Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
DECISION
ON THE PETITION OF A GROUP OF MEMBERS OF THE SEIMAS OF THE
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, THE PETITIONER, REQUESTING TO
INVESTIGATE AS TO WHETHER PARAGRAPH 3 (WORDING OF 19 SEPTEMBER
2000) OF ARTICLE 85, PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 3 (WORDING OF 19
SEPTEMBER 2000) OF ARTICLE 139 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW
ON THE PROCEEDINGS OF ADMINISTRATIVE CASES, ARTICLE 306
(WORDING OF 8 JULY 2004), PARAGRAPH 2 (WORDING OF 14 MARCH
2002) OF ARTICLE 308, PARAGRAPHS 12 AND 13 (WORDING OF 14 MARCH
2002) OF ARTICLE 324, PARAGRAPH 9 (WORDING OF 14 MARCH 2002) OF
ARTICLE 377, PARAGRAPH 7 (WORDING OF 14 MARCH 2002) OF ARTICLE
448, PARAGRAPH 5 (WORDING OF 14 MARCH 2002) OF ARTICLE 454, AND
PARAGRAPHS 4 AND 5 (WORDING OF 14 MARCH 2002) OF ARTICLE 460 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA,
PARAGRAPH 3 (WORDING OF 28 FEBRUARY 2002) OF ARTICLE 268,
PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 5 (WORDING OF 28 FEBRUARY 2002) OF ARTICLE
285, PARAGRAPH 1 (WORDING OF 28 FEBRUARY 2002) OF ARTICLE 286,
PARAGRAPH 2 (WORDING OF 28 FEBRUARY 2002) OF ARTICLE 303,
PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 3 (WORDING OF 28 FEBRUARY 2002) OF ARTICLE
325, AND PARAGRAPH 3 (WORDING OF 28 FEBRUARY 2002) OF ARTICLE
358 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA, ITEM 1 (WORDING OF 24 JANUARY 2002) OF PARAGRAPH 2
OF ARTICLE 119, PARAGRAPH 5 (WORDING OF 24 JANUARY 2002) OF
ARTICLE 119, AND ITEM 1 (WORDING OF 24 JANUARY 2002) OF ARTICLE
120 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON COURTS, PRESIDENT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA DECREE NO. 2067 "ON THE PROLONGATION
OF THE POWERS OF A JUDGE OF A REGIONAL COURT" OF 19 FEBRUARY
2003 AND PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA DECREE NO. 128
"ON APPOINTING CHAIRMEN OF DEPARTMENTS OF REGIONAL COURTS" OF
18 JUNE 2003 ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
28 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 a petition of a group of Members of the Seimas of
the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting to
investigate:
- whether Paragraph 3 of Article 85 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Proceedings of Administrative Cases
(wording of 19 September 2000) to the extent that, according to
the petitioner, it establishes that the introductory and
resolution parts of the decision shall be drawn up and
announced, as a rule, on the same day after the hearing of an
individual case, while the parts of the decision comprising the
recital and the reasoning shall be drawn up within seven
working days after the promulgation of the decision, is not in
conflict with Articles 109 and 117 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 139 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on the Proceedings of Administrative
Cases (wording of 19 September 2000) to the extent that,
according to the petitioner, they establish that the
introductory and resolution parts of the decision shall be
drawn up and announced by shortly setting forth the reasoning
after the hearing of a case, while the parts of the decision
comprising the recital and the reasoning shall be drawn up
later, within seven working days after the adoption of the
decision, are not in conflict with Articles 109 and 117 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether Article 306 (wording of 8 July 2004) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania to the
extent that, according to the petitioner, it establishes that
the judge shall draw up and announce judgements together with
the reasoning substantiating them only in the cases on the
crimes provided for in Paragraph 1 of Article 135, Paragraphs
1, 2, and 3 of Article 149, Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Article
150, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 180, Paragraph 2 of Article
182 and Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 260 of the Criminal Code
of the Republic of Lithuania is not in conflict with Articles
29, 109 and 117 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania as well as with the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraph 2 (wording of 14 March 2002) of
Article 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic
of Lithuania to the extent that, according to the petitioner,
it establishes that a court of first instance must, prior to
the time of the announcement of a judgement, specify the
reasoning of its adoption in the judgement only when the court
thinks that that the case is not too complicated or big, while
in other situations the court has the right only to draw up the
introductory and resolution parts of the judgement prior to the
time of the announcement of the judgement, to announce them and
to verbally explain the arguments of the adoption, that the
whole reasoned judgment shall be drawn up and signed later
after the announcement, and that the judges who have
investigated the case have the right, upon the consent of the
President of the court and the Chairman of the Criminal Cases
Department, to draw up and sign the judgement within 14 days is
not in conflict with Articles 29, 109 and 117 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraphs 12 and 13 (wording of 14 March 2002)
of Article 324 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the
Republic of Lithuania to the extent that, according to the
petitioner, they establish that a court of the appeal instance
must, prior to the time of the announcement of a judgement or a
ruling, specify the reasoning of its adoption in the judgement
only when the court thinks that that the case is not too
complicated or big, while in other situations the court has the
right only to draw up the introductory and resolution parts of
the judgement or the ruling prior to the time of the
announcement of the judgement, to announce them and to verbally
explain the arguments of the adoption of the judgement or the
ruling, that the whole reasoned judgment and the ruling shall
be drawn up and signed later after the announcement, and that
the judges who have investigated the case have the right, upon
the consent of the President of the court and the Chairman of
the Criminal Cases Department, to draw up and sign the
judgement or the ruling within 14 days is not in conflict with
