Lietuviškai
Case No. 44/03
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
RULING
ON THE COMPLIANCE OF ITEM 2 OF PARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLE 10,
PARAGRAPH 4 OF ARTICLE 10 AND ARTICLE 16 OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA LAW ON PETITIONS WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
26 January 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 the representatives of the Seimas of
the Republic of Lithuania, the party concerned, who was Jadvyga
Andriuškevičiūtė, senior advisor of the Law Department of the
Office of the Seimas,
pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and Article 1 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its
public hearing on 24 January 2006 heard case No. 44/03
subsequent to the petition of the Vilnius Regional
Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting to investigate
whether Paragraph 4 of Article 10 and Article 16 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Petitions is not in conflict with
Paragraph 1 of Article 30 and Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 33
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner,
was investigating an administrative case. By its ruling, the
court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to
the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting to
investigate whether Paragraph 4 of Article 10 and Article 16 of
the Law on Petitions (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1999,
No. 66-2128; correction-Official Gazette Valstybės žinios,
1999, No. 104) is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article
30 and Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 33 of the Constitution.
II
The petition of the petitioner is based on the following
arguments.
According to Article 10 of the Law on Petitions, it is
possible to lodge a complaint about the decision of the
petitions commissions not to recognize the application as a
petition, as well as decisions to refuse to accept a petition
for consideration respectively to the Seimas, the Government
Chancellor or the municipal council. The decisions of these
institutions and the Government Chancellor to refuse to grant
the appeal are final and not subject to appeal (Paragraph 4 of
Article 10 of the Law on Petitions). The decisions of the
Seimas, the Government and the municipal council regarding
granting of the demands and proposals put forward in the
petitions shall also be final and not subject to appeal.
In the opinion of the petitioner, these provisions of
Article 16 and of Paragraph 4 of Article 10 deny the
constitutional right of the person to apply to court (Paragraph
1 of Article 30 of the Constitution), the constitutional right
of the citizens to apply against the decisions of State
institutions or their officials (Paragraph 2 of Article 33 of
the Constitution) and restrict the procedure for implementing
the right of petition of the citizens (Paragraph 3 of Article
33 of the Constitution).
III
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations from D.
Petrylaitė and J. Andriuškevičiūtė, the representatives of the
Seimas, the party concerned, were received, where it is stated
that Paragraph 4 of Article 10 and Article 16 of the Law on
Petitions are not in conflict with the Constitution. The
representatives of the Seimas ground their position on the
following arguments.
1. According to D. Petrylaitė, the right of petition needs
to be distinguished from the right of the citizens to criticise
the work of State institutions or their officials and to appeal
against their decisions, entrenched in Paragraph 2 of Article
33 of the Constitution. A petition is not just any application
of the person to the Seimas, the Government or the municipal
institutions, but that related to the demands or proposals to
resolve the issues specified in the Law on Petitions, when for
this it is necessary to amend, supplement an effective legal
act or declare it as no longer valid, or to adopt a new legal
act. The principle of separation of powers does not permit a
court to obligate that the Seimas or the Government implement
the powers that were ascribed to them, thus, according to D.
Petrylaitė, the decisions of the Seimas, the Government and the
municipal council regarding granting of the demands and
proposals put forward in the petitions are not subject to
appeal to court.
2. In the opinion of J. Andriuškevičiūtė, according to
Articles 9, 10 and others, the person's right of petition is
implemented in several stages. When the application is
recognized as a petition, the petitions commission also decides
whether to accept the petition for consideration. Another stage
is to be related with the right to appeal against decisions of
the petitions commission. While deciding whether the
application is to be recognized as a petition, as well as while
considering the complaint about the decision of the petitions
commissions not to recognize the application as a petition, the
demands or proposals are investigated in essence, because the
application can only be recognized as a petition if the demands
set forth therein may be put forward in a petition.
According to J. Andriuškevičiūtė, the right to apply
against the decisions of State institutions or their officials
may be implemented not only by applying to court, but also to
other competent institutions. The right of petition of the
citizens to apply against the decisions of State institutions
or their officials, regulated in Article 10 of the Law on
Petitions is implemented by extra-judicial procedure. According
to Paragraph 4 of this article, the complaint may be granted
and the application may be recognized as a petition; the
disputed provision "a decision to refuse to grant the complaint
shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal" of this
paragraph consolidates one of the cases of the outcome of the
considered complaints. According to Articles 12, 13 and 14 of
the Law on Petitions, after the petition is considered, the
petitions commissions submit the proposals on meeting of the
demands and proposals put forward in the petition to the
appropriate institutions, and, according to Article 15, these
proposals are considered respectively at the Seimas, the
Government or the municipal council, and a decision is adopted
on that. According to Article 16 of the Law on Petitions, it
shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal. The
consideration of the demands or proposals put forward in the
petition is not subject to judicial dispute.
IV
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations from M.
Petrauskienė, Chairwoman of the Seimas Petitions Commission,
and P. Koverovas, State Secretary of the Ministry of Justice of
the Republic of Lithuania, were received.
V
At the hearing of the Constitutional Court, J.
Andriuškevičiūtė, the representative of the Seimas, the party
concerned, virtually repeated the arguments set forth in the
written explanations.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, requests to investigate whether Paragraph 4 of
Article 10 and Article 16 of the Law on Petitions is not in
conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 30 and Paragraphs 2 and 3
of Article 33 of the Constitution.
2. On 7 July 1999, the Seimas adopted the Law on Petitions
that came into force on 1 October 1999. This law was more than
once amended and supplemented, however, its Paragraph 4 of
Article 10 and Article 16 have not been amended or
supplemented.
3. Under Paragraph 1 of Article 10, the person has the
right to lodge a complaint about the decision of the petitions
commission not to recognize the application as a petition as
well as to refuse to accept the petition for consideration to:
the Seimas-in the case of a decision taken by the Seimas
Petition Commission, the Government Chancellor-in the case of a
decision taken by the Government Petitions Commission, and the
municipal council-in the case of a decision taken by the
municipal petitions commission. Under Paragraph 4 of Article 10
of the Law on Petitions, the decision of the Seimas, the
Government Chancellor and the municipal council to refuse to
grant the complaint shall be final and shall not be subject to
appeal.
4. Even though the petitioner requests to investigate
whether whole Paragraph 4 of Article 10 of the Law on Petitions
is not in conflict with the Constitution, it is obvious from
the arguments of the petition of the petitioner that he had
doubts only on whether this paragraph is not in conflict with
the Constitution to the extent that it establishes that a
decision to refuse to grant the complaint about the decision of
the petitions commission not to recognize the application as a
petition or not to accept the petition for consideration shall
be final and shall not be subject to appeal.
5. In Article 16 of the Law on Petitions which is disputed
by the petitioner it is established that the decisions of the
Seimas, the Government and the municipal council regarding
granting of the demands and proposals put forward in the
petitions shall be final and not subject to appeal.
II
1. The right of the citizens to participate in the
governance of their state is entrenched in the Constitution
(Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Constitution). The
constitutional right of petition is one of the rights, by
implementing which the citizens may participate in the
governance of their state. In the legal system of Lithuania,
like in those of most European countries, a petition is usually
understood as an appeal of an individual or a group to
institutions of public power, which contains a demand
(proposal) to resolve a certain issue, important not only to
the petitioner but also to the society or part thereof, when
for this it is necessary to amend, supplement an effective
legal act or declare it as no longer valid, or to adopt a new
legal act.
2. Under Paragraph 3 of Article 33 of the Constitution,
the procedure for implementing the right of petition shall be
established by law. Thus, the legislator has the duty to
regulate the relations of petitions not by any legal act, but
precisely by the law in which all the most important elements
of the procedure for implementing the right of petition would
be established, i.e. for what reason it is possible to apply
with a petition; what institutions of public power may be
submitted the petition; formal requirements that the petition
must comply with; the procedure of application with the
petition, the procedure for adoption of decisions refusing to
accept the petition and for appealing against such decisions;
etc.
According to the Constitution, while establishing the
procedure for implementing the right of petition by law, the
legislator enjoys certain discretion, though he cannot deny the
essence of the petition itself, artificially restrict or
groundlessly burden the implementation of this constitutional
right of citizens.
3. The powers of the Seimas and the Government, as of the
institutions that implement state power, are established in the
Constitution, however, while paying heed to the Constitution,
one can also established them by laws.
In Paragraph 2 of Article 120 of the Constitution it is
established that municipalities shall act freely and
independently within their competence defined by the
Constitution and laws.
According to the Constitution, the Seimas, the Government
and the municipal councils have the right to freely decide
which demands (proposals) put forward in a petition of citizens
are to be granted and which not.
4. The concept of the constitutional right of petition
implies that the constitutional right of petition of the
citizen is considered as the one which has been implemented,
when a certain institution of public power that has certain
authorities considers the submitted petition and makes a
decision on granting or not granting the demands (proposals)
put forward in the petition.
5. Under Paragraph 2 of Article 33 of the Constitution,
the citizens shall be guaranteed the right to criticize the
work of state institutions or their officials and to appeal
against their decisions. This constitutional right of the
citizens is only one of the rights, implementing which the
citizens may also participate in the governance of their state.
The said provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 33 of the
Constitution may not be construed only literally, it is to be
construed from Article 124 of the Constitution, under which
acts or actions of municipal councils as well as of their
executive bodies and officials, which violate the rights of
citizens and organizations, may be appealed in court. Thus,
under Paragraph 2 of Article 33 of the Constitution, the
citizens shall be guaranteed the right to criticize not only
the work of State institutions but also of the municipal
institutions or their officials and to appeal not only against
the decisions of the state institutions but also of the
municipal institutions or their officials.
In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue
it is to be noted that the rights of the citizens to criticize
the work of state institutions or their officials and to appeal
against their decisions, which are entrenched in Paragraph 2 of
Article 33 of the Constitution, may not be identified with the
right of petition of the citizens, which is entrenched in
Paragraph 3 of Article 33 of the Constitution, as each of these
rights has its own specific contents, which implies inter alia
a different procedure for implementation of these rights, as
well as certain peculiarities of their protection.
III
On the compliance of Article 16 of the Law on Petitions
with Paragraph 1 of Article 30 and Paragraphs 2 and 3 of
Article 33 of the Constitution
1. It was mentioned that in Article 16 of the Law on
Petitions it is established that the decisions of the Seimas,
the Government and the municipal council regarding granting the
demands and proposals put forward in the petitions shall be
final and not subject to appeal.
2. Under Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Law on Petitions,
the citizens, while implementing the right of petition, may
appeal in a prescribed manner by the Law on Petitions to the
Seimas, the Government or institutions of local self-government
and governance, thus, also to municipal councils. The petition
means a petitioner's written application addressed to the
Seimas, the Government or institutions of local self-government
and governance, which contains demands or proposals to resolve
the issues specified in Paragraph 1 of Article 3 of this law,
when for this it is necessary to adopt a new legal act, or
amend or supplement an effective legal act, or to declare it as
no longer valid, and which is recognised as a petition by the
petitions commissions (Paragraph 4 of Article 2).
3. In this ruling of the Constitutional Court it was held
that under the Constitution, the Seimas, the Government and the
municipal councils have the right to freely decide which
demands (proposals) put forward in the petition of the citizens
are to be granted and which not. It was also held that the
concept of the constitutional right of petition implies that
the constitutional right of petition of the citizen is
considered as the one which has been implemented, when a
certain institution of public power that has certain
empowerments considers the submitted petition and makes a
decision on granting or not granting the demands (proposals)
put forward in the petition.
4. Under Article 16 of the Law on Petitions, the decisions
of the Seimas, the Government or the municipal council shall be
final and not subject to appeal only in the cases, when the
Seimas, the Government or the municipal council considers a
petition and makes a decision on granting the demands and
proposals put forward in the petition. After the said decision
of the Seimas, the Government or the municipal council has been
made, the constitutional right of petition of the citizen has
been implemented. Thus, the legal regulation established in
Article 16 of the Law on Petitions does not deny the right of
petition of citizens, nor restricts its implementation.
Consequently, there are no legal arguments on the grounds of
which it would be possible to state that the legal regulation
established in Article 16 of the Law on Petitions violates
Paragraph 3 of Article 33 of the Constitution
5. While deciding, whether Article 16 of the Law on
petitions is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 33 of
the Constitution, according to which the citizens shall have
the right to criticize the work of state institutions or their
officials and to appeal against their decisions, it is to be
noted that, as it was held in this Constitutional Court Ruling,
the rights of the citizens to criticize the work of state
institutions or their officials and to appeal against their
decisions entrenched in Paragraph 2 of Article 33 of the
Constitution may not be identified with the right of petition
of the citizens, which is entrenched in Paragraph 3 of Article
33 of the Constitution. Thus, the legal regulation, established
in Article 16 of the Law on Petitions does not deny the
constitutional right of the citizens to criticize the work of
state institutions or their officials and to appeal against
their decisions, nor restricts its implementation.
6. Having held that the legal regulation, established in
Article 16 of the Law on Petitions neither denies the right of
petition of the citizens, entrenched in the Constitution, nor
the constitutional right to criticize the work of State
institutions or their officials and to appeal against their
decisions, nor restricts its implementation, it is also to be
held that the right of a person, whose constitutional rights or
freedoms are violated, to apply to court, entrenched in
Paragraph 1 of Article 30 of the Constitution, is not violated.
7. Taking account of the arguments set forth, a conclusion
is to be made that Article 16 of the Law on Petitions is not in
conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 30 and Paragraphs 2 and 3
of Article 33 of the Constitution.
IV
On the compliance of Paragraph 4 of Article 10 of the Law
on Petitions with Paragraph 1 of Article 30 and Paragraphs 2
and 3 of Article 33 of the Constitution.
1. It was mentioned that the petitioner had doubts on
whether Paragraph 4 of Article 10 of the Law on Petitions is
not in conflict with the Constitution to the extent that it
establishes that the decision to refuse to grant the complaint
about a decision of the petitions commission not to recognize
the application as a petition or not to accept the petition for
consideration shall be final and shall not be subject to
appeal.
2. In the Law on Petitions such legal regulation is
entrenched, under which the decision on whether to recognize an
application of the citizens as a petition, as well as whether
to accept the petition for consideration is made accordingly by
the Seimas Petitions Commission set up by the Seimas, the
Government Petitions Commission set up by the Government or the
municipal petitions commissions set up by the municipal
councils (Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of Article 6). In the Law on
Petitions the grounds are established according to which the
petitions commissions do not recognize an application as a
petition (Paragraph 3 of Article 9), as well as the grounds on
which the petitions commissions refuse to accept the petition
for consideration (Paragraphs 7 and 8 of Article 9).
It was mentioned that, under Paragraph 1 of Article 10 of
the Law on Petitions, the decisions of the petitions commission
not to recognize the application as a petition, as well as the
decisions to refuse to accept the petition for consideration
may be appealed accordingly to: the Seimas-in the case of the
decision taken by the Seimas Petition Commission, the
Government Chancellor-in the case of a decision taken by the
Government Petitions Commission and the municipal council-in
the case of a decision taken by the municipal petitions
commission. It was also mentioned that under Paragraph 4 of
Article 10 of the Law on Petitions, the decision of the Seimas,
the Government Chancellor and the municipal council to refuse
to grant the complaint shall be final and shall not be subject
to appeal.
3. Under Paragraph 4 of Article 10 of the Law on
Petitions, the decision of the Seimas or the municipal council
to refuse to grant the complaint on the decisions of the
petitions commission not to recognize the application as a
petition or to refuse to accept the petition for consideration
shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal. Such legal
regulation also means that such decisions of the Seimas or
municipal councils may not be appealed to court even in the
cases, when these decisions, in the opinion of the petitioner,
are not grounded on the bases established in the Law on
Petitions or other laws or they are grounded on such bases that
are not established in the Law on Petitions or other laws.
Therefore, the implementation of the constitutional rights
of a person to appeal to court concerning the protection of his
violated constitutional rights or freedoms and the
constitutional right of the citizens to lodge a complaint about
the decisions of the state institutions is restricted.
Alongside, the implementation of the constitutional right of
petition of the citizen is also restricted.
4. Taking account of the arguments set forth, a conclusion
is to be made that the provision "the decision to refuse to
grant the complaint shall be final and shall not be subject to
appeal" of Paragraph 4 of Article 10 of the Law on Petitions to
the extent that it consolidates that a person who thinks that
the decision of the Seimas, and the municipal council to refuse
to grant the complaint on the decisions of the petitions
commission not to recognize the application as a petition or to
refuse to accept the petition for consideration is not grounded
on the bases established in the Law on Petitions or other laws,
or is grounded on the bases that are not established in the Law
on Petitions or other laws may not appeal to court, is in
conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 30 and Paragraphs 2 and 3
of Article 33 of the Constitution.
5. According to Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the
Law on Petitions, the decision of the Government Petitions
Commission not to recognize the application as a petition, as
well as to refuse to accept a petition for consideration, may
be appealed to the Government Chancellor, and according to
Paragraph 4 of this article, the decision of the Government
Chancellor shall be final and shall not be subject to appeal
According to Paragraph 4 of Article 6 of the Law on
Petitions, the Petitions Commission of the Government shall be
set up by the Government, and according to Paragraph 1 of this
article, the said commission shall be responsible and
accountable to the Government. It is to be noted, that the
purpose of the submission of application to the Government is
that the decision on granting or not granting the demands
(proposals) put forward in the application could be made
exactly by the Government, after she has learned about the
demands (proposals) put forward by the citizens.
According to Paragraph 1 of Article 95 of the
Constitution, the Government shall resolve the affairs of state
governance at its sittings by adopting resolutions. In the
context of the constitutional justice case at issue, it is to
be emphasized that from Paragraph 1 of Article 95 of the
Constitution, construed in the context of various
constitutional provisions, entrenching the constitutional
status of the Government, as well as of the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law, stems the fact that
the decisions of the Government Petitions Commission, set up by
the Government and responsible and accountable to the
Government, may not be amended or annulled by any official of
the Office of the Government; they may only be amended or
annulled by the Government itself (as well as courts and other
jurisdictional institutions under their competence).
After one has established in Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of
Article 10 of the Law on Petitions that the Government
Chancellor has the powers to make a decision in the course of
consideration of the complaints on the decisions of the
Government Petitions Commission not to recognize the
application as a petition as well as on its decisions to refuse
to accept a petition for consideration, the powers of the
Government itself, which arise from the Constitution, are
interfered with. Thus, Paragraph 1 of Article 95 of the
Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law are violated.
6. Taking account of the arguments set forth, a conclusion
is to be made that Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the
Law on Petitions is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 95
of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law.
Conforming to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 1, 53, 54, 55 and 56 of
the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania has passed the following
ruling:
1. To recognise that Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 10
of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Petitions is in conflict
with Paragraph 1 of Article 95 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of
a state under the rule of law.
2. To recognize that the provision "the decision to refuse
to grant the complaint shall be final and shall not be subject
to appeal" of Paragraph 4 of Article 10 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Petitions, to the extent that it consolidates
that a person who thinks that a decision of the Seimas and the
municipal council to refuse to grant the complaint on the
decisions of the petitions commission not to recognize the
application as a petition or to refuse to accept the petition
for consideration is not grounded on the bases established in
the Republic of Lithuania Law on Petitions or other laws, or is
grounded on the bases that are not established in the Republic
of Lithuania Law on Petitions or other laws may not appeal to
court, is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 30 and
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 33 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania.
3. To recognize that Article 16 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Petitions is not in conflict with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
This ruling of the Constitutional Court is final and not
subject to appeal.
The ruling 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