Lietuviškai
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
DECISION
ON THE PETITION OF THE PANEVĖŽYS REGIONAL COURT, THE
PETITIONER, REQUESTING TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER
PARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLE 214-10 OF THE CODE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE VIOLATIONS OF LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA AND PARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLE 192 OF THE
CRIMINAL CODE OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA ARE NOT IN
CONFLICT WITH PARAGRAPH 4 OF ARTICLE 31 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA AND THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE OF A STATE UNDER THE RULE OF
LAW
13 November 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 hearingDaiva Pitrėnaitė,
at a procedural sitting of the Constitutional Court
considered the petition of the Panevėžys Regional Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether Paragraph 1 of
Article 214-10 of the Code of Administrative Violations of Law of
the Republic of Lithuania and Paragraph 1 of Article 192 of the
Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania are not in conflict
with Paragraph 4 of Article 31 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:
I
The Panevėžys Regional Court, the petitioner, was
investigating a criminal case. By its ruling, the court suspended
the investigation of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with a petition requesting to investigate whether Paragraph
1 of Article 214-10 of the Code of Administrative Violations of
Law (hereinafter also referred to as the CAVL) and Paragraph 1 of
Article 192 of the Criminal Code (hereinafter also referred to as
the CC) are not in conflict with Paragraph 4 of Article 31 of the
Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law.
This petition was received at the Constitutional Court on
13 September 2006.
II
The request of the petitioner is based on the following
arguments.
1. Paragraph 1 of Article 192 of the CC provides for
criminal liability to those who illegally reproduced a work of
literature, science or art or part thereof, or imported,
exported, distributed, transported or stored illegal copies
thereof for commercial purposes, provided the total value of
these copies, if compared to the retail prices of legal copies
thereof, exceeded the sum of 100 minimum subsistence levels
(hereinafter referred to as the MSL).
According to the petitioner, the Supreme Court of Lithuania
has held that Paragraph 1 of Article 192 of the CC provides for
criminal liability for criminal deeds of different kinds: (1)
illegal reproduction of a work of literature, science or art or
part thereof; (2) import, export, distribution, transportation or
storage of illegal copies of a work of literature, science or art
or part thereof for commercial purposes. It is maintained in the
petition of the petitioner that, according to the construction of
the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the objective indication of the
retail price higher than 100 minimum subsistence levels is linked
with criminal liability for the criminal deeds of the "second
group" and is not necessary for the appearance of criminal
liability for illegal reproduction of a work of literature,
science or art or part thereof.
2. Paragraph 1 of Article 214-10 of the CAVL provides for
administrative liability for illegal public performance,
reproduction, publishing, other use, in any ways and by any
means, of works of literature, science or art (including computer
software and data bases) and of an audio-visual work or phonogram
by seeking to gain property benefit as well as for distribution,
storage, import, export or transportation of illegal copies by
seeking to gain property benefit.
3. Under Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the CAVL,
administrative liability for violations of law provided for in
the CAVL appears if these violations by their nature do not incur
criminal liability under valid laws.
According to the petitioner, according to the construction
of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, illegal reproduction of a of a
piece of work or part thereof as a crime is separated from the
administrative violation of law, upon assessment of the nature
and degree of dangerousness of the deed of the culprit in every
concrete situation; when the nature and degree of dangerousness
of the deed of the culprit is assessed, one can take account of
such criterion as the price of the piece of work or part thereof.
4. According to the petitioner, Paragraph 1 of Article 192
of the CC and Paragraph 1 of Article 214-10 of the CAVL establish
criminal and administrative liability for a virtually analogous
deedillegal reproduction of a work of art. However, when one
compares the legal regulation established in Paragraph 1 of
Article 192 of the CC and Paragraph 1 of Article 214-10 of the
CAVL, it is clear that administrative liability for illegal
reproduction of a work of art is possible only after the person
seeks to gain property benefit, which has been provedit is a
necessary qualification feature of this illegal deed (its body).
Meanwhile, such seeking to gain property benefit is not
necessary for appearance of the criminal liability under
Paragraph 1 of Article 192 of the CChere the mere fact of
illegal reproduction of a work of art is sufficient.
Thus, in the opinion of the petitioner, the legislator has
established not criminal liability, but administrative liability
(legal liability pertaining to a kind less strict) for a deed
which is more dangerous to society.
5. On the basis of the jurisprudence of the Constitutional
Court, it is maintained in the petition of the petitioner that in
a state under the rule of law the legislator has the right as
well as a duty to prohibit, by means of laws, the deeds which
inflict essential damage upon the interests of persons, society
and the state, or such deeds which pose a threat that such damage
will appear; the laws define what deeds are recognised as
criminal ones and punishment is established for their commission;
the laws protect persons and society from criminal attempts by
punishment threat and the bases are established upon which the
persons who have committed crimes are punished in order to
correct such persons; by establishing what deeds are criminal, as
well as criminal liability for them, the legislator is bound by
the principles of natural justice and proportionality, which are
entrenched in the Constitution, as well as other requirements of
a state under the rule of law. Under this constitutional
principle, it is inter alia required that differentiated legal
regulation be based only upon objective differences of subjects
of social relations which are regulated by corresponding legal
acts, so that the subjects of legal relations could be aware of
what they are required by law, so that the legal regulation
established in laws and other legal acts be clear,
understandable, non-contradictory, the formulations of legal acts
be precise, so that the consistency and inner harmony of the
legal system be ensured, so that legal acts not contain any
provisions, which would regulate the same social relations
differently at the same time, so that the subjects of legal
relations might orient their behaviour in accordance with
requirements of law.
In the opinion of the petitioner, the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law, Paragraph 2 of
Article 31 of the Constitution which provides that a person
charged with the commission of a crime shall have the right to a
public and fair hearing of his case by an independent and
impartial court, Paragraph 4 of this article which provides that
punishment may be imposed or applied only on the grounds
established by law, as well as Paragraph 3 of Article 109 of the
Constitution which provides that when considering cases, judges
shall obey only the law, imply a duty of the judge (court) to
apply the law justly. While this duty is directly linked with
requirements for the law: the law itself must be clear, precise
and unambiguous; the sanction must be established while following
the principle of proportionality of liability; stricter liability
should not be applied for a deed, which is less dangerous to
society.
It is maintained in the petition of the petitioner that the
conditions for application of criminal liability must be
established clearly and in a sufficiently concrete manner, while
criminal liability should be applied only when the deed committed
by the person who is being brought to criminal liability
precisely corresponds to the elements of the body of the criminal
deed specified in the CC. By invoking the jurisprudence of the
European Court of Human Rights, it is maintained that, according
to Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, criminal deeds must be
defined in the law clearly, the individual should have an
opportunity to know from the text of a corresponding law or, if
necessary, by making use of judicial interpretation of this law,
what his actions or failure to act may incur criminal liability.
6. The petitioner has doubts whether the principle of
proportionality of liability is not violated when not criminal
liability, but namely administrative liabilitylegal liability of
the kind less strictis established for a deed which is more
dangerous to society.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. The petition of the petitioner does not directly
indicate the wording of the articles of the CAVL and the CC the
provisions of which with the Constitution are being disputed. It
is clear of the arguments of the petition of the petitioner and
of the annexes to the petition that the petitioner faced doubts
whether Paragraph 1 of Article 214-10 titled "Infringement of the
Rights of Authors and Related Rights" (wording of 10 December
2002) of the CAVL and Paragraph 1 of Article 192 titled "Illegal
Reproduction of a Work of Literature, Science, Art or Another
Piece of Work, as well as Distribution, Transportation or Storage
of Illegal Copies" (wording of 26 September 2000) of the CC are
not in conflict with the Constitution.
Article 214-10 titled "Infringement of the Rights of
Authors and Related Rights" (wording of 10 December 2002) of the
CAVL provides:
"Illegal public performance, reproduction, publishing, of
works of literature, science or art (including computer software
and data bases) and of an audio-visual work or phonogram, other
use thereof by any ways and means by seeking to gain property
benefit as well as distribution, storage, export or
transportation of illegal copies by seeking to gain property
benefit
shall incur a fine from LTL 1000 to 3000 together with
confiscation of the illegal copies of the work or phonogram and
of the means or equipment of production of such copies.
The same actions performed by a person who has been given
an administrative punishment for violations provided for in
Paragraph 1 of this Article
shall incur a fine from LTL 2000 to 3000 together with
confiscation of the illegal copies of the work or phonogram and
of the means or equipment of production of such copies.
Note. The means or equipment of illegal reproduction is
technical equipment, materials or other means which are
exclusively or most often used for illegal reproduction and/or
reproduction of illegal copies of production or a phonogram, or
the purpose and direct aim of which is reproduction and/or
distribution of illegal copies of production or a phonogram."
3. Article 192 titled "Illegal Reproduction of a Work of
Literature, Science, Art or Another Piece of Work, as well as
Distribution, Transportation or Storage of Illegal Copies
(wording of 26 September 2000) of the CC provides:
"1. Those who illegally reproduced a work of literature,
science or art or part thereof, or imported, exported,
distributed, transported or stored illegal copies thereof for
commercial purposes, provided the total value of these copies, if
compared to the retail prices of legal copies thereof, exceeded
the sum of 100 MSL
shall be punished by public works, or a fine, or limitation
of freedom, or arrest, or deprivation of freedom for up to two
years.
2. Also a legal person shall be liable for the deeds
provided for in this Article."
II
1. It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner that he
faced doubts on the compliance of Paragraph 1 of Article 214-10
(wording of 10 December 2002) of the CAVL and Paragraph 1 of
Article 192 (wording of 26 September 2000) of the CC with the
Constitution due to the fact that, according to the petitioner,
for a deed more dangerous to societyillegal reproduction of a
work of art be seeking to gain property benefitless strict, i.e.
administrative liability is established, however, stricter, i.e.
criminal liability, is established for a deed which is less
dangerous.
2. The Constitutional Court has held that the legislator,
when paying heed to the Constitution, inter alia to the
imperatives of consistency and of internal non-contradiction of
the legal system that arises from it, may choose by what norms of
a particular branch of law to define certain violations of law
and what sanctions (criminal, administrative, etc.) to establish
for them, that while establishing sanctions for violations of
law, one must respect the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law, inter alia the requirements of
reasonableness, justice and proportionality, also that the
legislator must seek to achieve the inter-branch compatibility of
administrative and criminal sanctions (Constitutional Court
ruling of 10 November 2005). The inter-branch incompatibility of
administrative and criminal sanctions can burden the
implementation of the principle of justice (Constitutional Court
ruling of 13 November 1997).
Alongside, it needs to be noted that, as it was held by the
Constitutional Court in its ruling of 10 November 2005, in
itself, establishment of legal liability of various kinds for
violations of law cannot be the grounds to question the
compliance of corresponding legal regulation established in laws
with the constitutional principles of equal rights of people and
a state under the rule of law; even though under the laws certain
deeds which are contrary to law are defined as administrative
violations of law (even though the administrative penalties
established for them amount to criminal punishments), while
othersas crimes or other deeds violating penal laws, it does not
mean that the constitutional principles of equal rights of
persons and a state under the rule of law are deviated from.
3. It needs to be noted that, on 5 July 2000, subsequent to
the petition submitted to the Court by the petitionerthe Vilnius
City District Court of the Third Districtrequesting to
investigate if Paragraph 1 of Article 214-10 of the Code of
Administrative Violations of Law was in conformity with Article
23 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court adopted the
Ruling "On the compliance of Paragraph 1 of Article 214-10 of the
Republic of Lithuania Code of Administrative Violations of Law
with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania" whereby it
inter alia recognised that Paragraph 1 of Article 214-10 of the
CAVL was not in conflict with the Constitution.
This Constitutional Court ruling is still in force.
4. It needs to be held that the Paragraph 1 of Article
214-10 of the CAVL, which was recognised as being in compliance
with the Constitution by the Constitutional Court ruling of 5
July 2000, is Paragraph 1 of Article 214-10 titled "Infringement
of Copyright and Related Rights" (wording of 24 February 1998) of
the CAVL, which provides:
"Illegal reproduction, circulation, public performance,
other use by any means for commercial purposes of works of
literature, science or art (including computer software and data
bases) and/or a video recording (i.e. without permission of the
author, or producer of audio and/or video recording, or that of a
successor of their rights) as well as their storage for the said
purposes
shall incur a fine from LTL 1000 to 3000 together with
seizure of the items illegally manufactured, reproduced,
circulated or used in other way or stored.
The same actions performed by a person who has been given
an administrative punishment for violations provided for in
Paragraph 1 of this Article
shall incur a fine from LTL 2000 to 3000 together with the
seizure of the items illegally produced, reproduced, circulated
or used in other way or stored as well as that of the equipment
of the illegal reproduction."
5. If one compares Paragraph 1 of Article 214-10 titled
"Infringement of the Rights of Authors and Related Rights"
(wording of 10 December 2002) of the CAVL which is disputed by
the Panevėžys Regional Court, the petitioner, with Paragraph 1 of
Article 214-10 titled "Infringement of Copyright and Related
Rights" (wording of 24 February 1998) of the CAVL, which was
recognised by the Constitutional Court ruling of 5 July 2000 as
being not in conflict with the Constitution, it is clear that
they provide for virtually the same administrative liability for
"illegal reproduction <
> of works of art".
6. Under Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Law on
the Constitutional Court, by a decision, the Constitutional Court
shall refuse to consider petitions to investigate the compliance
of a legal act with the Constitution, if the compliance of the
legal act with the Constitution specified in the petition has
already been investigated by the Constitutional Court and the
ruling on this issue adopted by the Constitutional Court is still
in force.
7. Thus, although Paragraph 1 of Article 214-10 (wording of
24 February 1998) of the CAVL was amended, it is impossible to
assert that there are legal grounds to apply to the
Constitutional Court in the aspect specified by the Panevėžys
Regional Court, the petitioner, so that the Constitutional Court
would investigate into the compliance of virtually the same legal
regulation with the Constitution, since as Paragraph 1 of Article
214-10 (wording of 24 February 1998) of the CAVL was recognised
as being in compliance with the Constitution by the
Constitutional Court ruling of 5 July 2000, the institutions
(including courts) that apply law cannot have any doubts as
regards the constitutionality of corresponding legal regulation.
To this extent the consideration of the petition of the
petitioner is to be refused.
8. On the other hand, in this context it needs to be
mentioned that, as it was held by the Constitutional Court in its
ruling of 28 March 2006, "none of the grounds of the refusal to
investigate a petition provided for in Article 69 of the Law on
the Constitutional Court (a petition was filed by an institution
or person who does not have the right to apply to the
Constitutional Court (Item 1), the consideration of the petition
does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court
(Item 2), the compliance of the legal act with the Constitution
specified in the petition has already been investigated by the
Constitutional Court and the ruling on this issue adopted by the
Constitutional Court is still in force (Item 3), the
Constitutional Court has already commenced the investigation of a
case concerning the same issue (Item 4), the petition is grounded
on non-legal reasoning (Item 5)) may be construed as creating
legal preconditions for the court that considers the case to
apply such law or other legal act (part thereof) on whose
compliance with the Constitution (other legal act of greater
power) the said court doubts."
Thus, the fact that there are no legal grounds to apply to
the Constitutional Court in the aspect pointed out by the
Panevėžys Regional Court, the petitioner, so that it would once
again investigate into the compliance of the legal regulation
that used to be in Paragraph 1 of Article 214-10 (wording of 24
February 1998) of the CAVL and which was virtually repeated in
Paragraph 1 of Article 214-10 (wording of 10 December 2002) of
the CAVL, with the Constitution, since as Paragraph 1 of Article
214-10 (wording of 24 February 1998) of the CAVL was recognised
as being in compliance with the Constitution by the
Constitutional Court ruling of 5 July 2000, the courts cannot
have any doubts as regards the constitutionality of corresponding
legal regulation, does not at all mean that Paragraph 1 of
Article 214-10 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the CAVL cannot
be disputed in the Constitutional Court in other aspects, i.e.
those aspects from which the legal regulation established in this
paragraph is not identical to that established in Paragraph 1 of
Article 214-10 (wording of 24 February 1998) of the CAVL (the
compliance of which, as mentioned, has already been investigated
in the Constitutional Court and which was recognised as being not
in conflict with the Constitution by the Constitutional Court
ruling of 5 July 2000).
9. It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner that
the petitioner does not doubt whether separately taken Paragraph
1 of Article 214-10 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the CAVL and
separately taken Paragraph 1 of Article 192 (wording of 26
September 2000) of the CC are not in conflict with the
Constitution, but whether the said paragraphs of the CAVL and the
CC taken together are not in conflict with the Constitution,
since, as mentioned, according to the petitioner, stricter
punishment for illegal reproduction of a work of art is
established in Paragraph 1 of Article 214-10 (wording of 10
December 2002) of the CAVL than in Paragraph 1 of Article 192
(wording of 26 September 2000) of the CC. Thus, the doubts of the
petitioner whether Paragraph 1 of Article 214-10 (wording of 10
December 2002) of the CAVL and Paragraph 1 of Article 192
(wording of 26 September 2000) of the CC are not in conflict with
the Constitution due to the fact that, in the opinion of the
petitioner, the principle of proportionality of liability is
violated when not criminal liability, but namely administrative
liabilitylegal liability of the kind less strictis established
for a deed which is more dangerous to society, are substantiated
not by the arguments from which it could be clear why Paragraph 1
of Article 214-10 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the CAVL, if
taken separately, and why Paragraph 1 of Article 192 (wording of
26 September 2000) of the CC, if taken separately, are in
conflict with the Constitution from the said aspect of
proportionality of liability, but by such arguments, which makes
it clear that the said paragraphs of the CAVL and the CC are in
conflict with the Constitution, in the opinion of the petitioner,
due to the fact that there is no harmony between the norms
establishing legal liability of one branch of law, i.e.
administrative law, and the norms of another branch of law, i.e.
criminal law. In this context it needs to be emphasised that the
petition of the petitioner does not contain any arguments from
which it would be clear whether the petitioner doubts as to the
compliance of Paragraph 1 of Article 192 (wording of 26 September
2000) of the CC with the Constitution (due to the fact that the
legal liability established in the disputed paragraph of the
corresponding article of the CC is too mild if compared with the
legal liability established in Paragraph 1 of Article 214-10
(wording of 10 December 2002) of the CAVL) with the Constitution,
or as to the compliance of Paragraph 1 of Article 214-10 (wording
of 10 December 2002) of the CAVL (due to the fact that the legal
liability established in the disputed paragraph of the
corresponding article of the CAVL is too strict, if compared with
the legal liability established in Paragraph 1 of Article 192
(wording of 26 September 2000) of the CC) with the Constitution.
Thus, the petitioner virtually doubts as to the
intercompatibility of corresponding articles of the CAVL and the
CC.
10. Under the Constitution, the Constitutional Court does
not decide issues of compatibility and rivalry of legal acts of
the same power (Constitutional Court decision of 29 September
1999). If the laws contain obscurities, ambiguities, and gaps, it
is the duty of the legislature to eliminate them (Constitutional
Court decision of 23 September 2002).
If the Constitutional Court is requested to solve an issue
of compatibility and rivalry of legal acts of the same power,
such a request is not within the jurisdiction of the
Constitutional Court. Under Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69
of the Law on the Constitutional Court, this shall be the grounds
to refuse to consider the petition (Constitutional Court decision
of 23 September 2002).
11. On the other hand, this does not at all mean that in
certain cases incompatibility of legal acts (parts thereof)
cannot imply the conflict of such legal acts (or some of them)
with the Constitution, nor does it mean that the Constitutional
Court cannot state such conflict with the Constitution this under
certain circumstances.
12. After it has been held in this Constitutional Court
decision that there are no legal grounds to apply to the
Constitutional Court in the aspect pointed out by the Panevėžys
Regional Court, the petitioner, so that it would once again
investigate into the compliance of the legal regulation that used
to be in Paragraph 1 of Article 214-10 (wording of 24 February
1998) of the CAVL and which was virtually repeated in Paragraph 1
of Article 214-10 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the CAVL, with
the Constitution, and that to this extent the consideration of
the petition of the petitioner was refused, it needs to be held
that the arguments of the Panevėžys Regional Court, the
petitioner, upon which the doubt as to the compliance of
Paragraph 1 of Article 192 (wording of 26 September 2000) of the
CC with the Constitution is based cannot be accepted, since these
arguments are related with the interrelation between the legal
regulation established in Paragraph 1 of Article 192 (wording of
26 September 2000) of the CC and in Paragraph 1 of Article 214-10
(wording of 10 December 2002) of the CAVL.
13. Thus, the petition of the petitioner requesting to
investigate inter alia into the compliance of Paragraph 1 of
Article 192 (wording of 26 September 2000) of the CC with the
Constitution is not in conformity with Item 5 of Paragraph 2 of
Article 67 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, whereby a
court ruling by means of which one applies to the Constitutional
Court as regards the compliance of a legal act with the
Constitution, must contain legal arguments presenting the opinion
of the court on the conflict of a law or other legal act with the
Constitution.
14. 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 67,
the petition is to be returned to the petitioner (Paragraph 1);
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 (Paragraph 2).
15. Thus, the petition of the Panevėžys Regional Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate inter alia into the
compliance of Paragraph 1 of Article 192 (wording of 26 September
2000) of the CC with the Constitution is to be returned to the
petitioner. It does not mean that the constitutionality of the
legal regulation established in the said paragraph cannot be
disputed in the Constitutional Court, when this is not related
with the legal regulation established in Paragraph 1 of Article
214-10 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the CAVL and the
interrelation between these paragraphs.
III
1. Item 2 of Paragraph 3 of Article 67 of the
Constitutional Court provides that a duplicate of the whole text
of the disputed legal act shall be attached to the court ruling.
Under Paragraph 1 (wording of 7 July 2005) of Article 2 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on the Procedure for Publishing Laws
and Other Legal Acts and Their Coming into Force, the official
publishing of laws and other legal acts is their publishing in
the official gazette "Valstybės žinios". Under Item 15 of Section
1 of Chapter VI of the Rules of the Constitutional Court, the
text of the legal act which is announced in the official gazette
"Valstybės žinios" is to be considered such a duplicate.
2. The duplicates of the disputed provisions of the
Criminal Code and the Code of Administrative Violations of Law
that were attached to the petition of the Panevėžys Regional
Court, the petitioner, were not those officially published in the
official gazette "Valstybės žinios", but other duplicates of the
text of the said provisions.
Conforming to Articles 28, 69 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 refuse to consider the petition of the Panevėžys
Regional Court, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether
Paragraph 1 of Article 214-10 (wording of 10 December 2002;
Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 124-5623) of the
Code of Administrative Violations of Law of the Republic of
Lithuania is not in conflict with Paragraph 4 of Article 31 of
the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law.
2. To return the petition of the Panevėžys Regional Court,
the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether Paragraph 1 of
Article 192 (wording of 26 September 2000; Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 2000, No. 89-2741) of the Criminal Code of the
Republic of Lithuania is not in conflict with Paragraph 4 of
Article 31 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle
of a state under the rule of law, to the petitioner.
This Constitutional Court decision is final and not subject
to appeal.
The decision 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