Articles 29, 109 and 117 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania as well as with the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraph 9 (wording of 14 March 2002) of
Article 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic
of Lithuania to the extent that, according to the petitioner,
it establishes that a court of the cassation instance adopts
and announces a ruling without reasoning, while the reasoning
is drawn up and the ruling is supplemented with it later after
the announcement, and that the judges who have investigated the
case have the right, upon the consent of the President of the
court and the Chairman of the Criminal Cases Department, to
draw up and sign the ruling within 14 days is not in conflict
with Articles 109 and 117 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania as well as with the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraph 7 (wording of 14 March 2002) of
Article 448 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic
of Lithuania to the extent that, according to the petitioner,
it establishes that in cases concerning newly emerged
circumstances a ruling is adopted and announced without
reasoning, while the reasoning is drawn up and signed by the
judges later, within three days of the adoption of the ruling,
is not in conflict with Articles 109 and 117 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraph 5 (wording of 14 March 2002) of
Article 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic
of Lithuania to the extent that, according to the petitioner,
it establishes that in cases concerning newly emerged
circumstances, in regard of all persons save the convicts who
must be released from the places of confinement, a ruling is
adopted and announced without reasoning, while the reasoning is
drawn up and signed by the judges later, within three days of
the adoption of the ruling, is not in conflict with Articles
29, 109 and 117 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania as well as with the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraphs 4 and 5 (wording of 14 March 2002) of
Article 460 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic
of Lithuania to the extent that, according to the petitioner,
they establish that in cases concerning renewal of a case upon
adoption of a corresponding judgement of the European Court of
Human Rights a ruling is adopted and announced without
reasoning, while the reasoning is drawn up and signed by the
judges later, within three days of the adoption of the ruling,
is not in conflict with Articles 109 and 117 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraph 3 (wording of 28 February 2002) of
Article 268 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of
Lithuania to the extent that, according to the petitioner, it
establishes that in the course of deciding a case in a court of
first instance, only the introductory and resolution parts of
the decision are adopted, drawn up and announced, while the
remaining part, which substantiates the decision, is drawn up
later, is not in conflict with Articles 109 and 117 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraphs 2 and 5 (wording of 28 February 2002)
of Article 285, Paragraph 1 (wording of 28 February 2002) of
Article 286 and Paragraph 2 (wording of 28 February 2002) of
Article 303 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of
Lithuania to the extent that, according to the petitioner, they
establish that a decision of a court of first instance adopted
in absentia, after only a formal assessment of the evidence
submitted in the case have been performed, by pointing out only
the introductory and resolution parts and abridged reasoning in
the decision, persists if it is not abrogated by the court that
adopted it, while the party due to whose failure to appear at
the preparatory hearing or the court hearing or due to whose
failure to submit a response to the claim the decision was
adopted in absentia, may not appeal against such decision are
not in conflict with Articles 29, 109 and 117 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraphs 2 and 3 (wording of 28 February 2002)
of Article 325 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic
of Lithuania to the extent that, according to the petitioner,
they establish that in the course of deciding a case in a court
of first instance, only the introductory and resolution parts
of the decision are adopted, drawn up and announced, while the
remaining parts-the recital and the reasoning-shall be drawn up
and announced later, within fourteen days of the adoption of
the decision or the ruling, are not in conflict with Articles
109 and 117 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as
well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the
rule of law;
- whether Paragraph 3 (wording of 28 February 2002) of
Article 358 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of
Lithuania to the extent that, according to the petitioner, it
establishes that in the course of deciding a case in a court of
cassation instance, only the introductory and resolution parts
of the ruling are adopted, drawn up and announced, while the
remaining parts--the recital and the reasoning-shall be drawn
up and announced later, within twenty days of the adoption of
the decision or the ruling, is not in conflict with Articles
109 and 117 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as
well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the
rule of law;
- whether Item 1 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Paragraph
2 of Article 119, Paragraph 5 (wording of 24 January 2002) of
Article 119, and Item 1 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Article
120 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Courts to the extent
that, according to the petitioner, they establish that the
composition of the Council of Courts shall include an
authorised representative of the President of the Republic, an
authorised representative of the Speaker of the Seimas, the
Chairman of the Seimas Committee on Legal Affairs or his
deputy, the Chairman of the Seimas Committee on Budget and
Finance or his deputy, the Minister of Justice or the
vice-minister authorised by him, and the Minister of Finance or
the vice-minister authorised by him, and that the President of
the Supreme Court shall be ex officio Chairman of the Council
of Courts are not in conflict with Articles 5, 109, 112, and
114 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether President of the Republic of Lithuania Decree
No. 2067 "On the Prolongation of the Powers of a Judge of a
Regional Court" of 19 February 2003 is not in conflict with
Article 5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and
the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether President of the Republic of Lithuania Decree
No. 128 "On Appointing Chairmen of Departments of Regional
Courts" of 18 June 2003 is not in conflict with Article 5 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
On 25 January 2006, at the Constitutional Court a petition
of a group of members of the Seimas, the petitioner, was
received, requesting to investigate:
- whether Paragraph 3 of Article 85 of the Law on the
Proceedings of Administrative Cases (wording of 19 September
2000) to the extent that, according to the petitioner, it
establishes that the introductory and resolution parts of the
decision shall be drawn up and announced, as a rule, on the
same day after the hearing of an individual case, while the
parts of the decision comprising the recital and the reasoning
shall be drawn up within seven working days after the
promulgation of the decision, is not in conflict with Articles
109 and 117 of the Constitution and the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 139 of the Law on
the Proceedings of Administrative Cases (wording of 19
September 2000) to the extent that, according to the
petitioner, they establish that the introductory and resolution
parts of the decision shall be drawn up and announced by
shortly setting forth the reasoning after the hearing of a
case, while the parts of the decision comprising the recital
and the reasoning shall be drawn up later, within seven working
days after the adoption of the decision, are not in conflict
with Articles 109 and 117 of the Constitution and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether Article 306 (wording of 8 July 2004) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter also referred to as the CCP)
to the extent that, according to the petitioner, it establishes
that the judge shall draw up and announce judgements together
with the reasoning substantiating them only in the cases on the
crimes provided for in Paragraph 1 of Article 135, Paragraphs
1, 2, and 3 of Article 149, Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Article
150, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 180, Paragraph 2 of Article
182 and Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 260 of the Criminal Code
of the Republic of Lithuania is not in conflict with Articles
29, 109 and 117 of the Constitution as well as with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraph 2 (wording of 14 March 2002) of
Article 308 of the CCP to the extent that, according to the
petitioner, it establishes that a court of first instance must,
prior to the time of the announcement of a judgement, specify
the reasoning of its adoption in the judgement only when the
court thinks that that the case is not too complicated or big,
while in other situations the court has the right only to draw
up the introductory and resolution parts of the judgement prior
to the time of the announcement of the judgement, to announce
them and to verbally explain the arguments of the adoption,
that the whole reasoned judgment shall be drawn up and signed
later after the announcement, and that the judges who have
investigated the case have the right, upon the consent of the
President of the court and the Chairman of the Criminal Cases
Department, to draw up and sign the judgement within 14 days is
not in conflict with Articles 29, 109 and 117 of the
Constitution as well as with the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraphs 12 and 13 (wording of 14 March 2002)
of Article 324 of the CCP to the extent that, according to the
petitioner, they establish that a court of the appeal instance
must, prior to the time of the announcement of a judgement or a
ruling, specify the reasoning of its adoption in the judgement
only when the court thinks that that the case is not too
complicated or big, while in other situations the court has the
right only to draw up the introductory and resolution parts of
the judgement or the ruling prior to the time of the
announcement of the judgement, to announce them and to verbally
explain the arguments of the adoption of the judgement or the
ruling, that the whole reasoned judgment and the ruling shall
be drawn up and signed later after the announcement, and that
the judges who have investigated the case have the right, upon
the consent of the President of the court and the Chairman of
the Criminal Cases Department, to draw up and sign the
judgement or the ruling within 14 days is not in conflict with
Articles 29, 109 and 117 of the Constitution as well as with
the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraph 9 (wording of 14 March 2002) of
Article 377 of the CCP to the extent that, according to the
petitioner, it establishes that a court of the cassation
instance adopts and announces a ruling without reasoning, while
the reasoning is drawn up and the ruling is supplemented with
it later after the announcement, and that the judges who have
investigated the case have the right, upon the consent of the
President of the court and the Chairman of the Criminal Cases
Department, to draw up and sign the ruling within 14 days is
not in conflict with Articles 109 and 117 of the Constitution
as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law;
- whether Paragraph 7 (wording of 14 March 2002) of
Article 448 of the CCP to the extent that, according to the
petitioner, it establishes that in cases concerning newly
emerged circumstances a ruling is adopted and announced without
reasoning, while the reasoning is drawn up and signed by the
judges later, within three days of the adoption of the ruling,
is not in conflict with Articles 109 and 117 of the
Constitution as well as with the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraph 5 (wording of 14 March 2002) of
Article 454 of the CCP to the extent that, according to the
petitioner, it establishes that in cases concerning newly
emerged circumstances in regard of all persons save the
convicts who must be released from the places of confinement a
ruling is adopted and announced without reasoning, while the
reasoning is drawn up and signed by the judges later, within
three days of the adoption of the ruling, is not in conflict
with Articles 29, 109 and 117 of the Constitution as well as
with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of
law;
- whether Paragraphs 4 and 5 (wording of 14 March 2002) of
Article 460 of the CCP to the extent that, according to the
petitioner, they establish that in cases concerning renewal of
a case upon adoption of a corresponding judgement of the
European Court of Human Rights a ruling is adopted and
announced without reasoning, while the reasoning is drawn up
and signed by the judges later, within three days of the
adoption of the ruling, is not in conflict with Articles 109
and 117 of the Constitution as well as with the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraph 3 (wording of 28 February 2002) of
Article 268 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the extent that,
according to the petitioner, it establishes that in the course
of deciding a case in a court of first instance, only the
introductory and resolution parts of the decision are adopted,
drawn up and announced, while the remaining part, which
substantiates the decision, is drawn up later, is not in
conflict with Articles 109 and 117 of the Constitution as well
as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule
of law;
- whether Paragraphs 2 and 5 (wording of 28 February 2002)
of Article 285, Paragraph 1 (wording of 28 February 2002) of
Article 286 and Paragraph 2 (wording of 28 February 2002) of
Article 303 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of
Lithuania to the extent that, according to the petitioner, they
establish that a decision of a court of first instance adopted
in absentia, after only a formal assessment of the evidence
submitted in the case have been performed, by pointing out only
the introductory and resolution parts and abridged reasoning in
the decision, persists if it is not abrogated by the court that
adopted it, while the party due to whose failure to appear at
the preparatory hearing or the court hearing or due to whose
failure to submit a response to the claim the decision was
adopted in absentia, may not appeal against such decision are
not in conflict with Articles 29, 109 and 117 of the
Constitution as well as with the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraphs 2 and 3 (wording of 28 February 2002)
of Article 325 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the extent
that, according to the petitioner, they establish that in the
course of deciding a case in a court of first instance, only
the introductory and resolution parts of the decision are
adopted, drawn up and announced, while the remaining parts-the
recital and the reasoning-shall be drawn up and announced
later, within fourteen days of the adoption of the decision or
the ruling, are not in conflict with Articles 109 and 117 of
the Constitution as well as with the constitutional principle
of a state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraph 3 (wording of 28 February 2002) of
Article 358 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the extent that,
according to the petitioner, it establishes that in the course
of deciding a case in a court of cassation instance, only the
introductory and resolution parts of the ruling are adopted,
drawn up and announced, while the remaining parts--the recital
and the reasoning-shall be drawn up and announced later, within
twenty days of the adoption of the decision or the ruling, is
not in conflict with Articles 109 and 117 of the Constitution
as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law;
- whether Item 1 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Paragraph
2 of Article 119, Paragraph 5 (wording of 24 January 2002) of
Article 119, and Item 1 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Article
120 of the Law on Courts to the extent that, according to the
petitioner, they establish that the composition of the Council
of Courts shall include an authorised representative of the
President of the Republic, an authorised representative of the
Speaker of the Seimas, the Chairman of the Seimas Committee on
Legal Affairs or his deputy, the Chairman of the Seimas
Committee on Budget and Finance or his deputy, the Minister of
Justice or the vice-minister authorised by him, and the
Minister of Finance or the vice-minister authorised by him, and
that the President of the Supreme Court shall be ex officio
Chairman of the Council of Courts are not in conflict with
Articles 5, 109, 112, and 114 of the Constitution and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether President of the Republic Decree No. 2067 "On
the Prolongation of the Powers of a Judge of a Regional Court"
of 19 February 2003 is not in conflict with Article 5 of the
Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law;
- whether President of the Republic Decree No. 128 "On
Appointing Chairmen of Departments of Regional Courts" of 18
June 2003 is not in conflict with Article 5 of the Constitution
and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of
law.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. The petitioner inter alia requests to investigate
whether Paragraphs 4 and 5 (wording of 14 March 2002) of
Article 460 of the CCP to the extent that, according to the
petitioner, they establish that in cases concerning renewal of
a case upon adoption of a corresponding judgement of the
European Court of Human Rights a ruling is adopted and
announced without reasoning, while the reasoning is drawn up
and signed by the judges later, within three days of the
adoption of the ruling, is not in conflict with Articles 109
and 117 of the Constitution as well as with the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law.
2. Paragraph 4 (wording of 14 March 2002) of Article 460
of the CCP provides:
"The court, after it has heard the speeches and additional
explanations of the persons participating in the case, shall
leave to the deliberation room to adopt a ruling. Upon adopting
the ruling, the court shall return to the courtroom and
announce its resolution part and present the main arguments of
the adoption of the ruling."
Paragraph 5 (wording of 14 March 2002) of Article 460 of
the CCP inter alia provides that the entire reasoned ruling
shall be drawn up and signed not later than within ten days of
its adoption.
Thus, the petition of the petitioner requesting to
investigate the compliance of Paragraphs 4 and 5 (wording of 14
March 2002) of Article 460 of the CCP with the Constitution
erroneously indicates the term within which the entire reasoned
ruling must be drawn up and signed: the ruling must be drawn up
and signed not within three days of its adoption (as it is
specified by the petitioner), but not later than within ten
days of its adoption.
3. One is to hold that the petition of the petitioner
requesting to investigate the compliance of Paragraphs 4 and 5
of Article 460 of the CCP to the extent that, according to the
petitioner, they establish that in cases concerning renewal of
a case upon adoption of a corresponding judgement of the
European Court of Human Rights a ruling is adopted and
announced without reasoning, while the reasoning is drawn up
and signed by the judges later, within three days of the
adoption of the ruling, is not in conflict with Articles 109
and 117 of the Constitution as well as with the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law, is to be treated as
a petition, requesting to investigate whether the said
paragraphs to the extent that, according to the petitioner,
they establish that in cases concerning renewal of a case upon
adoption of a corresponding judgement of the European Court of
Human Rights a ruling is adopted and announced without
reasoning, while the reasoning is drawn up and signed by the
judges later, within ten days of the adoption of the ruling,
are not in conflict with the Constitution.
II
1. The petitioner inter alia requests to investigate
whether Paragraphs 2 and 5 (wording of 28 February 2002) of
Article 285, Paragraph 1 (wording of 28 February 2002) of
Article 286 and Paragraph 2 (wording of 28 February 2002) of
Article 303 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of
Lithuania to the extent that, according to the petitioner, they
establish that a decision of a court of first instance adopted
in absentia, after only a formal assessment of the evidence
submitted in the case have been performed, by pointing out only
the introductory and resolution parts and abridged reasoning in
the decision, persists if it is not abrogated by the court that
adopted it, while the party due to whose failure to appear at
the preparatory hearing or the court hearing or due to whose
failure to submit a response to the claim the decision was
adopted in absentia, may not appeal against such decision are
not in conflict with Articles 29, 109 and 117 of the
Constitution as well as with the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law.
2. According to the petitioner, "such legal regulation
under which the court adopt the decision in absentia, which
remains the final one, although adopted, upon performing only a
formal assessment of the evidence submitted in the case, by
pointing out only the introductory and resolution parts and
abridged reasoning" which is established in the aforementioned
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure is in conflict with
the Constitution. Besides, according to the petitioner, the
legal regulation established in Paragraphs 2 and 5 of Article
285, Paragraph 1 of Article 286 and Paragraph 2 of Article 303
of the Code of Civil Procedure "also means that two sanctions
are applied to the party which failed to appear at the
preparatory hearing or failed to submit a response to the
claim"-adoption of the decision in absentia and prohibition to
appeal against such a court decision under appeal and cassation
procedure-therefore, in the opinion of the petitioner, "the
application of the second sanction-prohibition to appeal
against the decision of the court of first instance under
appeal and cassation procedure-is in conflict with the
principle of the equality of persons before the court and the
principle of a state under the rule of law which is entrenched
in the Constitution, under which a party cannot be prohibited
from requesting to verify the lawfulness and reasonability of
the decision of the court of first instance".
3. Paragraph 2 of Article 285 of the Code of Civil
Procedure provides:
"A decision due to the respondent who failed to appear may
be adopted in absentia only as regards the demands of the claim
about which the respondent was informed under procedure
established by this Code. When adopting the decision in
absentia, the court shall perform a formal assessment of the
evidence submitted in the case, i.e. it shall ascertain that if
the content of the evidence is confirmed, there would be
grounds to adopt such decision."
Paragraph 5 of Article 285 of the Code of Civil Procedure
provides:
"The party that failed to appear, because of which the
decision was adopted in absentia, may not appeal against this
decision neither under appeal nor cassation procedure."
Paragraph 1 of Article 286 of the Code of Civil Procedure
provides:
"A decision adopted in absentia shall be composed of the
introductory and resolution parts as well as abridged
reasoning."
Paragraph 2 of Article 303 of the Code of Civil Procedure
provides:
"A court decision adopted in absentia may not be the
object of appeal, if the appeal is lodged by the person in
whose regard such decision was adopted."
4. It is to be held that the petition of the petitioner
requesting to investigate as to whether Paragraphs 2 and 5
(wording of 28 February 2002) of Article 285, Paragraph 1
(wording of 28 February 2002) of Article 286 and Paragraph 2
(wording of 28 February 2002) of Article 303 of the Code of
Civil Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania to the extent
that, according to the petitioner, they establish that a
decision of a court of first instance adopted in absentia,
after only a formal assessment of the evidence submitted in the
case have been performed, by pointing out only the introductory
and resolution parts and abridged reasoning in the decision,
persists if it is not abrogated by the court that adopted it,
while the party due to whose failure to appear at the
preparatory hearing or the court hearing or due to whose
failure to submit a response to the claim the decision was
adopted in absentia, may not appeal against such decision are
not in conflict with Articles 29, 109 and 117 of the
Constitution as well as with the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law is to be treated as a petition,
requesting to investigate:
- whether Paragraph 2 (wording of 28 February 2002) of
Article 285 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the extent that,
according to the petitioner, the court, when it adopts a
decision in absentia, performs a formal assessment of the
evidence submitted in the case, i.e. it ascertains that if the
content of the evidence is confirmed, there would be grounds to
adopt such decision, is not in conflict with Articles 29, 109
and 117 of the Constitution as well as with the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraph 5 (wording of 28 February 2002) of
Article 285 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not in conflict
with Articles 29, 109 and 117 of the Constitution as well as
with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of
law;
- Paragraph 1 (wording of 28 February 2002) of Article 286
of the Code of Civil Procedure is not in conflict with Articles
29, 109 and 117 of the Constitution as well as with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraph 2 (wording of 28 February 2002) of
Article 303 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not in conflict
with Articles 29, 109 and 117 of the Constitution as well as
with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of
law.
III
1. The petitioner inter alia requests to investigate
whether Item 1 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Paragraph 2 of
Article 119, Paragraph 5 (wording of 24 January 2002) of
Article 119, and Item 1 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Article
120 of the Law on Courts to the extent that, according to the
petitioner, they establish that the composition of the Council
of Courts shall include an authorised representative of the
President of the Republic, an authorised representative of the
Speaker of the Seimas, the Chairman of the Seimas Committee on
Legal Affairs or his deputy, the Chairman of the Seimas
Committee on Budget and Finance or his deputy, the Minister of
Justice or the vice-minister authorised by him, and the
Minister of Finance or the vice-minister authorised by him, and
that the President of the Supreme Court shall be ex officio
Chairman of the Council of Courts are not in conflict with
Articles 5, 109, 112, and 114 of the Constitution and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
In its petition the petitioner inter alia points out that
"under the legal regulation established in Item 1 of Paragraph
2 of Article 119 of the Law on Courts, state politicians, i.e.
the President of the Republic and the Speaker of the Seimas,
indirectly, through their representatives, while the Chairman
of the Seimas Committee on Legal Affairs or his deputy, the
Chairman of the Seimas Committee on Budget and Finance or his
deputy, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance
directly participate in the activity of the institution of
self-government of courts-the Council of Courts", therefore, in
the opinion of the petitioner, such consolidation of the
composition of the Council of Courts is in conflict with
Article 112 of the Constitution and is inconsistent with the
provisions of Articles 5, 109, and 114 of the Constitution in
which the separation of powers, the independence of courts and
depoliticising of their activities are entrenched.
3. According to the petitioner, "under the legal
regulation established in Paragraph 5 of Article 119 and Item 1
of Article 120 of the Law on Courts, the Council of Court
cannot elect its Chairman-the President of the Supreme Court is
its Chairman ex officio, while the Council of Courts has the
right to elect the Deputy Chairman and the Secretary", that
"judges and courts cannot, in a democratic way, choose the main
person representing the interests of their self-government",
therefore, in the opinion of the petitioner, such legal
regulation is in conflict with inter alia the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law: "<...> under the
principle of a state under the rule of law, which is entrenched
in the Constitution, self-government of courts, like any other
self-government, means that the subject of the self-government
adopts the decision in the course of forming the bodies of
self-government, that the candidature of the person in chief
cannot be imposed upon them, and that they themselves must
decide as to who will head them".
4. Item 1 of Paragraph 2 of Article 119 of the Law on
Courts provides that the Council of Courts is composed of 24
members: ex officio-the President of the Supreme Court, the
President of the Court of Appeal, the President of the Supreme
Administrative Court, an authorised representative of the
President of the Republic, an authorised representative of the
Speaker of the Seimas, the Chairman of the Seimas Committee on
Legal Affairs or his deputy, the Minister of Justice or the
vice-minister authorised by him, and the Minister of Finance or
the vice-minister authorised by him
Paragraph 5 of Article 119 of the Law on Courts provides:
"The President of the Supreme Court shall be ex officio
Chairman of the Council of Courts. The Council of Courts shall
elect the Deputy Chairman of the Council and the Secretary."
Article 120 of the Law on Courts inter alia provides: "The
Council of Courts: (1) shall elect the Deputy Chairman of the
Council and the Secretary; <...>."
5. It needs to be held that the petition of the petitioner
requesting to investigate whether Item 1 (wording of 24 January
2002) of Paragraph 2 of Article 119, Paragraph 5 (wording of 24
January 2002) of Article 119, and Item 1 (wording of 24 January
2002) of Article 120 of the Law on Courts to the extent that,
according to the petitioner, they establish that the
composition of the Council of Courts shall include an
authorised representative of the President of the Republic, an
authorised representative of the Speaker of the Seimas, the
Chairman of the Seimas Committee on Legal Affairs or his
deputy, the Chairman of the Seimas Committee on Budget and
Finance or his deputy, the Minister of Justice or the
vice-minister authorised by him, and the Minister of Finance or
the vice-minister authorised by him, and that the President of
the Supreme Court shall be ex officio Chairman of the Council
of Courts are not in conflict with Articles 5, 109, 112, and
114 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law, is to be treated as a petition,
requesting to investigate:
- whether Item 1 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Paragraph
2 of Article 119 of the Law on Courts is not in conflict with
Articles 5, 109, 112, and 114 of the Constitution and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraph 5 (wording of 24 January 2002) of
Article 119 of the Law on Courts is not in conflict with
Articles 5, 109, 112, and 114 of the Constitution and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether Item 1 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Article
120 of the Law on Courts is not in conflict with Articles 5,
109, 112, and 114 of the Constitution and the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law.
IV
1. The petitioner inter alia requests to investigate
whether President of the Republic Decree No. 128 "On Appointing
Chairmen of Departments of Regional Courts" of 18 June 2003 is
not in conflict with Article 5 of the Constitution and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
2. It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner that
the petitioner doubts whether President of the Republic Decree
No. 128 "On Appointing Chairmen of Departments of Regional
Courts" of 18 June 2003 is not in conflict with the
Constitution not to the entire extent, but only to the extent
that it establishes that Konstantinas Ramelis, a judge of the
Vilnius Regional Court, is appointed Chairman of the Civil
Cases Department of the said court.
Conforming to Paragraph 1 of Article 102 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Paragraph 1 of
Article 28 and Article 67 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 accept the petition of the group of Members of the
Seimas, the petitioner, requesting to investigate:
- whether Paragraph 3 of Article 85 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Proceedings of Administrative Cases
(wording of 19 September 2000) to the extent that, according to
the petitioner, it establishes that the introductory and
resolution parts of the decision shall be drawn up and
announced, as a rule, on the same day after the hearing of an
individual case, while the parts of the decision comprising the
recital and the reasoning shall be drawn up within seven
working days after the promulgation of the decision, is not in
conflict with Articles 109 and 117 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 139 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on the Proceedings of Administrative
Cases (wording of 19 September 2000) to the extent that,
according to the petitioner, they establish that the
introductory and resolution parts of the decision shall be
drawn up and announced by shortly setting forth the reasoning
after the hearing of a case, while the parts of the decision
comprising the recital and the reasoning shall be drawn up
later, within seven working days after the adoption of the
decision, are not in conflict with Articles 109 and 117 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether Article 306 (wording of 8 July 2004) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania to the
extent that, according to the petitioner, it establishes that
the judge shall draw up and announce judgements together with
the reasoning substantiating them only in the cases on the
crimes provided for in Paragraph 1 of Article 135, Paragraphs
1, 2, and 3 of Article 149, Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Article
150, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 180, Paragraph 2 of Article
182 and Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 260 of the Criminal Code
of the Republic of Lithuania is not in conflict with Articles
29, 109 and 117 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania as well as with the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraph 2 (wording of 14 March 2002) of
Article 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic
of Lithuania to the extent that, according to the petitioner,
it establishes that a court of first instance must, prior to
the time of the announcement of a judgement, specify the
reasoning of its adoption in the judgement only when the court
thinks that that the case is not too complicated or big, while
in other situations the court has the right only to draw up the
introductory and resolution parts of the judgement prior to the
time of the announcement of the judgement, to announce them and
to verbally explain the arguments of the adoption, that the
whole reasoned judgment shall be drawn up and signed later
after the announcement, and that the judges who have
investigated the case have the right, upon the consent of the
President of the court and the Chairman of the Criminal Cases
Department, to draw up and sign the judgement within 14 days is
not in conflict with Articles 29, 109 and 117 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraphs 12 and 13 (wording of 14 March 2002)
of Article 324 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the
Republic of Lithuania to the extent that, according to the
petitioner, they establish that a court of the appeal instance
must, prior to the time of the announcement of a judgement or a
ruling, specify the reasoning of its adoption in the judgement
only when the court thinks that that the case is not too
complicated or big, while in other situations the court has the
right only to draw up the introductory and resolution parts of
the judgement or the ruling prior to the time of the
announcement of the judgement, to announce them and to verbally
explain the arguments of the adoption of the judgement or the
ruling, that the whole reasoned judgment and the ruling shall
be drawn up and signed later after the announcement, and that
the judges who have investigated the case have the right, upon
the consent of the President of the court and the Chairman of
the Criminal Cases Department, to draw up and sign the
judgement or the ruling within 14 days is not in conflict with
Articles 29, 109 and 117 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania as well as with the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraph 9 (wording of 14 March 2002) of
Article 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic
of Lithuania to the extent that, according to the petitioner,
it establishes that a court of the cassation instance adopts
and announces a ruling without reasoning, while the reasoning
is drawn up and the ruling is supplemented with it later after
the announcement, and that the judges who have investigated the
case have the right, upon the consent of the President of the
court and the Chairman of the Criminal Cases Department, to
draw up and sign the ruling within 14 days is not in conflict
with Articles 109 and 117 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania as well as with the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraph 7 (wording of 14 March 2002) of
Article 448 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic
of Lithuania to the extent that, according to the petitioner,
it establishes that in cases concerning newly emerged
circumstances a ruling is adopted and announced without
reasoning, while the reasoning is drawn up and signed by the
judges later, within three days of the adoption of the ruling,
is not in conflict with Articles 109 and 117 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraph 5 (wording of 14 March 2002) of
Article 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic
of Lithuania to the extent that, according to the petitioner,
it establishes that in cases concerning newly emerged
circumstances, in regard of all persons save the convicts who
must be released from the places of confinement, a ruling is
adopted and announced without reasoning, while the reasoning is
drawn up and signed by the judges later, within three days of
the adoption of the ruling, is not in conflict with Articles
29, 109 and 117 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania as well as with the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraphs 4 and 5 (wording of 14 March 2002) of
Article 460 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic
of Lithuania to the extent that, according to the petitioner,
they establish that in cases concerning renewal of a case upon
adoption of a corresponding judgement of the European Court of
Human Rights a ruling is adopted and announced without
reasoning, while the reasoning is drawn up and signed by the
judges later, within ten days of the adoption of the ruling, is
not in conflict with Articles 109 and 117 of the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania as well as with the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraph 3 (wording of 28 February 2002) of
Article 268 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of
Lithuania to the extent that, according to the petitioner, it
establishes that in the course of deciding a case in a court of
first instance, only the introductory and resolution parts of
the decision are adopted, drawn up and announced while the
remaining part, which substantiates the decision, is drawn up
later, is not in conflict with Articles 109 and 117 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraph 2 (wording of 28 February 2002) of
Article 285 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of
Lithuania to the extent that, according to the petitioner, the
court, when it adopts a decision in absentia, performs a formal
assessment of the evidence submitted in the case, i.e. it
ascertains that if the content of the evidence is confirmed,
there would be grounds to adopt such decision, is not in
conflict with Articles 29, 109 and 117 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania as well as with the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraph 5 (wording of 28 February 2002) of
Article 285 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of
Lithuania is not in conflict with Articles 29, 109 and 117 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as with
the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraph 1 (wording of 28 February 2002) of
Article 286 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of
Lithuania is not in conflict with Articles 29, 109 and 117 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as with
the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraph 2 (wording of 28 February 2002) of
Article 303 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of
Lithuania is not in conflict with Articles 29, 109 and 117 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as with
the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraphs 2 and 3 (wording of 28 February 2002)
of Article 325 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic
of Lithuania to the extent that, according to the petitioner,
they establish that in the course of deciding a case in a court
of first instance, only the introductory and resolution parts
of the decision are adopted, drawn up and announced, while the
remaining parts-the recital and the reasoning-shall be drawn up
and announced later, within fourteen days of the adoption of
the decision or the ruling, are not in conflict with Articles
109 and 117 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as
well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the
rule of law;
- whether Paragraph 3 (wording of 28 February 2002) of
Article 358 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of
Lithuania to the extent that, according to the petitioner, it
establishes that in the course of deciding a case in a court of
cassation instance, only the introductory and resolution parts
of the ruling are adopted, drawn up and announced, while the
remaining parts--the recital and the reasoning-shall be drawn
up and announced later, within twenty days of the adoption of
the decision or the ruling, is not in conflict with Articles
109 and 117 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as
well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the
rule of law;
- whether Item 1 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Paragraph
2 of Article 119 of the Law on Courts of the Republic of
Lithuania is not in conflict with Articles 5, 109, 112, and 114
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether Paragraph 5 (wording of 24 January 2002) of
Article 119 of the Law on Courts of the Republic of Lithuania
is not in conflict with Articles 5, 109, 112, and 114 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether Item 1 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Article
120 of the Law on Courts of the Republic of Lithuania is not in
conflict with Articles 5, 109, 112, and 114 of the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle
of a state under the rule of law;
- whether President of the Republic of Lithuania Decree
No. 2067 "On the Prolongation of the Powers of a Judge of a
Regional Court" of 19 February 2003 is not in conflict with
Article 5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and
the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- whether President of the Republic of Lithuania Decree
No. 128 "On Appointing Chairmen of Departments of Regional
Courts" of 18 June 2003 to the extent that it establishes that
Konstantinas Ramelis, a judge of the Vilnius Regional Court, is
appointed Chairman of the Civil Cases Department of the said
court is not in conflict with Article 5 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law.
Justices of the Constitutional Court: Armanas Abramavičius
Toma Birmontienė
Egidijus Kūris
Kęstutis Lapinskas
Zenonas Namavičius
Ramutė Ruškytė
Vytautas Sinkevičius
Stasys Stačiokas
Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis