Lietuviškai
Case No. 24/05-04/06
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
DECISION
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROVISION OF ITEM 6.3. OF CHAPTER
II OF THE REASONING PART OF THE RULING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA "ON THE COMPLIANCE OF
PARAGRAPH 3 (WORDING OF 22 DECEMBER 1998) OF ARTICLE 73 OF THE
STATUTE OF THE SEIMAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA WITH THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA" OF 4 APRIL 2006
21 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 hearing-Daiva Pitrėnaitė,
in the presence of:
Česlovas Atkočaitis and Milda Vainiutė, advisors to the
President of the Republic on legal issues, the representatives
of the President of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner,
who submitted the petition requesting to construe a provision
of the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania,
the representatives of a group of Members of the Seimas of
the Republic of Lithuania, and the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania, the petitioners in constitutional justice case No.
24/05-04/06, who were Česlovas Juršėnas, a Member of the Seimas
(who represented both petitioners-the group of Members of the
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania and the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania), Julius Sabatauskas, a Member of the
Seimas (who represented the group of Members of the Seimas of
the Republic of Lithuania, a petitioner), Antanas Jatkevičius,
senior advisor to the Legal Department of the Office of the
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (who represented the Seimas
of the Republic of Lithuania, a petitioner),
pursuant to Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court of the Republic of Lithuania, on 20 November 2006 in a
public hearing of the Court considered the petition set forth
in Decree of the President of the Republic of Lithuania No. 778
"On Applying to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania Requesting to Construe a Provision of the Ruling of
the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania 'On the
compliance of Paragraph 3 (wording of 22 December 1998) of
Article 73 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania'
of 4 April 2006" of 16 October 2006 requesting to construe
whether the provision "from the constitutional principle of
separation of powers and other provisions of the Constitution,
one is to draw a conclusion that the Seimas has no powers to
form any such provisional investigation commissions, which
would be commissioned with investigation of things, in the
course of investigation of which the powers of other
institutions which execute public power, as well as the powers
of other state and municipal institutions provided for in the
Constitution and/or laws would be interfered with" of Item 6.3.
of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the Ruling of the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania "On the
compliance of Paragraph 3 (wording of 22 December 1998) of
Article 73 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania"
of 4 April 2006 means that
- the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania does not have
any powers to form any such provisional investigation
commissions, which would be commissioned with investigation
into the things related with organisation of work of other
state institutions, provided decision of these issues is,
according to laws, within the competence of the heads of these
institutions, as, for instance, establishment of the structure
of the institutions, establishment and liquidation of
structural sub-units, employees' admission to work, their
dismissal, their transfer to another position, their removal
from duties and other issues related with the career, legal
status etc. of employees of the institution;
- the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania cannot
commission a Seimas provisional investigation commission with
the investigation into the things, which would in themselves
mean that their investigation will require only the material of
pre-trial, operational or other investigation conducted by the
state institution, on the basis of which the final conclusions
of the provisional investigation commission would be
formulated, while the disclosure of such material could harm
the pre-trial, operational or other investigation.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
1. In constitutional justice case No. 24/05-04/06
subsequent to the 23 November 2005 petition of a group of
Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, requesting to
investigate whether the provision "If a group of at least 1/4
of the Members of Seimas submits a written demand to form a
provisional control or investigation commission, the Seimas
must form such a commission in the course or its nearest
sitting" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 22 December 1998) of
Article 73 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania was not in conflict with the principle of a free
mandate of a Member of the Seimas, which, according to the
petitioner, was entrenched in Paragraph 4 of Article 59 of the
Constitution and the principle of a state under the rule of
law, which, according to the petitioner, was entrenched in the
Preamble of the Constitution, subsequent to the petition set
forth in Resolution of the Seimas No. X-455 "On the Application
to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania with a
Request to Investigate whether Paragraph 3 of Article 73 of the
Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania is not in
Conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania" of
20 December 2005 requesting the Constitutional Court to
investigate whether the provision "If a group of at least 1/4
of the Members of Seimas submits a written demand to form a
provisional control or investigation commission, the Seimas
must form such a commission in the course or its nearest
sitting" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 22 December 1998) of
Article 73 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania was not in conflict with the principle of a free
mandate of a Member of the Seimas, which, according to the
petitioner, was entrenched in Paragraph 4 of Article 59 of the
Constitution, on 4 April 2006 the Constitutional Court adopted
the Ruling "On the compliance of Paragraph 3 (wording of 22
December 1998) of Article 73 of the Statute of the Seimas of
the Republic of Lithuania with the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania" (hereinafter also referred to as the
Constitutional Court ruling of 4 April 2006).
2. By his Decree No. 778 "On Applying to the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania Requesting to
Construe a Provision of the Ruling of the Constitutional Court
of the Republic of Lithuania 'On the compliance of Paragraph 3
(wording of 22 December 1998) of Article 73 of the Statute of
the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania with the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania' of 4 April 2006" of 16 October
2006 (hereinafter also referred to as the Decree of the
President of the Republic of 16 October 2006), the President of
the Republic requests that the Constitutional Court construe
whether the provision "from the constitutional principle of
separation of powers and other provisions of the Constitution,
one is to draw a conclusion that the Seimas has no powers to
form any such provisional investigation commissions, which
would be commissioned with investigation of things, in the
course of investigation of which the powers of other
institutions which execute public power, as well as the powers
of other state and municipal institutions provided for in the
Constitution and/or laws would be interfered with" of Item 6.3.
of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
Ruling "On the compliance of Paragraph 3 (wording of 22
December 1998) of Article 73 of the Statute of the Seimas of
the Republic of Lithuania with the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania" of 4 April 2006 means that
- the Seimas does not have any powers to form any such
provisional investigation commissions, which would be
commissioned with investigation into the things related with
organisation of work of other state institutions, provided
decision of these issues is, according to laws, within the
competence of the heads of these institutions, as, for
instance, establishment of the structure of the institutions,
establishment and liquidation of structural sub-units,
employees' admission to work, their dismissal, their transfer
to another position, their removal from duties and other issues
related with the career, legal status etc. of employees of the
institution;
- the Seimas cannot commission a Seimas provisional
investigation commission with the investigation into the
things, which would in themselves mean that their investigation
will require only the material of pre-trial, operational or
other investigation conducted by the state institution, on the
basis of which the final conclusions of the provisional
investigation commission would be formulated, while the
disclosure of such material could harm the pre-trial,
operational or other investigation.
II
1. At the Constitutional Court hearing M. Vainiutė and Č.
Atkočaitis, the representatives of the President of the
Republic, the petitioner, who submitted the petition requesting
to construe a provision of the ruling of the Constitutional
Court, presented explanations.
2. At the Constitutional Court hearing, the
representatives of a group of Members of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania, and the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania, the petitioners in constitutional justice case No.
24/05-04/06, who were the Member of the Seimas Č. Juršėnas (who
represented both petitioners-the group of Members of the Seimas
and the Seimas), the Member of the Seimas J. Sabatauskas (who
represented the group of Members of the Seimas, a petitioner),
and A. Jatkevičius, (who represented the Seimas, a petitioner),
made speeches.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court
consolidates the Constitutional Court powers to officially
construe its rulings.
While construing Article 61 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court has held that
the Constitutional Court has powers also to officially construe
its other final acts (Constitutional Court decisions of 6 April
2004 and 14 March 2006 (Case No. 13/2000-14/2000-20/2000-21/
2000-22/2000-25/2000-31/2000-35/2000-39/2000-8/01-31/01)).
2. The Constitutional Court officially construes its
ruling at the request of the parties to the case, of other
institutions or persons to whom it was sent, or on its own
initiative (Paragraph 1 of Article 61 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court). Under Paragraph 2 of Article 60 of the
Law on the Constitutional Court, a Constitutional Court ruling
shall be sent inter alia to the President of the Republic.
3. A ruling of the Constitutional Court is integral, its
resolving part is based upon the arguments of the part of
reasoning. While construing its ruling, the Constitutional
Court is bound both by the content of the part of resolution
and that of reasoning of its ruling. The decision adopted
concerning construction of a Constitutional Court ruling is
inseparable from the Constitutional Court ruling
(Constitutional Court decisions of 12 January 2000, 11 February
2004, 13 February 2004, 10 February 2005, and 14 March 2006
(Case No. 13/2000-14/2000-20/2000-21/2000-22/2000-25/2000-31/
2000-35/2000-39/2000-8/01-31/01) and the ruling of 28 March 2006).
It needs to be emphasised that the consideration
(subsequent to the request of the parties to the case, of other
institutions or persons to whom it was sent, or on its own
initiative) of a petition requesting to construe a
Constitutional Court ruling or its other final act does not
imply a new constitutional justice case. The decision
(specified in Paragraph 2 of Article 61 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court) on the construction of a Constitutional
Court ruling is marked by the same number as the Constitutional
Court ruling (other final act) which is construed, i.e. by the
number of a corresponding constitutional justice case.
4. The Constitutional Court has held: "the formula 'shall
be final and not subject to appeal' of Paragraph 2 of Article
107 of the Constitution, in which, <...> it is established that
the decisions of the Constitutional Court on issues ascribed to
its competence by the Constitution shall be final and not
subject to appeal, means that the Constitutional Court rulings,
conclusions and decisions by which a constitutional justice
case is finished, i.e. final acts of the Constitutional Court,
are obligatory to all State institutions, courts, all
enterprises, establishments and organisations, as well as
officials and citizens, including the Constitutional Court
itself: final acts of the Constitutional Court are obligatory
to the Constitutional Court itself, they restrict the
Constitutional Court in the aspect that it may not change them
or review them if there are no constitutional grounds for that"
(Constitutional Court ruling of 28 March 2006).
5. Under Paragraph 3 of Article 61 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court must construe
its ruling without changing its content.
The provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 61 of the Law on
the Constitutional Court that the Constitutional Court must
construe its ruling without changing its content means, among
other things, that while construing its ruling, the
Constitutional Court may not construe its content so that the
meaning of the provisions of the ruling would be changed, inter
alia the entirety of the meaning of the elements composing the
content of the ruling, as well as the arguments and reasons on
which the Constitutional Court ruling is based. The specified
provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 61 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court also means that the Constitutional Court
may not construe what it did not investigate in the
constitutional justice case in which the construed ruling was
adopted (Constitutional Court decision of 14 March 2006 (Case
No.13/2000-14/2000-20/2000-21/2000-22/2000-25/2000-31/2000-35/2000
-39/2000-8/01-31/01) and the ruling of 28 March 2006).
6. The Constitutional Court has held that the purpose of
the institute of construction of Constitutional Court rulings
and other final acts is to reveal the contents and meaning of
corresponding Constitutional Court rulings or other final acts
more broadly and in more detail if it is necessary in order to
ensure proper execution of that Constitutional Court ruling or
other final act so that this Constitutional Court ruling or
other final act would be followed (Constitutional Court
decision of 14 March 2006 (Case No. 13/2000-14/2000-20/2000-21/
2000-22/2000-25/2000-31/2000-35/2000-39/2000-8/01-31/01)).
Thus, in the course of the construction of Constitutional
Court rulings and other final acts, the official constitutional
doctrine is developed.
7. The formation and development of the constitutional
doctrine is a function of constitutional justice
(Constitutional Court ruling of 28 March 2006; also,
Constitutional Court rulings of 30 May 2003, 1 July 2004, and
13 December 2004; decision of 20 September 2005; rulings of 14
March 2006, 9 May 2006, and 6 June 2006; decision of 8 August
2006). The official constitutional doctrine formed by the
Constitutional Court, in which the provisions (principles,
norms) of the Constitution are construed, constitutes a whole.
The formation of the official constitutional doctrine
(both as a whole and on every individual issue of the
constitutional legal regulation) is not a onetime act but a
gradual and consecutive process. This process is uninterrupted
and is never fully finished. The development of the
constitutional jurisprudence and the official doctrine
formulated therein is characteristic of the fact that the
official constitutional doctrine is not formulated all "at
once" on any issue of the constitutional legal regulation, but
"case after case", by supplementing the elements (fragments) of
the said doctrine, revealed in the previous constitutional
justice cases, adopted in the acts of the Constitutional Court
with others, which are revealed in the acts of the
Constitutional Court adopted in the new cases of constitutional
justice. While construing the norms and principles of the
Constitution, explicitly and implicitly entrenched in the text
of the Constitution, there is always a possibility to formulate
the official constitutional doctrinal provisions (i.e. to
reveal such aspects of constitutional legal regulation) which
have not been formulated in the previous constitutional justice
cases adopted in the acts of the Constitutional Court, if it is
necessary because of the logic of the considered constitutional
justice case. When the Constitutional Court considers new
constitutional justice cases every time subsequent to petitions
of petitioners, the official constitutional doctrine formulated
in the previous acts of the Constitutional Court (on every
individual issue on the constitutional legal regulation, which
is important to a corresponding case) is every time
supplemented with new fragments. Thus, by formulating new
official constitutional doctrinal provisions the diversity and
completeness of the legal regulation entrenched in the
Constitution-the supreme legal act-is revealed (Constitutional
Court rulings of 28 March 2006 and 9 May 2006; decision of 8
August 2006; also Constitutional Court rulings of 30 May 2003,
1 July 2004 and 13 December 2004; decision of 20 September
2005; ruling of 14 March 2006).
8. In its acts the Constitutional Court has held more than
once that the principle of a state under the rule of law
entrenched in the Constitution implies continuity of
jurisprudence. It needs to be emphasised that not only courts
of general jurisdiction, but also specialised courts (which are
established under Paragraph 2 of Article 111 of the
Constitution) must ensure the continuity of jurisprudence
(Constitutional Court rulings of 14 March 2006, 28 March 2006
and 9 May 2006).
9. On the other hand, the continuity of constitutional
jurisprudence does not mean that the official constitutional
doctrine cannot be corrected or that its provisions cannot be
reinterpreted (Constitutional Court ruling of 14 March 2006).
It needs to be emphasised that such correction and
reinterpretation is possible only in cases after corresponding
amendments to the Constitution have been made.
The Constitutional Court has held that the conceptions of
the provisions of the Constitution and further construction and
development of the official constitutional doctrinal provisions
formulated on the basis of the said provisions in the acts of
the Constitutional Court adopted in new constitutional justice
cases under certain circumstances may imply not only revelation
of new aspects of the constitutional legal regulation necessary
for the investigation of the said constitutional justice cases
and supplement of the conception of the provisions of the
Constitution provided in the acts of the Constitutional Court
adopted in the previous constitutional justice cases with new
elements (fragments), but also reinterpretation of the official
constitutional doctrinal provisions formulated previously when
the official constitutional doctrine is corrected. Such
reinterpretation of the conception of the provisions of the
Constitution and official constitutional doctrinal provisions
when the official constitutional doctrine is corrected is an
exclusive competence of the Constitutional Court. However, when
no amendments to the Constitution are made, due to which it is
necessary to reinterpret certain official constitutional
doctrinal provisions so that the official constitutional
doctrine would be corrected, this may be done only if the
necessity to diverge from the existing precedent and to create
a new one arises from the Constitution; in this field, the
Constitutional Court is not completely free, it is bound by its
own created precedents and formed official constitutional
doctrine on which the said precedents are based. The creation
of new court precedents and arguing (grounding) the court
precedents may not be rationally legally unreasoned volitional
acts; the Constitutional Court, referring to its already formed
constitutional doctrine and precedents, must ensure the
continuity of the constitutional jurisprudence (its
consecution, consistency) and the predictability of its
decisions. It may be possible to deviate from the
Constitutional Court precedents created while adopting
decisions in cases of constitutional justice and new precedents
may be created only in the cases when it is unavoidably and
objectively necessary, constitutionally grounded and reasoned;
also the official constitutional doctrinal provisions on which
the precedents of the Constitutional Court are based may not be
reinterpreted so that the official constitutional doctrine
would be corrected when it is not unavoidably and objectively
necessary, constitutionally grounded and reasoned; any change
of the precedents of the Constitutional Court or correction of
the official constitutional doctrine may not be determined by
accidental (in the aspect of law) factors (for instance, the
correction of the official constitutional doctrine may not be
determined only by a change in the composition of the
Constitutional Court). The said necessity to reinterpret
certain official constitutional doctrinal provisions so that
the official constitutional doctrine would be corrected may be
determined only by the circumstances as the necessity to
increase possibilities for implementing the innate and acquired
rights of persons and their legitimate interests, the necessity
to better defend and protect the values enshrined in the
Constitution, the need to create better conditions in order to
reach the aims of the Lithuanian Nation declared in the
Constitution on which the Constitution itself is based, the
necessity to expand the possibilities of the constitutional
control in this country in order to guarantee constitutional
justice and to ensure that no legal act (part thereof) which is
in conflict with legal acts of greater power, would have the
immunity from being removed from the legal system. In addition,
it is impossible and constitutionally impermissible to
reinterpret the official constitutional doctrine so that the
official constitutional doctrine would be corrected, if by
doing so the system of values entrenched in the Constitution is
changed, their compatibility is denied, the protection
guarantees of the supremacy of the Constitution in the legal
system are reduced, the concept of the Constitution as a single
act and harmonious system is denied, the guarantees of rights
and freedoms of the person entrenched in the Constitution are
reduced and the model of separation of powers enshrined in the
Constitution is changed. Every case of such reinterpretation of
the official constitutional doctrine when the official
constitutional doctrine is corrected has to be properly
(clearly and rationally) argued in the corresponding act of the
Constitutional Court. However, under the Constitution, no
development of the official constitutional doctrine-neither the
supplement of the conception of the provisions of the
Constitution provided in the acts of the Constitutional Court
adopted in the previous constitutional justice cases with new
elements (fragments) nor the reinterpretation of the official
constitutional doctrinal provisions formulated previously when
the official constitutional doctrine is corrected-may be or is
the grounds for reviewing the rulings, conclusions or decisions
or their argumentation (substantiation), which were adopted in
the previous constitutional justice cases by which
corresponding constitutional justice cases were finished
(Constitutional Court ruling of 28 March 2006; decision of 8
August 2006).
10. The uniformity and continuity of the official
constitutional doctrine implies a necessity to construe each
construed provision of a Constitutional Court ruling or its
other final act by taking account of the entire official
constitutional doctrinal context, also of other provisions
(explicit and implicit) of the Constitution, which are related
with the provision (provisions) of the Constitution in the
course of construction of which in a Constitutional Court
ruling or its other final act the corresponding official
constitutional doctrine was formulated. No official
constitutional doctrinal provision of a Constitutional Court
ruling or its other final act may be construed in isolation, by
ignoring its meaning and systemic links with the other official
constitutional doctrinal provisions set forth in that
Constitutional Court ruling or its other final act, in other
Constitutional Court acts, as well as with other provisions
(explicit and implicit) of the Constitution.
11. It needs to be emphasised that the official
constitutional doctrinal provisions set forth in this
Constitutional Court decision as regards correction (it goes
without saying, the correction which is always constitutionally
substantiated and explicitly reasoned in a corresponding
Constitutional Court act) of the official constitutional
doctrine are to be related with consideration of new
constitutional justice cases and new creation of Constitutional
Court precedents in such cases, but not with the official
construction of Constitutional Court rulings or its other final
acts. As mentioned, the Constitutional Court must construe its
ruling or it other final act without changing its content.
II
1. By his decree of 16 October 2006, the President of the
Republic requests that the Constitutional Court construe
whether the provision "from the constitutional principle of
separation of powers and other provisions of the Constitution,
one is to draw a conclusion that the Seimas has no powers to
form any such provisional investigation commissions, which
would be commissioned with investigation of things, in the
course of investigation of which the powers of other
institutions which execute public power, as well as the powers
of other state and municipal institutions provided for in the
Constitution and/or laws would be interfered with" of Item 6.3.
of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 4 April 2006 means that
- the Seimas does not have any powers to form any such
provisional investigation commissions, which would be
commissioned with investigation into the things related with
organisation of work of other state institutions, provided
decision of these issues is, according to laws, within the
competence of the heads of these institutions, as, for
instance, establishment of the structure of the institutions,
establishment and liquidation of structural sub-units,
employees' admission to work, their dismissal, their transfer
to another position, their removal from duties and other issues
related with the career, legal status etc. of employees of the
institution;
- the Seimas cannot commission a Seimas provisional
investigation commission with the investigation into the
things, which would in themselves mean that their investigation
will require only the material of pre-trial, operational or
other investigation conducted by the state institution, on the
basis of which the final conclusions of the provisional
investigation commission would be formulated, while the
disclosure of such material could harm the pre-trial,
operational or other investigation.
2. It needs to be noted that the provision "from the
constitutional principle of separation of powers and other
provisions of the Constitution, one is to draw a conclusion
that the Seimas has no powers to form any such provisional
investigation commissions, which would be commissioned with
investigation of things, in the course of investigation of
which the powers of other institutions which execute public
power, as well as the powers of other state and municipal
institutions provided for in the Constitution and/or laws would
be interfered with" of Item 6.3. of Chapter II of the reasoning
part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 4 April 2006, whose
construction is requested by the President of the Republic, is
part of a bigger text. The entire Item 6 (and Items 6.1, 6.2,
and 6.3 that constitute it) of Chapter II of the reasoning part
of the Constitutional Court ruling of 4 April 2006, which
contains this provision, is set forth as follows:
"6. It needs to be noted that, under the Constitution, it
is not permitted to establish any exhaustive (final) list of
questions, for the investigation of which the Seimas may form
provisional investigation commissions: since the Seimas, as the
representation of the Nation and the institution of legislation
(performing, as mentioned, not only the legislative but also
various other functions), may pass laws and other legal acts
regulating most varied social relations, it can virtually form
provisional investigation commissions designated for the
investigation of most varied processes which take place in the
state and society.
6.1. The principle of responsible governance is entrenched
in the Constitution (Constitutional Court rulings of 1 July
2004, 13 December 2004, and 2 June 2005). The Constitution does
not imply any such activities of the Seimas, where the Seimas
collects all the information necessary for legislation and
other functions of the Seimas by itself, by not relying on the
information submitted to it by other state institutions, nor
when in the activities of the Seimas the formation of
provisional or like commissions and investigation performed by
them dominate. Quite to the contrary, the Constitution implies
the institute of Seimas provisional investigation commissions
and the legal regulation of formation of such commissions and
of their activities, where Seimas provisional investigation
commissions are formed not in order to investigate any, but
only special questions, i.e. those of state importance. The
powers of Seimas provisional investigation commissions are to
be related with the constitutional purpose and functions of the
Seimas.
6.2. The Constitution does not imply any possibility to
form any such Seimas provisional investigation commissions,
which would be commissioned with investigation of such things
that institutions of public power, under the Constitution, may
not investigate at all, as for example, circumstances of
personal or family life of a human being, if, by such
investigation one would unreasonably interfere with the private
life of the human being, which is defended by the Constitution,
if the inviolability of private life is violated, etc.
6.3. From the constitutional principle of separation of
powers and other provisions of the Constitution, one is to draw
a conclusion that the Seimas has no powers to form any such
provisional investigation commissions, which would be
commissioned with investigation of things, in the course of
investigation of which the powers of other institutions which
execute public power, as well as the powers of other state and
municipal institutions provided for in the Constitution and/or
laws would be interfered with. For example, a Seimas
provisional investigation commission cannot take over the
constitutional powers of courts or otherwise interfere with the
implementation of the constitutional competence of courts, nor
violate the independence of the judge and courts in the course
of administration of justice, let alone administer justice by
itself; the Seimas provisional investigation commission may not
take over the constitutional powers of prosecutors or otherwise
interfere with the implementation of the constitutional
competence of prosecutors, nor violate the independence of the
prosecutor when he organises pre-trial investigation and
pursues charges on behalf of the state in criminal cases <...>
[the Constitutional Court Ruling "On the compliance of Items 1,
2 and 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 (wording of 3 April 2003)
of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Seimas Provisional
Investigation Commissions with the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania, as well as on the petition of a group of Members
of the Seimas, the petitioner, requesting to investigate
whether Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No.
Ix-1868 'On the Conclusion of the Provisional Commission of the
Seimas for Investigation into Possible Threats to Lithuanian
National Security' of 2 December 2003 is not in conflict with
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 3
And 8 (wording of 3 April 2003) of the Republic of Lithuania
Law on Seimas Provisional Investigation Commissions" of 13 May
2004 (hereinafter also referred to as the Constitutional Court
ruling of 13 May 2004)].
However, the fact that Seimas provisional investigation
commissions cannot be commissioned with investigation of things
in the course of investigation of which the powers of other
institutions which execute public power, as well as the powers
of other state and municipal institutions provided for in the
Constitution and/or laws would be interfered with, does not
mean that Seimas provisional investigation commissions cannot
have any powers in regard of state or municipal institutions,
their officials and other persons at all. Such powers may be
established by means of a law, when the Constitution is being
paid heed to as well."
Taking account of the official constitutional doctrinal
context in which the provision of the first paragraph Item 6.3.
of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 4 April 2006, which is requested to be construed,
inter alia of the fact that this provision is immediately
construed therein, also by referring to the official
constitutional doctrine set forth in the Constitutional Court
ruling of 13 May 2004, in the course of the construction of the
said provision one must invoke also other Constitutional Court
acts, inter alia the Constitutional Court ruling of 13 May
2004, in which the doctrine of Seimas provisional investigation
commissions is set forth.
3. In its ruling of 13 May 2004, the Constitutional Court
has formulated a broad official constitutional doctrine of
Seimas provisional investigation commissions. The official
constitutional doctrinal provisions of the Constitutional Court
ruling is, for the most part, the continuation and development
of the official constitutional doctrine formulated in the
Constitutional Court ruling of 13 May 2004.
It needs to be noted that in the course of construction of
the provision of the Constitutional Court ruling of 4 April
2006, which is requested to be construed (in the aspect
specified by the President of the Republic, the petitioner, who
submitted the corresponding petition), the following official
constitutional doctrinal provisions of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 13 May 2004 are of importance:
- "Implementing its right directly established in the
Constitution to particularise its certain constitutional powers
by means of laws, as well as establishing, by means of laws,
its powers that are not expressis verbis indicated in the
Constitution, the Seimas is bound by the Constitution. The fact
that the Seimas, while passing laws, is bound by the
Constitution, as well as by the laws that were passed by it, is
an essential element of the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law <...>" (the fifth paragraph of Item 2 of
Chapter I of the reasoning part); "<...> the Seimas, while
implementing its constitutional powers, discharges the
classical functions of the parliament of a democratic state
under the rule of law: the Seimas <...> conducts the
parliamentary control of executive and other state institutions
(save courts) (the control function), establishes state
institutions, appoints and dismisses their heads and other
state officials (the establishment function) <...>" (the first
paragraph of Item 3 of Chapter I of the reasoning part);
- "<...> Under the Constitution, the legislator and other
entities of lawmaking may not establish any such legal
regulation whereby the said constitutional functions of the
Seimas would be denied or opportunities to discharge them would
be restricted, since thus the Seimas, the representation of the
Nation, would be hindered from effective actions in the
interests of the Nation and the State of Lithuania" (the second
paragraph of Item 3 of Chapter I of the reasoning part);
- "In order that it might properly discharge its
parliamentary functions and implement its constitutional
powers, the Seimas, the representation of the Nation, has to
possess exhaustive, objective information about the processes
taking place in the state and society, about the situation in
various sectors of life of the state and society and the
arising problems. The possession of such information is a
necessary precondition for the fact that the Seimas might be
able to effectively act in the interests of the Nation and the
State of Lithuania, that it would properly execute its
constitutional duty" (the first paragraph of Item 4 of Chapter
I of the reasoning part);
- "The constitutional functions of the Seimas, the powers
of the Seimas entrenched in the Constitution presuppose the
powers of the Seimas in every case when a necessity occurs to
decide a certain question ascribed to the constitutional
competence of the Seimas, to seek to achieve exhaustive,
objective information necessary to adopt corresponding
decisions. The necessity to possess such information means that
in case of need the Seimas can rely not only on the publicly
known information or that presented to it by state institutions
and other persons, but also that it can resort to concrete
actions so that such exhaustive, objective information could be
received. In case of need, the Seimas may conduct investigation
by itself so that it could collect exhaustive, objective
information about the processes taking place in the state and
society, about the situation in various sectors of life of the
state and society and the arising problems" (the second
paragraph of Item 4 of Chapter I of the reasoning part);
- "<...> the Seimas, enjoying the powers in every case,
whenever there occurs a necessity to decide a certain issue
within the constitutional competence of the Seimas, to seek to
receive exhaustive, objective information needed to adopt
corresponding decisions, also enjoys discretion to form such
its structural sub-units which would be assigned to conduct
investigation so that exhaustive, objective information about
the processes taking place in the state and society, about the
situation in various sectors of life of the state and society
and the arising problems could be collected" (the third
paragraph of Item 5.1 of Chapter I of the reasoning part);
- "<...> in order that it could properly discharge its
constitutional functions, the Seimas may require to form also
such structural sub-units, which would enjoy powers in regard
of various state and municipal institutions, their officials,
and other persons. In the context of the case at issue, it
needs to be noted that such powers may also be related with
reception of exhaustive, objective information from state or
municipal institutions, their officials and other persons about
the processes taking place in the state and society, about the
situation in various sectors of life of the state and society
and the arising problems. It needs to be emphasised that
reception of this information cannot be dependent upon the fact
whether or not corresponding institutions and other persons are
accountable to the Seimas: in order to receive exhaustive,
objective information necessary to adopt corresponding
decisions, the Seimas, as the representation of the Nation, has
to have an opportunity to receive information not only from
institutions, other persons that are accountable to it, but
also from persons that are not accountable to it. In case one
needs to establish authoritative empowerments of a structural
sub-unit of the Seimas in regard of institutions, their
officials and other persons that are not accountable to the
Seimas (including the right to demand the information the
submission whereof is regulated by laws), then such powers of
the structural sub-unit of the Seimas must be established by
the law. When such powers are being established, one must pay
heed to the norms and principles of the Constitution" (the
second paragraph of Item 5.2 of Chapter I of the reasoning
part);
- "<...> certain questions linked with the formation of
structural sub-units of the Seimas, establishment of their
competence, formation of their composition, formulation of
tasks to them, may be decided by substatutory legal acts of the
Seimas. Such substatutory legal acts of the Seimas may not be
in conflict with laws, as well as the Statute of the Seimas. If
a substatutory act of the Seimas sets the powers of a
structural sub-unit of the Seimas in regard of state or
municipal institutions, their officials, and other persons,
then such provisions of the substatutory act of the Seimas must
be grounded on provisions of laws" (the third paragraph of Item
5.2 of Chapter I of the reasoning part).
4. Most of the official constitutional doctrinal
provisions formulated in the Constitutional Court ruling of 13
May 2004 which are cited here (as well as the other official
constitutional doctrinal provisions of the same Constitutional
Court ruling, which, by taking account of the content of the
petition requesting the provision of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 4 April 2004 are not cited in this Constitutional
Court ruling) are repeated, and some of them even further
developed in the Constitutional Court ruling of 4 April 2006.
One is also to mention that the constitutional doctrinal
provisions of some other Constitutional Court acts which had
been adopted in previous constitutional justice cases, inter
alia the constitutional doctrinal provisions of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 1 July 2004, were repeated and
developed in the Constitutional Court ruling of 4 April 2006.
The provision "from the constitutional principle of separation
of powers and other provisions of the Constitution, one is to
draw a conclusion that the Seimas has no powers to form any
such provisional investigation commissions, which would be
commissioned with investigation of things, in the course of
investigation of which the powers of other institutions which
execute public power, as well as the powers of other state and
municipal institutions provided for in the Constitution and/or
laws would be interfered with" of Item 6.3. of Chapter II of
the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 4
April 2006, which is requested to be construed, cannot be
separated from the aforesaid provisions.
From among such constitutional doctrinal provisions which
were formulated in the Constitutional Court ruling of 4 April
2006 on the grounds of the constitutional doctrinal provisions
of the Constitutional Court ruling of 13 May 2004, as well as
other Constitutional Court acts adopted in previous
constitutional justice cases, inter alia in the Constitutional
Court ruling of 1 July 2004 (i.e. the provisions developing the
constitutional doctrinal provisions formulated in the
Constitutional Court ruling of 13 May 2004 and other
Constitutional Court acts adopted in previous constitutional
justice cases) from which the provision of Item 6.3. of Chapter
II of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of
4 April 2006, which is requested to be construed, cannot be
separated, in the context of the petition requesting to
construe this provision of the Constitutional Court ruling of 4
April 2006, in addition to the already cited provisions of Item
6 (and Items 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 that constitute it) of Chapter
II of the reasoning part of the said Constitutional Court
ruling, the following provisions are to be mentioned:
- "By means of legal acts one must establish such
structure of the Seimas and its work procedure, define such
relations of the Seimas with other state institutions,
consolidate such legal status of the Member of the Seimas, so
that the Seimas, the representation of the Nation, might be
able to discharge its constitutional functions <...>" (the
third paragraph of Item 2 of Chapter II of the reasoning part);
- "Under the Constitution, the Seimas must establish such
legal regulation, so that legal preconditions might be created
to receive the necessary information needed in order to execute
its constitutional powers" (the first paragraph of Item 5 of
Chapter II of the reasoning part);
- "<...> in a democratic state under the rule of law one
cannot deny the powers of the parliament-the representation of
the Nation-to take measures, inter alia to form structural
sub-units of the parliament, which are meant for this purpose,
and to commission them with conducting a corresponding
investigation, so that information would be received about the
processes taking place in the state and society, about the
situation in various areas of life of the state and society and
arising problems; otherwise, proper discharge of functions of
the parliament-the representation of the Nation-and adoption of
necessary decisions would not be ensured. The said powers arise
from the very essence of the parliamentary democracy and is one
of the features of parliamentarism. In the practice of
parliaments of democratic states under the rule of law an
opportunity of the parliament to take measures in order to
receive information about processes taking place in the state
and society, about the situation in various spheres of life of
the state and society and the arising problems is also
implemented by means of such institutes as provisional
commissions (which are commissioned with conduct of certain
investigation) formed by parliaments, parliamentary hearings
and deliberations etc." (the fourth paragraph of Item 5 of
Chapter II of the reasoning part); "the institute of
provisional commissions formed by the Seimas, inter alia
provisional investigation commissions, is also characteristic
of the parliamentarism tradition of the State of Lithuania"
(the fifth paragraph of Item 5 of Chapter II of the reasoning
part);
- "In each particular case, before deciding on the
formation of a Seimas provisional investigation commission, the
Seimas must deliberate and assess whether or not this Seimas
provisional investigation commission can be formed according to
the Constitution and laws. The Seimas must deliberate and
assess inter alia the following: whether the issue due to which
the formation of the Seimas provisional investigation
commission is proposed is really of state importance; whether
one suggests that this Seimas provisional investigation
commission be commissioned to investigate things, which, under
the Constitution, institutions of public power may not
investigate at all; whether one suggests that this Seimas
provisional investigation commission be commissioned to
investigate things, in the course of investigation of which the
powers of other institutions which execute public power, as
well as the powers of other state and municipal institutions
provided for in the Constitution and/or laws, would be
interfered with" (the first paragraph of Item 9 of Chapter II
of the reasoning part);
- "Before deciding on the formation of the Seimas
provisional investigation commission, the Seimas may assess
(inter alia also from the aspect of expediency) also whether
there are any circumstances, which would justify non-forming of
such commission, as, for example: whether a corresponding
question has been investigated already or whether it is under
investigation by a Seimas provisional investigation commission
or another institution, whether the corresponding work may be
performed by an already established and acting structural
sub-unit of the Seimas, etc." (the second paragraph of Item 9
of Chapter II of the reasoning part);
- "<...> in cases when the question for the investigation
of which the formation of a Seimas provisional investigation
commission is proposed is really of state importance and there
are not any circumstances due to which the commission may not
be formed under the Constitution and laws, and if there are not
any circumstances which would justify non-forming of such a
commission, the free mandate of Members of the Seimas must be
used in such a way, so that the Seimas could effectively act in
the interests of the Nation and the State of Lithuania, that it
would properly perform its constitutional obligation" (the
third paragraph of Item 13 of Chapter II of the reasoning
part);
- "<...> the principle of responsible governance is
entrenched in the Constitution. The Seimas should not use its
constitutional powers to form provisional investigation
commissions in a way, whereby it would itself collect all the
information necessary for legislation and performance of its
other functions and whereby in its activities the formation of
provisional investigation or similar commissions and the
investigation conducted by them would dominate; <...> the
Constitution does not imply any such activity of the Seimas.
Otherwise, preconditions might be created where certain
circumstances would hinder the work of the parliament, would
hinder the Seimas, the representation of the Nation, to act
rationally and effectively in the interests of the Nation and
the State of Lithuania" (Item 14 of Chapter II of the reasoning
part).
5. The Constitutional Court Ruling "On the compliance of
Items 1, 2 and 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 (wording of 3
April 2003) of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Seimas
Provisional Investigation Commissions with the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania, as well as on the petition of a
group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, requesting to
investigate whether Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. IX-1868 'On the Conclusion of the Provisional
Commission of the Seimas for Investigation into Possible
Threats to Lithuanian National Security' of 2 December 2003 is
not in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania and Articles 3 and 8 (wording of 3 April 2003) of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Seimas Provisional Investigation
Commissions" of 13 May 2004 whose official constitutional
doctrinal provisions are cited in this Constitutional Court
decision was adopted in constitutional justice case No.
43/03-46/03, in which a group of Members of the Seimas, one of
the petitioners, was disputing the compliance of: Item 1 of
Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Seimas Provisional Investigation Commissions (which in the
cited Constitutional Court ruling of 13 May 2004 is later
referred to as the Law) to the extent that it provides that the
commission has the right to receive documents, data or
information from all state and governance institutions, state
and municipal enterprises (including those controlled by them),
establishments and organisations, even if they comprise the
commercial, bank or official secret, also to receive primary
and other documents, in which such data or information are
recorded; Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 to the extent that
it provides that the commission has the right to receive verbal
and written explanations or notes from heads and other
employees of all state and governance institutions, state and
municipal enterprises (including those controlled by them),
establishments and organisations, concerning the issues
considered by the commission, as well as notes about the
material and documents available at state institutions,
enterprises, establishments or organisations; Item 3 of
Paragraph 1 of Article 4 to the extent that it provides that
that the commission has the right to summon to its sittings
state and municipal politicians, officials, servants as well as
other persons working at state and municipal institutions, to
hear their explanations, to demand that they present
information or data concerning the issue considered by the
commission and to receive them either in writing or orally;
Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 to the extent that it
provides that the commission has the right, upon the
coordination with the Office of the Prosecutor General or an
institution of pre-trial investigation, to familiarise,
according to the procedure established by laws, with a criminal
case or other material and documents that are at their
disposal, with Articles 5, 55, 61, 67, 109, and 118 of the
Constitution, while another group of Members of the Seimas, the
other petitioner, was disputing the compliance of Seimas
Resolution No. IX-1868 "On the Conclusion of the Seimas
Provisional Commission for Investigation into Possible Threats
to Lithuanian National Security", which was adopted on 2
December 2003, to the extent that it provides that "via the
President or his advisors, classified information used to reach
the persons who did not have the right to be familiarised with
it, or those in whose regard operational investigation was
being conducted", "the President and some of his advisors
exerted impermissible influence on privatisation of enterprises
and individual entities of private business", "the President
being tolerant, his advisors exceeded their competence,
interfered with the activities of other state institutions,
abused their status, thus causing confusion in state
governance", with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5, Paragraph 1
of Article 31, Paragraph 1 of Article 67, Paragraph 1 of
Article 109, Paragraph 1 of Article 114 of the Constitution and
the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law,
as well as Articles 3 and 8 of the Law on Seimas Provisional
Investigation Commissions.
It needs to be noted that by the Constitutional Court
ruling of 13 May 2004 the legal regulation established in the
Law on Seimas Provisional Investigation Commissions (Items 1,
2, 3, and 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the said law (to the
corresponding extent)) which was disputed in the said
constitutional justice case, was recognised as not conflicting
with the Constitution.
In the context of the petition at issue, which requests to
construe the provision of the Constitutional Court ruling of 4
April 2006, also the provisions of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 13 May 2004 are important, which construe (comment
on) the legal regulation established in the Law on Seimas
Provisional Investigation Commissions (wording of 23 March 1999
with subsequent amendments made by the Republic of Lithuania
Law on the Amendment of Articles 3, 4, and 8 of the Law on
Seimas Provisional Investigation Commissions which was adopted
by the Seimas on 3 April 2003 and the Republic of Lithuania Law
on the Amendment of Article 7 of the Law on Seimas Provisional
Investigation Commissions which was adopted on 6 November
2003). The provisions are as follows:
- "the provision 'the Seimas, having recognised a
necessity to investigate an issue of state importance, may form
a Seimas provisional investigation commission' of Paragraph 1
of Article 2 of the Law means that the Seimas, under the Law,
enjoys powers to form a Seimas provisional investigation
commission in order to investigate not any, but a special
issue, i.e. that of state importance. Thus, in every particular
case the Seimas, before it decides on the formation of a Seimas
provisional investigation commission, must consider and assess
whether the issue is really that of state importance" (the
second paragraph of Item 2 of Chapter II of the reasoning
part);
"In Paragraph 1 of Article 4 (3 April 2003) of the Law the
rights of the Seimas provisional investigation commission are
established. The Seimas provisional investigation commission
has the right: to familiarise with the information related with
the investigated issue, to receive documents, data or
information from all state and governance institutions, the
Bank of Lithuania, state and municipal enterprises (including
those controlled by them), establishments and organisations,
even if they comprise the commercial, bank or official secret,
also to receive primary and other documents, in which such data
or information are recorded; if the data comprise the state
secret, they must be presented to the commission under the
procedure established by the Republic of Lithuania Law on State
Secrets and Their Protection and the Republic of Lithuania Law
on Operational Activities (Item 1); to receive verbal and
written explanations or notes from heads and other employees of
all state and governance institutions, the Bank of Lithuania,
state and municipal enterprises (including those controlled by
them), establishments and organisations, concerning the issues
considered by the commission, as well as notes about the
material and documents available at state institutions,
enterprises, establishments or organisations (Item 2); to
summon to its sittings state and municipal politicians,
officials, servants as well as other persons working at state
and municipal institutions, to hear their explanations, to
demand that they present information or data concerning the
issue considered by the commission and to receive them either
in writing or orally (Item 3); to summon to its sittings other
persons and request that they present reports, explanations,
information or data concerning the issue investigated by the
commission either in writing or orally (Item 4); upon the
coordination with the Office of the Prosecutor General, the
State Control, the State Security Department or an institution
of pre-trial investigation, to familiarise, according to the
procedure established by laws, with a criminal case or other
material and documents that are at their disposal (Item 5)
<...>" (Item 3 of Chapter II of the reasoning part); "<...>
Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 (wording of
3 April 2003) of the Law consolidate the rights of the Seimas
provisional investigation commission that are linked with
receiving of the information from the persons indicated in
these items, which is necessary for carrying out of the tasks
formulated to the commission by the Seimas. The powers of the
Seimas provisional investigation commission, linked with
receiving of the said information, are distinguished as to from
what persons this information must be received, the character
of the information, also as to the way according to which the
Seimas provisional investigation commission must receive this
information from certain persons" (the first paragraph of Item
4 of Chapter II of the reasoning part); "In Items 1 and 2 of
Paragraph 1 of Article 4 (wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law
the right of the Seimas provisional investigation commission is
entrenched to receive documents, data, information, as well as
the primary and other documents, in which these data were
recorded, verbal an written explanations or references, as well
as references about the available material, documents from
heads and other employees from all state institutions of power
and governance, the Bank of Lithuania, state and municipal
enterprises (including those controlled by them),
establishments and organisations, their heads and other
employees related to the issues investigated by the Seimas
provisional investigation commission. This information is
necessary so that the Seimas provisional investigation
commission would perform the tasks formulated to it by the
Seimas" (the first paragraph of Item 4.1 of Chapter II of the
reasoning part); "The legal regulation established in Items 1
and 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 (wording of 3 April 2003) of
the Law inter alia means that the persons indicated in these
items must present all information to the Seimas provisional
investigation commission, which is necessary to perform the
tasks of the commission. <...> the Law does not provide that a
person indicated in Items 1 and 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4
(wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law can refuse to present the
aforementioned information, or to present not all information
(save the exceptions, established in Paragraph 2 of Article 3
(wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law). On the contrary, under
Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 (wording of 3 April 2003) of
the Law, one must present documents, data or information to the
Seimas provisional investigation commission, even if this is a
state, commercial, bank, or official secret; this item also
provides that if the data comprise the state secret, they must
be presented to the commission under the procedure established
by the Law on State Secrets and Their Protection and the Law on
Operational Activities, while under Paragraph 2 of Article 4
(wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law, in cases when one refuses
to present the documents and material indicated in Item 1 of
Paragraph 1 of the same article, which are demanded by the
commission, the commission has the right to invite police
officers so that they help to seize these documents and
material, save the cases when such documents and material are
in a criminal case or operative record file or card, in a civil
or administrative case, or when they are material of on-going
inspection under the procedure established in the Code of
Criminal Procedure. <...> under Paragraph 6 of Article 7
(wording of 6 November 2003) of the Law, in case the issue
under investigation is linked with the state secret, then the
sittings of the Seimas provisional investigation commission are
closed to all persons except the summoned ones, also that under
Paragraph 5 of Article 8 (wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law,
when the mass media are informed about a conclusion or decision
adopted by the Seimas provisional investigation commission, the
data or information which comprise a state, commercial, bank,
official, private life secret or another secret protected by
laws shall not be presented" (the second paragraph of Item 4.1
of Chapter II of the reasoning part); "Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of
Article 4 (wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law consolidates the
right of the Seimas provisional investigation commission to
summon to its sittings state and municipal politicians,
officials, servants as well as other persons working at state
and municipal institutions, to hear their explanations, to
demand that they present information or data concerning the
issue considered by the commission and to receive them either
in writing or orally. This information is also necessary so
that the Seimas provisional investigation commission would
perform the tasks assigned to it by the Seimas" (the first
paragraph of Item 4.2 of Chapter II of the reasoning part);
"The legal regulation established in Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of
Article 4 (wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law inter alia means
that the persons indicated in this item, who are summoned to a
sitting of the Seimas provisional investigation commission,
have a duty to appear at the sitting and present explanations
to the commission concerning the investigated issue of state
importance, to answer the questions given by members of the
commission, also that explanations to the commission and
answers to questions of members of the commission must be
presented in the manner established by the commission, i.e.
either orally or in writing. <...> the Law does not provide
that a certain person indicated in Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of
Article 4 (wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law who is summoned
to a sitting of the Seimas provisional investigation commission
has the right not to appear or refuse to appear at this sitting
without valid reasons; the law does not provide, either, that a
certain person indicated in Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4
(wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law has the right to refuse to
present explanations to the Seimas provisional investigation
commission concerning the investigated question of state
importance (save the exceptions established in Paragraph 2 of
Article 3 (wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law). Thus, under
the Law all the persons indicated in Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of
Article 4 (wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law who are summoned
must appear at the sitting of the Seimas provisional
investigation commission, must present explanations to the
commission concerning the investigated issue of state
importance, must answer the questions given by members of the
commission in the manner established by the commission, i.e.
either in writing or orally (save the exceptions established in
Paragraph 2 of Article 3 (wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law)"
(the second paragraph of Item 4.2 of Chapter II of the
reasoning part); "<...> should the persons indicated in Items
1, 2, and 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 (wording of 3 April
2003) of the Law fail to carry out of the aforesaid
requirements of the Seimas provisional investigation commission
and refuse to present the information indicated in these items
to the commission, which is necessary so that the Seimas
provisional investigation commission would perform the tasks
assigned to it by the Seimas, or should present not all
information (save the exceptions established in Paragraph 2 of
Article 3 (wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law), then, having
taken account of all important circumstances in each particular
case, it might be regarded as a hindrance for the Seimas
provisional investigation commission to perform the tasks
assigned to it by the Seimas. Alongside, this would be a
hindrance for the Seimas, the representation of the Nation, to
discharge its constitutional functions, and to realise the
constitutional powers of the Seimas" (Item 4.3 of Chapter II of
the reasoning part); "Under Item 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article
4 (wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law, the Seimas provisional
investigation commission also has the right to summon to its
sittings other persons and request that they present, either in
writing or orally, reports, explanations, information or data
concerning the issue investigated by the commission" (the first
paragraph of Item 4.4 of Chapter II of the reasoning part);"<...>
the Law does not contain any provisions on the grounds of which
the Seimas provisional investigation commission might demand that
the persons indicated in Item 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4
(wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law appear at a sitting of the
Seimas provisional investigation commission that summoned them,
and present reports, explanations, information or data
concerning the issue of state importance investigated by the
commission" (the second paragraph of Item 4.4 of Chapter II of
the reasoning part); "<...> the legal regulation established in
Item 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 (wording of 3 April 2003) of
the Law inter alia means that the persons indicated in this
item may, at their own discretion, decide whether to appear at
the sitting of the Seimas provisional investigation commission
that has summoned them, and that they may, at their discretion,
decide whether or not to present reports, explanations,
information or data concerning the issue of state importance
investigated by the commission, and whether or not to answer
the questions given by members of the Seimas provisional
investigation commission" (the third paragraph of Item 4.4 of
Chapter II of the reasoning part); "<...> the legal regulation
established in Item 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 (wording of 3
April 2003) of the Law does not ensure that the Seimas
provisional investigation commission will, in all cases,
receive all information necessary for the investigation
conducted by it; thus, the aforementioned legal regulation
creates preconditions to aggravate the work of the Seimas
provisional investigation commission and does not ensure that
the Seimas provisional investigation commission will, in all
cases, perform the tasks assigned to it by the Seimas.
Therefore, the said legal regulation does not ensure that the
Seimas will, in all cases, receive exhaustive, objective
information concerning the investigated issue of state
importance, that the Seimas in all cases will be able to
effectively act in the interests of the Nation and the State of
Lithuania, and to properly execute its constitutional
obligation. This legal regulation established in Item 4 of
Paragraph 1 of Article 4 (wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law
is to be amended" (the fourth paragraph of Item 4.4 of Chapter
II of the reasoning part); "Under Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of
Article 4 (wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law, the Seimas
provisional investigation commission has the right, 'upon the
coordination with the Office of the Prosecutor General, the
State Control, the State Security Department or an institution
of pre-trial investigation, to familiarise, according to the
procedure established by laws, with a criminal case or other
material and documents that are at their disposal'" (the first
paragraph of Item 4.5 of Chapter II of the reasoning part);
"<...> Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 (wording of 3 April
2003) of the Law provides for certain peculiarities of
reception of the information necessary for the investigation by
the Seimas provisional investigation commission, which is at
the disposal of the Office of the Prosecutor General, the State
Control, the State Security Department or an institution of
pre-trial investigation: it is permitted to familiarise with a
criminal case or other material and documents that are at the
disposal of these state institutions only upon coordination
with these state institutions" (the second paragraph of Item
4.5 of Chapter II of the reasoning part); "The notion 'upon
coordination' of Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 (wording of
3 April 2003) of the Law means that the Seimas provisional
investigation commission may receive the information necessary
for its investigation, which is in criminal cases or other
material and documents that are at the disposal of the Office
of the Prosecutor General, the State Control, the State
Security Department or an institution of pre-trial
investigation, only after it receives consent of a respective
state institution; in case the said state institutions do not
consent that the Seimas provisional investigation commission
receive this information, then the commission will not be able
to receive this information" (the third paragraph of Item 4.5
of Chapter II of the reasoning part); "The formula 'according
to the procedure established by laws' of Item 5 of Paragraph 1
of Article 4 (wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law means that
the Seimas provisional investigation commission cannot
establish the procedure for familiarising with a criminal case
or other material and documents that are at the disposal of the
Office of the Prosecutor General, the State Control, the State
Security Department or an institution of pre-trial
investigation by itself-this is done in accordance with the
procedure established by laws. It is clear that the
organisational and technical questions of such familiarisation
must be coordinated with the state institutions at whose
disposal there is the criminal case or other material and
documents" (the fourth paragraph of Item 4.5 of Chapter II of
the reasoning part);
- "<...> under the Constitution, it is not permitted to
establish any such legal regulation whereby this constitutional
value might be denied or otherwise the independence of the
prosecutor, in the course of organising pre-trial investigation
and being in charge of it, while pursuing charges on behalf of
the state in criminal cases, would be denied or restricted
otherwise" (the sixth paragraph of Item 4.5 of Chapter II of
the reasoning part); "<...> one constitutional value-the
independence of the prosecutor in the organisation of pre-trial
investigation and being in charge of it, pursuit of charges on
behalf of the state in criminal cases-may not be opposed to any
other constitutional values; the legislator must ensure a
balance between this constitutional value and other
constitutional values so that not a single of constitutional
values would be raised above other constitutional values or, on
the contrary, would be sacrificed to the benefit of another
constitutional value" (the eighth paragraph of Item 4.5 of
Chapter II of the reasoning part);
- "<...> under Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 (wording
of 3 April 2003) of the Law, in case the Office of the
Prosecutor General, the State Control, the State Security
Department or an institution of pre-trial investigation do not
consent that the Seimas provisional investigation commission
receive this information, then the Seimas provisional
investigation commission will not be able to receive the
information which is necessary for its investigation, which is
in criminal cases or other material and documents that are at
the disposal of the aforementioned state institutions. <...>
this item (and, in general, the Law) does not provide for any
criteria on the basis of which the Office of the Prosecutor
General, the State Control, the State Security Department or an
institution of pre-trial investigation might refuse to give
their consent in order that the Seimas provisional
investigation commission would receive the information
necessary for it, or on the basis of which certain restrictions
could be applied to the use of this information in the work of
the commission" (the tenth paragraph of Item 4.5 of Chapter II
of the reasoning part); "<...> by the legal regulation
established in Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 (wording of 3
April 2003) of the Law one has created preconditions to place
one constitutional value-the independence of the prosecutor in
the organisation of pre-trial investigation and being in charge
of it-in opposition to other constitutional values, to raise it
above the latter, in particular, above the functions of the
Seimas as the representation of the Nation, and above the
logical necessity, which follows from the purpose of the
Seimas, from its constitutional functions and constitutional
powers, which is to undertake by itself, in case of need, to
investigation activity in connection of an issue of state
importance so that to receive exhaustive, objective information
about certain processes taking place in the state and society,
about the situation in various sectors of life of the state and
society and the arising problems" (the eleventh paragraph of
Item 4.5 of Chapter II of the reasoning part); "<...> although
the legal regulation established in Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of
Article 4 (wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law has created
pre-conditions to aggravate the discharge of certain functions
of the Seimas, as the representation of the Nation, the said
constitutional values are not denied by this legal regulation,
therefore there is no ground to hold that the legal regulation
established in Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 (wording of 3
April 2003) of the Law is in conflict with the Constitution in
the said aspect. <...> this legal regulation is to be amended,
specified so that the 'coordination' indicated in Item 5 of
Paragraph 1 of Article 4 (wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law
would not create pre-conditions to the institutions pointed out
in this item virtually not to permit the Seimas provisional
investigation commission to conduct thorough and objective
investigation in connection of the issue of state importance
that has been assigned to it, in other words, that one would
not create pre-conditions to place pre-trial investigation in
opposition to the investigation of the issue of state
importance conducted by the Seimas provisional investigation
commission" (the twelfth paragraph of Item 4.5 of Chapter II of
the reasoning part);
- "The legal regulation established in Items 1, 2, 3, 4,
and 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 (wording of 3 April 2003) of
the Law is inseparable from the legal regulation established in
other articles (parts, items thereof) of the Law" (the first
paragraph of Item 4.6 of Chapter II of the reasoning part);
"<...> Paragraph 2 of Article 3 (wording of 3 April 2003) of
the Law provides that the Seimas provisional investigation
commission, while investigating the issue assigned to it and
implementing its rights, does not interfere with the activities
of the court, the judge, the prosecutor, the official of
pre-trial investigation when they conduct the pre-trial
investigation and consider the case in court" (the first
paragraph of Item 4.6.1 of Chapter II of the reasoning part);
"<...> under the Law, the Seimas provisional investigation
commission does not have any right to demand that a judge, a
prosecutor, an official of pre-trial investigation should
present to the Seimas provisional investigation commission
explanations concerning on-going or completed pre-trial
investigation, or a case that has been accepted for
consideration, or is being considered in court, or whose
consideration in court is over, thus, the judge, the
prosecutor, the official of pre-trial investigation cannot be
summoned to a sitting of the Seimas provisional investigation
commission to present their explanations concerning on-going or
completed pre-trial investigation, or a case that has been
accepted for consideration, or is being considered in court ,
or whose consideration in court is over. Thus, the legal
regulation established in Paragraph 2 of Article 3 (wording of
3 April 2003) of the Law provides for an exception, which is
applicable to the duty consolidated in Items 1 and 2 of
Paragraph 1 of Article 4 (wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law,
of all state institutions of power and governance, the Bank of
Lithuania, state and municipal enterprises (including those
controlled by them), establishments and organisations, of their
heads and other employees to present to the Seimas provisional
investigation commission all information necessary to perform
the tasks of the commission (documents, data, information, as
well as primary and other documents in which these data or
information are recorded, verbal and written explanations or
references from the heads or other employees, also references
about the available material and documents), as well as an
exception which is applicable to the duty consolidated in Item
3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 (wording of 3 April 2003) of the
Law, of state and municipal politicians, officials, employees,
other persons who work at state or municipal institutions to
appear at the sitting of the Seimas provisional investigation
commission, to present explanations concerning the issue of
state importance that is investigated by the commission, to
answer the questions of members of the commission" (the second
paragraph of Item 4.6.1 of Chapter II of the reasoning part);
"<...> under Paragraph 2 of Article 4 (wording of 3 April 2003)
of the Law, in cases when one refuses to present to the Seimas
provisional investigation commission the documents and material
required by the commission, which are indicated in Item 1 of
Paragraph 1 of the same article, the commission has the right
to invite police officers so that they help to seize these
documents and material, save the cases when such documents and
material are in a criminal case or operative record file or
card, in a civil or administrative case, or when they are
material of on-going inspection under the procedure established
in the Code of Criminal Procedure" (the third paragraph of Item
4.6.1 of Chapter II of the reasoning part); "The legal
regulation established in Paragraph 2 of Article 3 (wording of
3 April 2003) and Paragraph 2 of Article 4 (wording of 3 April
2003) of the Law is to be assessed as one ensuring that in the
activities of the Seimas provisional investigation commission
one will follow the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of
the Constitution that in the Republic of Lithuania justice
shall be administered solely by courts, the provision of
Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Constitution that while
administering justice, the judge and courts shall be
independent, the provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 109 of the
Constitution that while considering cases, judges shall obey
only the law, the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 114 of
the Constitution that interference by institutions of state
power and administration, members of the Seimas and other
officials, political parties, political and public
organisations, or citizens with the activities of a judge or
the court shall be prohibited and incur liability as provided
for by law, the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 118 of the
Constitution that the prosecutor shall organise and be in
charge of pre-trial investigation as well as pursue charges on
behalf of the state in criminal cases, the provision of
Paragraph 3 of Article 118 of the Constitution that while
discharging his functions, the prosecutor shall be independent
and obey only the law, as well as the other provisions of the
Constitution that consolidate the independence of the judge and
courts in the course of administration of justice and the
independence of the prosecutor in the course of organisation of
pre-trial investigation and being in charge of it" (the fourth
paragraph of Item 4.6.1 of Chapter II of the reasoning part);
"<...> there might appear a situation when the information
necessary so that the Seimas provisional investigation
commission would perform the tasks formulated to it by the
Seimas is possessed by a judge, a prosecutor, or an official of
pre-trial investigation, who learned about this information or
otherwise received it while they were outside their duties as a
judge, a prosecutor, or an official of pre-trial investigation.
In such cases, under the Law, the Seimas provisional
investigation commission has the right to demand that the
judge, the prosecutor, or the official of pre-trial
investigation should appear, after they have been summoned, at
the sitting of the commission and that the indicated persons
present their explanations to the Seimas provisional
investigation commission in connection with the questions not
related with on-going or completed pre-trial investigation, or
a case that has been accepted for consideration, or is being
considered in court, or whose consideration in court is over.
However, even in these cases the Seimas provisional
investigation commission does not have the right to demand that
the judge, the prosecutor, or the official of pre-trial
investigation should appear, after they have been summoned, at
the sitting of the commission and that the indicated persons
present their explanations to the Seimas provisional
investigation commission, if this could be regarded as
interference with the activities of the judge, the prosecutor,
or the official of pre-trial investigation when they discharge
the functions established to them in the Constitution and laws,
and if this could be regarded as violation of the independence
of the judge or the prosecutor" (the fifth paragraph of Item
4.6.1 of Chapter II of the reasoning part); "it is impossible
to construe the legal regulation established in Paragraph 2 of
Article 3 (wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law as meaning that,
purportedly, the Seimas provisional investigation commission in
general does not have the right to demand any information from
the court or the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of
Lithuania in connection with the issues of state importance
investigated by the Seimas provisional investigation
commission. However, under the Constitution, the Seimas
provisional investigation commission cannot demand any such
information from the court or the Prosecutor's Office of the
Republic of Lithuania, the demand of which could be regarded as
interference with the activities of these institutions, when
they discharge their functions established in the Constitution
and laws, as violation of the independence of the judge or the
prosecutor" (the sixth paragraph of Item 4.6.1 of Chapter II of
the reasoning part);
- "<...> Under Paragraph 3 of Article 8 (wording of 3
April 2003) of the Law, the conclusion must, within one day
after the decision was adopted, be presented to the Seimas.
<...> Under Paragraph 5 of Article 8 (wording of 3 April 2003)
of the Law, the Seimas provisional investigation commission,
after it has presented its conclusion or adopted decision to
the Seimas, informs public mass media about this; the data or
information which comprises the state, commercial, bank,
official, private life secret or another secret protected by
the law, is not to be published" (the second paragraph of Item
5 of Chapter II of the reasoning part);
- "It is clear that the Seimas is neither an institution
of pre-trial investigation, nor prosecutor's office, not the
court. <...> the formulation of the opinion and point of view
of the Seimas regarding the conclusion of the Seimas
provisional investigation commission formed by it in a
resolution of the Seimas may not be construed, under the
Constitution, as legal qualification of the actions that the
Seimas provisional commission has investigated, of the
decisions adopted by it on the issues that it was assigned to
investigate, and of other circumstances that were elucidated by
it. The Seimas, after it has decided either to approve or not
to approve of the conclusion of the Seimas provisional
investigation commission, or to approve of it in part (with
reservations), does not adopt a decision on the compliance of
the said actions, decisions, and circumstances with legal acts
which is mandatory to other state institution (including
institutions of pre-trial investigation, the prosecutor's
office, courts), but it merely formulates its point of view as
to the conclusion of the Seimas provisional investigation
commission that was formed by it. The Seimas resolution in
which the opinion and point of view of the Seimas are
formulated as to the conclusion of the Seimas provisional
investigation commission that was formed by it is not binding
to institutions of pre-trial investigation, the prosecutor's
office, and the court" (the third paragraph of Item 9 of
Chapter II of the reasoning part).
6. The Constitutional Court ruling of 4 April 2006 (whose
provision the Constitutional Court is requested to construe)
also construes (comments upon) the legal regulation established
in the Law on Seimas Provisional Investigation Commissions
(wording of 23 March 1999 with subsequent amendments made by
the Law on the Amendment of Articles 3, 4, and 8 of the Law on
Seimas Provisional Investigation Commissions which was adopted
by the Seimas on 3 April 2003 and the Law on the Amendment of
Article 7 of the Law on Seimas Provisional Investigation
Commissions which was adopted on 6 November 2003). However, it
needs to be noted that the legal regulation established in the
said law is construed (commented on) by the Constitutional
Court ruling of 4 April 2006 by virtually repeating (and not
developing) corresponding provisions of the Constitutional
Court ruling of 13 May 2004; the Constitutional Court ruling of
4 April 2006 also construes the legal regulation established in
the Law on Seimas Provisional Investigation Commissions and the
Statute of the Seimas, which is designed for the initiation and
formation of the Law on Seimas Provisional Investigation
Commissions (i.e. for the aspects which are not requested to be
construed by the President of the Republic, who has submitted
the petition requesting to construe the provision of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 4 April 2006).
7. In the context of the considered petition requesting to
construe the Constitutional Court ruling of 4 April 2006, while
summing up the official constitutional doctrinal provisions of
the Constitutional Court rulings of 13 May 2004 and 4 April
2006, as well as the provisions which construe (comment on) the
legal regulation established in the Law on Seimas Provisional
Investigation Commissions (wording of 23 March 1999 with
subsequent amendments made by the Law on the Amendment of
Articles 3, 4, and 8 of the Law on Seimas Provisional
Investigation Commissions which was adopted by the Seimas on 3
April 2003 and the Law on the Amendment of Article 7 of the Law
on Seimas Provisional Investigation Commissions which was
adopted on 6 November 2003) (which, as mentioned, is not in
conflict with the Constitution), thus, while construing the
provision "from the constitutional principle of separation of
powers and other provisions of the Constitution, one is to draw
a conclusion that the Seimas has no powers to form any such
provisional investigation commissions, which would be
commissioned with investigation of things, in the course of
investigation of which the powers of other institutions which
execute public power, as well as the powers of other state and
municipal institutions provided for in the Constitution and/or
laws would be interfered with" of Item 6.3. of Chapter II of
the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 4
April 2006 in the context of other provisions of the same
Constitutional Court ruling and other provisions of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 13 May 2004, one is to hold that
the provisions of the Constitution imply broad powers of Seimas
provisional investigation commissions, however, alongside, they
consolidate the limits of investigation activity of Seimas
provisional investigation commissions, which cannot be expanded
by laws or other legal acts.
7.1. The Constitution authoritatively demands such legal
regulation-first of all, legislative regulation-so that, on the
one hand, one could ensure the activity of Seimas provisional
investigation commissions to whom the Seimas, the
representation of the Nation, commissions to conduct
investigation so that information is collected about certain
processes taking place in the state and society, about the
situation in various spheres of the life of the state and
society and arising problems, thus, also, so that one could
ensure the discharging of the control function by the Seimas
(parliamentary control), thus, so that there are no spheres in
the life of the state in which the Seimas, the representation
of the Nation, could not (in case there is a special matter (of
state importance)), by heeding the Constitution, exercise
parliamentary control, and, on the other hand, so that no harm
would be inflicted upon any values entrenched in, and defended
and protected by the Constitution, if the Seimas provisional
investigation commissions were formed for investigation of such
things, which, under the Constitution, cannot be investigated
by institutions of public power at all (for instance,
circumstances of the private or family life of a human being,
if such investigation could unreasonably from the
constitutional point of view interfere with the private life of
a human being, which is defended and protected by the
Constitution, the inviolability of private life was violated
etc.), nor any such things in the course of investigation of
which one would interfere with the powers of other state and
municipal institutions (their officials) (inter alia of courts
and prosecutors), which are provided for in the Constitution.
The legal regulation established in laws and other legal acts
must be such so that there is a rational balance between these
two imperatives, which arise from the Constitution, and that
none of them is ignored or sacrificed for another.
As mentioned, it was held in the Constitutional Court
rulings of 13 May 2004 and 4 April 2006 that, under the
Constitution, "the Seimas has no powers to form any such
provisional investigation commissions, which would be
commissioned with investigation of things, in the course of
investigation of which the powers of other institutions which
execute public power, as well as the powers of other state and
municipal institutions provided for in the Constitution and/or
laws would be interfered with"; "a Seimas provisional
investigation commission cannot take over the constitutional
powers of courts or otherwise interfere with the implementation
of the constitutional competence of courts, nor violate the
independence of the judge and courts in the course of
administration of justice, let alone administer justice by
itself"; "the Seimas provisional investigation commission may
not take over the constitutional powers of prosecutors or
otherwise interfere with the implementation of the
constitutional competence of prosecutors, nor violate the
independence of the prosecutor when he organises pre-trial
investigation and pursues charges on behalf of the state in
criminal cases". It also needs to be noted that, under
Paragraph 2 of Article 118 of the Constitution, in cases
established by law, the prosecutor shall defend the rights and
legitimate interests of the person, society and the state,
while under Paragraph 3 thereof, when performing his functions,
the prosecutor shall be independent and shall obey only the
law.
In this context it needs to be mentioned that the official
constitutional doctrinal provisions (cited in this
Constitutional Court decision) of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 13 May 2004 regarding the relations of Seimas
provisional investigation commissions with the Prosecutor's
Office of the Republic of Lithuania (with prosecutors), as well
as the provisions (cited in this Constitutional Court decision)
which construe (comment on) the legal regulation of the
relations between Seimas provisional investigation commissions
and the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Lithuania
(prosecutors), which is established in the Law on Seimas
Provisional Investigation Commissions (wording of 23 March 1999
with subsequent amendments made by the Law on the Amendment of
Articles 3, 4, and 8 of the Law on Seimas Provisional
Investigation Commissions which was adopted by the Seimas on 3
April 2003 and the Law on the Amendment of Article 7 of the Law
on Seimas Provisional Investigation Commissions which was
adopted on 6 November 2003), are also applicable mutatis
mutandis to the legal regulation of the relations between
Seimas provisional investigation commissions and other state
institutions (their officials), which, according to laws,
conduct pre-trial investigation and/or are entities of
operational activities.
7.2. The Constitution requires that the legal regulation
be established by means of a law, so that certain information
whose non-disclosure (complete non-disclosure or that to
certain extent) is protected and defended by the Constitution,
inter alia information, which constitutes the secret protected
and defended by the Constitution, should be submitted to the
Seimas provisional investigation commission (which, it goes
without saying, is formed not in order to investigate the
things that a Seimas provisional investigation commission may
not investigate, nor the things in the course of investigation
of which one would interfere with the powers of other state and
municipal institutions (their officials) which are provided for
in the Constitution), if corresponding information could be
submitted at all, only by following the procedure established
in laws in the strictest manner and by most strictly
guaranteeing that this information will not be disclosed to any
person who, under the Constitution and laws, does not enjoy the
right to receive such information, since such disclosure of the
said information would inflict damage upon the values
entrenched in, and defended and protected by the Constitution.
It is clear that submitting any information to the Seimas,
which is a political institution (which, by the way, is
composed of persons belonging to various political forces) is
always connected with the risk that this information might
spread wider than it should according to the Constitution and
laws.
The legislative consolidation of the legal regulation
which effectively guarantees the non-disclosure of the secrets
defended and protected by the Constitution and corresponding
organisational and technical means are necessary conditions of
submission of the information to Seimas provisional
investigation commissions (provided such information may be
submitted to a Seimas provisional investigation commission at
all).
7.2.1. In this context it needs to be noted that there are
provisions in the Law on Seimas Provisional Investigation
Commissions (wording of 23 March 1999 with subsequent
amendments made by the Law on the Amendment of Articles 3, 4,
and 8 of the Law on Seimas Provisional Investigation
Commissions which was adopted by the Seimas on 3 April 2003 and
the Law on the Amendment of Article 7 of the Law on Seimas
Provisional Investigation Commissions which was adopted on 6
November 2003) which are designed for guaranteeing that such
information(the disclosure of which may inflict damage upon the
values entrenched in, and defended and protected by the
Constitution) be not submitted to Seimas provisional
investigation commissions (provided such information may be
submitted to them at all), and if such information is submitted
to them, that such information be not revealed to the persons
who, under the Constitution and laws, enjoy no right to receive
such information. From among such provisions inter alia the
provisions are to be mentioned, which require that certain
information be submitted to Seimas provisional investigation
commissions only upon coordination with corresponding
institutions (the Office of the Prosecutor General, the State
Control, the State Security Department or an establishment of
pre-trial investigation). As mentioned, Item 5 of Paragraph 1
of Article 4 (wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law on Seimas
Provisional Investigation Commissions, in which it is
established that the commission has the right, upon the
coordination with the Office of the Prosecutor General or an
institution of pre-trial investigation, to familiarise,
according to the procedure established by laws, with a criminal
case or other material and documents that are at their
disposal, was recognised by the Constitutional Court ruling of
13 May 2004 as being not in conflict with the Constitution.
7.2.2. Alongside, it needs to be noted that, as it was
held in the Constitutional Court ruling of 13 May 2004, the
legal regulation established in Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of
Article 4 (wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law on Seimas
Provisional Investigation Commissions (under which a Seimas
provisional investigation commission has the right, upon the
coordination with the Office of the Prosecutor General or an
institution of pre-trial investigation, to familiarise,
according to the procedure established by laws, with a criminal
case or other material and documents that are at their
disposal) is to be amended, specified in Item 5 of Paragraph 1
of Article 4 (wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law so that the
"coordination" indicated in would not create pre-conditions to
the institutions pointed out in this item virtually not to
permit the Seimas provisional investigation commission to
conduct thorough and objective investigation in connection of
the issue of state importance that has been assigned to it, in
other words, that one would not create pre-conditions to place
pre-trial investigation in opposition to the investigation of
the issue of state importance conducted by the Seimas
provisional investigation commission.
7.2.3. One is also to note that, as held in the
Constitutional Court ruling of 13 May 2004, Item 5 of Paragraph
1 of Article 4 (wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law on Seimas
Provisional Investigation Commissions (and, in general, the
said law) "does not provide for any criteria on the basis of
which the Office of the Prosecutor General, the State Control,
the State Security Department or an institution of pre-trial
investigation might refuse to give their consent in order that
the Seimas provisional investigation commission would receive
the information necessary for it, or on the basis of which
certain restrictions could be applied to the use of this
information in the work of the commission".
7.2.4. However, it needs to be specially emphasised that
the said legal regulation may not be amended nor specified in a
way so that preconditions would be created to raise one
constitutional value-the function of control by the Seimas,
which is entrenched in the Constitution, and its constitutional
powers to take up by itself the investigation activity on the
issue of state importance, so that exhaustive, objective
information about the processes taking place in the state and
society, about the situation in various sectors of life of the
state and society and the arising problems could be
collected-above other constitutional values ant to oppose it to
other constitutional values, inter alia the independence of the
prosecutor when he organises and directs pre-trial
investigation (as mentioned, corresponding constitutional
doctrinal provisions are also applicable mutatis mutandis to
the legal regulation of the relations between Seimas
provisional investigation commissions and other state
institutions (their officials), which, according to laws,
conduct pre-trial investigation and/or are entities of
operational activities). The said legal regulation may not be
amended nor corrected so that in the course of establishing the
criteria by following which corresponding state institutions
might disagree that a Seimas provisional investigation
commission receive the information required by it, or the
criteria under which some other limitations would be applied as
regards the use of this information in the work of the Seimas
provisional investigation commission, then such their
constitutionally reasonable powers not to provide someone with
certain information or to apply some other limitations would
virtually be denied. If these powers of corresponding
institutions to disagree to submit certain information or to
apply some other limitations were limited or denied at
altogether, there might appear a threat for various values
entrenched in, as well as defended and protected by the
Constitution.
It goes without saying, when such disagreement is
expressed, it must be substantiated by corresponding reasoning.
7.2.5. After the Constitutional Court ruling of 13 May
2004 had come into force, the legislator has not amended nor
corrected the legal regulation established in the Law on Seimas
Provisional Investigation Commissions (wording of 23 March 1999
with subsequent amendments) at all.
Such failure to act by the legislator creates
preconditions for various indeterminacies and even conflict
situations. It does not ease proper submission of information
to Seimas provisional investigation commissions, providing such
information is really necessary to a certain Seimas provisional
investigation commission in order that the Seimas could
discharge its constitutional functions.
7.2.6. From the de lege ferenda standpoint it also needs
to be noted that no matter what legislative regulation there
is, the legal regulation must, heeding the Constitution, be
such so that the powers of entities be established in the law
not to disclose the information, the disclosure of which might
inflict harm on the values entrenched in and defended and
protected by the Constitution.
On the other hand, the law must also establish the legal
regulation which would permit to guarantee that the powers of
the entities established in the law not to disclose the
information the disclosure of which might inflict harm on the
values entrenched in and defended and protected by the
Constitution, should not be used to justify decisions not to
disclose also the information the non-disclosure (complete or
to certain extent) of which is not defended and protected by
the Constitution and which, under procedure established by the
law, must be disclosed to certain entities, inter alia to
Seimas provisional investigation commissions, which are formed
for investigation of special questions (of state importance).
8. The Constitution consolidates parliamentary democracy.
However, parliamentary democracy is not "the convent rule", it
not a system, where the parliament directly organises the work
of other state or municipal institutions or may, at any time,
interfere with the activity of any state or municipal
institutions (their officials) which implement public power.
Nor is parliamentary democracy a system, where the parliament,
when there is even the lightest pretext, may exert control even
over any decisions of such institutions (their officials),
initiate application of sanctions against corresponding
persons, let alone adopt decision by itself for the state or
municipal institutions (their officials) which enjoy
corresponding competence, i.e. adopt such decisions which can
be adopted only by the state institutions (their officials)
which have corresponding competence, for example, courts,
prosecutors, the State Control, institutions of pre-trial
investigation, and entities of the operational activity
provided for in laws.
The model of parliamentary democracy consolidated in the
Constitution is rational and moderate. It is based not upon
only the control exercised by the parliament and not only by
inter-institutional checks and balances; in parliamentary
democracy the inter-functional partnership, which is based upon
inter alia trust, plays a role of no less importance. It has
been held in the Constitutional Court acts that when general
functions and tasks of the state are being accomplished, there
exists inter-functional partnership among state institutions,
as well as reciprocal control and balance (Constitutional Court
rulings of 10 January 1998, 21 April 1998 and 9 May 2006). The
Constitutional Court has held that "that the interaction of
state power may not be treated as their conflict or
competition, thus, also the checks and balances that the
judicial power (its institutions) and other state powers (its
institutions) have towards each other, may not be treated as
mechanisms of the opposition of powers" (Constitutional Court
ruling of 9 May 2006).
A different interpretation of the provisions of the
Constitution, which consolidate the control function performed
by the Seimas (inter alia the provisions which substantiate an
opportunity to form Seimas provisional investigation
commissions) would unavoidably deny the constitutional
principles of responsible governance, separation of powers, a
state under the rule of law, and democracy, also the striving
for an open, harmonious and just civil society which is
proclaimed in the Preamble to the Constitution, it would create
preconditions for instability in state governance, in
management of public affairs, as well as preconditions for
violation of the rights and freedoms as well as the legitimate
interests and legitimate expectations or the person and other
values entrenched in, and defended and protected by the
Constitution.
III
1. Subsequent to the petition requesting to construe a
provision of the Constitutional Court ruling of 4 April 2006,
which was submitted by the President of the Republic, the
petitioner whether the provision "from the constitutional
principle of separation of powers and other provisions of the
Constitution, one is to draw a conclusion that the Seimas has
no powers to form any such provisional investigation
commissions, which would be commissioned with investigation of
things, in the course of investigation of which the powers of
other institutions which execute public power, as well as the
powers of other state and municipal institutions provided for
in the Constitution and/or laws would be interfered with" of
Item 6.3. of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 4 April 2006 means that the
Seimas does not have any powers to form any such provisional
investigation commissions, which would be commissioned with
investigation into the things related with organisation of work
of other state institutions, provided decision of these issues
is, according to laws, within the competence of the heads of
these institutions, as, for instance, establishment of the
structure of the institutions, establishment and liquidation of
structural sub-units, employees' admission to work, their
dismissal, their transfer to another position, their removal
from duties and other issues related with the career, legal
status etc. of employees of the institution, one is to note
that, as it was held in the Constitutional Court ruling of 4
April 2006, under the Constitution, it is not permitted to
establish any exhaustive (final) list of questions, for the
investigation of which the Seimas may form provisional
investigation commissions; the Seimas, as the representation of
the Nation can virtually form provisional investigation
commissions designated for the investigation of most varied
processes which take place in the state and society.
Alongside, it needs to be noted that Seimas provisional
investigation commissions may be formed for the investigation
of not any, but only special questions, i.e. those of state
importance (Constitutional Court rulings of 13 May 2004 and 4
April 2006).
2. Thus, in general, when there is a special matter (of
state importance), the Constitution does not prohibit the
Seimas to form also such Seimas provisional investigation
commissions, which would be commissioned with investigation
into the activity of state or municipal institutions, i.e. into
how corresponding state or municipal institutions perform their
functions defined in the Constitution and laws, how they
implement the powers established in the Constitution and laws.
In order that it could carry out such task set by the Seimas,
the Seimas provisional investigation commission has to have an
opportunity to receive, under procedure established in laws,
also such information which is related with organisation of
work in corresponding state or municipal institutions,
irrespective of whether the decision of corresponding questions
regarding inter alia establishment of the structure of the
institutions, establishment and liquidation of structural
sub-units, employees' admission to work, their dismissal, their
transfer to another position, their removal from duties and
other issues related with the career, legal status etc. of
employees of the institution, is, according to laws, within the
competence of the heads of these institutions, or whether also
other persons take part in adoption of such decisions. However,
it needs to be underlined that Seimas provisional investigation
commissions cannot be formed for elucidation of only such
questions as those mentioned above: the investigation into such
questions may not be an end in itself. The reception of factual
information about such matters may only serve as a means to
elucidate special questions (of state importance).
Thus Seimas provisional investigation commissions may not
be commissioned with investigation and assessment, both in
lawfulness and/or expediency respects, nor exercise control of
decisions of heads of state and municipal institutions as
regards the professional career of persons who work in
corresponding institutions, since only the state and municipal
institutions (their officials) that enjoy the necessary
empowerments may conduct such investigation, assessment,
control and adopt corresponding decisions.
Seimas provisional investigation commissions may be
commissioned with investigation and assessment of decisions of
heads of state and municipal institutions inter alia as regards
the structure of corresponding institutions, however, as much
as it is necessary in order to elucidate whether these
decisions are such, so that corresponding state or municipal
institutions can properly discharge their functions defined in
the Constitution and laws, and that they can implement the
powers established to them in the Constitution and laws.
In this context it needs to be noted that, as it was held
in this Constitutional Court decision, under the Constitution,
the control function discharged by the Seimas does not imply
that the Seimas directly organises the work of other state or
municipal institutions or may, at any time, interfere with the
activity of any state or municipal institutions (their
officials) which implement public power. Nor does the control
function discharged by the Seimas imply that an opportunity for
the Seimas to adopt such decisions which can be adopted only by
the state institutions (their officials) which have
corresponding competence.
Even more so, no sub-unit of the Seimas, thus also Seimas
provisional investigation commissions, may enjoy any such
powers.
3. It needs to be noted also that, as it was held in the
Constitutional Court ruling of 13 May 2004, "in order that it
could properly discharge its constitutional functions, the
Seimas may require to form also such structural sub-units,
which would enjoy powers in regard of various state and
municipal institutions, their officials, and other persons";
"such powers may also be related with reception of exhaustive,
objective information from state or municipal institutions,
their officials and other persons about the processes taking
place in the state and society, about the situation in various
sectors of life of the state and society and the arising
problems"; "reception of this information cannot be dependent
upon the fact whether or not corresponding institutions and
other persons are accountable to the Seimas: in order to
receive exhaustive, objective information necessary to adopt
corresponding decisions, the Seimas, as the representation of
the Nation, has to have an opportunity to receive information
not only from institutions, other persons that are accountable
to it, but also from persons that are not accountable to it";
"in case one needs to establish authoritative empowerments of a
structural sub-unit of the Seimas in regard of institutions,
their officials and other persons that are not accountable to
the Seimas (including the right to demand the information the
submission whereof is regulated by laws), then such powers of
the structural sub-unit of the Seimas must be established by
the law"; "when such powers are being established, one must pay
heed to the norms and principles of the Constitution".
It was also held in the Constitutional Court ruling of 4
April 2006 that "the fact that Seimas provisional investigation
commissions cannot be commissioned with investigation of things
in the course of investigation of which the powers of other
institutions which execute public power, as well as the powers
of other state and municipal institutions provided for in the
Constitution and/or laws would be interfered with, does not
mean that Seimas provisional investigation commissions cannot
have any powers in regard of state or municipal institutions,
their officials and other persons at all"; "such powers may be
established by means of a law, when the Constitution is being
paid heed to as well".
The formulas "such powers of the structural sub-unit of
the Seimas must be established by the law" and "such powers may
be established by means of a law, when the Constitution is
being paid heed to as well" used therein also mean that the
laws must establish expressis verbis, clearly and
unambiguously, as to what authoritative empowerments a Seimas
provisional investigation commission has in regard of the
institutions, their officials, other persons, who are not
accountable to the Seimas. When such powers are being
established, one must pay heed to the norms and principles of
the Constitution, inter alia the official doctrinal provisions
formulated in Constitutional Court acts, in which corresponding
provisions of the Constitution are construed.
It needs to be noted that the work of Seimas provisional
investigation commissions must be regulated so that the
necessary information is received and the interrogation of the
persons summoned to the sittings of Seimas provisional
investigation commissions is arranged so that pre-conceived
opinion is not formed by the questions and comments presented
by the members of that commission, that human dignity is not
degraded, that the right of the person to private life is not
violated, that only such questions and comments are presented
which are connected with the matter under investigation, and
that the questions are not imaginary or provocative. Also, one
must ensure that the information received by Seimas provisional
investigation commissions, the non-disclosure of which is
protected by the Constitution, will not be made public or
disclosed to the persons who, under the Constitution and laws,
have no right to receive such information, since such
disclosure of the said information would inflict damage on the
values entrenched in, and defended and protected by the
Constitution.
4. Taking account of the arguments set fort as regards the
petition requesting to construe a provision of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 4 April 2006, which was
submitted by the President of the Republic, the petitioner,
whether the provision "from the constitutional principle of
separation of powers and other provisions of the Constitution,
one is to draw a conclusion that the Seimas has no powers to
form any such provisional investigation commissions, which
would be commissioned with investigation of things, in the
course of investigation of which the powers of other
institutions which execute public power, as well as the powers
of other state and municipal institutions provided for in the
Constitution and/or laws would be interfered with" of Item 6.3.
of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 4 April 2006 means that the
Seimas does not have any powers to form any such provisional
investigation commissions, which would be commissioned with
investigation into the things related with organisation of work
of other state institutions, provided decision of these issues
is, according to laws, within the competence of the heads of
these institutions, as, for instance, establishment of the
structure of the institutions, establishment and liquidation of
structural sub-units, employees' admission to work, their
dismissal, their transfer to another position, their removal
from duties and other issues related with the career, legal
status etc. of employees of the institution, a conclusion is to
be drawn that the said provision of Item 6.3. of Chapter II of
the reasoning part of the of the Constitutional Court ruling of
4 April 2006, when it is construed in the context of the
official constitutional doctrinal provisions of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 4 April 2006 and of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 13 May 2004 also means that
- under the Constitution, the Seimas enjoys the powers,
when there is a special matter (of state importance), to form
also such Seimas provisional investigation commissions, which
would be commissioned with investigation into activities of
state or municipal institutions, i.e. how corresponding state
or municipal institutions discharge their functions which are
defined in the Constitution and laws, how they implement the
powers established in the Constitution and laws; in order that
it could carry out such task set by the Seimas, the Seimas
provisional investigation commission has to have an opportunity
to receive, under procedure established in laws, also such
information which is related with organisation of work in
corresponding state or municipal institutions, irrespective of
whether the decision of corresponding questions regarding inter
alia establishment of the structure of the institutions,
establishment and liquidation of structural sub-units,
employees' admission to work, their dismissal, their transfer
to another position, their removal from duties and other issues
related with the career, legal status etc. of employees of the
institution, is, according to laws, within the competence of
the heads of these institutions, or whether also other persons
take part in adoption of such decisions, however, Seimas
provisional investigation commissions cannot be formed for
elucidation of only such questions as those mentioned above:
the reception of factual information about such matters may
only serve as a means to elucidate special questions (of state
importance);
- Seimas provisional investigation commissions may not be
commissioned with investigation and assessment, both in
lawfulness and/or expediency respects, nor exercise control of
decisions of heads of state and municipal institutions as
regards the professional career of persons who work in
corresponding institutions, since only the state and municipal
institutions (their officials) that enjoy the necessary
empowerments may conduct such investigation, assessment,
control and adopt corresponding decisions;
- Seimas provisional investigation commissions may be
commissioned with investigation and assessment of decisions of
heads of state and municipal institutions inter alia as regards
the structure of corresponding institutions, however, as much
as it is necessary in order to elucidate whether these
decisions are such, so that corresponding state or municipal
institutions can properly discharge their functions defined in
the Constitution and laws, and that they can implement the
powers established to them in the Constitution and laws;
- one must ensure that the information received by Seimas
provisional investigation commissions, the non-disclosure of
which is protected by the Constitution, will not be made public
or disclosed to the persons who, under the Constitution and
laws, have no right to receive such information, since such
disclosure of the said information would inflict damage on the
values entrenched in, and defended and protected by the
Constitution;
- it is not permitted that by means of the legal
regulation of the activities of Seimas provisional
investigation commissions create preconditions where the Seimas
provisional investigation commission or the entire Seimas
directly organises the work of other state or municipal
institutions or interferes with the activity of any state or
municipal institutions (their officials) which implement public
power, or adopts such decisions which can be adopted only by
the state institutions (their officials) which have
corresponding competence.
IV
1. Subsequent to the petition requesting to construe a
provision of the Constitutional Court ruling of 4 April 2006,
which was submitted by the President of the Republic, the
petitioner whether the provision "from the constitutional
principle of separation of powers and other provisions of the
Constitution, one is to draw a conclusion that the Seimas has
no powers to form any such provisional investigation
commissions, which would be commissioned with investigation of
things, in the course of investigation of which the powers of
other institutions which execute public power, as well as the
powers of other state and municipal institutions provided for
in the Constitution and/or laws would be interfered with" of
Item 6.3. of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 4 April 2006 means that the
Seimas cannot commission a Seimas provisional investigation
commission with the investigation into the things, which would
in themselves mean that their investigation will require only
the material of pre-trial, operational or other investigation
conducted by the state institution, on the basis of which the
final conclusions of the provisional investigation commission
would be formulated, while the disclosure of such material
could harm the pre-trial, operational or other investigation,
it needs to be noted that, as it was held in the Constitutional
Court ruling of 13 May 2004, "the Seimas is neither an
institution of pre-trial investigation, nor the prosecutor's
office, nor the court".
2. It is also to be noted that, as it was held in
Constitutional Court rulings of 13 May 2004 and 4 April 2006,
under the Constitution "the Seimas has no powers to form any
such provisional investigation commissions, which would be
commissioned with investigation of things, in the course of
investigation of which the powers of other institutions which
execute public power, as well as the powers of other state and
municipal institutions provided for in the Constitution and/or
laws would be interfered with"; "a Seimas provisional
investigation commission cannot take over the constitutional
powers of courts or otherwise interfere with the implementation
of the constitutional competence of courts, nor violate the
independence of the judge and courts in the course of
administration of justice, let alone administer justice by
itself"; "the Seimas provisional investigation commission may
not take over the constitutional powers of prosecutors or
otherwise interfere with the implementation of the
constitutional competence of prosecutors, nor violate the
independence of the prosecutor when he organises pre-trial
investigation and pursues charges on behalf of the state in
criminal cases". It was also mentioned that, under Paragraph 2
of Article 118 of the Constitution, in cases established by
law, the prosecutor shall defend the rights and legitimate
interests of the person, society and the state.
It also needs to be noted that, as held in this
Constitutional Court decision, the cited official
constitutional doctrinal provisions regarding the relations of
Seimas provisional investigation commissions with the
Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Lithuania (with
prosecutors), as well as the provisions which construe (comment
on) the legal regulation of the relations between Seimas
provisional investigation commissions and the Prosecutor's
Office of the Republic of Lithuania (prosecutors), which is
established in the Law on Seimas Provisional Investigation
Commissions (wording of 23 March 1999 with subsequent
amendments made by the Law on the Amendment of Articles 3, 4,
and 8 of the Law on Seimas Provisional Investigation
Commissions which was adopted by the Seimas on 3 April 2003 and
the Law on the Amendment of Article 7 of the Law on Seimas
Provisional Investigation Commissions which was adopted on 6
November 2003), are also applicable mutatis mutandis to the
legal regulation of the relations between Seimas provisional
investigation commissions and other state institutions (their
officials), which, according to laws, conduct pre-trial
investigation and/or are entities of operational activities.
3. It needs also to be noted that, as held in this
Constitutional Court decision, the provision "from the
constitutional principle of separation of powers and other
provisions of the Constitution, one is to draw a conclusion
that the Seimas has no powers to form any such provisional
investigation commissions, which would be commissioned with
investigation of things, in the course of investigation of
which the powers of other institutions which execute public
power, as well as the powers of other state and municipal
institutions provided for in the Constitution and/or laws would
be interfered with" of Item 6.3. of Chapter II of the reasoning
part of the of the Constitutional Court ruling of 4 April 2006,
when it is construed in the context of the official
constitutional doctrinal provisions of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 4 April 2006 and of the Constitutional Court ruling
of 13 May 2004 also means that
- under the Constitution, the Seimas enjoys the powers,
when there is a special matter (of state importance), to form
also such Seimas provisional investigation commissions, which
would be commissioned with investigation into activities of
state or municipal institutions, i.e. how corresponding state
or municipal institutions discharge their functions which are
defined in the Constitution and laws, how they implement the
powers established in the Constitution and laws; in order that
it could carry out such task set by the Seimas, the Seimas
provisional investigation commission has to have an opportunity
to receive, under procedure established in laws, also such
information which is related with organisation of work in
corresponding state or municipal institutions, irrespective of
whether the decision of corresponding questions regarding inter
alia establishment of the structure of the institutions,
establishment and liquidation of structural sub-units,
employees' admission to work, their dismissal, their transfer
to another position, their removal from duties and other issues
related with the career, legal status etc. of employees of the
institution, is, according to laws, within the competence of
the heads of these institutions, or whether also other persons
take part in adoption of such decisions, however, Seimas
provisional investigation commissions cannot be formed for
elucidation of only such questions as those mentioned above:
the reception of factual information about such matters may
only serve as a means to elucidate special questions (of state
importance);
- Seimas provisional investigation commissions may not be
commissioned with investigation and assessment, both in
lawfulness and/or expediency respects, nor exercise control of
decisions of heads of state and municipal institutions as
regards the professional career of persons who work in
corresponding institutions, since only the state and municipal
institutions (their officials) that enjoy the necessary
empowerments may conduct such investigation, assessment,
control and adopt corresponding decisions;
- Seimas provisional investigation commissions may be
commissioned with investigation and assessment of decisions of
heads of state and municipal institutions inter alia as regards
the structure of corresponding institutions, however, as much
as it is necessary in order to elucidate whether these
decisions are such, so that corresponding state or municipal
institutions can properly discharge their functions defined in
the Constitution and laws, and that they can implement the
powers established to them in the Constitution and laws;
- one must ensure that the information received by Seimas
provisional investigation commissions, the non-disclosure of
which is protected by the Constitution, will not be made public
or disclosed to the persons who, under the Constitution and
laws, have no right to receive such information, since such
disclosure of the said information would inflict damage on the
values entrenched in, and defended and protected by the
Constitution;
- it is not permitted that by means of the legal
regulation of the activities of Seimas provisional
investigation commissions create preconditions where the Seimas
provisional investigation commission or the entire Seimas
directly organises the work of other state or municipal
institutions or interferes with the activity of any state or
municipal institutions (their officials) which implement public
power, or adopts such decisions which can be adopted only by
the state institutions (their officials) which have
corresponding competence.
4. A Seimas provisional investigation commission may
receive the material of pre-trial, operational or other
investigation (if corresponding information could be submitted
at all) provided this information is indeed necessary that the
Seimas could discharge its constitutional functions, only by
following the procedure established in laws in the strictest
manner and by most strictly guaranteeing that this information
will not be disclosed to any person who, under the Constitution
and laws, does not enjoy the right to receive such information,
since such disclosure of the said information would inflict
damage upon the values entrenched in, and defended and
protected by the Constitution. It has been held in this
Constitutional Court decision that the legislative
consolidation of the legal regulation which effectively
guarantees the non-disclosure of the secrets defended and
protected by the Constitution and corresponding organisational
and technical means are necessary conditions of submission of
the information to Seimas provisional investigation commissions
(provided such information may be submitted to a Seimas
provisional investigation commission at all).
In this context it needs to be mentioned that, as it was
held in this Constitutional Court decision, there are
provisions in the Law on Seimas Provisional Investigation
Commissions (wording of 23 March 1999 with subsequent
amendments) which are designed for guaranteeing that such
information (the disclosure of which may inflict damage upon
the values entrenched in, and defended and protected by the
Constitution) be not submitted to Seimas provisional
investigation commissions (provided such information may be
submitted to them at all), and if such information is submitted
to them, that such information be not revealed to the persons
who, under the Constitution and laws, enjoy no right to receive
such information; there are inter alia the provisions which
require that certain information be submitted to Seimas
provisional investigation commissions only upon coordination
with corresponding institutions (the Office of the Prosecutor
General, the State Control, the State Security Department or an
establishment of pre-trial investigation), however, after the
Constitutional Court ruling of 13 May 2004 had come into force,
the legislator has not amended nor corrected the legal
regulation established in the Law on Seimas Provisional
Investigation Commissions (wording of 23 March 1999 with
subsequent amendments) at all, namely, so that the
"coordination" indicated in Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4
(wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law would not create
pre-conditions to the institutions pointed out in this item
virtually not to permit the Seimas provisional investigation
commission to conduct thorough and objective investigation in
connection of the issue of state importance that has been
assigned to it, in other words, that one would not create
pre-conditions to place pre-trial investigation in opposition
to the investigation of the issue of state importance conducted
by the Seimas provisional investigation commission, or so that
criteria might be established on the basis of which the Office
of the Prosecutor General, the State Control, the State
Security Department or an institution of pre-trial
investigation might refuse to give their consent in order that
the Seimas provisional investigation commission would receive
the information necessary for it, or on the basis of which
certain limitations could be applied to the use of this
information in the work of the commission.
It has also been held in this Constitutional Court
decision that such failure to act by the legislator creates
preconditions for various indeterminacies and even conflict
situations; it does not ease proper submission of information
to Seimas provisional investigation commissions, providing such
information is really necessary to a certain Seimas provisional
investigation commission in order that the Seimas could
discharge its constitutional functions.
5. It needs to be emphasised that the information at the
disposal of the Office of the Prosecutor General, the State
Control, the State Security Department or a pre-trial
investigation establishment (which are mentioned in Article 4
(wording of 3 April 2003) of the Law on Seimas Provisional
Investigation Commissions), which is the material of pre-trial,
operational or other investigation and until such investigation
is over and its conclusions are formalised by corresponding
procedural documents, cannot, as a rule, serve as the grounds
for conclusions made by a Seimas provisional investigation
commission; this statement is not an absolute one; however,
whatever its exceptions, which arise from the Constitution that
contains obligations to defend and protect the rights and
legitimate interests of the person, society and the state, as
well as other constitutional values, regardless of whether the
legislator has carried out his duty and properly reflected
these exceptions in laws, one must in all cases pay heed to the
powers of a corresponding state institution, inter alia the
powers of an institution of pre-trial investigation or/and an
entity of operational activities to refuse, by giving reasons,
that a Seimas provisional investigation commission receive the
said information which is necessary to it, or to demand that
certain limitations be applied for the use of such information
in the work of the Seimas provisional investigation commission.
In this context it needs to be mentioned that, as it was
held in the Constitutional Court ruling of 13 May 2004, "it is
clear that the organisational and technical questions of such
familiarisation must be coordinated with the state institutions
at whose disposal there is the criminal case or other material
and documents".
6. Taking account of the arguments set forth set fort as
regards the petition requesting to construe a provision of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 4 April 2006, which was
submitted by the President of the Republic, the petitioner,
whether the provision "from the constitutional principle of
separation of powers and other provisions of the Constitution,
one is to draw a conclusion that the Seimas has no powers to
form any such provisional investigation commissions, which
would be commissioned with investigation of things, in the
course of investigation of which the powers of other
institutions which execute public power, as well as the powers
of other state and municipal institutions provided for in the
Constitution and/or laws would be interfered with" of Item 6.3.
of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 4 April 2006 means that the
Seimas cannot commission a Seimas provisional investigation
commission with the investigation into the things, which would
in themselves mean that their investigation will require only
the material of pre-trial, operational or other investigation
conducted by the state institution, on the basis of which the
final conclusions of the provisional investigation commission
would be formulated, while the disclosure of such material
could harm the pre-trial, operational or other investigation, a
conclusion is to be drawn that the said provision of Item 6.3.
of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 4 April 2006, when it is
construed in the context of the official constitutional
doctrinal provisions of the Constitutional Court ruling of 4
April 2006 and of the Constitutional Court ruling of 13 May
2004 also means that the Seimas enjoys the powers, in case
there is a special matter (of state importance) to commission a
Seimas provisional investigation commission with investigation
into the things for the investigation of which also the
material of the investigation (as well as pre-trial and
operational investigation) conducted by corresponding
institutions will be necessary, however, it cannot be the
information which, under the Constitution, may not be disclosed
to the Seimas provisional investigation commission altogether,
nor may the powers of the entities established by laws not to
disclose the information whose disclosure could inflict damage
on the values entrenched in, and defended and protected by the
Constitution, as well as on unfinished pre-trial and
operational investigation, be denied.
Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania, Articles 1 and 61 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 construe that the provision "from the constitutional
principle of separation of powers and other provisions of the
Constitution, one is to draw a conclusion that the Seimas has
no powers to form any such provisional investigation
commissions, which would be commissioned with investigation of
things, in the course of investigation of which the powers of
other institutions which execute public power, as well as the
powers of other state and municipal institutions provided for
in the Constitution and/or laws would be interfered with" of
Item 6.3. of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the of the
Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania
"On the compliance of Paragraph 3 (wording of 22 December 1998)
of Article 73 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania"
of 4 April 2006 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2006, No.
38-1349), when it is construed in the context of the official
constitutional doctrinal provisions of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 4 April 2006 and of the Constitutional Court ruling
of 13 May 2004 also means that
- under the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania enjoys the powers, when
there is a special matter (of state importance), to form also
such Seimas provisional investigation commissions, which would
be commissioned with investigation into activities of state or
municipal institutions, i.e. how corresponding state or
municipal institutions discharge their functions which are
defined in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and
laws, how they implement the powers established in the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and laws; in order
that it could carry out such task set by the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania, the Seimas provisional investigation
commission has to have an opportunity to receive, under
procedure established in laws, also such information which is
related with organisation of work in corresponding state or
municipal institutions, irrespective of whether the decision of
corresponding questions regarding inter alia establishment of
the structure of the institutions, establishment and
liquidation of structural sub-units, employees' admission to
work, their dismissal, their transfer to another position,
their removal from duties and other issues related with the
career, legal status etc. of employees of the institution, is,
according to laws, within the competence of the heads of these
institutions, or whether also other persons take part in
adoption of such decisions, however, Seimas provisional
investigation commissions cannot be formed for elucidation of
only such questions as those mentioned above: the reception of
factual information about such matters may only serve as a
means to elucidate special questions (of state importance);
- Seimas provisional investigation commissions may not be
commissioned with investigation and assessment, both in
lawfulness and/or expediency respects, nor exercise control of
decisions of heads of state and municipal institutions as
regards the professional career of persons who work in
corresponding institutions, since only the state and municipal
institutions (their officials) that enjoy the necessary
empowerments may conduct such investigation, assessment,
control and adopt corresponding decisions;
- Seimas provisional investigation commissions may be
commissioned with investigation and assessment of decisions of
heads of state and municipal institutions inter alia as regards
the structure of corresponding institutions, however, as much
as it is necessary in order to elucidate whether these
decisions are such, so that corresponding state or municipal
institutions can properly discharge their functions defined in
the Constitution and laws, and that they can implement the
powers established to them in the Constitution and laws;
- the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania enjoys the
powers, in case there is a special matter (of state importance)
to commission a Seimas provisional investigation commission
with investigation into the things for the investigation of
which also the material of the investigation (as well as
pre-trial and operational investigation) conducted by
corresponding institutions will be necessary, however, it
cannot be the information which, under the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania, may not be disclosed to the Seimas
provisional investigation commission altogether, nor may the
powers of the entities established by laws not to disclose the
information whose disclosure could inflict damage on the values
entrenched in, and defended and protected by the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as on unfinished
pre-trial and operational investigation, be denied;
- one must ensure that the information received by Seimas
provisional investigation commissions, the non-disclosure of
which is protected by the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania, will not be made public or disclosed to the persons
who, under the Constitution and laws, have no right to receive
such information, since such disclosure of the said information
would inflict damage on the values entrenched in, and defended
and protected by the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;
- it is not permitted that by means of the legal
regulation of the activities of Seimas provisional
investigation commissions create preconditions where the Seimas
provisional investigation commission or the entire Seimas of
the Republic of Lithuania directly organises the work of other
state or municipal institutions or interferes with the activity
of any state or municipal institutions (their officials) which
implement public power, or adopts such decisions which can be
adopted only by the state institutions (their officials) which
have corresponding competence.
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