Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
DECISION
ON THE PETITION OF THE VILNIUS DISTRICT LOCAL COURT, THE
PETITIONER, REQUESTING TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA NO. 259 "ON THE ATTRIBUTION OF FORESTS TO GROUPS OF
FORESTS" OF 20 FEBRUARY 2002 ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA AND WITH PARAGRAPHS
1, 2, 4 AND 5 OF ARTICLE 6 AND PARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLE 18 OF THE
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON THE RESTORATION OF THE RIGHTS OF
OWNERSHIP OF CITIZENS TO THE EXISTING REAL PROPERTY (WORDING OF
9 JULY 1997)
17 January 2006
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,
at a procedural sitting of the Constitutional Court
considered the 30 August 2005 petition of the Vilnius District
Local Court, requesting to investigate whether Resolution of
the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No. 259 "On the
Attribution of Forests to Groups of Forests" of 20 February
2002 to the extent that, according to the petitioner, it
attributes squares 7 and 89 of forests of Verkiai forestry of
the Vilnius forest district to forests of state importance, is
not in conflict with Article 23 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and with Paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 of
Article 6 and Paragraph 1 of Article 18 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of
Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of 9 July
1997).
The Constitutional Court
has established:
The Vilnius District Local Court, the petitioner, was
investigating a civil case. By its ruling of 30 August 2005 the
said court suspended the consideration of the case and applied
to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting to
investigate whether Government Resolution No. 259 "On the
Attribution of Forests to Groups of Forests" of 20 February
2002 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 20-765)
(hereinafter also referred to as the Resolution) to the extent
that, according to the petitioner, it attributes squares 7 and
89 of forests of Verkiai forestry of the Vilnius forest
district to the forests of state importance, is not in conflict
with Article 23 of the Constitution and with Paragraphs 1, 2, 4
and 5 of Article 6 and Paragraph 1 of Article 18 of the Law on
the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the
Existing Real Property (wording of 9 July 1997). The petition
of the petitioner was received at the Constitutional Court on
29 November 2005.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. On 20 February 2002, the Government adopted Resolution
No. 259 "On the Attribution of Forests to Groups of Forests".
By this Government resolution the list of forests of Vilnius
district to be attributed to groups of forests was confirmed.
Under this list, the parts of squares 7 and 89 of forests of
Verkiai forestry of the Vilnius forest district were attributed
to the subgroup "Forest parks" of forest group II
(Special-purpose forests: B. Forests for recreation).
2. On 21 October 2002 the Government adopted Resolution
No. 1651 "On the Attribution of Forests of Alytus, Klaipėda,
Marijampolė, Šiauliai, Tauragė, Telšiai, Utena and Vilnius to
Groups of Forests". By Item 1 of this resolution the lists of
forests of the districts of Akmenė, Alytus, Anykščiai,
Ignalina, Joniškis, Jurbarkas, Kelmė, Klaipėda, Kretinga,
Lazdijai, Mažeikiai, Molėtai, Pakruojis, Plungė, Radviliškis,
Skuodas, Šakiai, Šalčininkai, Šiauliai, Šilalė, Šilutė,
Širvintai, Švenčionys, Tauragė, Telšiai, Trakai, Ukmergė,
Utena, Varėna, Vilkaviškis and Zarasai, of the municipalities
of Druskininkai, Elektrėnai, Kalvarija, Kazlų Rūda,
Marijampolė, Neringa, Pagėgiai and Rietavas, and of the towns
of Alytus, Klaipėda, Palanga, Šiauliai and Visaginas to be
attributed to groups of forests were confirmed.
3. On 30 December 2004, the Government adopted Resolution
No. 1681 "On Amending Resolution of the Government of the
Republic of Lithuania No. 1651 'On the Attribution of Forests
of Alytus, Klaipėda, Marijampolė, Šiauliai, Tauragė, Telšiai,
Utena and Vilnius to Groups of Forests' of 21 October 2002 and
Recognition of Resolution of the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania No. 259 'On the Attribution of Forests to Groups of
Forests' of 20 February 2002 as no longer valid"
By Sub-Item No. 1681.1.1 of the said Government Resolution
of 30 December 2004 Item 1 of Government Resolution No. 1651
"On the Attribution of Forests of Alytus, Klaipėda,
Marijampolė, Šiauliai, Tauragė, Telšiai, Utena and Vilnius to
Groups of Forests" of 21 October 2002 was amended as follows:
after the word "Vilkaviškis" the word "Vilnius" was entered,
and before the word "Visaginas"-the word "Vilnius".
Thus, Item 1 (wording of 30 December 2004) of Government
Resolution No. 1651 "On the Attribution of Forests of Alytus,
Klaipėda, Marijampolė, Šiauliai, Tauragė, Telšiai, Utena and
Vilnius to Groups of Forests" of 21 October 2002 was set forth
as follows: "To confirm the lists of forests of the districts
of Akmenė, Alytus, Anykščiai, Ignalina, Joniškis, Jurbarkas,
Kelmė, Klaipėda, Kretinga, Lazdijai, Mažeikiai, Molėtai,
Pakruojis, Plungė, Radviliškis, Skuodas, Šakiai, Šalčininkai,
Šiauliai, Šilalė, Šilutė, Širvintai, Švenčionys, Tauragė,
Telšiai, Trakai, Ukmergė, Utena, Varėna, Vilkaviškis, Vilnius
and Zarasai, of the municipalities of Druskininkai, Elektrėnai,
Kalvarija, Kazlų Rūda, Marijampolė, Neringa, Pagėgiai and
Rietavas, and of the towns of Alytus, Klaipėda, Palanga,
Šiauliai, Vilnius and Visaginas to be attributed to the groups
of forests (attached)."
By Sub-Item 1.2 of Government Resolution No. 1681 "On
Amending Resolution of the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania No. 1651 'On the Attribution of Forests of Alytus,
Klaipėda, Marijampolė, Šiauliai, Tauragė, Telšiai, Utena and
Vilnius to Groups of Forests' of 21 October 2002 and
Recognition of Resolution of the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania No. 259 'On the Attribution of Forests to Groups of
Forests' of 20 February 2002 as no longer valid" the lists of
forests to be attributed to groups of forests confirmed in
Government Resolution No. 1651 "On the Attribution of Forests
of Alytus, Klaipėda, Marijampolė, Šiauliai, Tauragė, Telšiai,
Utena and Vilnius to Groups of Forests" of 21 October 2002 were
supplemented by lists of forests of Vilnius district and
Vilnius city to be attributed to the groups of forests.
By Item 2 of Government Resolution No. 1681 "On Amending
Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No.
1651 'On the Attribution of Forests of Alytus, Klaipėda,
Marijampolė, Šiauliai, Tauragė, Telšiai, Utena and Vilnius to
Groups of Forests' of 21 October 2002 and Recognition of
Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No.
259 'On the Attribution of Forests to Groups of Forests' of 20
February 2002 as no longer valid" Government Resolution No. 259
"On the Attribution of Forests to Groups of Forests" of 20
February 2002 was recognised as no longer valid.
In the lists of forests to be attributed to groups of
forests confirmed by Item 1 (wording of 30 December 2004) of
Government Resolution No. 1651 "On the Attribution of Forests
of Alytus, Klaipėda, Marijampolė, Šiauliai, Tauragė, Telšiai,
Utena and Vilnius to Groups of Forests" of 21 October 2002,
squares 7 and 89 of forests of Verkiai forestry of the Vilnius
forest district remained attributed to the subgroup "Forest
parks" of forest group II (Special-purpose forests: B. Forests
for recreation).
4. The Vilnius District Local Court, the petitioner, had
doubts on whether Government Resolution No. 259 "On the
Attribution of Forests to Groups of Forests" of 20 February
2002 to the extent that, according to the petitioner, "squares
7 and 89 of forests of Verkiai forestry of the Vilnius forest
district were attributed to special-purpose forests" is not in
conflict with Article 23 of the Constitution and with
Paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 of Article 6 and Paragraph 1 of
Article 18 of the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of
Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of
9 July 1997).
It is to be noted that at the time when Vilnius District
Local Court, the petitioner, adopted the ruling by which it was
applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition
requesting to investigate whether Government Resolution No. 259
"On the Attribution of Forests to Groups of Forests" of 20
February 2002 to the extent that, according to the petitioner,
"squares 7 and 89 of forests of Verkiai forestry of the Vilnius
forest district were attributed to special-purpose forests" is
not in conflict with Article 23 of the Constitution and with
Paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 of Article 6 and Paragraph 1 of
Article 18 of the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of
Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of
9 July 1997), disputed Government Resolution No. 259 "On the
Attribution of Forests to Groups of Forests" of 20 February
2002 was no longer valid.
5. The Vilnius District Local Court, the petitioner, in
its ruling by which it applies to the Constitutional Court,
grounds his doubts on the non-compliance of the provisions (to
the extent, specified by the petitioner) of Government
Resolution No. 259 "On the Attribution of Forests to Groups of
Forests" of 20 February 2002 with Article 23 of the
Constitution and with Paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 of Article 6 and
Paragraph 1 of Article 18 of the Law on the Restoration of the
Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property
(wording of 9 July 1997) on inter alia various circumstances of
its investigated civil case, as well as such that are not yet
legal facts established by the said court but just assumptions.
6. The Vilnius District Local Court, the petitioner, in
its ruling by which it applies to the Constitutional Court
requesting to investigate whether Government Resolution No. 259
"On the Attribution of Forests to Groups of Forests" of 20
February 2002 to the extent that, according to the petitioner,
"squares 7 and 89 of forests of Verkiai forestry of the Vilnius
forest district were attributed to special-purpose forests" is
not in conflict with Article 23 of the Constitution and with
Paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 of Article 6 and Paragraph 1 of
Article 18 of the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of
Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of
9 July 1997), did not provide with legal arguments of the
opinion of the court on the non-compliance of the provisions
(to the extent, specified by the petitioner) of Government
Resolution No. 259 "On the Attribution of Forests to Groups of
Forests" of 20 February 2002 with Article 23 of the
Constitution, i.e. it did not specify how the mentioned
Government Resolution of 20 February 2002 (to the extent,
specified by the petitioner) is specifically in conflict with
namely Article 23 of the Constitution-the provision "property
shall be inviolable" of its Paragraph 1, the provision "the
rights of ownership shall be protected by laws" of its
Paragraph 2 and the provision "property may only be seized for
the needs of society in accordance with the procedure
established by law and shall be justly compensated for" of its
Paragraph 3.
Neither did the petitioner present any legal arguments on
how specifically Resolution No. 259 "On the Attribution of
Forests to Groups of Forests" (to the extent, specified by the
petitioner) is in conflict with articles of the Law on the
Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the
Existing Real Property (wording of 9 July 1997) and paragraphs
thereto, specified by the petitioner:
- namely with Paragraph 1 of Article 6, under which
ownership rights shall be restored to the forest or water body
previously held by the owner, the total area whereof did not
exceed 150 hectares, including the land situated in a rural
area;
- namely with Paragraph 2 of Article 6, under which a
forest or water body shall be returned in kind in its former
locality to a citizen or citizens by the right of common
ownership, except the forest and water bodies which are
attributed to the ones subject to the bought out by the state
pursuant to Article 13 of this law, as well as the areas of the
former forests and water bodies which, in the cases provided
for in Paragraph 7 of this article, citizens do not desire to
get back in the former locality;
- namely with Paragraph 4 of Article 6, under which the
state shall compensate, according to Article 16 of this Law,
the citizens for the forest and water bodies attributed,
pursuant to Article 13 of this law, to the ones subject to be
bought out by the state, as well as for the areas of the former
forest and water bodies which, in the case provided for in
Paragraph 3 of this article, they do not desire to get back in
former locality;
- namely in Paragraph 5 of Article 6, under which the
rights of ownership of citizens to forests and water bodies
shall be restored in accordance with the land survey plans of
land reform drawn up in the manner prescribed by the
Government;
- namely by Paragraph 1 of Article 18, under which the
institutions, specified in Article 17 of this law must consider
the applications of citizens and adopt decisions concerning the
restoration of ownership rights within 6 months following the
day that the documents confirming the right of ownership and
relation by blood or connection by marriage are submitted, and
other documents, specified in this law, are prepared.
7. Under Item 5 of Paragraph 2 of Article 67 of the Law on
the Constitutional Court, in the ruling of the court, by which
the court shall apply to the Constitutional Court with a
petition to decide whether the said law or other legal act is
in compliance with the Constitution, the legal arguments
presenting the opinion of the court on the conflict of a law or
other legal act with the Constitution must be indicated.
8. In its ruling of 12 December 2005 the Constitutional
Court has held that the requirement to specify the legal
arguments presenting the opinion of the court on the conflict
of a law or other legal act with the Constitution arising from
Item 5 of Paragraph 2 of Article 67 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, means that the courts that apply to the
Constitutional Court with the request to investigate whether
the law or other legal act (part thereof) is not in conflict
with the Constitution, while arguing their opinion presented in
the petition that the law or other legal act (part thereof) is
in conflict with the Constitution, may not confine themselves
to general reasoning or statements that the law or other legal
act (part thereof), in their opinion, is in conflict with the
Constitution, but must clearly indicate which disputed articles
(paragraphs, items thereof) and to what extent, in their
opinion, are in conflict with the Constitution, and to reason
their position on the compliance of every disputed provision of
the legal act (part thereof) with the Constitution with clearly
formulated legal arguments.
9. Taking account of the arguments set forth, it is to be
held that the petition of the Vilnius District Local Court, the
petitioner, to the Constitutional Court fails to comply with
the requirements of Item 5 of Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the
Law on the Constitutional Court.
10. Under Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court in the case that a petition fail to comply with the
requirements set forth in Article 67 of this Law, it shall be
returned to the petitioner. The return of a petition shall not
take away the right to apply to the Constitutional Court
according to the common procedure after removal of the
deficiences thereof.
Conforming to Paragraph 3 of Article 22, Paragraph 2 of
Article 25, Articles 28, 67 and 70 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania and Chapter
VI of the Rules of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania has adopted the following
decision:
To return the Vilnius District Local Court, the
petitioner, the petition requesting to investigate whether
Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No.
259 "On the Attribution of Forests to Groups of Forests" of 20
February 2002 to the extent that, according to the petitioner,
it attributes squares 7 and 89 of forests of Verkiai forestry
of the Vilnius forest district to the forests of state
importance is not in conflict with Article 23 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with Paragraphs
1, 2, 4 and 5 of Article 6 and Paragraph 1 of Article 18 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on the Restoration of the Rights of
Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of
9 July 1997).
Justices of the Constitutional Court: Armanas Abramavičius
Toma Birmontienė
Kęstutis Lapinskas
Zenonas Namavičius
Ramutė Ruškytė
Vytautas Sinkevičius
Stasys Stačiokas
Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis