Lietuviškai
Case No. 3/05
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
DECISION
ON THE DISMISSAL OF THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE
SUBSEQUENT TO THE PETITION OF A GROUP OF MEMBERS OF THE SEIMAS
OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, THE PETITIONER, REQUESTING TO
INVESTIGATE WHETHER THE PROVISION "EMPLOYEES SHALL BE GRANTED
LEAVE OF ABSENCE <...> TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF A MEMBER OF THE
SEIMAS" OF PARAGRAPH 1 (WORDING OF 4 JUNE 2004) OF ARTICLE 183
OF THE LABOUR CODE OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA IS NOT IN
CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
14 March 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 petition of a group of Members of the Seimas of
the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting to
investigate whether the provision "Employees shall be granted
leave of absence <...> to perform the duties of a Member of the
Seimas" of Paragraph 1 of Article 183 of the Labour Code of the
Republic of Lithuania is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of
Article 60 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
1. A group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner,
applied to the Constitutional Court with a petition, requesting
to investigate whether the provision "Employees shall be
granted leave of absence <...> to perform the duties of a
Member of the Seimas" of Paragraph 1 of Article 183 of the
Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania is not in conflict
with Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania. The petition was received at the
Constitutional Court on 7 February 2005.
2. Under decree No. 2B-11 of 10 February 2005 of the
President of the Constitutional Court subsequent to the
petition of a group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner,
the preparation of case No. 3/05 for the Constitutional Court
hearing was begun.
3. The petition of the petitioner is based on the
following arguments.
The purpose of Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the
Constitution, according to which the duties of a Member of the
Seimas, with the exception of his duties at the Seimas, shall
be incompatible with any other duties at state institutions and
organisations as well as with work in business, commercial and
other private establishments or enterprises, is to ensure a
free mandate of a Member of the Seimas, as the representative
of the Nation. The mandate of a Member of the Seimas who has
made use of the right entrenched in the disputed provision
becomes restricted, because along with the duties of a Member
of the Seimas he also has other duties; this, according to the
petitioner, may hinder him to properly perform the functions,
commissioned to a Seimas Member.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. On 4 June 2002, the Seimas adopted the Law on the
Approval, Coming into Force and Implementation of the Labour
Code of the Republic of Lithuania, whose Article 1 approved the
Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania. Under Article 2 of
this Law the Labour Code (save certain exeptions) has been in
force since 1 January 2003.
In Paragraph 1 (wording of 4 June 2002; Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 64-2569) of Article 183 of the
Labour Code it was established: "Employees shall be granted
leave of absence: in order to exercise their suffrage; to
perform the duties of a Member of the Seimas; when summoned as
a witness, a victim, an expert, an interpreter, a public
prosecutor, a public defence counsel, a member of a public
organisation or the staff to inquiry or preliminary
investigation bodies, the prosecutor's office and the court; to
perform the tasks of State control; to perform the duty of an
organ donor and in other cases provided by law."
2. On 12 May 2005, the Seimas adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Amending and Supplementing of Articles 3, 4,
14, 22, 29, 36, 47, 52, 62, 67, 77, 78, 79, 84, 85, 88, 92, 95,
98, 99, 101, 107, 108, 109, 114, 120, 127, 129, 130, 132, 134,
138, 140, 141, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 151, 152, 161, 166,
168, 177, 183, 225, 235, 285, 286, 288, 293, 295, 297 and 302
of the the Labour Code and on Amending the Title of Chapter XIX
Thereof, whose Article 46 amended Paragraph 1 of Article 183 of
the Labour Code. This law came into force on 28 May 2005.
In Paragraph 1 (wording of 12 May 2005) of Article 183 of
the Labour Code it is established: "Employees shall be granted
leave of absence: in order to exercise their suffrage; when
summoned as a witness, a victim, an expert, an interpreter, a
member of a public organisation or the staff to the pre-trial
investigation bodies, the prosecutor's office and the court; to
perform the duty of an organ donor and in other cases provided
by law."
3. While comparing the legal regulation established in
Paragraph 1 (wording of 4 June 2002) of Article 183 of the
Labour Code with the legal regulation established in Paragraph
1 (wording of 12 May 2005) of Article 183 of the Labour Code,
it is obvious that the provision "Employees shall be granted
leave of absence <...> to perform the duties of a Member of the
Seimas", whose compliance with the Consititution is disputed by
the petitioner, no longer exists in Paragraph 1 (wording of 12
May 2005) of Article 183 of the Labour Code.
4. In Paragraph 4 of Article 69 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court it is established that the annulment of
the disputed legal act shall be grounds to adopt a decision to
dismiss the instituted legal proceedings and if it becomes
clear before the beginning of the Court hearing, the
Constitutional Court shall decide this question in the
deliberation room.
The Constitutional Court has more than once held that the
formula "shall be grounds <...> to dismiss the instituted legal
proceedings" is to be construed as establishing the right of
the Constitutional Court to dismiss the instituted legal
proceedings taking account of the circumstances of the case at
issue in the cases, when the Constitutional Court is applied
not by the courts, but by the subjects specified in Article 106
of the Constitution. This can also be said as regards the cases
when the disputed legal act (part thereof) is not abolished,
however, the legal regulation established therein is changed
(Constitutional Court ruling of 4 March 2003).
Conforming to Article 28 and Paragraph 4 of Article 69 of
the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania has adopted the following
decision:
To dismiss the instituted legal proceedings in the case
subsequent to the petition of a group of Members of the Seimas
of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting to
investigate whether the provision "Employees shall be granted
leave of absence <...> to perform the duties of a Member of the
Seimas" of Paragraph 1 (wording of 4 June 2002; Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 64-2569) of Article 183 of
the Labour Code of the Republic of Lithuania is not in conflict
with Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution 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