Lietuviškai
Case No. 17/02-24/02-06/03-22/04
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
RULING
ON THE COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA LAW ON PROTECTED TERRITORIES, THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA FORESTRY LAW, THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON LAND,
AND THE REGULATION FOR CONSTRUCTION ON PRIVATE LAND APPROVED BY
GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA RESOLUTION NO. 1608 "ON
APPROVING THE REGULATION FOR CONSTRUCTION ON PRIVATE LAND" OF
22 DECEMBER 1995 WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA, ON THE COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE REPUBLIC
OF LITHUANIA LAW ON PROTECTED TERRITORIES AND THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA LAW ON LAND REFORM WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ON THE ENTITIES, PROCEDURE, TERMS AND
CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS OF THE ACQUISITION INTO OWNERSHIP
OF LAND PLOTS PROVIDED FOR IN PARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 47 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (WORDING OF 20 JUNE
1996) AS WELL AS ON THE COMPLIANCE OF ITEM 2 OF THE REGULATION
FOR CONSTRUCTION ON PRIVATE LAND APPROVED BY GOVERNMENT OF THE
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA RESOLUTION NO. 1608 "ON APPROVING THE
REGULATION FOR CONSTRUCTION ON PRIVATE LAND" OF 22 DECEMBER
1995 WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA FORESTRY
LAW AND THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON LAND
14 March 2006
Vilnius
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court Armanas
Abramavičius, Toma Birmontienė, Egidijus Kūris, Kęstutis
Lapinskas, Zenonas Namavičius, Ramutė Ruškytė, Vytautas
Sinkevičius, Stasys Stačiokas, and Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis,
with the secretary of the hearing-Daiva Pitrėnaitė,
in the presence of:
the representatives of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania, the party concerned, who were Antanas Bosas, a
member of the Seimas, Paulius Griciūnas, a senior advisor to
the Secretariat of the Seimas Audit Committee and Neringa
Azguridienė, an advisor to the Legal Department of the Office
of the Seimas,
the representative of the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania, the party concerned, who was Robertas Klovas,
Director of the Legal and Personnel Department of the Ministry
of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania;
pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and Article 1 and Paragraph 3 of
Article 54 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the
Republic of Lithuania, in its public hearing on 26 January 2006
heard case No. 17/02-24/02-06/03-22/04 subsequent to:
a petition of the Supreme Administrative Court of
Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether
Paragraph 1 (wording of 4 July 1995) of Article 5 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Protected Territories, Paragraph 1
(wording of 4 December 2001) of Article 31 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Protected Territories, and Paragraph 6
(wording of 11 December 2001) of Article 8 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Land Reform are not in conflict with Item 2 of
Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Constitutional Law on the
Entities, Procedure, Terms and Conditions and Restrictions of
the Acquisition into Ownership of Land Plots Provided for in
Paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania (wording of 20 June 1996) and whether Paragraph 4
(wording of 4 July 1995) of Article 5 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Protected Territories and Paragraph 7 (wording
of 4 December 2001) of Article 31 the Republic of Lithuania Law
on Protected Territories are not in conflict with Item 6 of
Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Constitutional Law on the
Entities, Procedure, Terms and Conditions and Restrictions of
the Acquisition into Ownership of Land Plots Provided for in
Paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania (wording of 20 June 1996);
a petition of the Molėtai District Local Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether Item 8 of
Paragraph 2 of Article 9 and Item 5 of Paragraph 2 of Article
13 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Protected Territories
are not in conflict with Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of Article
29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as
whether Paragraph 3 of Article 8 of the Republic of Lithuania
Forestry Law and Item 2 of the Regulation for Construction on
Private Land approved by Government of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution No. 1608 "On Approving the Regulation for
Construction on Private Land" of 22 December 1995 are not in
conflict Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;
a petition of the Molėtai District Local Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether Paragraph 9 of
Article 31 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Protected
Territories is not in conflict with Article 23 and Paragraph 1
of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania,
whether Paragraph 10 of Article 18 and Paragraph 11 of Article
18 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Land are not in conflict
with Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and whether Paragraph
3 of Article 4 of the Republic of Lithuania Forestry Law is not
in conflict with Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;
a petition of the Švenčionys District Local Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether Item 8 (wording
of 4 December 2001) of Paragraph 2 of Article 9, Item 5
(wording of 4 December 2001) of Paragraph 2 of Article 13, Item
4 (wording of 4 December 2001) of Paragraph 3 and Paragraph 6
(wording of 4 December 2001) of Article 20 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Protected Territories are not in conflict with
Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania as well as whether Item 2 of the
Regulation for Construction on Private Land approved by
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 1608 "On
Approving the Regulation for Construction on Private Land" of
22 December 1995 is not in conflict with Article 23 and
Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania.
By the Constitutional Court decision of 24 March 2005, the
aforesaid petitions were joined into one case and it was given
reference No. 17/02-24/02-06/03-22/04.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
1. The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, the
petitioner, was considering an administrative case. By its
ruling, the said court suspended the consideration of the case
and applied to the Constitutional Court with a petition
requesting to investigate whether Paragraph 1 (wording of 4
July 1995) of Article 5 of the Law on Protected Territories,
Paragraph 1 (wording of 4 December 2001) of Article 31 of the
Law on Protected Territories, and Paragraph 6 (wording of 11
December 2001) of Article 8 of the Law on Land Reform are not
in conflict with Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the
Constitutional Law on the Entities, Procedure, Terms and
Conditions and Restrictions of the Acquisition into Ownership
of Land Plots Provided for in Paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the
Constitution (wording of 20 June 1996; hereinafter also
referred to as the Constitutional Law (wording of 20 June
1996)) and whether Paragraph 4 (wording of 4 July 1995) of
Article 5 of the Law on Protected Territories and Paragraph 7
(wording of 4 December 2001) of Article 31 the Law on Protected
Territories are not in conflict with Item 6 of Paragraph 1 of
Article 7 of the Constitutional Law (wording of 20 June 1996).
2. By its ruling, the Molėtai District Local Court, the
petitioner, was investigating a civil case. The said court
suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the
Constitutional Court with a petition requesting to investigate
whether Item 8 of Paragraph 2 of Article 9 and Item 5 of
Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Law on Protected Territories
are not in conflict with Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of Article
29 of the Constitution as well as whether Paragraph 3 of
Article 8 of the Forestry Law and Item 2 of the Regulation for
Construction on Private Land approved by Government Resolution
No. 1608 "On Approving the Regulation for Construction on
Private Land" of 22 December 1995 (hereinafter also referred to
as the Regulation) are not in conflict Article 23 and Paragraph
1 of Article 29 of the Constitution.
3. The Molėtai District Local Court, the petitioner, was
investigating a civil case. By its ruling, the said court
suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the
Constitutional Court with a petition requesting to investigate
whether Paragraph 9 of Article 31 of the Law on Protected
Territories is not in conflict with Article 23 and Paragraph 1
of Article 29 of the Constitution, whether Paragraph 10 of
Article 18 and Paragraph 11 of Article 18 of the Law on Land
are not in conflict with Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of Article
29 of the Constitution and whether Paragraph 3 of Article 4 of
the Forestry Law is not in conflict with Article 23 and
Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution.
4. By its ruling, the Švenčionys District Local Court, the
petitioner, was investigating a civil case. The said court
suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the
Constitutional Court with a petition requesting to investigate
whether Item 8 (wording of 4 December 2001) of Paragraph 2 of
Article 9, Item 5 (wording of 4 December 2001) of Paragraph 2
of Article 13, Item 4 (wording of 4 December 2001) of Paragraph
3 and Paragraph 6 (wording of 4 December 2001) of Article 20 of
the Law on Protected Territories are not in conflict with
Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution as
well as whether Item 2 of the Regulation for Construction on
Private Land approved by Government Resolution No. 1608 "On
Approving the Regulation for Construction on Private Land" of
22 December 1995 is not in conflict with Article 23 and
Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution.
II
1. The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, the
petitioner, grounds his position on the fact that, in the
opinion of the petitioner, under Paragraph 2 of Article 47 of
the Constitution and the Constitutional Law (wording of 20 June
1996), corresponding legal persons enjoy the right to acquire
ownership of non-agricultural land lots for construction and
exploitation of buildings and facilities, which are necessary
for their direct activities; the Constitutional Law (wording of
20 June 1996) provides for the categories of land that the said
entities are not permitted to acquire: they are prohibited from
acquiring inter alia land, which is in protection zones of
state parks, protection zones of state reservations, protection
zones of sanctuaries, protection zones of biosphere monitoring
territories, and land of recreation territories of public
purpose; however, the disputed norms of the Law on Protected
Territories and the Law on Land Reform limit the right of
ownership of persons more than it is done by the Constitutional
Law (wording of 20 June 1996), since under these laws persons
cannot acquire land ascribed to other categories as well.
2. The Molėtai District Local Court, the petitioner,
grounds his request (petition No. 29/02) on the fact that the
provision of the Forestry Law whereby the right established to
the Government or the Ministry of Environment authorised by it
to regulate the usage of forest resources in protected
territories means that the right of ownership may be limited by
means of substatutory legal act. Besides, in the opinion of the
Molėtai District Local Court, the limitations consolidated in
the disputed provisions of the Law on Protected Territories,
the Forestry Law and the Regulation are applied only when the
lot of private land is in state sanctuaries and state parks,
thus, the owners of such land lots are treated differently form
the land owners who own land lots outside state sanctuaries and
state parks.
3. The Molėtai District Local Court, the petitioner,
grounds his request (petition No. 1/03) on the fact that the
prohibitions consolidated in the disputed provisions of the Law
on Protected Territories, and the Law on Land to partition land
lots are applied when the lot of private land is in state
sanctuaries and state parks. Thus, in the opinion of the
petitioner, corresponding land owners are treated differently
form the land owners who own land lots outside state
sanctuaries and state parks. In addition, the petitioner is of
the opinion that the established prohibitions to partition the
land lot limit the right of the creditor to exact the debt of
the debtor, since one cannot aim the exaction at the part of
land lot, which belongs to the debtor by common shared
property.
4. The Švenčionys District Local Court, the petitioner,
grounds his request on the fact that, in his opinion, due to
the prohibitions and limitations to construct buildings in
natural and complex sanctuaries, in state parks, in the
protection zones of surface water bodies and in homesteads,
which are outside the strand protection area, and, according to
the petitioner, due to the limitation consolidated in Item 2 of
the Regulation to build certain buildings in forestry land, the
rights of ownership are limited more than permitted by the
Constitution and various owners are placed in unequal legal
situation, if compared with other owners.
III
In the course of the preparation of the case for a
Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations were
received from the member of the Seimas A. Bosas, as well as
from P. Griciūnas, and N. Azguridienė, who were the
representatives of the Seimas, the party concerned, and from R.
Klovas, who was the representative of the Government, the party
concerned. It is maintained therein that the disputed articles
(parts thereof) of the legal acts are no in conflict with the
Constitution, since the right of ownership is not absolute, it
may be limited by inter alia protecting forest and other
objects of nature as well as the landscape against external
harmful impact resulted from the economic and other activity,
while the limitations established by the disputed legal
regulation are not disproportionate to this constitutionally
grounded objective-the public interest.
IV
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
judicial consideration, written explanations were received from
A. Bosas, Chairman of the Committee on Environment Protection
of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, A., Kundrotas,
Minister of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania, V.
Markevičius, Minister of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania,
G. Švedas, Vice-Minister of Justice of the Republic of
Lithuania, J. Kondrotas, Vice-Minister of Agriculture of the
Republic of Lithuania, R. Baškytė, Director of the Service for
State Protected Territories under the Ministry of Environment
of the Republic of Lithuania, D. Kriaučiūnas, Director of the
European Law Department under the Ministry of Justice of the
Republic of Lithuania, K. Virketis, Director of the Legal
Department of the Office of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania, V. Baliūnienė, Director of the Legal Department of
the Office of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, I.
Pilypienė, Head of the Division of Environment of the Office of
the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, A. Daubaras, Chief
of the State Environment Protection Inspectorate, G. Gibas,
Chief of the Vilnius County, R. Sargūnas, Chief of the Utena
County, R. Masilevičius, Director of the Vilnius Regional
Environment Protection Department, R. Vygantas, Director of the
Utena Regional Environment Protection Department, Prof. Dr. A.
Marcijonas, Head of the Department of Constitutional and
Administrative Law of the Faculty of Law of Vilnius University,
Assoc. Prof. Dr. B. Sudavičius, who works at the same
department, Prof. Habil. Dr. V. Paulikas, Dean of the Faculty
of Public Administration of Mykolas Romeris University, V.
Valeckaitė, Deputy Director of the Institute of Law, A.
Gaižutis, Chairman of the Board of the Lithuanian Association
of Forest Owners, and G. Kadžiulis, Director of the Association
of Private Forest Owners.
V
1. At the Constitutional Court hearing, the member of the
Seimas A. Bosas, as well as P. Griciūnas and N. Azguridienė,
the representatives of the Seimas, the party concerned, and R.
Klovas, the representative of the Government, the party
concerned, virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in
their written explanations.
2. At the Constitutional Court hearing the following
specialists took the floor: A. Klimavičius, Head of the
Protected Areas Strategy Division of the Nature Protection
Department of the Ministry of Environment, V. Vaičiūnas,
Director of the Forests Department of the Ministry of
Environment, R. Baškytė, Director of the Service for State
Protected Territories under the Ministry of Environment, and D.
Remeikytė, Head of the Legal Division of the National Land
Service under the Ministry of Agriculture.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, the
petitioner, requests to investigate whether Paragraph 1
(wording of 4 July 1995) of Article 5 of the Law on Protected
Territories, Paragraph 1 (wording of 4 December 2001) of
Article 31 of the same law, and Paragraph 6 (wording of 11
December 2001) of Article 8 of the Law on Land Reform were not
in conflict with Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the
Constitutional Law (wording of 20 June 1996) and whether
Paragraph 4 (wording of 4 July 1995) of Article 5 of the Law on
Protected Territories and Paragraph 7 (wording of 4 December
2001) of Article 31 the same law were not in conflict with Item
6 of Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Constitutional Law
(wording of 20 June 1996).
From the arguments of the petition of the Supreme
Administrative Court of Lithuania, the petitioner, it is clear
that the petitioner faced doubts
- whether the provision "The land of reservations, state
parks-reservations <...> shall be state property" of Paragraph
1 (wording of 4 July 1995) of Article 5 of the Law on Protected
Territories was not in conflict with Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of
Article 7 of the Constitutional Law (wording of 20 June 1996);
- whether the provision "The land of reservations <...>
shall be exclusive state property" of Paragraph 1 (wording of 4
December 2001) of Article 31 of the Law on Protected
Territories was not in conflict with Item 2 of Item 1 of
Article 7 of the Constitutional Law (wording of 20 June 1996);
- whether the provision "In the territories of state parks
and state sanctuaries, only the lots of the premises, of
personal smallholdings or gardeners' societies and the land
plots which are between private land lots, which are suitable
for agricultural activities and which are not bigger than 5 ha,
can be sold to private ownership" of Paragraph 6 (wording of 11
December 2001) of Article 8 of the Law on Land Reform was not
in conflict with Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the
Constitutional Law (wording of 20 June 1996).
2. The Molėtai District Local Court, the petitioner,
requests to investigate (petition No. 29/02) whether Item 8 of
Paragraph 2 of Article 9 and Item 5 of Paragraph 2 of Article
13 of the Law on Protected Territories, Paragraph 3 of Article
8 of the Forestry Law and Item 2 of the Regulation are not in
conflict Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the
Constitution.
From the arguments of the petition (petition No. 29/02) of
the Molėtai District Local Court, the petitioner, it is clear
that the petitioner faced doubts
- whether the provision "In natural and complex
reservations, it shall be prohibited: <...> (8) to construct
erections, which are not related with the reservation
establishment objectives, save buildings in the existing and in
former homesteads (when there are remnants of former erections
and/or gardens, or when the homesteads are marked in the maps
of the locality or in other maps, as well as when the legal
fact is established), as well as the places established in
reservations maintenance plans or projects and in documents of
general planning, to construct buildings or increase their size
on the slopes whose grade is bigger than 15 degrees, as well as
closer than 50 metres from the bottom or top edge of the slope"
of Paragraph 2 (wording of 4 December 2001) of Article 9 of the
Law on Protected Territories, the provision "In state parks it
shall be prohibited: <...> (5) to construct new residential
houses, the outhouse and other buildings of the farmer or to
increase their size on the slopes whose grade is bigger than 15
degrees, as well as closer than 50 metres from the bottom or
top edge of the slope, to construct erections, which decrease
the aesthetical value of the landscape, <...>" of Paragraph 2
(wording of 4 December 2001) of Article 13 of the same law are
not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 and
Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution;
- whether Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 April 2001) of
Article 8 of the Forestry Law to the extent that it provides
that trips to forests and use of forest resources in protected
territories are inter alia regulated by the regulations of
protected territories approved by the Government or the
Ministry of Environment authorised by it is not in conflict
with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of
Article 29 of the Constitution;
- whether the provision "The construction of buildings in
the forestry land is permitted <...>, when such buildings are
needed for forestry activities" of Item 2 of the Regulation is
not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 and
Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution.
3. The Molėtai District Local Court, the petitioner,
requests to investigate (petition No. 1/03) whether Paragraph 9
of Article 31 of the Law on Protected Territories, Paragraph 10
of Article 18 and Paragraph 11 of Article 18 of the Law on
Land, and Paragraph 3 of Article 4 of the Forestry Law are not
in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 and Paragraph
1 of Article 29 of the Constitution.
From the arguments of the petition (petition No. 1/03) of
the Molėtai District Local Court, the petitioner, it is clear
that the petitioner faced doubts whether Paragraph 9 (wording
of 4 December 2001) of Article 31 of the Law on Protected
Territories, Paragraph 10 (wording of 26 April 1994) of Article
18 and Paragraph 11 (wording of 3 August 2001) of Article 18 of
the Law on Land, and Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 April 2001) of
Article 4 of the Forestry Law are not in conflict with
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of Article 29
of the Constitution.
4. The Švenčionys District Local Court, the petitioner,
requests to investigate whether Item 8 of Paragraph 2 of
Article 9, Item 5 of Paragraph 2 of Article 13, Item 4 of
Paragraph 3 and Paragraph 6 of Article 20 of the Law on
Protected Territories are not in conflict with Article 23 and
Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution as well as
whether Item 2 of the Regulation is not in conflict with
Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution.
From the arguments of the petition of the Švenčionys
District Local Court, the petitioner, it is clear that the
petitioner faced doubts
- whether the provision "In natural and complex
reservations, it shall be prohibited: <...> (8) to construct
buildings, which are not related with the reservation
establishment objectives, save buildings in the existing and in
former homesteads (when there are remnants of former erections
and/or gardens, or when the homesteads are marked in the maps
of the locality or in other maps, as well as when the legal
fact is established), as well as the places established in
reservations maintenance plans or projects and in documents of
general planning, to construct buildings or increase their size
on the slopes whose grade is bigger than 15 degrees, as well as
closer than 50 metres from the bottom or top edge of the slope"
of Paragraph 2 (wording of 4 December 2001) of Article 9 of the
Law on Protected Territories, the provision "In state parks it
shall be prohibited: <...> (5) to construct new residential
houses, the outhouse and other buildings of the farmer or to
increase their size on the slopes whose grade is bigger than 15
degrees, as well as closer than 50 metres from the bottom or
top edge of the slope, to construct erections, which decrease
the aesthetical value of the landscape, <...>" of Paragraph 2
(wording of 4 December 2001) of Article 13 of the same law, the
provision "In the protection zones of surface water bodies it
shall be prohibited: <...> (4) to change the existing line of
building by reconstruction or rebuilding erections in the
existing and in former homesteads (when there are remnants of
former erections and/or gardens, or when the homesteads are
marked in the maps of the locality or in other maps, as well as
when the legal fact is established) save the cases established
in territorial planning documents" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 4
December 2001) and Paragraph 6 (wording of 4 December 2001) of
Article 20 of the same law are not in conflict with Paragraphs
1 and 2 of Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the
Constitution;
- whether the provision "The construction of buildings in
the forestry land is permitted <...>, when such buildings are
needed for forestry activities" of Item 2 of the Regulation is
not in conflict with Article Paragraphs 1 and 2 of 23 and
Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution.
II
1. In the constitutional justice case at issue, inter alia
with the regard to the compliance with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of
Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution,
one disputes the legal acts (parts thereof) which regulate the
relations linked with ownership and legal regime of land,
forests, water bodies, including those which are in protected
territories.
2. The Constitutional Court has held that the
Constitution, as supreme law, must be a stable act
(Constitutional Court ruling of 16 January 2006). The stability
of the Constitution is such its feature which, together with
its other features (inter alia and first of all with the
special, supreme legal power of the Constitution) makes the
constitutional legal regulation different from the legal
(ordinary) regulation established by legal acts of lower legal
power. On the other hand, the stability of the Constitution
does not deny a possibility to make amendments to the
Constitution when this is objectively necessary. It needs to be
mentioned that the Constitution provides for a more difficult
and more complex procedure for making amendments to the
Constitution, if compared with constitutional and ordinary
laws.
3. The principle of a state under the rule of law implies
continuity of the jurisprudence (Constitutional Court rulings
of 12 July 2001, 30 May 2003, decision of 13 February 2004 and
ruling of 13 December 2004). This can also be said as regards
the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, in which the
official constitutional doctrine is formulated, the
constitutional principles and norms are construed,
interrelations of various constitutional provisions, the
relation of their content, the balance of constitutional
values, and the essence of the constitutional legal regulation
as a single whole are revealed. While investigating the
compliance of legal acts with legal acts of higher power, the
Constitutional Court develops the concept of provisions of the
Constitution set forth in its previous acts and it reveals new
aspects of the legal regulation established in the
Constitution, which are necessary for the investigation of a
corresponding constitutional justice case (Constitutional Court
rulings of 30 May 2003, 1 July 2004 and 13 December 2004).
4. The continuity of the constitutional jurisprudence does
not mean that the constitutional doctrine cannot be corrected,
or that its provisions cannot be reinterpreted.
In the constitutional justice case at issue it needs to be
noted that it is necessary to reinterpret official provisions
of the constitutional doctrine (to correct the official
constitutional doctrine) is (or might be) necessary inter alia
in the cases when amendments are made to corresponding articles
(parts thereof) of the Constitution. After an amendment of the
Constitution comes into force, whereby a certain provision of
the Constitution is altered (or abrogated) on the basis of
which (i.e. in the course of construction of which) the
previous constitutional doctrine was formed (as regards the
corresponding issue of the constitutional legal regulation),
the Constitutional Court, under the Constitution, enjoys
exceptional powers to hold whether it is possible (and to what
extent) to invoke the official constitutional doctrine
formulated by the Constitutional Court on the basis of previous
provisions of the Constitution, or whether it is no longer
possible to invoke it (and to what extent) (Constitutional
Court rulings of 13 May 2004, 16 January 2006 and 24 January
2006).
In its acts the Constitutional Court has held many a time
that the provisions of the Constitution, which is an integral
act (Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Constitution), are
interrelated and constitute a harmonious system, that there is
a balance among the values entrenched in the Constitution, that
it is not permitted to construe any provision of the
Constitution in a way so that the content of any other
provision of the Constitution would be distorted or denied,
since thus the essence of the entire constitutional legal
regulation and the balance of values entrenched in the
Constitution would be disturbed. Taking account of this, one is
to hold that reinterpretation of the official constitutional
doctrinal statements (correction of the official constitutional
doctrine) could be necessary also when such amendment to the
Constitution is made (a certain provision of the Constitution
is amended or abrogated, or a new provision is entrenched in
the Constitution) whereby the content of the entire
constitutional legal regulation is corrected in essence, even
though the constitutional provision in question, on the grounds
of which (i.e. in the course of the construction of which) the
previous official constitutional doctrine with respect to a
certain issue of the constitutional regulation was formulated,
is not formally altered. In such cases also it is only the
Constitutional Court that enjoys exceptional powers to hold
whether it is possible, in the course of construction of the
Constitution, to invoke (and to what extent) the previous
official constitutional doctrine (both as a whole and
individually each issue of the constitutional legal
regulation), or whether it is no longer possible to invoke it
(and to what extent).
5. It needs to be noted that the legal acts, the legal
regulation established in which is being disputed in this
constitutional justice case with regard to its compliance with
the Constitution, were passed at the time when Article 47 of
the Constitution was set forth in its 20 June 1996 wording.
Some of these acts (parts thereof) were valid also at the time
of consideration of the constitutional justice case at issue,
i.e. at the time when the altered Article 47 of the
Constitution was set forth in the wording of 23 January 2003.
6. Thus, in this Constitutional Court ruling the
provisions of the official constitutional doctrine are
formulated in the way that they had to be formulated at the
time when Article 47 of the Constitution was set forth in the
wording of 20 June 1996, i.e. which was until the alteration of
the said article of the Constitution and its setting forth in
the wording of 23 January 2003; the content of these provisions
of the official constitutional doctrine and systemic
connections with other provisions are determined by the content
of Article 47 (wording of 20 June 1996) of the Constitution.
On the other hand, the continuity of the constitutional
jurisprudence and of the constitutional doctrine formulated
therein as well as the exceptional constitutional powers of the
Constitutional Court to hold whether it is possible, in the
course of construction of the Constitution, to invoke (and to
what extent) the previous official constitutional doctrine
(both as a whole and individually each issue of the
constitutional legal regulation), or whether it is no longer
possible to invoke it (and to what extent), imply that each
time when one has to reinterpret certain official
constitutional doctrinal provisions (to correct the official
constitutional doctrine), the Constitutional Court shall
explicitly point it out and properly (clearly and rationally)
argues this in a corresponding act of the Constitutional Court.
Thus, in itself, the circumstance that in this
Constitutional Court ruling the official constitutional
doctrinal provisions are formulated in the way that they had to
be formulated at the time when Article 47 of the Constitution
was set forth in its wording of 20 June 1996, does not mean
that continuity is not characteristic of the official
constitutional doctrine with respect to a corresponding issue
of the constitutional legal regulation; quite to the contrary,
if this Constitutional Court ruling does not explicitly point
out the correction (reinterpretation) of these provisions, it
is to be held that these doctrinal provisions persist, i.e. one
must follow them also after Article 47 of the Constitution has
been set forth in its wording of 23 January 2003.
7. It has been mentioned that in the constitutional
justice case at issue the legal acts (parts thereof) are
disputed with regard to their compliance of Paragraphs 1 and 2
of Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the
Constitution.
The provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the
Constitution that property shall be inviolable, the provision
of Paragraph 2 of Article 23 thereof that the rights of
ownership shall be protected by laws, and the provision of
Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution that all persons
shall be equal before the law, the court, and other state
institutions and officials are to be construed in the context
of the legal regulation established in other articles of the
Constitution (parts thereof), inter alia Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3
of Article 46, Article 47 (both the one set forth in the
wording of 20 June 1996 and the one set forth in the wording of
23 January 2003), Paragraph 3 of Article 53, Article 54, and
Paragraph 2 of Article 128, and also by taking account of the
principles consolidated in the Constitution, inter alia of the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
8. In its acts the Constitutional Court has held many a
time that the inviolability and protection of property are
entrenched in Article 23 (inter alia in Paragraphs 1 and 2
thereof) of the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the owner
has the right to perform any actions in regard of his property,
save those prohibited by the law, as well as to use his
property and determine its future in any way, which does not
violate the rights and freedoms of other persons. Other persons
must not violate these rights of the owner, while the state is
under obligation to defend and protect property against
unlawful encroachment upon it and from other violations. Laws
must protect the rights of ownership of all owners, thus also
of the state (as an organisation of all society) and
municipalities.
9. Under the Constitution, the right of ownership is not
absolute, it can be limited by means of a law due to the
character of the object of ownership, due to committed deeds,
which are contrary to law, and/or due to the need which is
necessary to the society and constitutionally grounded. When
one limits the rights of ownership, in all cases the following
conditions must be followed: it may be limited only by invoking
the law; the limitations must be necessary in a democratic
society in order to protect the rights and freedoms of other
persons, the values established in the Constitution and the
objectives which are necessary to society and which are
constitutionally grounded; one must pay heed to the principle
of proportionality.
10. Ownership also performs a social function and it
includes obligations (Constitutional Court rulings of 21
December 2000, 14 March 2002, 19 September 2002, 30 September
2003, and 13 May 2005).
The constitutional imperative of social harmony,
constitutional principles of justice, reasonableness and
proportionality, as well as other provisions of the
Constitution, imply that the inviolability of property and
protection of subjective rights of ownership which are
entrenched in the Constitution cannot be interpreted as grounds
for opposing the right and interests of the owner to the public
interest, as well as the rights, freedoms and legitimate
interests of other persons (Constitutional Court ruling of 13
May 2005).
11. In the constitutional justice case at issue one is to
note that land, forests, parks, water bodies are special
objects of property law, since the proper use and protection of
land, forests, parks and water bodies are a condition of the
survival and development of the human being and society, and
the basis of the welfare of the Nation. Under the Constitution,
the natural environment, its fauna and flora, individual
objects of nature and districts of particular value are
national values of universal importance; their protection and
rational use and securing augmentation of natural resources are
a public interest, to guarantee which is a constitutional
obligation of the state (Constitutional Court ruling of 13 May
2005).
Article 54 of the Constitution provides that the state
shall take care of the protection of the natural environment,
wildlife and plants, individual objects of nature and areas of
particular value and shall supervise a sustainable use of
natural resources, their restoration and increase (Paragraph
1), that the destruction of land and the underground, the
pollution of water and air, radioactive impact on the
environment as well as depletion of wildlife and plants shall
be prohibited by law (Paragraph 2). It also needs to be
mentioned that, under Paragraph 3 of Article 53 of the
Constitution, the state and each person must protect the
environment from harmful influences.
12. When construing the provisions stemming from the
Constitution that ownership includes obligations and that the
right of ownership is not absolute, when they are construed
together with Article 54 of the Constitution, it is to be held
that all owners, possessors and users of land lots, forests and
water bodies, must pay heed to the constitutional imperative of
the protection of natural environment and to protect the
natural environment, not to deteriorate its state, and not to
inflict harm upon the natural environment.
The state, being under constitutional obligation to act so
that the protection of natural environment and of its
individual objects, moderate use of natural resources and their
restoration and augmentation are guaranteed, may legislatively
establish the legal regulation under which the use of
individual objects (natural resources) of natural environment
be restricted, while certain subjects of the legal relations
are obligated to act in a respective manner or to abstain from
certain actions (Constitutional Court ruling of 13 May 2005).
13. Paragraph 3 of Article 46 of the Constitution provides
that the state shall regulate economic activity so that it
serves the general welfare of the Nation. One must pay heed to
this constitutional imperative also when one regulates, by
means of legal acts, the relations linked with the ownership
and use of land, forests, water bodies, also those that are in
especially valuable places, as well as with other activity in
these places.
In this context, it needs to be noted that, as the
Constitutional Court held in its ruling of 13 May 2005, by
seeking to ensure the protection and rational use, restoration
and augmentation of natural environment, wildlife and plants,
and of individual objects of nature, the state, while
regulating economic activity, can establish specific conditions
of economic activity, procedures and means of control, as well
as certain limitation or prohibitions of economic activity
related with use of respective natural resources; the state,
when it regulates relations linked with protection of natural
environment and its individual objects, the use of natural
resources, their restoration and augmentation, also when it
limits the use of individual objects of natural environment
(natural resources) or when it obligates certain subjects of
legal relations to act in a respective manner or to abstain
from certain actions, is bound by the imperative of social
harmony, the principles of justice, reasonableness and
proportionality which are entrenched in the Constitution, inter
alia when by such limitations or obligations one interferes
with the implementation of constitutional rights and freedoms
of the person.
14. When one regulates, by means of legal acts, the
relations linked with the ownership and use of land, forests,
water bodies, also those that are in especially valuable
places, attention must be paid to the fact that the said
objects are very varied ones. This implies differentiated legal
regulation of the said relations; the bases of such legal
regulation stem from the Constitution itself.
In this context, it needs to be noted that in Paragraph 1
(wordings of 25 October 1992 and 20 June 1996) of Article 47
land, internal waters, forests and parks were specified
expressis verbis. Paragraph 3 (wording of 25 October 1992),
Paragraph 4 (wording of 20 June 1996) and Paragraph 1 (wording
of 23 January 2003) inter alia specified expressis verbis the
underground, internal waters, forests and parks of state
importance. Article 54 of the Constitution also expressis
verbis specifies areas of particular value.
One is also to mention the fact that Paragraph 2 (wording
of 20 June 1996) of Article 47 of the Constitution expressis
verbis used to specify non-agricultural land plots. Although in
Article 47 (wording of 23 January 2003) of the Constitution
there is no longer a provision explicitly mentioning
non-agricultural land (or land of any other purpose), the
Constitution does not prohibit grouping of land and other
objects of natural environment according to various criteria,
inter alia according to the purpose of their use. This must be
done when taking account of characteristics of corresponding
natural objects and other factors of natural environment.
When regulating the relations in a differentiated manner,
which are linked with the ownership and use of land, forests,
parks, water bodies, including those that are in areas of
particular value, the legislator may ascribe land and other
objects of natural environment to certain kinds (categories),
establish the legal regime related with such objects, inter
alia the conditions, limitations and prohibitions linked with
the ownership, use, economic and other activity. The said
limitations and prohibitions must be constitutionally grounded.
15. Under the Constitution, land, forests, parks, water
bodies, including those that are in areas of particular value,
may belong to various subjects-the state, municipalities, legal
and natural persons-by right of ownership.
16. Under Paragraph 4 (wording 20 June 1996) of Article 47
of the Constitution and Paragraph 1 (wording 23 January 2003)
of Article 47 of the Constitution, internal waters, forests and
parks of state importance shall belong by the right of
exclusive ownership to the Republic of Lithuania.
This constitutional provision means that the specified
objects can belong only to the state by right of ownership,
save the exceptions that originate from the Constitution
itself; the state (its institutions, officials) may not adopt
any decisions that could become the basis for transferring
these objects from the ownership of the state to the ownership
of other entities (save the exceptions permitted by the
Constitution) (Constitutional Court ruling of 8 June 2005).
On the other hand, the fact that the Constitution treats
certain objects of state importance as belonging by the right
of exclusive ownership to the Republic of Lithuania does not
mean that corresponding objects, which belonged by right of
ownership to certain person and which later were recognised as
those of state importance, must necessarily be taken over for
state ownership. In this context one is to mention that, under
Paragraph 3 of Article 23 of the Constitution, property may be
taken over only for the needs of society according to the
procedure established by law and shall be justly compensated
for.
17. It needs to be underlined that not every object (inter
alia natural object), which belongs by right of ownership to
the state, is to be treated as one of state importance. In
addition, it needs to be noted that one may recognise not any
internal waters, forests, and parks as internal waters,
forests, and parks of state importance, but only those whose
continual value is so big and the necessity to preserve it to
the posterity is so pressing that in case they were not
recognised as being of state importance, a threat for their
preservation would arise.
While taking account of the special continual value of
internal waters, forests and parks of state importance and the
necessity to preserve them to the posterity, the state is under
constitutional obligation to take care of these objects and
preserve them.
The recognition of land, forests, parks and water bodies,
as well as those that are in areas of special value, as being
of state importance, implies special legal regulation of the
relations linked with supervision, protection and use of such
objects. When taking account of the special continual value of
the said objects, the importance and necessity to preserve them
to the posterity, special, individual legal regime may be
established to such objects, when compared with other objects.
It needs to be noted that under the Constitution the state
has a duty also to take care of the natural objects of state
importance, which by right of ownership belong not to the
state, but other persons, and to ensure their protection. This
state duty cannot be interpreted as exempting the owners of
corresponding natural objects themselves to contribute to the
preservation of the said objects of nature and to observe the
legal regime established in regard of these natural objects.
18. The notion "areas of particular value" is employed in
Paragraph 1 of Article 54 of the Constitution. In such areas
natural and other objects can belong by right of ownership to
very varied subjects: the state, municipalities, as well as
legal and natural persons. Some of these objects, while in
special cases-all the objects which are in a certain area-may
be of state importance.
19. Areas of special value may be very varied ones. This
can determine the peculiarities of their legal regime, the ways
of protection of the objects which are in such areas, as well
as the conditions, limitations and prohibitions of the activity
in such areas. Such limitations and prohibitions may be applied
to inter alia the economic activity and construction in these
areas, as well as to some other activity, due to which the
landscape, individual objects which are in corresponding areas
can be changed, etc.
It needs to be underlined that the said limitations and
prohibitions by which one seeks to ensure the protection of
areas of particular value-the public interest-may and must be
established not only in regard of the state and municipalities
as the owners of corresponding objects which are in
corresponding areas, but also in respect to other owners and
users-natural and legal persons-of such objects. Thus, also
such limitations and prohibitions may be established whereby
one to certain extent interferes with the rights of ownership
of all owners, including those of private land plots, forests,
parks and water bodies.
One is especially to emphasise that all said limitations
and prohibitions must be constitutionally grounded, they must
not restrict the rights of the owners and other persons more
than it is necessary to achieve the universally important
objectives.
20. The duty of the state to take care of protection of
natural environment, individual natural objects, of areas of
particular value, which is consolidated in the Constitution, if
construed in the context of the constitutional provisions
establishing the protection of the rights of ownership,
coordination of the interests of society and the person,
legitimacy and justice, obligates the legislator to provide for
legal liability for disregard of the established limitations
and restrictions and for violations of the legal regime of
natural environment, individual natural objects and especially
of areas of particular value.
It is also to emphasised that in a state under the rule of
law the general principle of law cannot be disregarded whereby
one may not enjoy any profit from a violation of law committed
by him. Thus, the Constitution does not tolerate a situation,
where a violator of law, inter alia a situation where legal
acts have not established any duty to the one to whom a
sanction was applied (he was punished) for disregard of the
established limitations and prohibitions, for violations of the
legal regime of natural environment, individual natural objects
and of areas of particular value, to restore what had been
destroyed, devastated, impoverished, exhausted, polluted or
disturbed otherwise. The effect of such violations of law
cannot be made lawful (legalised) under any bases nor any
circumstances by means of decisions later adopted by certain
institutions or officials.
21. A requirement to save state property and not to waste
it arises from the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 128 of
the Constitution that the procedure for the possession, use and
disposal of State property shall be established by law, the
principle of a state under the rule of law which is entrenched
in the Constitution, the constitutional principle that
ownership includes obligations, Paragraph 2 of Article 23 pf
the Constitution whereby the rights of ownership shall be
protected by laws, and other provisions of the Constitution.
State property must be managed rationally.
Having connected the said constitutional principles with
the state duty entrenched in Article 54 of the Constitution to
take care of the protection of the natural environment,
individual objects of nature and areas of particular value, one
is to hold that if the objects of nature which are in areas of
particular value belong by right of ownership to the state,
then, regardless of whether or not they are recognised as
objects of state importance, they may be transferred to
ownership of other persons only in the case (and only in this
manner), when this is constitutionally grounded. It needs to be
mentioned that inter alia the legal regulation whereby land,
forests, parks and water bodies which are in areas of
particular value and which belong by right of ownership to the
state may be transferred to ownership of certain other subjects
either gratis or for an unreasonably small price, as well as
the legal regulation whereby land, forests, parks and water
bodies which are in areas of particular value and which belong
by right of ownership to the state may be transferred to
ownership of other persons when the rights of ownership is
being restored to them in equivalent kind, i.e. when one
transfers to ownership of the person, who did not have the
ownership right to the object that is in areas of particular
value-land, forest, park, or water body-precisely such object
in kind, would lack such constitutional grounds.
22. A conclusion is to be drawn from Paragraph 2 of
Article 23 of the Constitution that the rights of ownership
shall be protected by laws, from Paragraph 2 of Article 128
thereof that the procedure for the possession, use and disposal
of state property shall be established by law, from the
provision of Article 54 thereof that the state must take care
of the protection of the natural environment, wildlife and
plants, individual objects of nature and areas of particular
value, and from other provisions of the Constitution, that
corresponding measures of protection, including all limitations
and prohibitions regarding the right of ownership, must be
established by means of a law.
23. When regulating the relations linked with the
ownership and use of land, forests, parks and water bodies, as
well as those which are in areas of particular value, by means
of legal acts, one must pay heed to the norms and principles of
the Constitution, inter alia the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law. The said constitutional principle
implies the hierarchy of all legal acts and does not permit
that substatutory legal acts regulate the relations which can
be regulated only by the law, nor does it permit that
substatutory legal acts establish any such legal regulation
which would compete with that established in the law or that
such legal regulation would not be based upon laws. The said
constitutional principle also obligates one to pay heed to of
legitimate expectations, to ensure their protection, not to
violate the requirements of proportionality, reasonableness and
justice. The constitutional principle of a state under the rule
of law is inseparable from the principle of equal rights of
persons, either, which is entrenched in the Constitution, inter
alia in Article 29 thereof.
24. One is also to note that in cases when certain areas
are recognised, under procedure established by the law, as of
particular value and/or individual objects of nature are
recognised as needing protection, a duty may appear to the
state to compensate the losses to the owners, which they
experience due to the changed legal regime of corresponding
areas and/or objects of nature.
III
1. In the constitutional justice case at issue laws (parts
thereof) are being disputed inter alia as regards their
compliance with the Constitutional Law on the Entities,
Procedure, Terms and Conditions and Restrictions of the
Acquisition into Ownership of Land Plots Provided for in
Paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the Constitution (wording of 20
June 1996).
2. Under the Constitution, constitutional laws are: (1)
constitutional law directly specified in the Constitution and
adopted under procedure established in Paragraph 3 of Article
69 of the Constitution; (2) constitutional laws entered into
the list of constitutional laws and adopted under procedure
established in Paragraph 3 of Article 69 of the Constitution.
The fact that certain constitutional laws may be pointed
out directly in the Constitution, presupposes the
constitutional duty of the Seimas to adopt these laws by paying
heed to the requirement established in Paragraph 3 of Article
69 of the Constitution that they may be adopted if more than
half of all the members of the Seimas vote in favour thereof
and that they may be altered by not less than a 3/5 majority
vote of all the members of the Seimas (Constitutional Court
ruling of 24 December 2002).
The special place of constitutional laws in the system of
legal acts is determined by the Constitution itself.
Constitutional laws may not be amended or abolished by laws.
Thus, it is ensured that the social relations regulated by
constitutional laws be not regulated in a different manner and
that greater stability of the social relations regulated by
constitutional laws be guaranteed (Constitutional Court rulings
of 2 April 2001 and 24 December 2002).
3. By the Law on Supplementing Article 47 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, which was adopted by
the Seimas on 20 June 1996, Article 47 of the Constitution was
supplemented with Paragraph 2, which used to provide that
municipalities, other national entities as well as those
foreign entities conducting economic activities in Lithuania
which were specified by the constitutional law in accordance
with the criteria of European and Transatlantic integration
chosen by the Republic of Lithuania might be permitted to
acquire the ownership of non-agricultural land plots required
for the construction and operation of buildings and facilities
necessary for their direct activities; the procedure,
conditions and restrictions of the acquisition of the ownership
of such a plot was to be established by a constitutional law.
The said amendment to the Constitution came into force on 21
July 1996.
Thus, under the then constitutional regulation, the Seimas
had a duty to pass a constitutional law, regulating the
relations specified in Paragraph 2 (wording of 20 June 1996) of
Article 47 of the Constitution.
4. When implementing the provisions of Paragraph 2 of
Article 47 of the Constitution, on 20 June 1996 the Seimas
adopted the Constitutional Law on the Entities, Procedure,
Terms and Conditions and Restrictions of the Acquisition into
Ownership of Land Plots Provided for in Paragraph 2 of Article
47 of the Constitution.
5. Under the Constitutional Law (wording of 20 June 1996),
when it is construed in the context of the then constitutional
regulation, the following entities could acquire
non-agricultural land plots as ownership:
- national entities (municipalities, other legal
persons-enterprises, public organisations of citizens and other
associations of citizens, non-profit legal persons which were
established by such organisations, and which were engaged in
actual activity of social assistance or care);
- foreign entities meeting the criteria of European and
Transatlantic Integration embarked on by Lithuania, i.e. the
foreign entities which, judging by the indicators of their
origin, are from the European Union member states or States
Parties to the Europe Agreement which have established the
Association with the European Communities and their member
states, or the states which at the moment of the enactment of
this Law are members of the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) or the North Atlantic
Treaty Organisation (enterprises set up or acquired by
enterprises of foreign origin or foreign nationals and
registered by the rights of a legal person in Lithuania, which
have here their registered office, central administration or
principal place of business, carry out their economic
activities here, and in which the rights of effective control
belong to the enterprises of foreign origin or to foreign
nationals; enterprises of foreign origin, which have set up in
Lithuania their subsidiaries or branches without the rights of
legal persons for the purpose of their economic activities),
save foreign nationals.
Foreign nationals could acquire non-agricultural land
plots as ownership not later than after the expiry of the
transitional period provided for by the Europe Agreement
establishing the Association of the European Communities and
their member states and the Republic of Lithuania.
6. Under Article 7 of the Constitutional Law (wording of
20 June 1996), the said entities were not permitted to acquire
as ownership: land under the objects belonging to the Republic
of Lithuania by the right of exclusive ownership (Item 1 of
Paragraph 1); land of national parks, national reservations,
reserves, protective area of the territory of biosphere
monitoring (Item 2 of Paragraph 1); agricultural land (Item 3
of Paragraph 1); forestry land, with the exception of plots
necessary for operation of buildings and facilities designated
for economic activities which have been provided for in the
approved planning documents (Item 4 of Paragraph 1); land of
recreational forests and forest shelter belts, rivers and other
water bodies exceeding 1 hectare in size as well as their
protective bank area (Item 5 of Paragraph 1); land of resorts
and communal recreational territories, individual communal
public recreational areas and objects (Item 6 of Paragraph 1);
land of state-protected natural carcass, monuments of nature,
history, archaeology and culture as well as the surrounding
protective areas (Item 7 of Paragraph 1); land of territories
reserved, according to design projects, for communal roads and
engineering service lines, objects of infrastructure of
communal use in towns or other localities, and for other common
needs of the community (Item 8 of Paragraph 1); land under
public roads, railway lines, airports, sea and river ports,
main pipe-lines and other engineering service lines of communal
use as well as land necessary for their operation (Item 9 of
Paragraph 1); land allotted, in accordance with the procedure
established by law, under the free trade (economic) zones
territory (Item 10 of Paragraph 1); land of protected
territories where deposits of mineral resources and other
natural resources have been found, with the exception of land
plots which, according to planning documents, have been
directly allotted for the construction of buildings and
facilities required for the mining or use of said mineral
resources (Item 11 of Paragraph 1); land of the Curonian Spit,
the 15-km wide strip of coastal land of the Baltic Sea and the
Curonian Lagoon, with the exception of towns that are not
resorts (Item 12 of Paragraph 1); land assigned to the frontier
(Item 13 of Paragraph 1); land of the territories assigned or
reserved for the needs of the national defence as well as
territories where land acquisition restrictions are established
by laws or Government decrees for safety reasons (Item 14 of
Paragraph 1).
7. The Constitutional Law (wording of 20 June 1996) had to
come into force on the next day after the entry into force of
the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the
European Communities and their Member States, of the one part,
and the Republic of Lithuania, of the other part (Article 18 of
the Constitutional Law (wording of 20 June 1996)). The said
agreement came into force on 1 February 1998. Thus, the
Constitutional Law (wording of 20 June 1996) came into force on
2 February 1998.
8. Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the Constitutional Law
(wording of 20 June 1996) used to provide: "From the day on
which the Republic of Lithuania becomes a full and equal member
of the European Union and until the adoption of the law
replacing this constitutional law only those provisions of this
Law shall be in force which will not contradict the agreement
of Lithuania's membership in the European Union."
Thus, the Constitutional Law (wording of 20 June 1996) was
conceived as a provisional constitutional law: it was
established that after the Republic of Lithuania had become a
member of the European Union, not all articles (parts thereof)
of the Constitutional Law (wording of 20 June 1996) would be in
force, but only those which would not contradict the agreement
of Lithuania's membership in the European Union; it was also
established that one would adopt another constitutional law (in
the Constitutional Law (wording of 20 June 1996) referred to as
"the law replacing this constitutional law"), which would
replace this one; the aforesaid constitutional law could also
be adopted either before the Republic of Lithuania became a
member of the European Union or (as provided for in the
Constitutional Law (wording of 20 June 1996) itself) after the
Republic of Lithuania had become a member of the European
Union.
In this context, it needs to be mentioned that the formula
"until the adoption of the law replacing this constitutional
law" of Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the Constitutional Law
(wording of 20 June 1996) is not a correct one, because (1) the
application of an adopted law or constitutional law cannot be
related only with the adoption of this law or constitutional
law-a law or a constitutional law may be applied not earlier
than from the day of its entry into force; (2) a constitutional
law may not be replaced by an ordinary law: under the
Constitution it may be replaced only by a constitutional law.
9. Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the Constitutional Law
(wording of 20 June 1996) mentioned the agreement of
Lithuania's membership in the European Union, i.e. an
international treaty of the Republic of Lithuania.
9.1. In this context, it needs to be noted that, under
Paragraph 3 of Article 138 of the Constitution, international
treaties ratified by the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
shall be a constituent part of the legal system of the Republic
of Lithuania.
Under Paragraph 1 of Article 135 of the Constitution, in
implementing its foreign policy, the Republic of Lithuania
shall follow the universally recognised principles and norms of
international law, shall seek to ensure national security and
independence, the welfare of the citizens and their basic
rights and freedoms, and shall contribute to the creation of
the international order based on law and justice.
One is also to mention the fact that the adherence of the
State of Lithuania to universally recognised principles of
international law was declared in the Act "On the Restoration
of the Independent State of Lithuania" of the Supreme Council
of the Republic of Lithuania, which was adopted on 11 March
1990. Thus, the observance of international obligations
undertaken on its own free will, respect to the universally
recognised principles of international law (as well as the
principle pacta sunt servanda) are a legal tradition and a
constitutional principle of the restored independent State of
Lithuania.
9.2. It needs to be noted that the Constitutional Court
has held that the international treaties ratified by the Seimas
acquire the power of the law (Constitutional Court conclusion
of 24 January 1995, ruling of 17 October 1995, decisions of 25
April 2002 and 7 April 2004).
This doctrinal provision cannot be construed as meaning
that, purportedly, the Republic of Lithuania may disregard its
international treaties, if a different legal regulation is
established in its laws or constitutional laws than that
established by international treaties. Quite to the contrary,
the principle entrenched in the Constitution that the Republic
of Lithuania observes international obligations undertaken on
its own free will and respects universally recognised
principles of international law implies that in cases when
national legal acts (inter alia laws or constitutional laws)
establish the legal regulation which competes with that
established in an international treaty, then the international
treaty is to be applied.
9.3. On 16 September 2003, the Seimas ratified the Treaty
Between the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the
Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom
of Spain, the French Republic, Ireland, the Italian Republic
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic
of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland (Member States of the European
Union) and the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the
Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of
Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the
Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak
Republic Concerning the Accession of the Czech Republic, the
Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of
Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the
Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of
Slovenia, the Slovak Republic to the European Union. Under the
said treaty the Republic of Lithuania became a Member State of
the European Union on 1 May 2004.
On 13 July 2004, the Seimas adopted the Law on
Supplementing the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
with the Constitutional Act "On Membership of the Republic of
Lithuania in the European Union" and Supplementing Article 150
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, by Article 1
whereof it supplemented the Constitution with the
Constitutional Act of the Republic of Lithuania "On Membership
of the Republic of Lithuania in the European Union", which is a
constituent part of the Constitution (Article 150 of the
Constitution). The said Constitutional Act came into force on
14 August 2004. Thereby the membership of the Republic of
Lithuania in the European Union was constitutionally confirmed
(Constitutional Court ruling of 13 December 2004).
9.4. Under Paragraph 2 of the Constitutional Act "On
Membership of the Republic of Lithuania in the European Union",
the norms of the European Union law shall be a constituent part
of the legal system of the Republic of Lithuania, and where it
concerns the founding Treaties of the European Union, the norms
of the European Union law shall be applied directly, while in
the event of collision of legal norms, they shall have
supremacy over the laws and other legal acts of the Republic of
Lithuania.
Thus, the Constitution consolidates not only the principle
that in cases when national legal acts establish the legal
regulation which competes with that established in an
international treaty, then the international treaty is to be
applied, but also, in regard of European Union law, establishes
expressis verbis the collision rule, which consolidates the
priority of application of European Union legal acts in the
cases where the provisions of the European Union arising from
the founding Treaties of the European Union compete with the
legal regulation established in Lithuanian national legal acts
(regardless of what their legal power is), save the
Constitution itself.
10. On 23 January 2003, the Seimas adopted the a Law on
Alteration of Article 47 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania, by Article 1 whereof Article 47 (wording of 20 June
1996) of the Constitution was amended.
Article 47 (wording of 23 June 2003) of the Constitution
provides:
"The underground, internal waters, forests, parks, roads,
historical, archaeological and cultural objects of State
importance shall belong by the right of exclusive ownership to
the Republic of Lithuania.
The Republic of Lithuania shall have exclusive rights to
the airspace over its territory, its continental shelf and the
economic zone in the Baltic Sea.
In the Republic of Lithuania foreign entities may acquire
ownership of land, internal waters and forests according to a
constitutional law.
Plots of land may belong to a foreign state by right of
ownership for the establishment of its diplomatic missions and
consular posts according to the procedure and conditions
established by law."
This amendment of the Constitution came into force on 24
February 2003.
Thus, under the Constitution, an obligation occurred to
the Seimas to pass a constitutional law, regulating the
relations specified in Paragraph 3 (wording of 23 January 2003)
of Article 47 of the Constitution.
11. On 20 March 2003, the Seimas adopted the Law on
Amending the Constitutional Law on the Entities, Procedure,
Terms and Conditions and Restrictions of the Acquisition into
Ownership of Land Plots Provided for in Paragraph 2 of Article
47 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, by Article
1 whereof the Constitutional Law (wording of 20 June 1996) was
amended and set forth in a new wording. The title of this
constitutional law was amended as well-it was titled the
Constitutional Law on Implementing Paragraph 3 of Article 47 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter also
referred to as the Constitutional Law (wording of 20 March
2003)).
12. Thus, the Constitutional Law (wording of 20 June 1996)
was replaced by a legal act of the Seimas, which was named not
as "a constitutional law", but as "a law".
It has been mentioned that, under the Constitution,
constitutional laws may be replaced only by constitutional
laws, and that they may not be replaced by ordinary laws.
Alongside, it needs to be noted that the intentions of the
legislator, which were recorded in the travaux préparatoires,
as well as the procedure of alteration of this Constitutional
Law documented in the shorthand records of the Seimas sittings,
confirms the fact that the said legal act of the Seimas was
treated, at the time when it was being drafted, considered and
adopted, as the one which had to replace the Constitutional Law
(wording of 20 June 1996), and as the one which had to be
adopted in observance of the procedure established in Paragraph
3 of Article 69 of the Constitution, thus as a constitutional
law. More than 90 Members of the Seimas voted in favour of this
law, thus more than 3/5 of all Members of the Seimas (as
required in Paragraph 3 of Article 69 of the Constitution).
13. The Law on Amending the Constitutional Law on the
Entities, Procedure, Terms and Conditions and Restrictions of
the Acquisition into Ownership of Land Plots Provided for in
Paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the Constitution came into force
(save the exception provided for therein) on 9 April 2003.
14. Taking account of the fact that Article 47 of the
Constitution was changed so that Paragraph 3 thereof (wording
of 23 January 2003) to great extent regulates other relations
than those that used to be regulated by Paragraph 2 of this
article (wording of 20 June 1996), of the fact that on 9 April
2003 the Law on Amending the Constitutional Law on the
Entities, Procedure, Terms and Conditions and Restrictions of
the Acquisition into Ownership of Land Plots Provided for in
Paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the Constitution came into force,
as well as of the fact that under Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of
the Constitutional Law (wording of 20 June 1996) the said law
had to be in force "until the adoption of the law replacing
this constitutional law", one is to hold that on 9 April 2003
the Constitutional Law on the Entities, Procedure, Terms and
Conditions and Restrictions of the Acquisition into Ownership
of Land Plots Provided for in Paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the
Constitution (wording of 20 June 1996) became no longer valid.
15. If one compares the Constitutional Law of the wording
of 20 March 2003 with the Constitutional Law of the wording of
20 June 1996, it becomes clear that these laws were adopted on
different constitutional grounds and, to great extent, they
regulate different relations, and as regards the same relations
regulated by the Constitutional Law of the wording of 20 March
2003 and by the Constitutional Law of the wording of 20 June
1996, then these relations to great extent are regulated in a
different manner.
Therefore, in this constitutional justice case the legal
regulation established in the Constitutional Law (wording of 20
March 2003) will not be investigated, nor will one investigate
whether the legal acts (parts thereof) disputed in this case
are not in conflict with the Constitutional Law (wording of 20
March 2003).
16. The fact that in this constitutional justice case the
legal regulation established in the Constitutional Law (wording
of 20 March 2003) will not be investigated and that one will
not investigate whether the legal acts (parts thereof) disputed
in this case are not in conflict with the Constitutional Law
(wording of 20 March 2003) does not mean that the legislator
does not have a duty to correct the above-discussed legal
incorrectness-to correct the title of the Law on Amending the
Constitutional Law on the Entities, Procedure, Terms and
Conditions and Restrictions of the Acquisition into Ownership
of Land Plots Provided for in Paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the
Constitution, i.e. to indicate that this legal act is a
constitutional law. This should be done in observance of the
procedure established in Paragraph 3 of Article 69 of the
Constitution.
IV
On the compliance of the provision "The land of
reservations, state parks-reservations <...> shall be state
property" of Paragraph 1 (wording of 4 July 1995) of Article 5
of the Law on Protected Territories and the provision "The land
of reservations <...> shall be exclusive state property" of
Paragraph 1 (wording of 4 December 2001) of Article 31 of the
Law on Protected Territories with Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of
Article 7 of the Constitutional Law on the Entities, Procedure,
Terms and Conditions and Restrictions of the Acquisition into
Ownership of Land Plots Provided for in Paragraph 2 of Article
47 of the Constitution (wording of 20 June 1996).
1. On 9 November 1993, the Seimas adopted the Law on
Protected Territories (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1993,
No. 63-1188) in Paragraph 1 of Article 5 whereof it was
established: "The land of reservations, state
park-reservations, and Curonian Spit National Park shall be
exclusive state property. In other protected territories there
may be both state and private land ownership."
The Law on Protected Territories (save the exception
established in the law) came into force on 24 November 1993.
2. The Law on Protected Territories was amended and
supplemented by the Republic of Lithuania Law "On Amending and
Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania Law on Protected
Territories" (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1995, No.
60-1502), which was adopted by the Seimas on 4 July 1995, by
Article 2 whereof Article 5 of the Law on Protected Territories
(wording of 9 November 1993) was supplemented, however, the
disputed provision of Paragraph 1 of this article remained
unchanged.
The Law on Protected Territories (wording of 9 November
1993 with subsequent amendments and supplements) was also
amended and supplemented by the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Amending Article 4 and Supplementing Article 14 of the Law on
Protected Territories, which was adopted by the Seimas on 27
July 2000, however, the disputed provision of Paragraph 1
(wording of 4 July 1995) of Paragraph 5 of the Law on Protected
Territories was not changed.
3. By Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Amending the Law on Protected Territories (Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 2001, No. 108-3902), which was adopted by the
Seimas on 4 December 2001, the Law on Protected Territories
(wording of 9 November 1993 with subsequent amendments and
supplements) was amended and set forth in a new wording. The
Law on Protected Territories of the new wording came into force
on 28 December 2001.
Paragraph 1 of Article 31 of the Law on Protected
Territories (wording of 4 December 2001) provides: "The land of
reservations and Curonian Spit National Park shall be exclusive
state property. In other protected territories there shall be
state and/or private land ownership."
4. The Law on Protected Territories (wording of 9 November
1993 with subsequent amendments and supplements, wording of 4
December 2001) establishes the purposes of establishment of
protected territories, defines the system of protected
territories, entrenches categories and types of protected
categories, establishes the regimes of protection and use of
the entire system of protected territories and of its
constituent parts, the procedure of establishment, accounting,
protection and possession of protected territories, the rights
and duties of protected territories' land owners, users and
possessors, liability for violations of this law etc.
5. The Law on Protected Territories (wording of 9 November
1993 with subsequent amendments and supplements) consolidated
the following system of protected territories: preserving
(conservation) territories (to which reservations, sanctuaries
and protected objects of the landscape are attributed);
protecting (preservation) territories (to which protection
zones are attributed); territories restoring natural resources
(recuperating territories) (to which protected lots of natural
resources are attributed); protected territories of complex
purpose (integration territories), in which preserving,
protecting, recreational and economic zones are joined (to
which state parks (national and regional parks) and biosphere
monitoring territories (to which biosphere reservations and
biosphere grounds are attributed) are attributed). The Law on
Protected Territories (wording of 4 December 2001) virtually
consolidates the same system of protected territories, however,
some of the names of its constituent parts are specified:
instead of preserving (conservation) territories, which are
mentioned in the Law on Protected Territories (wording of 9
November 1993 with subsequent amendments and supplements)
conservation territories of protection priority are indicated,
instead of protecting (preservation) territories-ecologic
territories of protection priority, instead of territories
restoring natural resources (recuperating
territories)-restoration territories of protection priority,
instead of protected territories of complex purpose
(integration territories)-complex protected territories (one of
the types of complex protected territories, i.e. biosphere
monitoring territories, was named as biosphere observation
(monitoring) territories in the Law on Protected Territories
(wording of 4 December 2001)).
6. In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue, the fact is of importance as to what legal regime of
reservations, sanctuaries, state parks, biosphere monitoring
territories and protected zones is entrenched in the Law on
Protected Territories.
6.1. Under the Law on Protected Territories (wording of 9
November 1993 with subsequent amendments and supplements), the
purpose of reservations is to preserve typical or unique
complexes of the landscape and to preserve their biota
genofund, to arrange permanent scientific research and
observation, to propagate values concerning nature and culture.
Reservation land is state property. The Law on Protected
Territories (wording of 4 December 2001) consolidates that
reservations are established in order to preserve and research
areas of particular value and that reservation land is
exceptional state property. In reservations only the activity
expressis verbis specified in the Law on Protected Territories
is allowed; other activity is prohibited.
6.2. The purpose of sanctuaries is to preserve complexes
of natural and cultural heritage or individual elements
thereof, as well as species of plants and wildlife, to ensure
the diversity of the landscape of Lithuania and its ecological
balance, to be objects of scientific research, and to be
objects of educational recreation (the Law on Protected
Territories (wording of 9 November 1993 with subsequent
amendments and supplements)). The Law on Protected Territories
provides that sanctuaries are established in order to preserve
valuable natural and/or cultural areas. In the territories of
sanctuaries there may be both state and private land, however,
land of state sanctuaries is not subject to sale, besides, it
is not permitted that a land lot, which is in state
sanctuaries, and which is held by right of private ownership be
sold in portions, be rented, mortgaged, given as a present
(save the exception provided for in the law). In the
territories of sanctuaries commercial-economic, construction,
recreational and other activities, which can harm the protected
complexes and objects, are prohibited or limited.
6.3. The purpose of state parks (national and regional
parks) is to preserve the complexes and objects of the
landscape, which are valuable from the standpoint of culture,
to maintain the stability of natural ecosystems, to restore
disturbed natural and cultural complexes and objects, to
develop scientific research in the areas of protection of
natural and cultural heritage as well as in other areas, to
propagate and promote the traditional way of life of regions of
Lithuania, to create conditions for recreation, first of all,
tourism, to promote ecologically reliable economic activity
(the Law on Protected Territories (wording of 9 November 1993
with subsequent amendments and supplements)). The Law on
Protected Territories (wording of 4 December 2001) provides
that state parks are established in areas of particular value.
In the territories of state parks there may be both state and
private land ownership (save the reservations which are in
state parks, the land of which is state property), however, the
land of sanctuaries and recreational zones of state parks is
not subject to privatisation (save the exceptions provided for
in the law), besides, it is not permitted that a land lot,
which is in state parks, and which is held by right of private
ownership, be sold in portions, be rented, mortgaged, given as
a present, save the exception provided for in the law. The
economic activity in state parks is limited by taking account
of the legal regime existing in a concrete zone of the state
park.
6.4. The purpose of biosphere monitoring territories is to
create a representative system of ecology monitoring, to
observe, control, predict changes in natural systems, carry out
experiments and research of biosphere use, develop ecological
education and propaganda, and to guarantee the protection of
natural complexes. In the biosphere monitoring territories
there may be both state and private land ownership (save the
reservations which are in the biosphere monitoring territories,
the land of which is state property). The economic activity in
biosphere monitoring territories is limited by taking account
of the legal regime existing in a concrete zone of the
biosphere monitoring territory (the Law on Protected
Territories (wording of 9 November 1993 with subsequent
amendments and supplements; wording of 4 December 2001)).
6.5. Under the Law on Protected Territories (wording of 9
November 1993 with subsequent amendments and supplements), the
purpose of the protection zones was to isolate the protected
objects and territories from the negative impact of the human
being, to preserve traditional peculiarities of the locality,
the visual environment of the protected objects and complexes,
to diminish the negative impact made by economic objects and
complexes on the human being and nature and to guarantee normal
functioning of these objects as well as to ensure general
ecologic stability of the landscape. The Law on Protected
Territories (wording of 4 December 2001) names these zones as
ecologic protection zones-territories in which limitations on
activities are established in order to protect neighbouring
territories or objects, as well as the environment, from a
possible negative impact of the activities. In these
territories there may be both state and private land ownership.
Economic activity is also subject to limitation in the
protection zones.
7. As mentioned, under Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 7
of the Constitutional Law on the Entities, Procedure, Terms and
Conditions and Restrictions of the Acquisition into Ownership
of Land Plots Provided for in Paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the
Constitution (wording of 20 June 1996), the national and
foreign entities specified in this constitutional law could not
acquire land in state parks, state reservations, sanctuaries,
and protection zones of biosphere monitoring as private
ownership.
8. It needs to be noted that it is impossible to construe
the prohibition to acquire land in state parks, state
reservations, sanctuaries, and protection zones of biosphere
monitoring as private ownership established in Item 2 of
Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Constitutional Law (wording of
20 June 1996), as well as other prohibitions established in
this constitutional law in a way whereby, purportedly, laws
cannot establish prohibitions to acquire different land, which
is in protected territories, as ownership.
9. The provision "The land of reservations, state
parks-reservations <...> shall be state property" of Paragraph
1 (wording of 4 July 1995) of Article 5 of the Law on Protected
Territories (if construed inter alia in the context of another
provision of the same paragraph, i.e. the provision "In other
protected territories there may be both state and private land
ownership") means that this land may not be transferred to
ownership of other entities. By the said prohibition one was
seeking to ensure the protection and endurance of reservations
and state parks-reservations as areas of particular value.
Thus, the provision "The land of reservations, state
parks-reservations <...> shall be state property" of Paragraph
1 (wording of 4 July 1995) of Article 5 of the Law on Protected
Territories was constitutionally grounded.
10. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that the provision "The land of reservations,
state parks-reservations <...> shall be state property" of
Paragraph 1 (wording of 4 July 1995) of Article 5 of the Law on
Protected Territories was not in conflict with Item 2 of
Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Constitutional Law (wording of
20 June 1996).
11. Having held that the provision "The land of
reservations, state parks-reservations <...> shall be state
property" of Paragraph 1 (wording of 4 July 1995) of Article 5
of the Law on Protected Territories was not in conflict with
Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Constitutional Law
(wording of 20 June 1996), on the basis of analogous arguments
one is also to hold that the provision "The land of
reservations <...> shall be exclusive state property" of
Paragraph 1 (wording of 4 December 2001) of Article 31 of the
Law on Protected Territories was not in conflict with Item 2 of
Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Constitutional Law (wording of
20 June 1996).
V
On the compliance of the provision "In the territories of
state parks and state sanctuaries, only the lots of the
premises, of personal smallholdings or gardeners' societies and
the land plots which are between private land lots, which are
suitable for agricultural activities and which are not bigger
than 5 ha, can be sold to private ownership" of Paragraph 6
(wording of 11 December 2001) of Article 8 of the Law on Land
Reform with Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the
Constitutional Law on the Entities, Procedure, Terms and
Conditions and Restrictions of the Acquisition into Ownership
of Land Plots Provided for in Paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the
Constitution (wording of 20 June 1996).
1. On 25 July 1991, the Seimas adopted the Law on Land
Reform, which came into force on 31 August 1991.
The Law on Land Reform (wording of 25 July 1991) has been
amended and/or supplemented more than once.
By Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending
the Law on Land Reform, which was adopted by the Seimas on 2
July 1997, the Law on Land Reform (wording of 25 July 1991) was
amended and set forth in a new wording. The Law on Land Reform
of the new wording came into force on 23 July 1997.
The Law on Land Reform (wording of 2 July 1997) has been
amended and supplemented more than once.
By Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending
and Supplementing Articles 8 and 10 of the Law on Land Reform
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2001, No. 108-3905), which
was adopted by the Seimas on 11 December 2001, Article 8 of the
Law on Land Reform (wording of 2 July 1997 with subsequent
amendments and supplements) was supplemented with following
Paragraph 6:
"In the territories of state parks and state sanctuaries,
only the lots of the premises, of personal smallholdings or
gardeners' societies and the land plots which are between
private land lots, which are suitable for agricultural
activities and which are not bigger than 5 ha, can be sold to
private ownership. The said land plots may be sold to the
owners of adjacent land lots while not observing the succession
specified in this article."
The Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 8 and 10 of
the Law on Land Reform came into force on 28 December 2001.
Later the Law on Land Reform (wording of 2 July 1997 with
subsequent amendments and supplements) has been amended and
supplemented more than once, however, the disputed provision of
Paragraph 6 (wording of 11 December 2001) of Article 8 of this
law has not been amended.
2. As mentioned, under Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 7
of the Constitutional Law on the Entities, Procedure, Terms and
Conditions and Restrictions of the Acquisition into Ownership
of Land Plots Provided for in Paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the
Constitution (wording of 20 June 1996), the national and
foreign entities specified in this constitutional law could not
acquire land in state parks, state reservations, sanctuaries,
and protection zones of biosphere monitoring as private
ownership.
It has been held in this Constitutional Court ruling that
it is impossible to construe the prohibition to acquire land in
state parks, state reservations, sanctuaries, and protection
zones of biosphere monitoring as private ownership established
in Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Constitutional Law
(wording of 20 June 1996), as well as other prohibitions
established in this constitutional law in a way whereby,
purportedly, laws cannot establish prohibitions to acquire
different land, which is in protected territories, as
ownership.
3. The disputed provision of Paragraph 6 (wording of 11
December 2001) of Article 8 of the Law on Land Reform means
that the land specified in this paragraph may not be
transferred to ownership of other entities, save the indicated
exceptions.
By the said prohibition one was seeking to ensure the
protection and endurance of state parks and state sanctuaries
as areas of particular value.
It also needs to be noted that the legislator who, under
Paragraph 2 of Article 128 of the Constitution, enjoys the
powers to establish the procedure for the possession, use and
disposal of state property, also enjoyed the powers to
establish that in the territories of state parks and state
sanctuaries, only the lots of the premises, of personal
smallholdings or gardeners' societies and the land plots which
were between private land lots, which were suitable for
agricultural activities and which were not bigger than 5 ha,
could be sold to private ownership.
Thus, the provision "In the territories of state parks and
state sanctuaries, only the lots of the premises, of personal
smallholdings or gardeners' societies and the land plots which
are between private land lots, which are suitable for
agricultural activities and which are not bigger than 5 ha, can
be sold to private ownership" of Paragraph 6 (wording of 11
December 2001) of Article 8 of the Law on Land Reform is
constitutionally grounded.
4. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that the provision "In the territories of
state parks and state sanctuaries, only the lots of the
premises, of personal smallholdings or gardeners' societies and
the land plots which are between private land lots, which are
suitable for agricultural activities and which are not bigger
than 5 ha, can be sold to private ownership" of Paragraph 6
(wording of 11 December 2001) of Article 8 of the Law on Land
Reform was not in conflict with Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of
Article 7 of the Constitutional Law (wording of 20 June 1996).
VI
On the compliance of Paragraph 4 (wording of 4 July 1995)
of Article 5 and Paragraph 7 (wording of 4 December 2001) of
Article 31 of the Law on Protected Territories with Item 6 of
Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Constitutional Law on the
Entities, Procedure, Terms and Conditions and Restrictions of
the Acquisition into Ownership of Land Plots Provided for in
Paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the Constitution (wording of 20
June 1996).
1. Paragraph 4 (wording of 4 July 1995) of Article 5 of
the Law on Protected Territories used to provide: "The land of
state sanctuaries, state parks-sanctuaries and of recreation
zones, as well as non-agricultural landed property (forests,
shrubbery, waters, swamps, sands, unused land) shall not be
subject to privatisation, save the land which is to be
returned, the lots of the premises, of personal smallholdings
or gardeners' societies, or up to 5 ha plot of forest,
shrubbery, water lots, which are between agricultural landed
property and which are between private land lots."
The disputed provision had not been changed until the
Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending the
Law on Protected Territories on 4 December 2001, by Article 1
whereof the Law on Protected Territories (wording of 9 November
1993 with subsequent amendments and supplements) was amended
and set forth in a new wording.
2. Paragraph 7 (wording of 4 December 2001) of Article 31
of the Law on Protected Territories provides: "The state land
in state sanctuaries, state parks and sanctuaries of biosphere
observation (monitoring), as well as the state land in
recreation zones, forests, waters, shrubbery, swamps, places
abounding in stones and other unused land is not subject to
sale, save the lots of the premises, of personal smallholdings
or gardeners' societies and the land lots which are between
private land lots, which are suitable for agricultural
activities and which are not bigger than 5 ha."
3. As mentioned, under Item 6 of Paragraph 1 of Article 7
of the Constitutional Law (wording of 20 June 1996), the
national and foreign entities specified in this constitutional
law could not acquire land of resorts and communal recreational
territories, individual communal public recreational areas and
objects as ownership.
4. It needs to be noted that it is impossible to construe
the prohibition established in Item 6 of Paragraph 1 of Article
7 of the Constitutional Law (wording of 20 June 1996) to
acquire land of resorts and communal recreational territories,
individual communal public recreational areas and objects as
ownership, as well as other prohibitions established in this
constitutional law, in a way that, purportedly, laws cannot
establish prohibitions to acquire different land, which is in
protected territories, as ownership.
5. The provision of Paragraph 4 (wording of 4 July 1995)
of Article 5 of the Law on Protected Territories means that the
land specified in this paragraph cannot be transferred to
private ownership of other entities, save the specified
exceptions.
By the said prohibition, one was seeking to ensure the
protection and endurance of state sanctuaries and state
parks-sanctuaries and recreation zones as areas of particular
value.
It also needs to be noted that the legislator, who, under
Paragraph 2 of Article 128 of the Constitution enjoys the
powers to establish the procedure for the possession, use and
disposal of state property, also enjoyed the powers to
establish that the land of state sanctuaries, state
parks-sanctuaries and of recreation zones, as well as
non-agricultural landed property (forests, shrubbery, waters,
swamps, sands, unused land) shall not be subject to
privatisation, save the land which is to be returned, the lots
of the premises, of personal smallholdings or gardeners'
societies, or up to 5 ha plot of forest, shrubbery, water lots,
which are between agricultural landed property and which are
between private land lots.
Thus, the legal regulation established in Paragraph 4
(wording of 4 July 1995) of Article 5 of the Law on Protected
Territories was constitutionally grounded.
6. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that Paragraph 4 (wording of 4 July 1995) of
Article 5 of the Law on Protected Territories was not in
conflict with Item 6 of Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the
Constitutional Law (wording of 20 June 1996).
7. Having held that Paragraph 4 (wording of 4 July 1995)
of Article 5 of the Law on Protected Territories was not in
conflict with Item 6 of Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the
Constitutional Law (wording of 20 June 1996), on the grounds of
analogous arguments one is also to hold that Paragraph 7
(wording of 4 December 2001) of Article 31 of the Law on
Protected Territories was not conflict with Item 6 of Paragraph
1 of Article 7 of the Constitutional Law (wording of 20 June
1996), either.
VII
On the compliance of Paragraph 11 (wording of 3 August
2001) of Article 18 of the Law on Land and Paragraph 9 (wording
of 4 December 2001) of Article 31 of the Law on Protected
Territories with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 and Paragraph
1 of Article 29 of the Constitution.
1. On 26 April 1994, the Seimas adopted the Law on Land
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1994, No. 34-620), which
came into force on 1 July 1994.
The Law on Land (wording of 26 April 1994), inter alia its
Article 18, has been amended and/or supplemented more than
once. By Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Supplementing Article 18 of the Law on Land (Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 2001, No. 71-2519), which was adopted by the
Seimas on 3 August 2001, Article 18 (wording of 4 May 2000) of
the Law on Land was supplemented with the following Paragraph
11: "It shall not be permitted to partition, to sell in parts,
to lease, mortgage, give as a present a lot held by right of
ownership in state sanctuaries and state parks, save the cases
where boundaries of adjacent premises of owners are changed."
The Law on Supplementing Article 18 of the Law on Land
came into force on 17 August 2001.
2. By Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Amending the Law on Land, which was adopted by the Seimas on 27
January 2004, the Law on Land (wording of 26 April 1994 with
subsequent amendments and supplements) was amended and set
forth in a new wording. The Law on Land of the new wording came
into force on 21 February 2004. It no longer contained the
provision of Paragraph 11 (wording of 3 August 2001) of Article
18 of the Law on Land.
3. Disputed Paragraph 11 (wording of 3 August 2001) of
Article 18 of the Law on Land used to consolidate a prohibition
to partition the land lots belonging to persons by right of
private ownership, which were in state sanctuaries and state
parks.
It needs to be noted that the fact that in Paragraph 11
(wording of 3 August 2001) of Article 18 of the Law on Land
certain transactions were listed, the conclusion of which was
prohibited, does not mean that one permitted any other
transactions concerning the land lots belonging to persons by
right of private ownership, which were in state sanctuaries and
state parks, which would be related to partition of these lots.
Alongside, it needs to be noted that the disputed
paragraph (wording of 3 August 2001) of Article 18 of the Law
on Land also contained an exception to the absolute prohibition
consolidated therein: conclusion of transactions concerning a
part of land lots, which belonged to persons by right of
private ownership, which was in state sanctuaries and state
parks, and partition of a land lot was permitted to its owner,
in case the boundaries of adjacent premises were being changed.
4. It has been held in this Constitutional Court ruling
that the state, when being under the constitutional obligation
to act so that the protection of the natural environment and
individual objects of nature as well as areas of particular
value, and the rational use, restoration and augmentation of
natural resources are ensured, may also establish, by means of
laws, the legal regulation whereby also such limitations and
prohibitions would be established to the owners of
corresponding objects, which are in areas of particular value,
whereby to a certain extent one interferes with the rights of
ownership of the owners of private land lots. Such limitations
and prohibitions must be proportionate to the constitutionally
grounded objective sought.
5. By the prohibition established in Paragraph 11 (wording
of 3 August 2001) of Article 18 of the Law on Land one was
seeking to ensure that in state sanctuaries and state parks
there would not appear too many small land lots belonging to
different owners, since this fact, especially when one takes
account of the servitudes which one must necessarily establish
in such cases, etc., could create pre-conditions to change the
natural landscape and individual objects existing in
corresponding localities, as well as to impoverish, exhaust or
disturb the natural environment otherwise.
6. While deciding whether Paragraph 11 (wording of 3
August 2001) of Article 18 of the Law on Land was not in
conflict with the Constitution, it also need to be noted that
by the legal regulation established in the said paragraph no
persons were treated differently from others. The prohibition
established in the same paragraph was applied to all persons
who were in the same legal situation-land lots, which were in
state sanctuaries and state parks, i.e. the territories whose
legal regime is essentially different from the legal regime of
other territories, belonged to them by right of private
ownership.
7. It also needs to be noted that Paragraph 11 (wording of
3 August 2001) of Article 18 of the Law on Land did not contain
any provisions prohibiting the owners of corresponding land
lots to conclude transactions concerning the entire land lot
that belonged to them and which was in state sanctuaries and
state parks.
8. Thus, there are not enough legal arguments which would
permit to assert that the prohibition established in Paragraph
11 (wording of 3 August 2001) of Article 18 of the Law on Land
was constitutionally groundless.
9. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that Paragraph 11 (wording of 3 August 2001)
of Article 18 of the Law on Land was not in conflict with
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of Article 29
of the Constitution.
10. Paragraph 9 (wording of 4 December 2001) of Article 31
of the Law on Protected Territories provides: "It shall not be
permitted that a land lot held by right of private ownership in
state sanctuaries and state parks be divided in parts when it
is sold, leased, apportioned, mortgaged, and given as a
present, save the cases where boundaries of adjacent premises
are changed."
11. The legal regulation established in Paragraph 9
(wording of 4 December 2001) of Article 31 of the Law on
Protected Territories is virtually identical to that
established in Paragraph 11 (wording of 3 August 2001) of
Article 18 of the Law on Land.
12. Having held that Paragraph 11 (wording of 3 August
2001) of Article 18 of the Law on Land was not in conflict with
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of Article 29
of the Constitution, on the grounds of analogous arguments one
is also to hold that Paragraph 9 (wording of 4 December 2001)
of Article 31 of the Law on Protected Territories is not in
conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 and Paragraph 1
of Article 29 of the Constitution, either.
13. Alongside, it needs to be noted that after Paragraph
11 (wording of 3 August 2001) of Article 18 of the Law on Land
and Paragraph 9 (wording of 4 December 2001) of Article 31 of
the Law on Protected Territories had established an absolute
prohibition to partition the land lots which belonged to
persons by right of private ownership, which were in state
sanctuaries and state parks, and to conclude corresponding
transactions (save the established exception), one disregarded
the fact that state sanctuaries and state parks, as well as
lots, which are in state sanctuaries and state parks, are of
different sizes, that land and other objects of nature, which
are in state sanctuaries and state parks, may be of different
value and, correspondingly, different legal regimes may be
established in their regard. By such legal regulation
preconditions were created also for such situations, where it
is impossible to partition the lots which belong to persons by
right of private ownership, which are in state sanctuaries and
state parks, even though these lots are very big, thus the
prohibitions to partition land lots may be disproportionate.
Such legal regulation is not without faults and it is to be
corrected.
VIII
On the compliance of Paragraph 10 (wording of 26 April
1994) of Article 18 of the Law on Land with Paragraphs 1 and 2
of Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the
Constitution.
1. Paragraph 10 (wording of 26 April 1994) of Article 18
of the Law on Land used to provide: "A private land lot may be
partitioned into two or more lots, which are provided for
residential, public and economic-commercial construction only
if this construction is established in territorial planning
documents and if the established size of the lot and
construction density as well as character are observed."
2. By Article 1 of the Law on Amending the Law on Land,
which was adopted by the Seimas on 27 January 2004, the Law on
Land (wording of 26 April 1994 with subsequent amendments and
supplements) was changed and set forth in a new wording. It no
longer contained the provision of Paragraph 10 (wording of 26
April 1994) of Article 18 of the Law on Land.
3. Paragraph 10 (wording of 26 April 1994) of Article 18
of the Law on Land established the conditions under which a
private land lot is permitted to be partitioned into two or
more such lots, which are provided for residential, public and
economic-commercial construction: (1) such construction must be
established in territorial planning documents; (2) the
established size of the lot must be observed; and (3) the
construction density as well as character must be observed.
Thus, if one failed to observe at least one of these
conditions, it was not permitted to partition a private land
lot into two or more lots provided for residential, public and
economic-commercial construction.
It needs to be noted that the provisions of laws and other
legal acts designed for territorial planning documents, sizes
of lots and establishment of construction density and character
in these lots are not a matter of investigation in this
constitutional justice case at issue.
4. While deciding whether Paragraph 10 (wording of 26
April 1994) of Article 18 of the Law on Land was not in
conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 and Paragraph 1
of Article 29 of the Constitution, it needs to be noted that
neither Article 23 of the Constitution, nor Article 29 thereof,
nor in other part of the Constitution contains provisions,
which would permit to assert that land could be used for
residential, public and economic-commercial construction
without any technical requirements, those of security of
buildings and their rational arrangement, and without
territorial urban planning.
By such legal regulation the rights of ownership of owners
of corresponding land lots are not disproportionately
restricted, nor is the constitutional principle of equal rights
of persons violated. Therefore, there are not any legal
arguments to assert that the provision of Paragraph 10 (wording
of 26 April 1994) of Article 18 of the Law on Land requiring
that land lots be not partitioned in the absence of territorial
planning documents and without observing the established size
of the lot as well as the density and character of building was
in conflict with Articles 23 and 29 or any other articles or
principles of the Constitution.
5. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that Paragraph 10 (wording of 26 April 1994)
of Article 18 of the Law on Land was not in conflict with
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of Article 29
of the Constitution.
IX
On the compliance of Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 April
2001) of Article 4 of the Forestry Law with Paragraphs 1 and 2
of Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the
Constitution.
1. On 22 November 1994, the Seimas adopted the Forestry
Law (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1994, No. 96-1872),
which came into force on 1 January 1995.
The Forestry Law (wording of 22 November 1994) has been
amended and/or supplemented more than once.
By Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending
the Forestry Law (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2001, No.
35-1161), which was adopted by the Seimas on 10 April 2001, the
Forestry Law (wording of 22 November 1994 with subsequent
amendments and supplements) was amended and set forth in a new
wording. The Forestry Law of the new wording came into force on
1 July 2001.
2. Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 April 2001) of Article 4 of
the Forestry Law provides: "Private forest estates shall not be
divided in parts if the estate is or becomes smaller than 5
hectares."
3. It has been mentioned that forests are special objects
of property law, that one may legislatively establish a
special, exceptional legal regime in regard of forests if
compared with other objects. In its ruling of 1 June 1998, the
Constitutional Court held that a special ecologic, social and
economic significance of the forest to the environment
determines certain limitations and restrictions of the right of
ownership of the owners of the forest. Such limitations and
restrictions must be proportionate to the constitutionally
grounded objective.
4. By the prohibition established in Paragraph 3 (wording
of 10 April 2001) of Article 4 of the Forestry Law, if the
estate is or becomes smaller than 5 hectares, one is seeking to
ensure that in forests there would not appear many small forest
lots, who belong to different owners, since in this way,
especially when one takes account of the servitudes which one
must necessarily establish in such cases, of technical
requirements of forest management and arrangement of forestry
activities (inter alia separation of forest estates),
preconditions might be created to change the natural landscape
and individual objects existing in the forest, as well as to
impoverish and exhaust the forest and the natural environment.
5. In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue, it needs to be noted that the legislator, when seeking
to ensure the protection of forests and not to diminish their
value, can establish minimum sizes of forest estates.
6. One is to hold that there are not enough legal
arguments which would permit to assert that the size of the
forest estate established in Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 April
2001) of Article 4 of the Forestry Law is groundless and that
its different size should be established.
7. While deciding whether Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 April
2001) of Article 4 of the Forestry Law is not in conflict with
the Constitution, it also needs to note that, under the legal
regulation established in the said paragraph, no persons are
treated differently than other ones. The prohibition
consolidated in this paragraph is applied to all persons who
are in the same legal situation, i.e. forest lots, whose legal
regime is essentially different from the legal regimes of other
territories, belong to all of them by right of private
ownership.
8. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 April 2001)
of Article 4 of the Forestry Law is not in conflict with
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of Article 29
of the Constitution.
X
On the compliance of Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 April
2001) of Article 8 of the Forestry Law to the extent that it
provides that trips to forests and use of forest resources in
protected territories are inter alia regulated by the
regulations of protected territories approved by the Government
or the Ministry of Environment authorised by it with Paragraphs
1 and 2 of Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the
Constitution.
1. Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 April 2001) of Article 8 of
the Forestry Law provides: "Trips to forests and use of forest
resources in protected territories shall be regulated by the
Law on Protected Territories and the regulations of protected
territories approved by the Government or the Ministry of
Environment authorised by it."
2. Under Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 April 2001) of Article
8 of the Forestry Law, the Seimas has a duty to regulate trips
to forests and use of forest resources in protected territories
by means of the Law on Protected Territories. This does not
mean that all relations linked with trips to forests and use of
forest resources in protected territories must be regulated
only by the Law on Protected Territories. Such relations may be
regulated by inter alia substatutory acts, which are passed by
corresponding state institutions (officials) according to their
competence.
3. Under Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 April 2001) of Article
8 of the Forestry Law, the regulations of protected territories
which regulate trips to forests and use of forest resources in
protected territories may be approved either by the Government
or the Ministry of Environment authorised by it.
Taking account of Paragraph 1 of Article 98 of the
Constitution, under which a Minister shall head his respective
ministry, shall resolve issues belonging to the competence of
the ministry, and shall also discharge other functions provided
for by laws, one is to hold that the regulations of protected
territories mentioned in Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 April 2001)
of Article 8 of the Forestry Law are approved, upon
authorisation of the Government, by the Minister of
Environment.
4. It is impossible to construe Paragraph 3 (wording of 10
April 2001) of Article 8 of the Forestry Law, which provides
that trips to forests and use of forest resources in protected
territories are inter alia regulated by the regulations of
protected territories approved by the Government or the
Ministry of Environment authorised by it, as one granting the
right to the Government or the Ministry of Environment to
establish, by means of the regulations of protected
territories, such legal regulation which would compete with the
legal regulation established in the law, or which would not be
grounded on the law.
It needs to be underlined that Paragraph 3 (wording of 10
April 2001) of Article 8 of the Forestry Law does not contain
any provisions which would limit and restrict the rights of
ownership of anyone, and which would treat any persons as
enjoying not equal rights.
5. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 April 2001) of Article
8 of the Forestry Law to the extent that it provides that trips
to forests and use of forest resources in protected territories
are inter alia regulated by the regulations of protected
territories approved by the Government or the Ministry of
Environment authorised by it is not in conflict with Paragraphs
1 and 2 of Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the
Constitution.
XI
On the compliance of the provision "In natural and complex
reservations, it shall be prohibited: <...> (8) to construct
buildings, which are not related with the reservation
establishment objectives, save buildings in the existing and in
former homesteads (when there are remnants of former erections
and/or gardens, or when the homesteads are marked in the maps
of the locality or in other maps, as well as when the legal
fact is established), as well as the places established in
reservations maintenance plans or projects and in documents of
general planning, to construct buildings or increase their size
on the slopes whose grade is bigger than 15 degrees, as well as
closer than 50 metres from the bottom or top edge of the slope"
of Paragraph 2 (wording of 4 December 2001) of Article 9 of the
Law on Protected Territories, the provision "In state parks it
shall be prohibited: <...> (5) to construct new residential
houses, the outhouse and other buildings of the farmer or to
increase their size on the slopes whose grade is bigger than 15
degrees, as well as closer than 50 metres from the bottom or
top edge of the slope, to construct erections, which decrease
the aesthetical value of the landscape, <...>" of Paragraph 2
(wording of 4 December 2001) of Article 13 of the same law, the
provision "In the protection zones of surface water bodies it
shall be prohibited: <...> (4) to change the existing line of
building by reconstruction or rebuilding erections in the
existing and in former homesteads (when there are remnants of
former erections and/or gardens, or when the homesteads are
marked in the maps of the locality or in other maps, as well as
when the legal fact is established) save the cases established
in territorial planning documents" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 4
December 2001) and Paragraph 6 of Article 20 of the same law
with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of
Article 29 of the Constitution.
1. Under Item 8 (wording of 4 December 2001) of Paragraph
2 of Article 9 of the Law on Protected Territories, in natural
and complex reservations, it shall be prohibited "to construct
buildings, which are not related with the reservation
establishment objectives, save buildings in the existing and in
former homesteads (when there are remnants of former erections
and/or gardens, or when the homesteads are marked in the maps
of the locality or in other maps, as well as when the legal
fact is established), as well as the places established in
reservations maintenance plans or projects and in documents of
general planning, to construct buildings or increase their size
on the slopes whose grade is bigger than 15 degrees, as well as
closer than 50 metres from the bottom or top edge of the
slope".
Under Item 5 (wording of 4 December 2001) of Paragraph 2
of Article 13 of the Law on Protected Territories, in state
parks the activity which can harm the protected complexes and
objects (valuable objects) as well as resources or recreation
shall be subject to limitation or shall be prohibited. In state
parks it shall be prohibited "to construct new residential
houses, the outhouse and other buildings of the farmer or to
increase their size on the slopes whose grade is bigger than 15
degrees, as well as closer than 50 metres from the bottom or
top edge of the slope, to construct erections, which decrease
the aesthetical value of the landscape, and to plant plants
blocking the panoramas which are of historical, cultural and
aesthetical value".
Under Item 4 (wording of 4 December 2001) of Paragraph 3
of Article 20 of the Law on Protected Territories, in the
protection zones of surface water bodies it shall be prohibited
"to change the existing line of building by reconstruction or
rebuilding erections in the existing and in former homesteads
(when there are remnants of former erections and/or gardens, or
when the homesteads are marked in the maps of the locality or
in other maps, as well as when the legal fact is established)
save the cases established in territorial planning documents".
Paragraph 6 (wording of 4 December 2001) of Article 20 of
the Law on Protected Territories provides: "The construction of
only one bathhouse of personal use without a cellar, which is
not bigger than 25 sq. m in general area together with
appurtenances and whose height is not bigger than 4 m (the
height shall be calculated from the average land surface area
of the homestead upon which the construction is built) shall be
permitted in each of the existing homesteads beyond the coastal
protection strip and only in the places provided for in
territorial planning documents. The sizes of other
constructions shall be established in protection regulations."
2. The provision "In natural and complex reservations, it
shall be prohibited: <...> (8) to construct buildings, which
are not related with the reservation establishment objectives,
save buildings in the existing and in former homesteads (when
there are remnants of former erections and/or gardens, or when
the homesteads are marked in the maps of the locality or in
other maps, as well as when the legal fact is established), as
well as the places established in reservations maintenance
plans or projects and in documents of general planning, to
construct buildings or increase their size on the slopes whose
grade is bigger than 15 degrees, as well as closer than 50
metres from the bottom or top edge of the slope" of Paragraph 2
(wording of 4 December 2001) of Article 9 of the Law on
Protected Territories, the provision "In state parks it shall
be prohibited: <...> (5) to construct new residential houses,
the outhouse and other buildings of the farmer or to increase
their size on the slopes whose grade is bigger than 15 degrees,
as well as closer than 50 metres from the bottom or top edge of
the slope, to construct erections, which decrease the
aesthetical value of the landscape, <...>" of Paragraph 2
(wording of 4 December 2001) of Article 13 of the same law, the
provision "In the protection zones of surface water bodies it
shall be prohibited: <...> (4) to change the existing line of
building by reconstruction or rebuilding erections in the
existing and in former homesteads (when there are remnants of
former erections and/or gardens, or when the homesteads are
marked in the maps of the locality or in other maps, as well as
when the legal fact is established) save the cases established
in territorial planning documents" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 4
December 2001) and provisions of Paragraph 6 (wording of 4
December 2001) of Article 20 of the same law have not been
amended or supplemented.
3. As held in this Constitutional Court ruling: the
variety of areas of special value can determine the
peculiarities of their legal regime, the ways of protection of
the objects which are in such areas, as well as the conditions,
limitations and prohibitions of the activity in such areas;
such limitations and prohibitions may be applied to inter alia
the economic activity and construction in these areas, as well
as to some other activity, due to which the landscape,
individual objects which are in corresponding areas can be
changed, etc.; the said limitations and prohibitions by which
one seeks to ensure the protection of areas of particular
value-the public interest-may and must be established in regard
of all owners and users of such objects; also such limitations
and prohibitions may be established whereby one to certain
extent interferes with the rights of ownership of all owners,
including those of private land plots, forests, parks and water
bodies. It has also been held that all said limitations and
prohibitions must be constitutionally grounded, they must not
restrict the rights of the owners and other persons more than
it is necessary to achieve the universally important
objectives.
4. One is to hold that by the limitations and prohibitions
established in Item 8 (wording of 4 December 2001) of Paragraph
2 of Article 9, Item 5 (wording of 4 December 2001) of
Paragraph 2 of Article 13, Item 4 (wording of 4 December 2001)
of Paragraph 3 and Paragraph 6 of Article 20 of the Law on
Protected Territories it was sought to ensure that one not
build any erections, which change the aesthetical value of the
landscape, which diminish the value of the objects existing in
corresponding localities, or any erections whose building and
exploitation might create pre-conditions to contaminate the
natural environment or inflict harm upon nature otherwise
and/or any erections, whose building and exploitation might
pose threat for people's security, health, etc.
5. As mentioned, the state, when being under the
constitutional obligation to act so that the protection of the
natural environment and individual objects of nature as well as
areas of particular value, and the rational use, restoration
and augmentation of natural resources are ensured, may also
establish, by means of laws, the legal regulation whereby also
such limitations and prohibitions would be established to the
owners of corresponding objects, which are in areas of
particular value, whereby to a certain extent one interferes
with the rights of ownership of the owners of private land
lots. It has also been mentioned that such limitations and
prohibitions must be proportionate to the constitutionally
grounded objective sought.
6. One is to hold that there are not enough legal
arguments, which would permit to assert that the limitations
and prohibitions established in Item 8 (wording of 4 December
2001) of Paragraph 2 of Article 9, Item 5 (wording of 4
December 2001) of Paragraph 2 of Article 13, Item 4 (wording of
4 December 2001) of Paragraph 3 and Paragraph 6 of Article 20
of the Law on Protected Territories are disproportionate to the
constitutionally grounded objective sought and that the rights
of ownership of the owners are restricted more than is
permitted by the Constitution.
7. One is also to note that Item 8 (wording of 4 December
2001) of Paragraph 2 of Article 9, Item 5 (wording of 4
December 2001) of Paragraph 2 of Article 13, Item 4 (wording of
4 December 2001) of Paragraph 3 and Paragraph 6 of Article 20
of the Law on Protected Territories do not contain any
provisions which would permit to treat persons as enjoying not
equal rights.
8. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that provision "In natural and complex reservations,
it shall be prohibited: <...> (8) to construct buildings, which
are not related with the reservation establishment objectives,
save buildings in the existing and in former homesteads (when
there are remnants of former erections and/or gardens, or when
the homesteads are marked in the maps of the locality or in
other maps, as well as when the legal fact is established), as
well as the places established in reservations maintenance
plans or projects and in documents of general planning, to
construct buildings or increase their size on the slopes whose
grade is bigger than 15 degrees, as well as closer than 50
metres from the bottom or top edge of the slope" of Paragraph 2
(wording of 4 December 2001) of Article 9 of the Law on
Protected Territories, the provision "In state parks it shall
be prohibited: <...> (5) to construct new residential houses,
the outhouse and other buildings of the farmer or to increase
their size on the slopes whose grade is bigger than 15 degrees,
as well as closer than 50 metres from the bottom or top edge of
the slope, to construct erections, which decrease the
aesthetical value of the landscape, <...>" of Paragraph 2
(wording of 4 December 2001) of Article 13 of the same law, the
provision "In the protection zones of surface water bodies it
shall be prohibited: <...> (4) to change the existing line of
building by reconstruction or rebuilding erections in the
existing and in former homesteads (when there are remnants of
former erections and/or gardens, or when the homesteads are
marked in the maps of the locality or in other maps, as well as
when the legal fact is established) save the cases established
in territorial planning documents" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 4
December 2001) and provisions of Paragraph 6 (wording of 4
December 2001) of Article 20 of the same law are not in
conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 and Paragraph 1
of Article 29 of the Constitution.
XII
On the compliance of the provision "The construction of
buildings in the forestry land is permitted <...>, when such
buildings are needed for forestry activities" of Item 2 of the
Regulation for Construction on Private Land approved by
Government Resolution No. 1608 "On Approving the Regulation for
Construction on Private Land" of 22 December 1995 with
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of Article 29
of the Constitution.
1. By its Regulation for Construction on Private Land
approved by Government Resolution No. 1608 "On Approving the
Regulation for Construction on Private Land" of 22 December
1995 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1995, No. 106-2379),
the Government approved the Regulation for Construction on
Private Land. It came into force on 30 December 1995.
2. Item 2 of the Regulation provides: "The construction of
buildings in the forestry land is permitted to the owners of
these forests according to the prepared detailed plans, when
such buildings are needed for forestry activities."
3. It has been mentioned that forests are special objects
of property, that by means of the law a special, exceptional
legal regime may be established in regard of forests, that a
special ecologic, social and economic significance of the
forest to the environment determines certain limitations and
restrictions of the rights of ownership, and that such
limitations and restrictions must be proportionate to the
constitutionally grounded objective sought.
4. When deciding on the compliance of the provision "The
construction of buildings in the forestry land is permitted
<...>, when such buildings are needed for forestry activities"
of Item 2 of the Regulation with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article
23 and Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, one must
investigate into the relation of the legal regulation
established in Item 2 of et Regulation with the legal
regulation established in the laws regulating construction in
forestry land.
5. The relations of construction in forestry land are
regulated by inter alia the Forestry Law and the Law on Land.
It needs to be noted that in the aspect under
investigation the fact that the notions "forest land" and
"forestry land" do not completely coincide is not of
importance, since the said differences are not essential ones.
6. Under Paragraph 1 (wording of 22 November 1994) of
Article 3 of the Forestry Law, inter alia timber storage points
and other land plots occupied by the equipment related with the
forest are ascribed to forest land.
The Forestry Law, inter alia Article 3 (wording of 22
November 1994) thereof has been amended and/or supplemented
more than once, however, the said provision has not been
amended neither after the Seimas adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Amending the Forestry Law on 10 April 2001, by
Article 1 whereof the Forestry Law was amended and set forth in
a new wording, nor after the Forestry Law was set forth in a
new wording, however such provision is consolidated in
Paragraph 3 of Article 2 of the Forestry Law (wording of 10
April 2001) (by replacing the word "equipment" with the word
"facilities").
Later, the Forestry Law (wording of 10 April 2001), inter
alia Article 2 thereof, has been amended and supplemented more
than once, however, the provision that inter alia timber
storage points and other land plots occupied by the equipment
related with the forest are ascribed to forest land has not
been amended.
It needs to be noted that the Forestry Law did not nor
does it contain any provisions which would define what
erections (inter alia buildings) may be placed on forest
(forestry) land.
After one compares the provision "The construction of
buildings in the forestry land is permitted <...>, when such
buildings are needed for forestry activities" of Item 2 of the
Regulation with Paragraph 1 of Article 3 (wording of 22
November 1994 with subsequent amendments and supplements) and
Paragraph 3 of Article 2 (wording of 10 April 2001 with
subsequent amendments and supplements) of the Forestry Law, it
becomes clear that under the Forestry Law construction of
timber storage points and other equipment (facilities) related
with the forest was permitted, while, under the Regulation, in
forestry land, construction of buildings which were needed for
forestry activity was permitted. It is obvious that the notion
"buildings" employed in Item 2 of the Regulation is broader
than the notion "timber storage points and other equipment
(facilities) related with the forest" employed in the Forestry
Law. Thus, Item 2 of the Regulation allows to construct also
such buildings in forestry land, whose construction is not
permitted by the Forestry Law.
It needs to be held that the provision "The construction
of buildings in the forestry land is permitted <...>, when such
buildings are needed for forestry activities" of Item 2 of the
Regulation competes with the legal regulation established in
Paragraph 1 of Article 3 (wording of 22 November 1994 with
subsequent amendments and supplements) and Paragraph 3 of
Article 2 (wording of 10 April 2001 with subsequent amendments
and supplements) of the Forestry Law.
7. Under Item 3 (wording of 26 April 1994) of Paragraph 1
of Article 40 of the Law on Land, land for forestry purposes
inter alia comprised land occupied by timber storage points and
other constructions and facilities used for forestry needs.
The Law on Land, inter alia Article 40 (wording of 26
April 1994) thereof, was amended and/or supplemented more than
once, however, the said provision had not been amended until
the Seimas adopted the Law on Amending the Law on Land on 27
January 2004, by Article 1 whereof the Law on Land was set
forth in a new wording. The Law on Land of the new wording came
into force on 21 February 2004.
Under Item 3 (wording of 27 January 2004) of Paragraph 1
of Article 26 of the Law on Land, land plots occupied by timber
storage points and other constructions and facilities related
to the forest were attributed to land for forestry purposes.
The Law on Land (wording of 27 January 2004) was amended
and/or supplemented more than once, however, the aforementioned
provision has not been amended.
It needs to be noted that the Law on Land did not, nor
does it contain any other provisions which would define which
constructions (inter alia buildings) could be on forest land
(land for forestry purposes).
When one compares the provision "The construction of
buildings in the forestry land is permitted <...>, when such
buildings are needed for forestry activities" of Item 2 of the
Regulation with Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 40 (wording of
26 April 1994) and Item 3 (wording of 27 January 2004) of
Paragraph 1 and Article 26 of the Law on Land, it is becomes
clear that:
- Item 2 of the Regulation did not permit to construct
also such buildings on forestry land, whose construction was
not permitted by the Law on Land (wording of 26 April 1994 with
subsequent amendments and supplements);
- under Item 2 of the Regulation, construction of also
such buildings is permitted on forestry land, whose
construction is not permitted under the Law on Law (wording of
27 January 2004 with subsequent amendments and supplements) and
under Item 3 (wording of 27 January 2004) of Paragraph 1 and
Article 26 thereof in particular, since the notion "buildings"
of Item 2 of the Regulation is broader than the notion "timber
storage points and other land plots occupied by facilities
related with the forest".
It needs to be noted that the provision "The construction
of buildings in the forestry land is permitted <...>, when such
buildings are needed for forestry activities" of Item 2 of the
Regulation competes with the legal regulation established in
Item 3 (wording of 27 January 2004) of Paragraph 1 of Article
26 of the Law on Land.
8. One is to hold that there are not enough legal
arguments permitting to assert that the above discussed
limitations established in the Forestry Law and the Law on
Land, especially when one takes account of the character of
forests as special objects of ownership, of their special
ecologic, social and economic significance to the environment
are disproportionate to the constitutionally grounded objective
sought and that the rights of ownership of the owners are
restricted more than permitted by the Constitution.
9. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
hold that the provision "The construction of buildings in the
forestry land is permitted <...>, when such buildings are
needed for forestry activities" of Item 2 of the Regulation to
the extent that it permits construction of not only timber
storage points and facilities related with the forest, but also
other buildings is in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 2
(wording of 10 April 2001 with subsequent amendments and
supplements) of the Forestry Law and Item 3 (wording of 27
January 2004 with subsequent amendments and supplements) of
Paragraph 1 of Article 26 of the Law on Land.
10. It has been mentioned that when the relations linked
with the ownership and use of land, forests, parks, water
bodies, including those which are in area of particular value,
are regulated by means of legal acts, one must pay heed to the
norms and principles of the Constitution, inter alia the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, also
that the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of
law implies the hierarchy of all legal acts and that it does
not permit to regulate those relations by means of substatutory
legal acts, which may be regulated by means of laws only, nor
does it permit to establish any such legal regulation which
would compete with that established in the law and which would
not be grounded on laws.
The Constitutional Court has held that Items 2 and 7 of
Article 94 of the Constitution, establishing that the
Government shall implement laws and that it shall discharge
other duties prescribed to it by the Constitution and other
laws, are to be interpreted as the ones establishing a duty to
the Government to supplement its previously adopted acts so
that they become in conformity with subsequently adopted laws
or to repeal its previously adopted acts in case the legal
norms established therein are in conflict with those of the law
(Constitutional Court rulings of 15 May 2001 and 13 May 2005).
11. Having held that the provision "The construction of
buildings in the forestry land is permitted <...>, when such
buildings are needed for forestry activities" of Item 2 of the
Regulation to the extent that it permits construction of not
only timber storage points and facilities related with the
forest, but also other buildings is in conflict with Paragraph
3 of Article 2 (wording of 10 April 2001 with subsequent
amendments and supplements) of the Forestry Law and Item 3
(wording of 27 January 2004 with subsequent amendments and
supplements) of Paragraph 1 of Article 26 of the Law on Land,
one is also to hold that the provision "The construction of
buildings in the forestry land is permitted <...>, when such
buildings are needed for forestry activities" of Item 2 of the
Regulation to the same extent is also in conflict with Items 2
and 7 of Article 94 of the Constitution and the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law.
12. Having held that the provision "The construction of
buildings in the forestry land is permitted <...>, when such
buildings are needed for forestry activities" of Item 2 of the
Regulation to the extent that it permits construction of not
only timber storage points and facilities related with the
forest, but also other buildings is in conflict with Items 2
and 7 of Article 94 of the Constitution, in the constitutional
justice case at issue the Constitutional Court will not
investigate whether the disputed provision of Item 2 of the
Regulation is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of
Article 23 and Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution.
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 recognize that the provision "In natural and complex
reservations, it shall be prohibited: <...> (8) to construct
erections, which are not related with the reservation
establishment objectives, save buildings in the existing and in
former homesteads (when there are remnants of former erections
and/or gardens, or when the homesteads are marked in the maps
of the locality or in other maps, as well as when the legal
fact is established), as well as the places established in
reservations maintenance plans or projects and in documents of
general planning, to construct buildings or increase their size
on the slopes whose grade is bigger than 15 degrees, as well as
closer than 50 metres from the bottom or top edge of the slope"
of Paragraph 2 (wording of 4 December 2001; Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 2001, No. 108-3902) of Article 9 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Protected Territories, the
provision "In state parks it shall be prohibited: <...> (5) to
construct new residential houses, the outhouse and other
buildings of the farmer or to increase their size on the slopes
whose grade is bigger than 15 degrees, as well as closer than
50 metres from the bottom or top edge of the slope, to
construct erections, which decrease the aesthetical value of
the landscape, <...>" of Paragraph 2 (wording of 4 December
2001; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2001, No. 108-3902) of
Article 13 of the same law, the provision "In the protection
zones of surface water bodies it shall be prohibited: <...> (4)
to change the existing line of building by reconstruction or
rebuilding erections in the existing and in former homesteads
(when there are remnants of former erections and/or gardens, or
when the homesteads are marked in the maps of the locality or
in other maps, as well as when the legal fact is established)
save the cases established in territorial planning documents"
of Paragraph 3 (wording of 4 December 2001; Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 2001, No. 108-3902) and Paragraph 6 (wording
of 4 December 2001; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2001,
No. 108-3902) of Article 20 as well as Paragraph 9 (wording of
4 December 2001; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2001, No.
108-3902) of Article 31 of the same law, are not in conflict
with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
2. To recognise that Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 April
2001; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2001, No. 35-1161) of
Article 4 and Paragraph 3 (wording of 10 April 2001; Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2001, No. 35-1161) of Article 8 of
the Republic of Lithuania Forestry Law to the extent that it
provides that trips to forests and use of forest resources in
protected territories are inter alia regulated by the
regulations of protected territories approved by the Government
or the Ministry of Environment are not in conflict with of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
3. To recognise that Paragraph 10 (wording of 26 April
1994; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1994, No. 34-620) and
Paragraph 11 (wording of 3 August 2001; Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 2001, No. 71-2519) of Article 18 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Land were not in conflict with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
4. To recognise that "The land of reservations, state
parks-reservations <...> shall be state property" of Paragraph
1 (wording of 4 July 1995; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios,
1995, No. 60-1502) of Article 5 of the Republic of Lithuania
Law on Protected Territories and the provision "The land of
reservations <...> shall be exclusive state property" of
Paragraph 1 (wording of 4 December 2001; Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 2001, No. 108-3902) of Article 31 of the same
law were not in conflict with Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article
7 of the Constitutional Law on the Entities, Procedure, Terms
and Conditions and Restrictions of the Acquisition into
Ownership of Land Plots Provided for in Paragraph 2 of Article
47 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of
20 June 1996).
5. To recognise that Paragraph 4 (wording of 4 July 1995;
Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1995, No. 60-1502) of
Article 5 and Paragraph 7 (wording of 4 December 2001; Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2001, No. 108-3902) of the Republic
of Lithuania Law on Protected Territories were not in conflict
with Item 6 of Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Constitutional
Law on the Entities, Procedure, Terms and Conditions and
Restrictions of the Acquisition into Ownership of Land Plots
Provided for in Paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 20 June 1996).
6. To recognise that the provision "In the territories of
state parks and state sanctuaries, only the lots of the
premises, of personal smallholdings or gardeners' societies and
the land plots which are between private land lots, which are
suitable for agricultural activities and which are not bigger
than 5 ha, can be sold to private ownership" of Paragraph 6
(wording of 11 December 2001; Official Gazette Valstybės
žinios, 2001, No. 108-3905) of Article 8 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Land Reform was not in conflict with Item 2 of
Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Constitutional Law on the
Entities, Procedure, Terms and Conditions and Restrictions of
the Acquisition into Ownership of Land Plots Provided for in
Paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania (wording of 20 June 1996).
7. To recognise that the provision "The construction of
buildings in the forestry land is permitted <...>, when such
buildings are needed for forestry activities" of Item 2 of the
Regulation for Construction on Private Land approved by
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 1608 "On
Approving the Regulation for Construction on Private Land" of
22 December 1995 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1995, No.
106-2379) to the extent that it permits construction of not
only timber storage points and facilities related with the
forest, but also other buildings is in conflict with Items 2
and 7 of Article 94 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the
rule of law as well as with Paragraph 3 of Article 2 (wording
of 10 April 2001 with subsequent amendments and supplements) of
the Republic of Lithuania Forestry Law and Item 3 (wording of
27 January 2004 with subsequent amendments and supplements) of
Paragraph 1 of Article 26 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Land.
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