lease, which is registered
upon the procedure established in Regulations on Hunting in the
Republic of Lithuania, concluded with owners and administrators
of land lots prior to the date of coming into effect of the Law
on Amending the Law on Wildlife (29 December 2001), including
schemes of leased hunting plots; <...>
6. Users of hunting plots comprising less than 1000 ha may
agree with users of communicating hunting plots concerning the
increase of hunting plots up to 1000 ha or merger of these
plots, by consolidating this fact in the document specified in
Item 3 of Paragraph 3 of this article and submitting a joint
petition to the commission indicated in Paragraph 3 of Article
8 of this Law on recognising the hunting plots as hunting plot
unit. In case of failure to reach an agreement on increase of
the hunting plot unit so that it reaches the specified size by
1 April 2003, the final decision on setting boundaries of
hunting plot units, while taking into account objectives
established in Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of this Law, shall be
made by the aforementioned commission.
7. Before recognising the hunting plots as hunting plot
units under the continuity of their use, one must follow the
conditions specified in Paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 of Article 8
of this Law. <...>"
3. The aforementioned provisions of Article 22 of the Law
on Hunting are linked inter alia with the implementation of
Article 8 of the Law on Hunting.
It has been held in this Ruling of the Constitutional
Court that:
- the provision "A hunting plot unit must comprise at
least 1000 ha of continuous hunting area" of Paragraph 1 of
Article 8 of the Law on Hunting is not in conflict with
Paragraph 1 of Article 46 of the Constitution;
- Paragraph 9 of Article 8 of the Law on Hunting, to the
extent that it establishes that the owner of a private land lot
is informed about the fact that the land lot belonging to him
by right of ownership is intended to be used for hunting not
directly, but only when the commission of a respective
municipality informs in national and local press about the
prepared preliminary project on forming of hunting plot unit or
changing its boundaries, and to the extent that it establishes
the period of 1 month, during which the persons indicated in
Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of this Law may submit to the
commission of a respective municipality written requirements
concerning the project on forming of hunting plot unit or
changing its boundaries, as well as the provision of Paragraph
9 of Article 8 of the Law on Hunting "When the owner of a land
lot changes, such petition must be submitted only through the
ward, in which the land lot is located, within 1 month from the
date of registration of the ownership right at the Real Estate
Registry" is in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23
of the Constitution;
- Paragraph 10 of Article 8 of the Law on Hunting, to the
extent that it establishes that the Commission on Formation of
Hunting Plot Units and Changing Their Boundaries may also take
no account of the will of the owner of a private land, forest,
or water body that no hunting should take place in the private
land, forest, or water body belonging to him under the
ownership right, is in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of
Article 23 of the Constitution.
4. It has been mentioned that according to Paragraphs 2
and 3 of Article 22 of the Law on Hunting the hunting plots
which were used by the users of hunting plots prior to the date
of coming into effect of the Law on Hunting are recognised as
hunting plot units even after the date of coming into effect of
the Law on Hunting, save the hunting plots (their parts), which
were leased under agreements on hunting plot lease, concluded
with owners and managers of hunting lots on and after 29
December 2001.
5. According to the Regulations on Hunting in the Republic
of Lithuania that were approved by Government Resolution No.
425 "On Approval of the Regulations on Hunting in the Republic
of Lithuania" of 14 April 2000, the right to use resources of
huntable animals in a certain land lot belonged to the owner of
that land; the owner could either use or not to use this right
himself, or transfer it to other private or legal persons under
an agreement on hunting plot lease; hunting in the hunting
plots belonging to other persons without the right to use
hunting plots, which is transferred by an agreement on hunting
plot lease, was prohibited.
When, by Government Resolution No. 1132 "On Amending
Government Resolution No. 425 'On Approval of the Regulations
on Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania' of 14 April 2000" of
15 July 2002, which became effective on 20 July 2002, one
changed the legal regulation established in the Regulations on
Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania (with their subsequent
amendments) that were approved by Government Resolution No. 425
"On Approval of the Regulations on Hunting in the Republic of
Lithuania" of 14 April 2000, the provision was removed from
these regulations that the owner may transfer the right to use
huntable animals in a concrete land plot to other private or
legal persons under an agreement on hunting plot lease.
Thus, according to the Regulations on Hunting in the
Republic of Lithuania (with their subsequent amendments) which
were approved by Government Resolution No. 425 "On Approval of
the Regulations on Hunting in the Republic of Lithuania" of 14
April 2000, agreements on hunting plot lease could be concluded
until 20 July 2002, i.e. they could be concluded not only until
29 December 2001, on 29 December 2001 and during a certain
period afterwards.
It should be noted that in the Law on Hunting one does not
specify the way how the state compensates for the loss which
may be incurred to the owners of the land or the persons who
have entered into the aforementioned agreements with them due
to the legal regulation which was changed in this regard.
6. It has been held in this Ruling of the Constitutional
Court that owners of private land, forests, or water bodies,
who have entered, according to the legal acts that were
effective at that time, into agreements on hunting plot lease
with other persons (users of these plots), could reasonably
expect that these agreements shall be implemented for the whole
period that is established therein, that the state (its
institutions) will take no measures to prevent the lessees from
executing their obligations under these agreements, and that
private and legal persons, who have leased, according to the
legal acts that were effective at that time, land, forests, or
water bodies intended for hunting (users of hunting plots),
could reasonably expect that they will be able to use the
leased land, forests, or water bodies for hunting during the
whole period and under the conditions established in the
aforementioned agreements and that the state (its institutions)
will take no measures to prevent them from enjoying their
rights indicated in the above mentioned agreements.
The persons who concluded agreements on hunting plot lease
that were indicated in the Regulations on Hunting in the
Territory of Lithuania within the period of 29 December 2001 to
20 July 2002, had these expectations as well.
7. It has been held in this Ruling of the Constitutional
Court that the state, when changing the legal regulation of
relations of economic activity, may change alongside conditions
of economic activity or even establish such legal regulation,
according to which certain economic activity must be
terminated, however, when changing the conditions of economic
activity or terminating certain economic activity the state
must pay heed to inter alia the entrenched in the Constitution
principle of protection of legal expectations which implies the
protection of acquired rights as well. It is to be held that if
an economic entity, according to the effective laws or other
legal acts, acquired the right to engage in certain economic
activity and implemented this right, when changing the legal
regulation of such economic activity so that conditions of this
economic activity are aggravated or this economic activity is
even terminated, having taken account of the reason why the
legal regulation of the aforementioned economic activity is
changed and the scope of changes, moreover, having taken into
account of other important circumstances, the duty may
originate to the state to recover (compensate) to economic
entities and other persons loss, which was incurred to them due
to changing the aforementioned legal regulation.
8. By the legal regulation established in Paragraph 3 of
Article 22 of the Law on Hunting one denied the expectations of
the owners of private land, forests, and water bodies which
arose under the agreements on hunting plot lease concluded with
other persons (users of these plots) from 29 December 2001 to
30 July 2002 pursuant to the legal acts that were effective at
that time, that these contracts will be implemented for the
whole period established therein and that the state (its
institutions) will take no measures to prevent the lessees from
executing their obligations under these agreements, and the
expectations of private and legal persons, who have leased
within the period of 29 December 2001 to 20 July 2002,
according to the legal acts that were effective at that time,
land, forests, or water bodies (users of hunting plots), that
they will be able to use the leased land, forests, or water
bodies for hunting during the whole period and under the
conditions established in the aforementioned agreements and
that the state (its institutions) will take no measures to
prevent them from enjoying their rights indicated in the above
mentioned agreements.
9. Having taken account of the above mentioned arguments,
it is to be concluded that the part "prior to the date of
coming into effect of the Law on Amending the Law on Wildlife
(29 December 2001)" of the provision "The users of hunting
plots that are indicated in Paragraph 2 of this Law, together
with respective petition must submit the following: (1)
agreement on hunting plot lease, which is registered upon the
procedure established in Regulations on Hunting in the Republic
of Lithuania, concluded with owners and administrators of land
lots prior to the date of coming into effect of the Law on
Amending the Law on Wildlife (29 December 2001), including
schemes of leased hunting plots; <...>" of Paragraph 3 of
Article 22 of the Law on Hunting is in conflict with the
constitutional principle of protection of legitimate
expectations.
10. It has been mentioned that in the Law on Hunting one
did not establish the way, how the state compensates for loss
suffered by land owners due to the fact that by the legal
regulation established in Paragraph 3 of Article 22 of the Law
on Hunting one denied the expectations of the owners of private
land, forests, and water bodies which arose under the
agreements on hunting plot lease concluded with other persons
(users of these plots) from 29 December 2001 to 30 July 2002
pursuant to the legal acts that were effective at that time,
and the expectations of private and legal persons, who leased
land, forests, or water bodies (users of hunting plots) within
the period of 29 December 2001 to 20 July 2002, according to
the legal acts that were effective at that time.
In this way one created prerequisites for violating the
private ownership rights of the aforementioned persons that are
protected by Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the
Constitution.
11. Having taken into account of the above mentioned
arguments, it is to be concluded that the part "prior to the
date of coming into effect of the Law on Amending the Law on
Wildlife (29 December 2001)" of the provision "The users of
hunting plots that are indicated in Paragraph 2 of this Law,
together with respective petition must submit the following:
(1) agreement on hunting plot lease, which is registered upon
the procedure established in Regulations on Hunting in the
Republic of Lithuania, concluded with owners and administrators
of land lots prior to the date of coming into effect of the Law
on Amending the Law on Wildlife (29 December 2001), including
schemes of leased hunting plots; <...>" of Paragraph 3 of
Article 22 of the Law on Hunting is in conflict with Paragraphs
1 and 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution.
12. It has been held in this Ruling of the Constitutional
Court that due to the legal regulation established in Paragraph
3 of Article 22 of the Law on Hunting users of hunting plot,
who entered into agreements on hunting plot lease on and after
29 December 2001, found themselves in a different position than
users of hunting plots, who entered into agreements on hunting
plot lease prior to 29 December 2001.
13. Having held that the part "prior to the date of coming
into effect of the Law on Amending the Law on Wildlife (29
December 2001)" of the provision "The users of hunting plots
that are indicated in Paragraph 2 of this Law, together with
respective petition must submit the following: (1) agreement on
hunting plot lease, which is registered upon the procedure
established in Regulations on Hunting in the Republic of
Lithuania, concluded with owners and administrators of land
lots prior to the date of coming into effect of the Law on
Amending the Law on Wildlife (29 December 2001), including
schemes of leased hunting plots; <...>" of Paragraph 3 of
Article 22 of the Law on Hunting is in conflict with the
constitutional principle of protection of legitimate
expectations and that due to the legal regulation established
in Paragraph 3 of Article 22 of the Law on Hunting the users of
a hunting plot who entered into agreements on hunting plot
lease on and after 29 December 2001, found themselves in a
different position than users of hunting plots, who have
entered into agreements on hunting plot lease prior to 29
December 2001, it is to be held also that in regard of these
persons the principle of equality of all persons which is
consolidated in Article 29 of the Constitution was violated.
14. Having taken account of the aforementioned arguments,
it is to be concluded that the part "prior to the date of
coming into effect of the Law on Amending the Law on Wildlife
(29 December 2001)" of the provision "The users of hunting
plots that are indicated in Paragraph 2 of this Law, together
with respective petition must submit the following: (1)
agreement on hunting plot lease, which is registered upon the
procedure established in Regulations on Hunting in the Republic
of Lithuania, concluded with owners and administrators of land
lots prior to the date of coming into effect of the Law on
Amending the Law on Wildlife (29 December 2001), including
schemes of leased hunting plots; <...>" of Paragraph 3 of
Article 22 of the Law on Hunting is in conflict with Article 29
of the Constitution.
15. It was mentioned that the provisions "Users of hunting
plots comprising less than 1000 ha may agree with users of
communicating hunting plots concerning the increase of hunting
plots up to 1000 ha or merger of these plots, by consolidating
this fact in the document specified in Item 3 of Paragraph 3 of
this article and submitting a joint petition to the commission
indicated in Paragraph 3 of Article 8 of this Law on
recognising the hunting plots as hunting plot unit" and "In
case of failure to reach an agreement on increase of the
hunting plot unit so that it reaches the specified size by 1
April 2003, the final decision on setting boundaries of hunting
plot units, while taking into account objectives established in
Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of this Law, shall be made by the
aforementioned commission" of Paragraph 6 of Article 22 of the
Law on Hunting mean that the final decision on setting
boundaries of hunting plot units in the cases where users of
hunting plots comprising less than 1000 ha by 1 April 2003 fail
to reach an agreement with users of communicating hunting plots
concerning the increase of hunting plots up to 1000 ha or
merger of these plots is made by the commission of a respective
municipality and that in this way prerequisites are created for
appearance of the situations where persons, who formed and
registered hunting plots comprising less than 1000 ha
territory, may not use them for hunting after 1 April 2003.
It should be noted that in the Law on Hunting one does not
establish the way how the state compensates the losses which
may be incurred to the aforementioned persons due to the legal
regulation that changed in this regard.
16. According to legal acts that were effective prior to
the date of coming into effect of the Law on Hunting (majority
of provisions thereof), one could form also hunting plots
comprising less than 1000 ha. It was mentioned that on the
basis of such legal regulation certain hunting plot units were
formed, registered and used for hunting.
It has been held in this Ruling of the Constitutional
Court that persons, who formed individual hunting plot units
according to legal acts that were effective at that time, could
reasonably expect that they will be able to use these hunting
plot units for hunting until the origination of circumstances
established in laws, due to which it would become reasonably
impossible to continue using these hunting plot units for
hunting.
By the legal regulation established in Paragraph 6 of
Article 22 of the Law on Hunting one has denied the
expectations of the persons who, according to legal acts that
were effective at that time, have formed individual hunting
plot units that they will be able to use these hunting plot
units for hunting until the origination of circumstances
established in laws, due to which it would become reasonably
impossible to continue using these hunting plot units for
hunting.
17. Having taken account of the aforementioned facts it is
to be concluded that the provision "In case of failure to reach
an agreement on increase of the hunting plot unit so that it
reaches the specified size by 1 April 2003, the final decision
on setting boundaries of hunting plot units, while taking into
account objectives established in Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of
this Law, shall be made by the aforementioned commission" of
Paragraph 6 of Article 22 of the Law on Hunting is in conflict
with the constitutional principle of protection of legitimate
expectations.
18. It was mentioned that in the Law on Hunting one does
not establish the way, how the state compensates the losses
which may be incurred to persons, who have formed and
registered hunting plots comprising less than 1000 ha territory
according to legal acts that were effective at that time but
who became unable to use them for hunting after 1 April 2003,
due to the fact that by the legal regulation established in
Paragraph 6 of Article 22 of the Law on Hunting one denied
their expectations that they will be able to use these hunting
plot units for hunting until the origination of circumstances
established in laws, due to which it would become reasonably
impossible to continue using these hunting plot units for
hunting.
In this way prerequisites were created for the violation
of the private ownership right of the aforementioned persons,
which is protected by Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the
Constitution, as well.
19. Having taken account of the above mentioned arguments,
it is to be concluded that the provision "In case of failure to
reach an agreement on increase of the hunting plot unit so that
it reaches the specified size by 1 April 2003, the final
decision on setting boundaries of hunting plot units, while
taking into account objectives established in Paragraph 1 of
Article 8 of this Law, shall be made by the aforementioned
commission" of Paragraph 6 of Article 22 of the Law on Hunting
is in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the
Constitution.
20. It was mentioned that according to Paragraph 7 of
Article 22 of the Law on Hunting, until the moment when hunting
plots are recognised as hunting plot units pursuant to
continuity of their use, one must follow the conditions
established in Paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of Article 8 of this
law.
21. It has been held in this Ruling of the Constitutional
Court that Paragraph 9 of Article 8 of the Law on Hunting, to
the extent that it establishes that the owner of a private land
lot is informed about the fact that the land lot belonging to
him by right of ownership is intended to be used for hunting
not directly, but only when the commission of a respective
municipality informs in national and local press about the
prepared preliminary project on forming of hunting plot unit or
changing its boundaries, and to the extent that it establishes
the period of 1 month, during which the persons indicated in
Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of this Law may submit to the
commission of a respective municipality written requirements
concerning the project on forming of hunting plot unit or
changing its boundaries, as well as the provision "When the
owner of a land lot changes, such petition must be submitted
only through the ward, in which the land lot is located, within
1 month from the date of registration of the ownership right at
the Real Estate Registry", of Paragraph 9 of Article 8 of the
Law on Hunting is in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of
Article 23 of the Constitution. Moreover, it has been held that
Paragraph 10 of Article 8 of the Law on Hunting is in conflict
with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution to
the extent that it establishes that the Commission on Formation
of Hunting Plot Units and Changing Their Boundaries may also
take no account of the will of the owner of a private land,
forest, or water body that no hunting should take place in the
private land, forest, or water body belonging to him under the
ownership right.
22. Having held the aforementioned, it should be held that
Paragraph 7 of Article 22 of the Law on Hunting is also in
conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the
Constitution:
- to the extent that it consolidates that until the moment
when hunting plots are recognised as hunting plot units
pursuant to continuity of their use, one must follow Paragraph
9 of Article 8 of the Law on Hunting to the extent that it
establishes that the owner of a private land lot is informed
about the fact that the land lot belonging to him by right of
ownership is intended to be used for hunting not directly, but
only when the commission of a respective municipality informs
in national and local press about the prepared preliminary
project on forming of hunting plot unit or changing its
boundaries;
- to the extent that it consolidates that until hunting
plots are recognised as hunting plot units pursuant to
continuity of their use, one must follow Paragraph 9 of Article
8 of the Law on Hunting to the extent that it establishes a
period of 1 month, during which the persons indicated in
Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of this Law may submit to the
commission of a respective municipality written requirements
concerning the project on forming of hunting plot units or
changing its boundaries;
- to the extent that it consolidates that until hunting
plots are recognised as hunting plot units pursuant to
continuity of their use, one must follow the provision of
Paragraph 9 of Article 8 of the Law on Hunting "When the owner
of a land lot changes, such petition must be submitted through
the ward, in which the land lot is located, within 1 month from
the date of registration of the ownership right at the Real
Estate Registry";
- to the extent that it consolidates that until hunting
plots are recognised as hunting plot units pursuant to
continuity of their use, one must follow the part of Paragraph
10 of Article 8 of the Law on Hunting to the extent that it
establishes that the Commission on Formation of Hunting Plot
Units and Changing Their Boundaries may also take no account of
the will of the owner of a private land, forest, or water body
that no hunting should take place in the private land, forest,
or water body belonging to him under the ownership right.
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 the provision "It shall be prohibited
to hunt <...> (2) in the land lots located in hunting plots, if
their owners have prohibited hunting therein upon the procedure
established in Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law" of
Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Hunting is not in conflict with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania.
2. To recognise that the provision of Paragraph 1 of
Article 8 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Hunting "A
hunting plot unit must comprise at least 1000 ha of continuous
hunting area" is not in conflict with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania.
3. To recognise that Paragraph 9 of Article 8 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Hunting, to the extent that it
establishes that the owner of a private land lot is informed
about the fact that the land lot belonging to him by right of
ownership is intended to be used for hunting not directly, but
only when the commission of a respective municipality informs
in national and local press about the prepared preliminary
project on forming of hunting plot unit or changing its
boundaries, and to the extent that it establishes the period of
1 month, during which the persons indicated in Paragraph 2 of
Article 13 of this Law may submit to the commission of a
respective municipality written requirements concerning the
project on forming of hunting plot unit or changing its
boundaries, as well as the provision "When the owner of a land
lot changes, such petition must be submitted only through the
ward, in which the land lot is located, within 1 month from the
date of registration of the ownership right at the Real Estate
Registry" of Paragraph 9 of Article 8 of the Law on Hunting, is
in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
4. To recognise that Paragraph 10 of Article 8 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Hunting to the extent that it
establishes that the Commission on Formation of Hunting Plot
Units and Changing Their Boundaries may also take no account of
the will of the owner of a private land, forest, or water body
that no hunting should take place in the private land, forest,
or water body belonging to him under the ownership right is in
conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
5. To recognise that the provision "The owner of a private
land lot, whose land is intended to be assigned or is already
assigned to a hunting plot unit according to the procedure
established in Article 8 of this Law, shall have the right to
prohibit hunting in the land owned by him, if agricultural
crops or forest will suffer damage during the hunting" of
Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Hunting to the extent that it does not provide for the right of
the owner of a private land lot to prohibit, without any
restrictions, hunting in the land owned by him not only if
damage will be inflicted during hunting upon agricultural crops
or forest, but in all other cases as well, is in conflict with
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania.
6. To recognise that Paragraph 7 of Article 18 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Hunting is not in conflict with
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
7. To recognise that the part "prior to the date of coming
into effect of the Law on Amending the Law on Wildlife (29
December 2001)" of the provision "The users of hunting plots
that are indicated in Paragraph 2 of this Law, together with
respective petition must submit the following: (1) agreement on
hunting plot lease, which is registered upon the procedure
established in Regulations on Hunting in the Republic of
Lithuania, concluded with owners and administrators of land
lots prior to the date of coming into effect of the Law on
Amending the Law on Wildlife (29 December 2001), including
schemes of leased hunting plots; <...>" Paragraph 3 of Article
22 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Hunting is in conflict
with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23, Article 29 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and the
constitutional principle of protection of legitimate
expectations.
8. To recognise that the provision "In case of failure to
reach an agreement on increase of the hunting plot unit so that
it reaches the specified size by 1 April 2003, the final
decision on setting boundaries of hunting plot units, while
taking into account objectives established in Paragraph 1 of
Article 8 of this Law, shall be made by the aforementioned
commission" of Paragraph 6 of Article 22 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Hunting is in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2
of Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
and the constitutional principle of protection of legitimate
expectations.
9. To recognise that Paragraph 7 of Article 22 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Hunting to the extent that it
consolidates that until the moment when hunting plots are
recognised as hunting plot units pursuant to continuity of
their use, one must follow: (1) Paragraph 9 of Article 8 of the
Law on Hunting to the extent that it establishes that the owner
of a private land lot is informed about the fact that the land
lot belonging to him by right of ownership is intended to be
used for hunting not directly, but only when the commission of
a respective municipality informs in national and local press
about the prepared preliminary project on forming of hunting
plot unit or changing its boundaries; (2) Paragraph 9 of
Article 8 of the Law on Hunting to the extent that it
consolidates that until hunting plots are recognised as hunting
plot units pursuant to continuity of their use, one must follow
Paragraph 9 of Article 8 of the Law on Hunting to the extent
that it establishes a period of 1 month, during which the
persons indicated in Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of this Law may
submit to the commission of a respective municipality written
requirements concerning the project on forming of hunting plot
units or changing its boundaries; (3) the provision "When the
owner of a land lot changes, such petition must be submitted
through the ward, in which the land lot is located, within 1
month from the date of registration of the ownership right at
the Real Estate Registry" of Paragraph 9 of Article 8 of the
Law on Hunting; (4) Paragraph 10 of Article 8 of the Law on
Hunting to the extent that it establishes that the Commission
on Formation of Hunting Plot Units and Changing Their
Boundaries may also take no account of the will of the owner of
a private land, forest, or water body that no hunting should
take place in the private land, forest, or water body belonging
to him under the ownership right, is in conflict with
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania.
This ruling of the Constitutional Court 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
Toma Birmontienė
Egidijus Kūris
Kęstutis Lapinskas
Zenonas Namavičius
Ramutė Ruškytė
Vytautas Sinkevičius
Stasys Stačiokas
Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis