Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
DECISION
ON THE PETITION OF A GROUP OF MEMBERS OF THE SEIMAS, THE
PETITIONER, REQUESTING TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER THE LAW ON THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA IS NOT IN
CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
29 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 sitting-Daiva Pitrėnaitė,
at a procedural sitting of the Constitutional Court
considered the petition of a group of Members the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting to
investigate whether the Law on the Constitutional Court of the
Republic of Lithuania is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and
2 of Article 5, Paragraph 1 of Article 111 and Chapters VIII
and IX of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
On 15 February 2006, a petition of was received at the
Constitutional Court from a group of Members of the Seimas, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the Law on the
Constitutional Court is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2
of Article 5, Paragraph 1 of Article 111 and Chapters VIII and
IX of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. Article 66 of the Constitutional Court inter alia
establishes that a duplicate of the whole text of the disputed
legal act shall be attached to the petition (Item 1 of
Paragraph 3); that 30 copies of the duplicates are submitted to
the Constitutional Court (Item 1 of Paragraph 5).
Under Paragraph 1 (wording of 7 July 2005) of Article 2 of
the Republic of Lithuania Law "On the Procedure of Publishing
and Entry into Effect of Laws and Other Legal Acts", the
official publishing of laws and other legal acts shall be their
publishing in the official gazette "Valstybės žinios".
Under Item 15 of Section 1 of Chapter VI of the Rules of
the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, which
was approved by the Constitutional Court Decision "On Approving
the Rules of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania" of 5 March 2004 (with subsequent supplement and
amendment), the text of the legal act (part thereof) which is
announced in the official gazette "Valstybės žinios" is to be
considered such a duplicate.
2. In each case when the text of a legal act is submitted
to the Constitutional Court, which does not meet the
requirements of Item 1 of Paragraph 3 of Article 66 and Item 1
of Article 5 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the
Constitutional Court enjoys the powers to decide, while taking
account of circumstances which are of importance, whether the
petition is to be accepted for consideration at the
Constitutional Court.
3. Alongside with the petition of the group of Members of
the Seimas, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether
the Law on the Constitutional Court is not in conflict with
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5, Paragraph 1 of Article 111 and
Chapters VIII and IX of the Constitution, the Constitutional
Court was submitted duplicates of the disputed legal act (30
copies) which are not duplicates of the text published in the
official gazette "Valstybės žinios", but which were marked
"Unofficial text of the law". In addition, it needs to be held
that the text of the law, the compliance of provisions of which
is being disputed and which was submitted together with the
petition, matches the official text of this law published in
the official gazette "Valstybės žinios".
It needs to be held that the petition is not to be
returned to the petitioner only because it does not meet the
requirements of Item 1 of Paragraph 3 of Article 66 and Item 1
of Article 5 of the Law on the Constitutional Court. This
decision does not create a precedent.
II
1. Paragraph 2 of Article 66 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court inter alia provides that a petition of a
group of Members of the Seimas shall be signed by all Members
of the Seimas who file the petition, while specifying, at the
same time, their representative (representatives); the
signatures of said Members of the Seimas shall be confirmed by
the signature of the Speaker of the Seimas or his Deputy.
When construing this provision, the Constitutional Court
held that it also means that "the Speaker or Deputy Speaker of
the Seimas, while confirming the signatures of the Seimas
members, must indicate the number of the signatures confirmed
as well as the date of the confirmation of the signatures" and
that "the list of the names of Seimas members together with the
signatures must be neat, it must contain no deletions or
corrections" (Constitutional Court decision of 24 April 2002).
One is also to mention the fact that under Item 8 of
Section 1 of Chapter VI of the Rules of the Constitutional
Court, the Speaker of the Seimas or his Deputy, when confirming
with his signature the signatures of the Members of the Seimas,
specifies the number of confirmed signatures and the date of
confirmation.
2. In each case, when a petition submitted to the
Constitutional Court does not meet the requirements of Item 1
of Paragraph 3 of Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court, the Constitutional Court enjoys the powers to decide,
while taking account of circumstances which are of importance,
whether the petition is to be accepted for consideration at the
Constitutional Court.
3. The signatures of the Members of the Seimas who signed
the petition of the group of Members of the Seimas, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the Law on the
Constitutional Court is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2
of Article 5, Paragraph 1 of Article 111 and Chapters VIII and
IX of the Constitution, are confirmed by A. Pekeliūnas, a
Deputy Speaker of the Seimas, however neither the number of
confirmed signatures nor the date of confirmation is specified.
Alongside, it needs to be noted that the petition was signed by
34 Members of the Seimas, i.e. not less than required by
Paragraph 6 of Article 106 of the Constitution.
4. It needs to be held that the petition is not to be
returned to the petitioner only because it does not meet the
requirements of Item 1 of Paragraph 3 of Article 66 and Item 1
of Article 5 of the Law on the Constitutional Court. This
decision does not create a precedent.
III
1. The group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner,
requests to investigate whether the Law on the Constitutional
Court is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5,
Paragraph 1 of Article 111 and Chapters VIII and IX of the
Constitution.
2. The petitioner asserts that the following may be in
conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5, Paragraph 1 of
Article 111 and Chapters VIII and IX of the Constitution:
- the entire Law on the Constitutional Court;
- the title and Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court;
- Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court;
- Paragraph 2 (erroneously cited by the petitioner) of
Article 5 of the Law on the Constitutional Court.
3. It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner that
he faced doubts only as regards the title and Paragraph 3 of
Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court with the
Constitution. Meanwhile, the petition does not present any
arguments concerning the conflict of Paragraphs 1 and 2 of
Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court and Paragraph
2 of Article 5 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, let
alone the conflict of the entire Law on the Constitutional
Court with the Constitution.
IV
1. The group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner,
requests to investigate whether the title and Paragraph 3 of
Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court are not in
conflict with inter alia Chapters VIII and IX of the
Constitution, however, it does not specify any particular
articles (parts thereof) of Chapters VIII and IX of the
Constitution, save Article 111 of the Constitution, which is in
Chapter IX thereof, with which the title and Paragraph 3 of
Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court might
conflict.
2. Under Item 8 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Law on
the Constitutional Court, a petition for the investigation of
the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution must
contain the position of the petitioner concerning the
compliance of an appropriate act with the Constitution and
legal support of such position containing references to laws.
While construing this item of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court has held that
"the position of the petitioner concerning the compliance of a
legal act (part thereof) with the Constitution according to the
content of the norms and/or the scope of regulation must be
indicated clearly, unambiguously, the petition must contain the
arguments and reasoning grounding the doubt of the petitioner
that the legal act (part thereof) is in conflict with the
Constitution. Thus, the petition requesting to investigate the
compliance of a legal act (part thereof) with the Constitution
according to the content of norms and/or the scope of
regulation must clearly indicate concrete articles (parts
thereof), items of the legal act the compliance of which with
the Constitution is doubtful from the petitioner's viewpoint,
also concrete provisions-norms and/or principles-of the
Constitution, to which, in the opinion of the petitioner,
contradict the concretely indicated articles or items of the
disputed legal act. The petition requesting to investigate the
compliance of a legal act (part thereof) with the Constitution
according to the content of norms and/or the scope of
regulation must also clearly indicate the legal arguments
grounding the doubt of the petitioner as regards every
concretely indicated article (part thereof) or item of the
disputed legal act, the compliance of which with the concretely
indicated provision of the Constitution is doubtful to the
petitioner. Otherwise, the request to investigate the
compliance of a legal act (part thereof) with the Constitution
according to the content of norms and/or the scope of
regulation must be considered to be not in line with the
requirements of Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court" (Constitutional Court decision of 16 April 2004 and
ruling of 12 December 2005).
Under Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court,
in the case that a petition or attachments thereto fail to
comply with the requirements set forth in inter alia Article 66
of this law, the petition is 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 deficiencies thereof.
3. The petition of the petitioner requesting to
investigate whether the title and Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of
the Law on the Constitutional Court are not in conflict with
Chapters VIII and IX of the Constitution does not meet the
requirements of Item 8 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Law
on the Constitutional Court and is to be returned to the
petitioner.
Conforming to Paragraph 3 of Article 22, Articles 25, 28,
66 and 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the
Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic
of Lithuania has adopted the following
decision:
1. To accept the petition of a group of Members of the
Seimas, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the
title and Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania are not in
conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1
of Article 111 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
for consideration.
2. To return the petition to the group of Members of the
Seimas, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the
title and Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania are not in
conflict with Chapters VIII and IX 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