Lietuviškai
Case No. 28/03-28/04
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
RULING
ON THE COMPLIANCE OF PARAGRAPH 4 (WORDINGS OF 10 DECEMBER
2002 AND 8 JUNE 2004) OF ARTICLE 3, PARAGRAPH 4 (WORDING OF 10
DECEMBER 2002) OF ARTICLE 5, ARTICLE 7 (WORDING OF 10 DECEMBER
2002), ARTICLE 8 (WORDING OF 10 DECEMBER 2002), ARTICLE 9
(WORDING OF 10 DECEMBER 2002), AND ARTICLE 11 (WORDING OF 10
DECEMBER 2002) OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF MUNICIPALITIES, PARAGRAPH 2 OF
ARTICLE 2 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON AMENDING THE LAW
ON ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF MUNICIPALITIES (WORDING OF 10
DECEMBER 2002), PARAGRAPH 1 (WORDING OF 10 DECEMBER 2002) OF
ARTICLE 44, PARAGRAPH 12 (WORDING OF 21 NOVEMBER 2000) OF
ARTICLE 62 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON THE STATE
SERVICE, GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA RESOLUTION NO.
1525 "ON DISMISSING THE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE
MARIJAMPOLĖ COUNTY" OF 3 DECEMBER 2003, GOVERNMENT OF THE
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA RESOLUTION NO. 1526 "ON DISMISSING THE
GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PANEVĖŽYS COUNTY" OF 3
DECEMBER 2003, GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
RESOLUTION NO. 1527 "ON DISMISSING THE GOVERNMENT
REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ŠIAULIAI COUNTY" OF 3 DECEMBER 2003,
ITEM 1 OF GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA RESOLUTION
NO. 1528 "ON DISMISSING THE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE
TELŠIAI COUNTY" OF 3 DECEMBER 2003, GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC
OF LITHUANIA RESOLUTION NO. 1529 "ON DISMISSING THE GOVERNMENT
REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE VILNIUS COUNTY" OF 3 DECEMBER 2003, AND
ITEM 1 OF GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA RESOLUTION
NO. 1578 "ON DISMISSING THE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE
ŠIAULIAI COUNTY" OF 10 DECEMBER 2003 WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
14 April 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 Vidmondas Vėgelis, an
advisor of the Legal Department of the Office of the Seimas of
the Republic of Lithuania, and Pranas Žukauskas, a senior
advisor of the Legal Department of the Office of the Seimas of
the Republic of Lithuania,
the representative of the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania, the party concerned, who was Nerijus Rudaitis,
Deputy Director of the Legal Department of the Ministry of
Interior of the Republic of Lithuania,
pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and Article 1 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its
public hearing on 11 April 2006 heard case No. 28/03-28/04
subsequent to the following petitions:
- the petition of the a group of Members of the Seimas of
the Republic of Lithuania, a petitioner, requesting to
investigate whether Paragraph 4 of Article 3 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities
is not in conflict with Article 35, Paragraph 1 of Article 29
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the
constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and
protection of legitimate expectations; whether Paragraph 4 of
Article 5 of the same law is not in conflict with Article 5 and
Paragraph 2 of Article 123 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania; whether Article 7 of the same law to the extent
that it provides that the Minister authorised by the Government
may give instructions to the Government representative
regarding issues of organisational activity, Article 8 of the
same law to the extent that it provides that the Government
representative, under procedure approved by the Minister
authorised by the Government, submits information about his
activities, Article 9 of the same law to the extent that it
provides that the Minister authorised by the Government
supervises how Government representatives discharge their
powers and coordinates the activity of Government
representatives, Article 11 of the same law to the extent that
it provides that the Regulations of the Office Activities of
the Government Representative are approved by the Minister
authorised by the Government, are not in conflict with Article
123 of the Constitution; whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending the Law on
Administrative Supervision of Municipalities and Item 5
(wording of 10 December 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on the State Service are not in
conflict with the constitutional principles of a state under
the rule of law and protection of legitimate expectations;
- a petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court,
a petitioner, requesting to investigate whether Paragraph 2 of
Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending the Law
on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities, Item 5
(wording of 10 December 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on the State Service, Government
of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 1525 "On Dismissing
the Government Representative for the Marijampolė County" of 3
December 2003, Government of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution No. 1526 "On Dismissing the Government
Representative for the Panevėžys County" of 3 December 2003,
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 1527 "On
Dismissing the Government Representative for the Šiauliai
County" of 3 December 2003, Government of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution No. 1528 "On Dismissing the Government
Representative for the Telšiai County" of 3 December 2003,
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 1529 "On
Dismissing the Government Representative for the Vilnius
County" of 3 December 2003, and Government of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution No. 1578 "On Dismissing the Government
Representative for the Šiauliai County" of 10 December 2003 are
not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state
under the rule of law and protection of legitimate
expectations.
By the Constitutional Court decision of 14 March 2006, the
aforementioned petitions of the group of Members of the Seimas
and the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court were joined into
one case and it was given reference No. 28/03-28/04.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
1. A group of Members of the Seimas, a petitioner, applied
to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting to
investigate whether Paragraph 4 of Article 3 of the Law on
Administrative Supervision of Municipalities is not in conflict
with Article 35, Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution
as well as the constitutional principles of a state under the
rule of law and protection of legitimate expectations; whether
Paragraph 4 of Article 5 of the same law is not in conflict
with Article 5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 123 of the
Constitution; whether Article 7 of the same law to the extent
that it provides that the Minister authorised by the Government
may give instructions to the Government representative
regarding issues of organisational activity, Article 8 of the
same law to the extent that it provides that the Government
representative, under procedure approved by the Minister
authorised by the Government, submits information about his
activities, Article 9 of the same law to the extent that it
provides that the Minister authorised by the Government
supervises how Government representatives discharge their
powers and coordinates the activity of Government
representatives, Article 11 of the same law to the extent that
it provides that the Regulations of the Office Activities of
the Government Representative are approved by the Minister
authorised by the Government, are not in conflict with Article
123 of the Constitution; whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of
the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities and Item 5 (wording of 10 December 2002) of
Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Law on the State Service are
not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state
under the rule of law and protection of legitimate
expectations.
2. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a
petitioner, was considering an administrative case. By its
ruling, the said court suspended the consideration of the case
and applied to the Constitutional with a petition requesting to
investigate whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on
Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities, Item 5 (wording of 10 December 2002) of
Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Law on the State Service,
Government Resolution No. 1525 "On Dismissing the Government
Representative for the Marijampolė County" of 3 December 2003,
Government Resolution No. 1526 "On Dismissing the Government
Representative for the Panevėžys County" of 3 December 2003,
Government Resolution No. 1527 "On Dismissing the Government
Representative for the Šiauliai County" of 3 December 2003,
Government Resolution No. 1528 "On Dismissing the Government
Representative for the Telšiai County" of 3 December 2003,
Government Resolution No. 1529 "On Dismissing the Government
Representative for the Vilnius County" of 3 December 2003, and
Government Resolution No. 1578 "On Dismissing the Government
Representative for the Šiauliai County" of 10 December 2003 are
not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state
under the rule of law and protection of legitimate
expectations.
II
1. The group of Members of the Seimas, a petitioner,
grounds its petition on the following arguments.
1.1. Under Paragraph 4 of Article 3 of the Law on
Administrative Supervision of Municipalities, the Government
representative may not participate in the activities of
political parties and organisations; thus, certain state
servants-Government representatives-are deprived of the
opportunity to participate in the activity of political parties
and political organisations. The petitioner had doubts whether
such provision is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article
29 of the Constitution, which entrenches equality of all
persons before the law, the court and other state institutions
and officials; Article 35 of the Constitution, which guarantees
the right to citizens to freely form societies, political
parties and associations, provided that the aims and activities
thereof are not contrary to the Constitution and laws; and the
constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and
protection of legitimate expectations (since at the time when
the representatives of the Government were appointed, they were
not prohibited from participating in the activities of
political parties).
1.2. Under Article 4 of the Law on Administrative
Supervision of Municipalities, the main function of the
Government representatives is to supervise the lawfulness of
acts of municipal institutions (officials). Since Paragraph 2
of Article 123 of the Constitution does not particularise as to
what precisely these acts are, whose lawfulness the
representatives of the Government must control, they must
verify the lawfulness of not only municipal acts of normative
character, but also that of individual municipal acts. In the
opinion of the petitioner, Paragraph 4 of Article 5 of Law on
Administrative Supervision of Municipalities unreasonably
narrowed the competence of the Government representative, since
he was deprived of the right to consider complaints from
natural and legal persons, which are to be considered under
proceedings of administrative cases. The petitioner faced
doubts whether such legal regulation is not in conflict with
Article 5 of the Constitution, which provides that state
institutions shall serve the people, and Paragraph 2 of Article
123 thereof, under which the observance of the Constitution and
the laws as well as the execution of decisions of the
Government by municipalities shall be supervised by the
representatives appointed by the Government.
1.3. Under Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on Amending
the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities, the
established term of appointing of the Government representative
is also applied to the Government representatives who were
appointed prior to the entry into force of the Law on Amending
the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities. Under
Paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the Law on Administrative
Supervision of Municipalities, the Government representative
shall be appointed to office for four years and shall be
dismissed from office according to the procedure established in
the Law on the State Service. Under Item 5 (wording of 10
December 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Law on the
State Service, the beginning of the term of office of the
Government representative shall be the date of the entry into
force of the Law on the State Service. Thus, retrospective
application of the law was established, i.e. on 10 December
2002 it was established that the beginning of the term of
office of Government representatives shall start as of 30 July
1999. Meanwhile, in a state under the rule of law there is the
principle lex retro non agit. Therefore the petitioner had
doubts whether the aforesaid provisions of Paragraph 2 of
Article 2 of the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative
Supervision of Municipalities and Item 5 (wording of 10
December 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Law on the
State Service are not in conflict with the constitutional
principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of
legitimate expectations.
1.4. Under the Constitution, there is only one subject who
enjoys authoritative empowerments in regard of Government
representatives-it is the Government. The petitioner had doubts
whether the provisions of Articles 7, 8, 9, and 11 of the Law
on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities, which
establish authoritative empowerments of the Minister authorised
by the Government, are not in conflict with Article 123 of the
Constitution.
2. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a
petitioner, grounds its petition on the following arguments.
2.1. Under Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on Amending
the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities, which
was adopted by the Seimas on 10 December 202, the term of
appointing of the Government representative, which is
established by the Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities, is also applied to the Government
representatives who were appointed prior to the entry into
force of the said law, i.e. retrospective application of the
law was established. Under Item 5 (wording of 10 December 2002)
of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Law on the State Service,
the state servant shall be dismissed form office when the term
of office (whose beginning is the date of entry into force of
the Law on the State Service) of the Government representative
(head of the institution) expires; thus, on 10 December 2002 it
was established that the beginning of the term of office of
Government representatives was on 30 July 1999.
2.2. The Government representatives were appointed by
Government Resolution No. 1335 "On Appointing Government
representatives" of 2 December 1999 by following the then in
force Law on the State Service (wording of 8 July 1999) and the
Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities (wording of
14 May 1998), which did not provide for any term for which they
could be appointed to office. Thus, these persons could expect
that they were appointed to this office on a termless basis and
that they could be dismissed from office only upon general
grounds, but not subsequent to expiration of a certain term of
office. However, by means of the disputed Government
resolutions the Government representatives to the Vilnius,
Šiauliai, Panevėžys, Marijampolė and Telšiai counties were
dismissed from corresponding office in accordance with Item 5
(wording of 10 December 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of
the Law on the State Service.
III
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations were
received from the representatives of the Seimas, the party
concerned, who were P. Žukauskas and V. Vėgelis, as well as the
Government representative, the party concerned, who was N.
Rudaitis, in which it is asserted that the disputed legal acts
(parts thereof) are not in conflict with the Constitution.
1. The position of P. Žukauskas, a representative of the
Seimas, the party concerned, is grounded on the following
arguments.
1.1. The rights and duties of state servants are
determined by the purpose of their incumbency and the social
importance of the functions discharged by them. The extent of
rights and duties of state servants depends on the character of
the discharged duties. In order to ensure maximum transparency
and efficiency of each state servant, it is permissible and
even necessary to establish different extent of rights
(including the right to participate in the activities of
political parties) of state servants, since the constitutional
political and civil rights are not absolute. The functions of
the Government representative are related to the supervision of
lawfulness of decisions, which are adopted by municipalities.
Municipal councils are formed only upon a party basis. The
prohibition to a Government representative to take part in the
activity of political parties and political organisations,
which is established in Paragraph 4 of Article 3 of the Law on
Administrative Supervision of Municipalities, guarantees
protection of the public interest and is not disproportionate,
nor is it to be assessed as violation of the constitutional
principle of equal rights.
1.2. Under Articles 4 and 5 of the Law on Amending the Law
on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities, the Government
representative may verify, at his discretion and initiative,
the lawfulness of all municipal legal acts without exceptions,
including acts of individual character. From the Constitution
no duty arises to the Government representative to execute the
functions of pre-judicial institution of consideration of
disputes, therefore, the competence of the Government
representative established in the Law on Administrative
Supervision of Municipalities is in compliance with that
established in the Constitution.
1.3. According to P. Žukauskas, the disputed provision of
Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on Amending the Law on
Administrative Supervision of Municipalities did not change the
regulation which had been valid until then, as Paragraph 1
(wording of 21 December 2000) of Article 8 of the Law on
Administrative Supervision of Municipalities used to establish
the term of office of the Government representative, which was
the same in length, i.e. four years.
Disputed Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Law on
the State Service does not establish the beginning of the term
of office of heads of institutions, but it specifies that the
term of office of heads of a certain group of institutions
objectively began after the law pointed out in this item came
into force: the beginning of the term of office of the
Government representative who was appointed subsequent to the
Law on Officers that had been valid until then is the date of
entry into force of the Law on the State Service, but not an
earlier date of the appointment of the said head of the
institution.
2. The position of V. Vėgelis, a representative of the
Seimas, the party concerned, is based on the following
arguments.
2.1. Before the Law on the State Service came into force,
by Seimas Resolution No. VIII-795 "On Amending and
Supplementing the List of 'A' Level Servants of the State
Governance Service of the Republic of Lithuania" of 16 June
1998 Government representatives were ascribed to the 'A' level
of officers. Under Article 62 of the Law on the State Service,
the status of the Government representative as a state officer
had to change-he had to become a state servant. The service of
the Government representative was attributed to state and
municipal institutions, while the Government representative-to
heads of these establishments. Item 10 of Article 2 of the Law
on State Service provided for the work of the head of an
establishment only for the period of the established term of
office. Paragraph 4 of Article 62 of the same law provided that
officers of level 'A' shall become state servants of political
(personal) confidence. Their service had to end at the end of
the term of office of the politicians who had appointed them,
or upon expiration of powers of these politicians (Paragraph 5
(wording of 8 July 1999) of Article 15 of the Law on the State
Service). Under Paragraph 5 (wording of 29 August 2000) of the
Law on the State Service, the Government representative was
attributed to heads of establishments (state servants) for the
period established in legal acts, which had to be not shorter
than 4 years, but not longer than 5 years, and the beginning of
which was the date of entry into force of the Law on the State
Service. Thus, the Government representatives in counties, who
were appointed by Government Resolution No. 1335 "On Appointing
Government Representatives" of 2 December 1999, could not
expect that they were appointed to this office on a termless
basis nor that they could be dismissed from this office only
according to general grounds.
2.2. After the Law on the State Service had gone into
effect, the office of the Government representative was related
with a certain term. Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on
Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities, which came into force on 31 December 2002, the
provision of Paragraph 1 (wording of 21 December 2000) of
Article 8 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities, which had been valid until then, and which had
consolidated the time-limited character of the service of the
Government representative, was repeated, thus, one did not
establish any retrospective validity of the law.
3. The position of N. Rudaitis, the Government
representative, the party concerned, is grounded on the
following arguments.
Government resolutions are individual acts of application
of law, therefore the compliance of the disputed Government
resolutions with the Constitution could be assessed only in the
aspect whether the Government, when adopting corresponding
resolutions, was properly implementing corresponding provisions
of the Constitution, the Law on Amending the Law on
Administrative Supervision of Municipalities and the Law on the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania which regulate
dismissal of Government representatives, as well as the
provisions of the legal acts which regulate the adoption,
publishing and entry into force of Government resolutions. The
disputed Government resolutions were adopted by following Item
14 of Article 22 of the Law on the Government and by adhering
to the procedures established in the Regulation of the Work of
the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, they were
published and came into force without violating the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Procedure for Publishing and Coming into
Force of Laws and Other Legal Acts, they implemented
corresponding provisions of the Law on Amending the Law on
Administrative Supervision of Municipalities and the Law on the
State Service, but they neither created nor abolished any
rights of the Government representatives.
IV
1. At the Constitutional Court hearing, the
representatives of the Seimas, the party concerned, who were P.
Žukauskas and V. Vėgelis, as well as the Government
representative, the party concerned, who was N. Rudaitis,
virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in their written
explanations.
2. P. Žukauskas also drew one's attention to the fact that
after the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision
of Municipalities had come into force, which was adopted by the
Seimas on 8 June 2004, by Article 1 of which the Law on
Administrative Supervision of Municipalities (wording of 10
December 2002 with subsequent amendments and supplements) was
amended and set forth in a new wording, the provisions of
Articles 7, 8, 9, and 11 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the
Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities which are
disputed in this constitutional justice case were abolished. In
the opinion of P. Žukauskas, as regards this part, the case is
to be dismissed.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. A group of Members of the Seimas, a petitioner, request
to investigate whether Paragraph 4 of Article 3 of the Law on
Administrative Supervision of Municipalities is not in conflict
with Article 35, Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution
as well as the constitutional principles of a state under the
rule of law and protection of legitimate expectations; whether
Paragraph 4 of Article 5 of the same law is not in conflict
with Article 5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 123 of the
Constitution; whether Article 7 of the same law to the extent
that it provides that the Minister authorised by the Government
may give instructions to the Government representative
regarding issues of organisational activity, Article 8 of the
same law to the extent that it provides that the Government
representative, under procedure approved by the Minister
authorised by the Government, submits information about his
activities, Article 9 of the same law to the extent that it
provides that the Minister authorised by the Government
supervises how Government representatives discharge their
powers and coordinates the activity of Government
representatives, Article 11 of the same law to the extent that
it provides that the Regulations of the Office Activities of
the Government Representative are approved by the Minister
authorised by the Government, are not in conflict with Article
123 of the Constitution; whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of
the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities and Item 5 (wording of 10 December 2002) of
Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Law on the State Service are
not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state
under the rule of law and protection of legitimate
expectations.
2. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a
petitioner, requests to investigate whether Paragraph 2 of
Article 2 of the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative
Supervision of Municipalities, Item 5 (wording of 10 December
2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Law on the State
Service, Government Resolution No. 1525 "On Dismissing the
Government Representative for the Marijampolė County" of 3
December 2003, Government Resolution No. 1526 "On Dismissing
the Government Representative for the Panevėžys County" of 3
December 2003, Government Resolution No. 1527 "On Dismissing
the Government Representative for the Šiauliai County" of 3
December 2003, Government Resolution No. 1528 "On Dismissing
the Government Representative for the Telšiai County" of 3
December 2003, Government Resolution No. 1529 "On Dismissing
the Government Representative for the Vilnius County" of 3
December 2003, and Government Resolution No. 1578 "On
Dismissing the Government Representative for the Šiauliai
County" of 10 December 2003 are not in conflict with the
constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and
protection of legitimate expectations.
3. It is to be held that that one doubts and requests that
the Constitutional Court investigate:
- whether Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December 2002) of
Article 3 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities was not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article
35, Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution as well as
the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law
and protection of legitimate expectations;
- whether Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December 2002) of
Article 5 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities was not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article
5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 123 of the Constitution;
- Article 7 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the Law on
Administrative Supervision of Municipalities to the extent that
it provides that the Minister authorised by the Government may
give instructions to the Government representative regarding
issues of organisational activity was not in conflict with
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 123 of the Constitution;
- whether Article 8 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the
Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities to the
extent that it provides that the Government representative,
under procedure approved by the Minister authorised by the
Government, submits information about his activities was not in
conflict with Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 123 of the
Constitution;
- whether Article 9 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the
Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities to the
extent that it provides that the Minister authorised by the
Government supervises how Government representatives discharge
their powers and coordinates the activity of Government
representatives was not in conflict with Paragraphs 2 and 3 of
Article 123 of the Constitution;
- whether Article 11 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the
Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities to the
extent that it provides that the Regulations of the Office
Activities of the Government Representative are approved by the
Minister authorised by the Government was not in conflict with
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 123 of the Constitution;
- whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on Amending
the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities
(wording of 10 December 2002) is not in conflict with the
constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and
protection of legitimate expectations;
- whether the provision "A state servant shall be
dismissed from office if: <...> (5) the term of office of the
Government representative (head of an institution), the
beginning of which is the date of entry into force of the Law
on the State Service (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1999,
No. 66-2130), expires" of Paragraph 1 (wording of 10 December
2002) of Article 44 of the Law on the State Service is not in
conflict with the constitutional principles of a state under
the rule of law and protection of legitimate expectations;
- whether Government Resolution No. 1525 "On Dismissing
the Government Representative for the Marijampolė County" of 3
December 2003 is not in conflict with the constitutional
principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of
legitimate expectations;
- whether Government Resolution No. 1526 "On Dismissing
the Government Representative for the Panevėžys County" of 3
December 2003 is not in conflict with the constitutional
principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of
legitimate expectations;
- whether Government Resolution No. 1527 "On Dismissing
the Government Representative for the Šiauliai County" of 3
December 2003 is not in conflict with the constitutional
principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of
legitimate expectations;
- whether Item 1 of Government Resolution No. 1528 "On
Dismissing the Government Representative for the Telšiai
County" of 3 December 2003 is not in conflict with the
constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and
protection of legitimate expectations;
- whether Government Resolution No. 1529 "On Dismissing
the Government Representative for the Vilnius County" of 3
December 2003 is not in conflict with the constitutional
principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of
legitimate expectations;
- whether Item 1 of Government Resolution No. 1578 "On
Dismissing the Government Representative for the Šiauliai
County" of 10 December 2003 is not in conflict with the
constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and
protection of legitimate expectations.
II
On the compliance of Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December
2002) of Article 3 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities with Paragraph 1 of Article 35, Paragraph 1 of
Article 29 of the Constitution as well as the constitutional
principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of
legitimate expectations.
1. On 14 May 1998, the Seimas adopted the Law on
Administrative Supervision of Municipalities which came into
force on 3 June 1998. This law has been amended more than once,
while by Article 1 of the Law on Amending the Law on
Administrative Supervision of Municipalities, which was adopted
by the Seimas on 10 December 2002, it was amended and set forth
in a new wording. The Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities of the new wording came into force on 31
December 2002.
2. Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 3
of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities
provided: "The Government representative may not participate in
the activities of political parties and political
organisations."
3. Although the Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities (wording of 10 December 2002) was later amended,
Paragraph 4 of Article 3 thereof remained unchanged nor was it
supplemented until 24 June 2004, when the Law on Amending the
Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities, which was
adopted by the Seimas on 8 June 2004, came into force, by
Article 1 whereof the Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities (wording of 10 December 2002 with subsequent
amendments and supplements) was amended and set forth in a new
wording.
4. The right of citizens, which is guaranteed by Paragraph
1 of Article 35 of the Constitution, to freely form inter alia
political parties, provided that the aims and activities
thereof are not contrary to the Constitution and laws, is one
of the fundamental rights of the citizen of a democratic state.
In its ruling of 21 December 2001, the Constitutional Court
held that the content of right guaranteed in the Constitution
to freely form political parties is composed of the right to
form political parties and associations, the right to join them
and take part in their activities; the Constitution guarantees
the right to decide of one's own free will whether to belong or
not to belong to a certain political party; the person
implements this constitutional right of his own free will,
while this free will of the person is a fundamental principle
of membership in political parties.
The constitutional right of citizens to freely joint inter
alia political parties and political organisations (which, as
mentioned, includes the right of citizens to take part in the
activities of political parties) is not absolute, it can be
limited by the law, however, not more than permitted by the
Constitution itself. In this context it needs to be noted that
when limitations on the said constitutional right are
established by means of the law, inter alia when citizens are
prohibited from participating in the activities of political
parties, one must pay heed to the norms and principles of the
Constitution, inter alia the principle of equal rights of
persons, which is consolidated in Article 29 of the
Constitution, as well as the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law.
The restrictions and limitations on the constitutional
right to join into political parties and political
organisations are established in the Constitution itself:
Paragraph 2 of Article 113 of the Constitution provides that a
judge may not participate in the activities of political
parties and other political organisations; Article 141 of the
Constitution consolidates that persons performing actual
military service or alternative service, as well as officers of
the national defence system, the police and the Interior,
non-commissioned officers, re-enlistees, and other paid
officials of paramilitary and security services who have not
retired to the reserve may not take part in the activities of
political parties and organisations; the provision of Paragraph
3 of Article 118 of the Constitution that when performing his
functions, the prosecutor shall be independent and shall obey
only the law implies also a prohibition for prosecutors to be
members of political parties and political organisations and to
participate in their activities; under Paragraph 2 of Article
83 of the Constitution, a person elected President of the
Republic must suspend his activities in political parties and
political organisations until the beginning of a new campaign
of the election of the President of the Republic. In this
context one is to mention that the right of citizens to join
into political parties, which is consolidated in Article 35 of
the Constitution, may be temporarily limited after imposition
of martial law or a state of emergency (Article 145 of the
Constitution).
5. While deciding whether Paragraph 4 (wording of 10
December 2002) of Article 3 of the Law on Administrative
Supervision of Municipalities was not in conflict with the
Constitution, it needs to be noted that the prohibition for
Government representatives to be members of political parties
or political organisations and/or participate in their
activities neither is established expressis verbis in the
Constitution nor may it be derived from its provisions. It is
impermissible to establish such a prohibition either by a law
or by other legal act.
Alongside, it needs to be stressed that the Constitution
does not prohibit the legislator from establishing such legal
regulation that would create preconditions in order to ensure
that the activity of Government representatives be oriented not
to satisfying the interests of party interests and that one not
abuse the opportunities which are granted by this post. When
corresponding relations are regulated by the law, one must pay
heed to the Constitution.
6. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December
2002) of Article 3 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 35
of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law.
7. Having held that Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December
2002) of Article 3 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 35
of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law, in the constitutional justice case at
issue the Constitutional Court will not further investigate the
compliance of Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December 2002) of
Article 3 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 the Constitution
and the constitutional principle of protection of legitimate
expectations.
8. On 8 June 2004, the Seimas adopted the Law on Amending
the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities by
Article 1 whereof the Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities (wording of 10 December 2002 with subsequent
amendments and supplements) was amended and set forth in a new
wording. The Law on Amending the Law on Administrative
Supervision of Municipalities came into force on 24 June 2004.
9. Paragraph 4 (wording of 8 June 2004) of Article 3 of
the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities
provides: "The representative of the Government may not
participate in the activities of political parties."
10. Having held that Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December
2002) of Article 3 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 35
of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law, on is also to hold that also Paragraph 4
(wording of 8 June 2004) of Article 3 of the Law on
Administrative Supervision of Municipalities is in conflict
with Paragraph 1 of Article 35 of the Constitution and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
III
On the compliance of Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December
2002) of Article 5 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities with Paragraph 3 of Article 5 and Paragraph 2 of
Article 123 of the Constitution.
1. Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 5
of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities
provided: "The representative of the Government shall not
consider complaints from natural and legal persons, which are
to be considered according to proceedings of administrative
cases."
2. When deciding whether Paragraph 4 (wording of 10
December 2002) of Article 5 of the Law on Administrative
Supervision of Municipalities was not in conflict with the
Constitution, one is to note that under Paragraph 3 of Article
123 of the Constitution the powers of the Government
representative and the procedure of their execution shall be
established by law. Thus, establishment of the powers of the
Government representative is left for the legislator (of
course, by paying heed to the Constitution, inter alia the
purpose of the constitutional institute of Government
representatives and the functions of Government representatives
which are entrenched in the Constitution); in this area the
legislator enjoys broad discretion, it may establish very broad
powers of the Government representative, as well as such which
would not repeat the powers of other institutions (officials),
which are consolidated in laws.
The fact that under Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December
2002) of Article 5 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities the representative of the Government shall not
consider complaints from natural and legal persons, which are
to be considered according to proceedings of administrative
cases, does not mean that opportunities of the Government
representative to receive necessary information from natural of
legal persons in order to discharge his constitutional
functions (supervision of the observance of the Constitution
and the laws as well as the execution of decisions of the
Government by municipalities) or the opportunities for the said
natural persons or legal persons to protect their violated
rights are limited. Thus, by no means does such legal
regulation mean that the requirement of Paragraph 3 of Article
5 of the Constitution that state institutions shall serve the
people is deviated from, nor that the provision of Paragraph 2
of Article 123 of the Constitution that the observance of the
Constitution and the laws as well as the execution of decisions
of the Government by municipalities shall be supervised by the
representatives appointed by the Government is not paid heed
to.
3. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December 2002) of
Article 5 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities was not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article
5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 123 of the Constitution.
IV
On the compliance of Article 7 (wording of 10 December
2002) of the Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities to the extent that it provides that the Minister
authorised by the Government may give instructions to the
Government representative regarding issues of organisational
activity, Article 8 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the same
law to the extent that it provides that the Government
representative, under procedure approved by the Minister
authorised by the Government, submits information about his
activities, Article 9 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the same
law to the extent that it provides that the Minister authorised
by the Government supervises how Government representatives
discharge their powers and coordinates the activity of
Government representatives, Article 11 (wording of 10 December
2002) of the same law to the extent that it provides that the
Regulations of the Office Activities of the Government
Representative are approved by the Minister authorised by the
Government, with Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 123 of the
Constitution.
1. Article 7 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the Law on
Administrative Supervision of Municipalities used to provide:
"The Government or the Prime Minister may assign the Government
representative with the task to investigate whether
municipalities observe the Constitution and laws and whether
they execute decisions of the Government. Either the Prime
Minister or the Minister authorised by the Government may give
instructions to the Government representative regarding issues
of organisational activity."
Article 8 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the Law on
Administrative Supervision of Municipalities used to provide:
"The Government representative, under procedure approved by the
Minister authorised by the Government, once a half year shall
submit information about his activities to the Government, the
County Chief and the supervised municipalities."
Article 9 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the Law on
Administrative Supervision of Municipalities used to provide:
"Either the Government or the Minister authorised by the
Government shall supervise how Government representatives
discharge their powers and shall coordinate the activity of
Government representatives."
Article 11 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the Law on
Administrative Supervision of Municipalities used to provide:
"The Government Representative Service shall be established and
the number of offices of the state servants shall be determined
by the Government. The Government Representative Service shall
be maintained from the State Budget. The purpose of this
Service is to help the Government representative to implement
his powers and rights. The Regulations of the Office Activities
of the Government Representative are approved by the Minister
authorised by the Government."
2. It has been mentioned that a group of Members of the
Seimas, the petitioner, faced doubts whether Article 7 (wording
of 10 December 2002) of the Law on Administrative Supervision
of Municipalities to the extent that it provides that the
Minister authorised by the Government may give instructions to
the Government representative regarding issues of
organisational activity, Article 8 (wording of 10 December
2002) of the same law to the extent that it provides that the
Government representative, under procedure approved by the
Minister authorised by the Government, submits information
about his activities, Article 9 (wording of 10 December 2002)
of the same law to the extent that it provides that the
Minister authorised by the Government supervises how Government
representatives discharge their powers and coordinates the
activity of Government representatives, Article 11 (wording of
10 December 2002) of the same law to the extent that it
provides that the Regulations of the Office Activities of the
Government Representative are approved by the Minister
authorised by the Government, were not in conflict with
Paragraphs 2 and 3 Article 123 of the Constitution.
It was also mentioned that Article 1 of the Law on
Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities, which was adopted by the Seimas on 8 June 2004
and which came into force on 24 June 2004, amended the Law on
Administrative Supervision of Municipalities (wording of 10
December 2002 with subsequent amendments and supplements) and
set it forth in a new wording.
The Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities
(wording of 8 June 2004 with subsequent amendments and
supplements) does not contain any provisions, which would
repeat the disputed provisions of Article 7 (wording of 10
December 2002), Article 8 (wording of 10 December 2002),
Article 9 (wording of 10 December 2002) and Article 11 (wording
of 10 December 2002) of the Law on Administrative Supervision
of Municipalities.
3. Under Paragraph 4 (wording of 11 July 1996) of Article
69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the annulment of the
disputed legal act shall be grounds to adopt a decision to
dismiss the instituted legal proceedings. In its acts the
Constitutional Court has held more than once that the
Constitutional Court, while taking account of the circumstances
of the considered constitutional justice case, may dismiss the
instituted legal proceedings on the ground provided for in
Paragraph 4 (wording of 11 July 1996) of Article 69 of the Law
on the Constitutional Court in cases when the Constitutional
Court is applied not by a court, but by any other subject
specified in Article 106 of the Constitution. The
Constitutional Court also held more than once that the same
should be said about the situations where the disputed legal
act (part thereof) was not annulled, however, the legal
regulation established therein was changed (Constitutional
Court ruling of 4 March 2003, decision of 14 March 2006 (Case
No. 3/05), ruling of 30 March 2006).
4. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the part of
the case concerning the compliance of Article 7 (wording of 10
December 2002) of the Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities to the extent that it provides that the Minister
authorised by the Government may give instructions to the
Government representative regarding issues of organisational
activity, Article 8 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the same
law to the extent that it provides that the Government
representative, under procedure approved by the Minister
authorised by the Government, submits information about his
activities, Article 9 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the same
law to the extent that it provides that the Minister authorised
by the Government supervises how Government representatives
discharge their powers and coordinates the activity of
Government representatives, Article 11 (wording of 10 December
2002) of the same law to the extent that it provides that the
Regulations of the Office Activities of the Government
Representative are approved by the Minister authorised by the
Government, with Paragraphs 2 and 3 Article 123 of the
Constitution is to be dismissed.
V
On the compliance of Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law
on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities (wording of 10 December 2002), the provision "A
state servant shall be dismissed from office if: <...> (5) the
term of office of the Government representative (head of an
institution), the beginning of which is the date of entry into
force of the Law on the State Service (Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 1999, No. 66-2130), expires" of Paragraph 1
(wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 44 of the Law on the
State Service, Government Resolution No. 1525 "On Dismissing
the Government Representative for the Marijampolė County" of 3
December 2003, Government Resolution No. 1526 "On Dismissing
the Government Representative for the Panevėžys County" of 3
December 2003, Government Resolution No. 1527 "On Dismissing
the Government Representative for the Šiauliai County" of 3
December 2003, Item 1 of Government Resolution No. 1528 "On
Dismissing the Government Representative for the Telšiai
County" of 3 December 2003, Government Resolution No. 1529 "On
Dismissing the Government Representative for the Vilnius
County" of 3 December 2003, and Item 1 of Government Resolution
No. 1578 "On Dismissing the Government Representative for the
Šiauliai County" of 10 December 2003 with the constitutional
principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of
legitimate expectations.
1. Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on Amending the Law
on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities (wording of 10
December 2002) provides: "The term of appointing of the
Government representative, which is established by this Law,
shall also be applied to the Government representatives who
were appointed prior to the entry into force of this Law."
2. On 8 July 1999, the Seimas adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the State Service. This law came into force on
30 July 1999. On 23 April 2002, the Seimas adopted the Republic
of Lithuania Law on Amending the Law on the State Service by
Article 1 whereof the Law on the State Service was amended and
set forth in a new wording. The Law on the State Service of the
new wording came into force on 1 July 2002. It has been amended
and supplemented.
Item 5 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Paragraph 1 of
Article 44 of the Law on the State Service was amended by the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending Articles 10 and 44 of the
Law on the State Service, which was adopted by the Seimas 10
December 2002 and which came into force on 31 December 2002.
Paragraph 1 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 44 of
the Law on the State Service used to provide: "A state servant
shall be dismissed from office if: <...> (5) the term of office
of the Government representative (head of an institution), the
beginning of which is the date of entry into force of the Law
on the State Service (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1999,
No. 66-2130), expires."
3. On 14 May 1998, the Seimas adopted the Law on
Administrative Supervision of Municipalities. This law came
into force on 3 June 1998. The Law on Administrative
Supervision of Municipalities (wording of 14 May 1998)
established the powers of the officials-Government
representatives-who conduct the administrative supervision of
municipalities and the procedure for execution of this
supervision. By means of the said law (by reacting to the
Constitutional Court ruling of 18 February 1998, whereby the
Republic of Lithuania Law "On the Amendment and Supplementation
of the Law on the Governing of the County, as well as the
Recognition of the Law on the Government Representative as Null
and Void" in the part whereby the independent constitutional
institution of the administrative supervision of local
government activities is amalgamated with another institution,
which found expression in the direct incorporation of local
government supervision into the local administration was
recognised as being in conflict with the Constitution) a
separate institute of the Government representative was
returned into the system of the state service of the Republic
of Lithuania and the Lithuanian legal system. In Paragraph 1
(wording of 14 May 1998) of Article 8 of the Law on
Administrative Supervision of Municipalities it was established
that the Government representative shall be appointed and
dismissed by the Government upon the submission of the Minister
of Public Reform and Municipal Affairs.
4. Under the Republic of Lithuania Law on Officers (with
subsequent amendments and supplements), which was adopted by
the Seimas on 4 April 1995 and which came into force on 1 May
1995, Government representatives used to be officers.
In this context one is to emphasise that under the Law on
Officers (wording of 4 May 1995 with subsequent amendments and
supplements), all state officers, as well as all municipal
officers were grouped into "A" and "B" levels.
Under Article 6 (wording of 16 January 1997) of the Law on
Officers, state officers of "A" level shall be servants
appointed by the Seimas, the President, the Government and
other servants specified in the list of offices who assist
state politicians in fulfilling their functions; the service of
the above servants was connected with the duration of the term
of office of their respective head officials (Paragraph 2
(wording of 4 April 1995)); the Seimas, on the proposal of the
Government, would approve the offices to "A" level in the list
of offices (Paragraph 6 (16 January 1997)). Under Paragraph 1
(wording of 4 April 1995) of Article 11 of the Law on Officers,
officials of "A" level were employed in the state governance
service in accordance with the procedure established by labour
legislation and other laws of the Republic of Lithuania;
employment contracts of limited duration were concluded with
the above officials for the term of office of appropriate
institutions or their head officials. Paragraph 2 (wording of 4
April 1995) of Article 20 of the Law on Officers it was
established that state and local authority officers of "A"
level with whom employment contract of limited duration is
concluded shall resign upon the expiry of the term of the
contract.
5. On 16 June 1998, the Seimas adopted Resolution No.
VIII-795 "On Amending and Supplementing the List of the 'A'
Level Servants of the State Governance Service of the Republic
of Lithuania". This Seimas resolution came into force on 16
June 1998. By Article 1 thereof Chapters I, III, IV and V of
the List of the Offices of "A" Level Officers of the Service of
State Governance of the Republic of Lithuania which were
approved by Seimas Resolution No. I-965 "On the List of the
Offices of 'A' Level Officers of the Service of State
Governance of the Republic of Lithuania" of 27 June 1995 were
amended and supplemented; Chapter IV of this list included
inter alia Government representatives as well.
6. One is to hold that as of 16 June 1998 Government
representatives, according to legal acts, which were in force
in the Republic of Lithuania, were regarded as officers of "A"
level, whose term of service was linked with the term of powers
of the Government that had appointed them.
7. On 8 July 1999, the Seimas adopted the Law on the State
Service. The Law on the State Service came into force on 30
July 1999. After this law had gone into effect, inter alia the
Law on Officers (wording of 4 April 1995 with subsequent
amendments and supplements) which had been in force until then
became no longer valid.
Under Article 6 (wording of 8 July 1999) of the Law on the
State Service, state servants were grouped into state servants
of public administration and state employees. State servants of
public administration were grouped into career state servants,
state servants of political (personal) confidence, heads of
establishments and acting state servants. Under Paragraph 1
(wording of 8 July 1999) of Article 16 of the Law on the State
Service, heads of establishments were to be recruited on the
basis of public competition or without a competition on the
basis of political (personal) confidence. In the context of the
constitutional justice case at issue, it needs to be noted that
state servants of political (personal) confidence were civil
servants admitted to the service for a position included in the
list of positions of state servants of political (personal)
confidence approved by the Seimas (Item 9 (wording of 8 July
1999) of Article 2 of the Law on the State Service).
Paragraph 4 (wording of 8 July 1999) of Article 62 of the
Law on the State Service provided that officers of level "A"
who before entry into force of this law were covered by the Law
on Officers were to become state servants of political
(personal) confidence. Paragraph 5 (wording of 8 July 1999) of
Article 62 of the Law on the State Service provided that heads
of state and municipal establishments (except Government
representatives, county chiefs and Directors General of
departments under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania)
who prior to entry into force of this law had been covered by
the Law on Officers were to become state servants-heads of
establishments; they were to be appointed to the positions of
heads of state or municipal establishments for the term
specified in legal acts but not longer than 5 years which shall
start from the day of entry into force of the Law on the State
Service (wording of 8 July 1999).
It needs to be noted that Article 62 (wording of 8 July
1999) of the Law on the State Service was set forth in Chapter
Twelve "Provisions of Transitional Period" of the said law. The
provisions of this article, as well as those of other articles
of Chapter Twelve of the Law on the State Service, were
designed to regulate the relations of the state service and the
ones linked with it, which had appeared under the legal acts
valid until then and which were not terminated at the time when
this law was coming into force.
Thus, the Government representatives who have been
appointed to this office prior to the day of entry into force
of the Law on the State Service and whose term of service was,
as mentioned, linked with the term of powers of the Government
that had appointed them became state servants of political
(personal) confidence.
8. It was established in Paragraph 5 (wording of 8 July
1999) of Article 15 of the Law on the State Service that the
service of state servants of political (personal) confidence
shall be terminated on the expiry of the term of office of
state politicians who have chosen them or upon the expiry of
the powers of the said politicians, while Paragraph 1 (wording
of 8 July 1999) of Article 56 of the same law provided that
state servants shall lose the status of a civil servant inter
alia in the case when the mandate or term in office of a state
politician who has chosen the state servant of political
(personal) confidence expire or the state servant loses the
confidence of the state politician, provided that before
assuming the above position the state servant of political
(personal) confidence was not a career state servant (Item 14).
In this context it needs to be noted that the formulas
"state politician (state politicians)" of Paragraph 5 (wording
of 8 July 1999) of Article 15 and Item 14 (wording of 8 July
1999) of Paragraph 1 of Article 56 of Law on the State Service,
inter alia when one takes account of the legal and factual
circumstances of the reform of the state service which was
taking place at that time, cannot be construed as ones
including only officials and as not including (in certain
cases) collegiate state institutions, which are composed of
state politicians.
The Government representatives, both those who were
appointed to this office prior to the day of entry into force
of the Law on the State Service, which was adopted by the
Seimas on 8 July 1999, on that day were holding this office and
whose term of service, as mentioned, was linked with the term
of powers of the Government which had appointed them, and those
who had to be appointed to this office after the Law on the
State Service, which was adopted by the Seimas on 8 July 1999,
had come into force, could be dismissed from the said office
inter alia as those who lost the confidence of the Government.
Thus, such Government representatives had an expectation, which
derived from the Law on the State Service (wording of 8 July
1999), that they would not be dismissed from this office until
the expiration of powers of the Government, unless they were
dismissed from office as those who lost the confidence of the
Government or upon other grounds established in the law.
9. The Government which had appointed the Government
representatives until the day (30 July 1999) of the entry into
force of the Law on the State Service, which was adopted by the
Seimas on 8 July 1999, lost its powers on 11 November 1999,
after a new Government had received the powers to act.
By Government Resolution No. 1334 "On the Dismissal of
Government Representatives" of 1 December 1999, the Government
representatives appointed by the former Government that lost
its powers on 11 November 1999, were dismissed from office
after they handed in their resignation statements, while by
Government Resolution No. 1335 "On Appointing Government
Representatives" of 2 December 1999 the Government
representatives who had political confidence of the new
Government were appointed.
10. On 29 August 2000, the Seimas adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Amending and Supplementing the Law on the
State Service. This law came into force on 7 September 2000.
By Article 13 of the Law on Amending and Supplementing the
Law on the State Service Article 16 (wording of 8 July 1999) of
the Law on the State Service was amended and set forth in a new
wording. Under Item 1 (wording of 29 August 2000) of Paragraph
1 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Service, Government
representatives had to be appointed to office by way of
competition.
By Paragraph 2 of Article 43 of the Law on Amending and
Supplementing the Law on the State Service Paragraph 5 (wording
of 8 July 1999) of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service
was changed. Paragraph 5 (wording of 29 August 2000) of Article
62 of the Law on the State Service inter alia provided:
"Heads of state and municipal establishments shall become
state servants-heads of establishments. Their state service
relations are legalised by an order (ordinance) of the head (in
case the head official is a state politician, then of the
person who is responsible for personnel administration) of a
corresponding institution: these servants are appointed heads
of the institutions in the founding documents of these
institutions, in the statues (regulations) or in other legal
acts regulating their activities for the established term (term
of office), which is not shorter than 4 years and not longer
than 5 years, the beginning of which is the date of entry into
force of the Law on the State Service, but for not longer until
they reach 62 years and 6 months of age. The persons who
reached this age and older persons shall be appointed for the
term of 2 years, the beginning of which is the date of entry
into force of the Law on the State Service. The service of the
heads of establishments who reach 62 years and 6 months of age
during the time of their term of office may be prolonged until
they reach 65 years of age, but for the period not longer than
the established term of office of the head official."
By Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the Law on Amending and
Supplementing the Law on the State Service Paragraph 9 (wording
of 8 July 1999) of Article 2 of the Law on the State Service
was amended. Paragraph 9 (wording of 29 August 2000) of Article
2 of the Law on the State Service provided that the state
servant of political (personal) confidence is a state servant
appointed for the term of office of the appointing state
politician to the office which is entered into the list of
offices of state servants of political (personal) confidence
under this law. Besides, the Law on the State Service (which
until then was set fort in the wording of 8 July 1999) was
supplemented with Annex 2 "Categories of Typical Positions of
State Servants (Heads of Institutions and Career State
Servants) of Public Administration" in Chapter 27 whereof also
the position of the Government representative was entered.
It needs to be noted that the formula "heads of state and
municipal establishments" of Paragraph 5 (wording of 29 August
2000) of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service is to be
construed by taking account of inter alia that under Paragraph
10 (wording of 29 August 2000) of Article 2 of the Law on the
State Service the head of an establishment is a state servant
who is appointed, either by way of competition or on the
grounds of political (personal) confidence, to head the state
or municipal establishment for the period of the established
term of office or on a termless basis. Thus, in itself the said
formula of Paragraph 5 (wording of 29 August 2000) of Article
62 of the Law on the State Service does not mean that the heads
of state and municipal establishments who were appointed to
office after the entry into force of the Law on the State
Service, which was adopted by the Seimas on 8 July 1999, but
before coming into force of the Law on Amending and
Supplementing the Law on the State Service, which was adopted
by the Seimas on 29 August 2000, had to be treated only as
state servants of political (personal) confidence or only as
state servants, who are appointed to office by way of
competition. However, the Government representatives who were
appointed to office after the entry into force of the Law on
the State Service, which was adopted by the Seimas on 8 July
1999, but before coming into force of the Law on Amending and
Supplementing the Law on the State Service (i.e. prior to 7
September 2000) were state servants of political (personal)
confidence, since, as mentioned, they had the political
confidence of the Government that had appointed them and the
length of their service was linked with the term of powers of
the Government that had appointed them.
It needs to be emphasised that the legal regulation
established in the Law on the State Service after corresponding
amendments and supplements were made on 29 August 2000 became
confused, inconsistent and ambiguous. However, when Paragraph
10 (wording of 29 August 2000) of Article 2, Item 1 (wording of
29 August 2000) of Paragraph 1 of Article 16 and Paragraph 5
(wording of 29 August 2000) of Article 62 of the Law on the
State Service are construed in a systemic manner, especially
when one takes account of the fact that the provision of
Paragraph 4 (wording of 8 July 1999) of Article 62 of the Law
on State Service that the officers of "A" level to whom the Law
on Officers was applied until the entry into effect of the Law
on the State Service (wording of 8 July 1999) were to become
state servants of political (personal) confidence was not
changed by the Law on Amending and Supplementing the Law on the
State Service, also when one takes account of the fact that, as
mentioned, the Government representatives who were appointed to
office after the entry into force of the Law on the State
Service, which was adopted by the Seimas on 8 July 1999, but
before coming into force of the Law on Amending and
Supplementing the Law on the State Service, which was adopted
by the Seimas on 29 August 2000 (i.e. prior to 7 September
2000), were state servants of political (personal) confidence,
since, as mentioned, they had the political confidence of the
Government that had appointed them and the length of their
service was linked with the term of powers of the Government
that had appointed them, and disregarding the fact that in
Annex 2 "Categories of Typical Positions of State Servants
(Heads of Institutions and Career State Servants) of Public
Administration" of the Law on the State Service in Chapter 27
whereof also the position of the Government representative was
entered, one is to hold that the Government representatives who
were appointed to office after the entry into force of the Law
on the State Service, which was adopted by the Seimas on 8 July
1999, but before coming into force of the Law on Amending and
Supplementing the Law on the State Service, which was adopted
by the Seimas on 29 August 2000 (i.e. prior to 7 September
2000), continued to be state servants of political (personal)
confidence who had an expectation, which derived from the Law
on the State Service (wording of 8 July 1999) that they would
not be dismissed from this office until the expiration of
powers of the Government, unless they were dismissed from
office as those who lost the confidence of the Government or
upon other grounds established in the law.
11. The Government which received its powers to act on 11
November 1999 lost its powers on 9 November 2000, when a new
Government received powers to act.
Under Item 14 ((wording of 29 August 2000) of Paragraph 1
of Article 56 of the Law on the State Service, the Government
representatives who were appointed by the Government which lost
its powers on 9 November 2000 had to be dismissed from office
upon the expiry of powers of the Government that had appointed
them. New Government representatives could be appointed only
upon the procedure which was established to such servants by
the Law on the State Service (wording of 29 August 2000), i.e.
by way of a competition (Item 1 (wording of 29 August 2000)) of
Paragraph 1 of Article 16).
12. It needs to be emphasised that although the aforesaid
requirements arise from the Constitution and laws, they have
not been fulfilled-the persons who were appointed as Government
representatives by the Government which received its powers to
act on 11 November 1999 and which lost its powers on 9 November
2000 were not dismissed from office (after this Government lost
its powers) by Item 14 (wording of 29 August 2000) of Paragraph
1 of Article 56 of the Law on the State Service; they continued
to hold this office although another Government, which received
its powers to act on 9 November 2000, was working.
Under the Constitution, such legal and factual situation
is intolerable.
Thus, no expectation (that the term of their powers would
be longer than the term of powers of the Government which had
appointed them) appeared for the said persons, who were holding
the office of the Government representatives, although they
were no longer appointed to this office under procedure (by way
of competition) established by laws; as mentioned, the
Government that had appointed them had lost its powers.
13. On 21 November 2000, the Seimas adopted the Republic
of Lithuania Law on Amending Articles 7, 17, 21, 33, 43, 50,
55, 56, 62, 66, 69, 71, 76, and 78 and Annexes 1 and 2 of the
Law on the State Service. The Law on Amending Articles 7, 17,
21, 33, 43, 50, 55, 56, 62, 66, 69, 71, 76, and 78 and Annexes
1 and 2 of the Law on the State Service came into force on 29
November 2000.
By the Law on Amending Articles 7, 17, 21, 33, 43, 50, 55,
56, 62, 66, 69, 71, 76, and 78 and Annexes 1 and 2 of the Law
on the State Service, Paragraph 12 (wording of 29 August 2000)
of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service was amended.
Under Paragraph 12 (wording of 21 November 2000) of Article 62
of the Law on the State Service, after the status of the
position of a state servant is changed (when the position of
the state servant, who became a state servant of political
(personal) confidence according to Article 15 or Paragraph 4 of
Article 62 of this law, was entered into Annex 2 of this law or
when the position is moved from Annex 1 to Annex 2 or from
Annex 2 into Annex 1) the service relations of the person
holding this office persist: he respectively becomes a career
state servant, head of an establishment or a state servant of
political (personal) confidence; his service relations are
legalised by an order (ordinance) issued by the persons
specified in Paragraph 7 (regarding career state servants) of
Article 14, Paragraph 2 (state servants of political (personal)
confidence) of Article 15 or Paragraph 5 (regarding heads of
establishments) of Article 62 of this law.
14. Thus, Paragraph 12 (wording of 21 November 2000) of
Article 62 of the Law on the State Service established inter
alia the legal regulation whereby the state servants of
political (personal) confidence that are specified in this
paragraph become career state servants not by way of
competition but ex lege. It means that legal preconditions were
created for certain persons to be distinguished from among all
persons who were seeking to enter in the state service.
Such legal regulation was incompatible with Paragraph 1 of
Article 33 of the Constitution under which citizens shall have
the right to enter on equal terms in the state service of the
Republic of Lithuania and with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the
Constitution which provides that all persons shall be equal
before the law, the court, and other state institutions and
officials.
15. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that the rule which is consolidated in Paragraph 12
(wording of 21 November 2000) of Article 62 of the Law on the
State Service that the state servants of political (personal)
confidence may become career state servants not according to
general grounds applied to the persons who seek to enter in the
state service, but ex lege, was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of
Article 29 and Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Constitution.
16. It needs to be noted that the legal relation
established in Paragraph 12 (wording of 21 November 2000) of
Article 62 of the Law on the State Service could not create,
nor did it create any expectation protected by law to the
persons who were appointed as Government representatives by the
Government which lost its powers on 9 November 2000, so that
the term of their powers could be longer than the term of
powers (which, as mentioned, had expired) of the Government
that had appointed them.
17. Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending
Article 8 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities, which was adopted by the Seimas on 21 December
2000 and which came into force on 1 January 2001, whereby
Paragraph 1 (wording of 14 May 1998) of Article 8 of the Law on
Administrative Supervision of Municipalities was amended and
whereby it was established that the Government representative
shall be appointed for the term (term of office) of 4 years and
shall be dismissed under procedure established in the Law on
the State Service, could not create nor did it create any
expectation protected by law to the said persons.
It needs to be underlined that Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of
the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities (wording of 10 December 2002), which provides
that the term of appointing of the Government representative,
which is established by this law, shall also be applied to the
Government representatives who were appointed prior to the
entry into force of this law, and the provision "A state
servant shall be dismissed from office if: <...> (5) the term
of office of the Government representative (head of an
institution), the beginning of which is the date of entry into
force of the Law on the State Service (Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 1999, No. 66-2130), expires" of Paragraph 1
(wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 44 of the Law on the
State Service, both of which are disputed by the petitioners,
could not create nor did they create any expectation protected
by law to the said persons, either.
Quite to the contrary, the said provisions continued to
legalise such legal and factual situation, which is not
tolerated by the Constitution, where the persons who were
appointed as Government representatives by the Government that
lost its powers on 9 November 2000 were not dismissed from
office subsequent to Item 14 (wording of 29 August 2000) of
Paragraph 1 of Article 56 of the Law on the State Service,
although the powers of the Government that had appointed them
had expired.
18. In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue one is also to mention the fact that the persons who were
appointed as Government representatives by the Government that
lost its powers on 9 November 2000 were not dismissed from
office subsequent to Item 14 (wording of 29 August 2000) of
Paragraph 1 of Article 56 of the Law on the State Service still
for long time after the Government which received powers to act
on 9 November 2000 (as mentioned, the one which did not appoint
those persons to the office of Government representatives) lost
its powers on 12 July 2001 and another Government began its
work.
19. On 3 December the Government adopted: Resolution No.
1525 "On Dismissing the Government Representative for the
Marijampolė County" whereby it was decided do dismiss Algirdas
Juozas Grabauskas from the office of the Government
representative for the Marijampolė county on 8 December 2003
subsequent to Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on the State Service; Resolution No.
1526 "On Dismissing the Government Representative for the
Panevėžys County" whereby it was decided do dismiss Zita
Petronėlė Kriaučiūnaitė from the office of the Government
representative for the Panevėžys county on 8 December 2003
subsequent to Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on the State Service; Resolution No.
1527 "On Dismissing the Government Representative for the
Šiauliai County" whereby it was decided do dismiss Vitolis
Januševičius from the office of the Government representative
for the Šiauliai county on 8 December 2003 subsequent to Item 5
of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Republic of Lithuania Law
on the State Service; Resolution No. 1528 "On Dismissing the
Government Representative for the Telšiai County" whereby it
was decided do dismiss Juozas Vengalis from the office of the
Government representative for the Telšiai county on 8 December
2003 subsequent to Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on the State Service; Resolution No.
1529 "On Dismissing the Government Representative for the
Vilnius County" whereby it was decided do dismiss Gintautas
Jakimavičius from the office of the Government representative
for the Vilnius county on 8 December 2003 subsequent to Item 5
of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Republic of Lithuania Law
on the State Service. On 10 December 2003, the Government
adopted Resolution No. 1578 "On Dismissing the Government
Representative for the Šiauliai County" by Item 1 whereof it
was decided to move the indicated date of the dismissal of
Vitolis Januševičius from the office of the Government
representative from the Šiauliai county to the first working
day after his sick-leave is over.
20. The specified persons, i.e. A. J. Grabauskas, Z. P.
Kriaučiūnaitė, V. Januševičius, J. Vengalis, and G.
Jakimavičius, were appointed as Government representatives by
Government Resolution No. 1335 "On Appointing Government
Representatives" of 2 December 1999 and one is to consider that
they had political confidence of the then Government.
It has been held in this Constitutional Court ruling that
the persons who were appointed as Government representatives by
the Government which lost its powers on 9 November 2000 could
not have any expectation protected by law so that the term of
their powers could be longer than the term of powers (which, as
mentioned, had expired) of the Government that had appointed
them.
21. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that Government Resolution No. 1525 "On
Dismissing the Government Representative for the Marijampolė
County" of 3 December 2003, Government Resolution No. 1526 "On
Dismissing the Government Representative for the Panevėžys
County" of 3 December 2003, Government Resolution No. 1527 "On
Dismissing the Government Representative for the Šiauliai
County" of 3 December 2003, Item 1 of Government Resolution No.
1528 "On Dismissing the Government Representative for the
Telšiai County" of 3 December 2003, Government Resolution No.
1529 "On Dismissing the Government Representative for the
Vilnius County" of 3 December 2003, and Item 1 of Government
Resolution No. 1578 "On Dismissing the Government
Representative for the Šiauliai County" of 10 December 2003 in
the aspect specified by the Vilnius Regional Administrative
Court, the petitioner, are not in conflict with the
constitutional principle of protection of legitimate
expectations.
Having held this, one is to hold that Government
Resolution No. 1525 "On Dismissing the Government
Representative for the Marijampolė County" of 3 December 2003,
Government Resolution No. 1526 "On Dismissing the Government
Representative for the Panevėžys County" of 3 December 2003,
Government Resolution No. 1527 "On Dismissing the Government
Representative for the Šiauliai County" of 3 December 2003,
Item 1 of Government Resolution No. 1528 "On Dismissing the
Government Representative for the Telšiai County" of 3 December
2003, Government Resolution No. 1529 "On Dismissing the
Government Representative for the Vilnius County" of 3 December
2003, and Item 1 of Government Resolution No. 1578 "On
Dismissing the Government Representative for the Šiauliai
County" of 10 December 2003 in the aspect specified by the
Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, are not
in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law.
22. Having held that that Government Resolution No. 1525
"On Dismissing the Government Representative for the
Marijampolė County" of 3 December 2003, Government Resolution
No. 1526 "On Dismissing the Government Representative for the
Panevėžys County" of 3 December 2003, Government Resolution No.
1527 "On Dismissing the Government Representative for the
Šiauliai County" of 3 December 2003, Item 1 of Government
Resolution No. 1528 "On Dismissing the Government
Representative for the Telšiai County" of 3 December 2003,
Government Resolution No. 1529 "On Dismissing the Government
Representative for the Vilnius County" of 3 December 2003, and
Item 1 of Government Resolution No. 1578 "On Dismissing the
Government Representative for the Šiauliai County" of 10
December 2003 in the aspect specified by the Vilnius Regional
Administrative Court, the petitioner, are not in conflict with
the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law
and protection of legitimate expectations, and taking account
of the fact that, as held in this Constitutional Court ruling,
Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on Amending the Law on
Administrative Supervision of Municipalities (wording of 10
December 2002), the provision "A state servant shall be
dismissed from office if: <...> (5) the term of office of the
Government representative (head of an institution), the
beginning of which is the date of entry into force of the Law
on the State Service (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1999,
No. 66-2130), expires" of Paragraph 1 (wording of 10 December
2002) of Article 44 of the Law on the State Service, which are
disputed by the petitioners, could not create, nor did they
create any expectation protected by law to the persons who were
appointed as Government representatives by the Government which
lost its powers on 9 November 2000, so that the term of their
powers could be longer than the term of powers (which, as
mentioned, had expired) of the Government that had appointed
them, as well as taking account of the fact that one has
virtually answered to the question of law raised by the Vilnius
Regional Administrative Court (which is linked with the
investigating into the constitutionality of the Government
resolutions applicable in a corresponding case), in the
constitutional justice case at issue the Constitutional Court
will not further investigate whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2
of the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities (wording of 10 December 2002), and the provision
"A state servant shall be dismissed from office if: <...> (5)
the term of office of the Government representative (head of an
institution), the beginning of which is the date of entry into
force of the Law on the State Service (Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 1999, No. 66-2130), expires" of Paragraph 1
(wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 44 of the Law on the
State Service are not in conflict with the Constitution. This
part of the case is to be dismissed.
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 Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December
2002; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 127-5748) of
Article 3 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Administrative
Supervision of Municipalities was in conflict with Paragraph 1
of Article 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of
law.
2. To recognize that Paragraph 4 (wording of 8 June 2004;
Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2004, No. 98-3626) of
Article 3 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Administrative
Supervision of Municipalities is in conflict with Paragraph 1
of Article 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of
law.
3. To recognize that Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December
2002; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 127-5748) of
Article 5 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Administrative
Supervision of Municipalities was not in conflict with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
4. To recognise that the rule which is consolidated in
Paragraph 12 (wording of 21 November 2000; Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 2000, No. 102-3213) of Article 62 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on the State Service that the state
servants of political (personal) confidence may become career
state servants not according to general grounds applied to the
persons who seek to enter in the state service, but ex lege,
was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 and Paragraph 1
of Article 33 of the Constitution of Republic of Lithuania.
5. To recognise that Government of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution No. 1525 "On Dismissing the Government
Representative for the Marijampolė County" of 3 December 2003,
Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 1526 "On
Dismissing the Government Representative for the Panevėžys
County" of 3 December 2003, Government of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution No. 1527 "On Dismissing the Government
Representative for the Šiauliai County" of 3 December 2003,
Item 1 of Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution
No. 1528 "On Dismissing the Government Representative for the
Telšiai County" of 3 December 2003, Government of the Republic
of Lithuania Resolution No. 1529 "On Dismissing the Government
Representative for the Vilnius County" of 3 December 2003, and
Item 1 of Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution
No. 1578 "On Dismissing the Government Representative for the
Šiauliai County" of 10 December 2003 are not in conflict with
Constitution of Republic of Lithuania.
6. To dismiss the part of the case regarding the
compliance of Article 7 (wording of 10 December 2002; Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 127-5748) of the Republic
of Lithuania Law on Administrative Supervision of
Municipalities to the extent that it provides that the Minister
authorised by the Government may give instructions to the
Government representative regarding issues of organisational
activity, Article 8 (wording of 10 December 2002; Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 127-5748) of the same law
to the extent that it provides that the Government
representative, under procedure approved by the Minister
authorised by the Government, submits information about his
activities, Article 9 (wording of 10 December 2002; Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 127-5748) of the same law
to the extent that it provides that the Minister authorised by
the Government supervises how Government representatives
discharge their powers and coordinates the activity of
Government representatives, Article 11 (wording of 10 December
2002; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 127-5748) of
the same law to the extent that it provides that the
Regulations of the Office Activities of the Government
Representative are approved by the Minister authorised by the
Government, with the Constitution of Republic of Lithuania.
7. To dismiss the part of the case regarding the
compliance of Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision
of Municipalities (wording of 10 December 2002; Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 127-5748) with the
Constitution of Republic of Lithuania.
8. To dismiss the part of the case regarding the
compliance of the provision "A state servant shall be dismissed
from office if: <...> (5) the term of office of the Government
representative (head of an institution), the beginning of which
is the date of entry into force of the Law on the State Service
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1999, No. 66-2130),
expires" of Paragraph 1 (wording of 10 December 2002; Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 127-5748) of Article 44 of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on the State Service with the
Constitution of Republic of Lithuania.
This ruling of the Constitutional Court is final and not
subject to appeal.
The ruling is promulgated in the name of the Republic of
Lithuania.
Justices of the Constitutional Court: Armanas Abramavičius
Toma Birmontienė
Egidijus Kūris
Kęstutis Lapinskas
Zenonas Namavičius
Ramutė Ruškytė
Vytautas Sinkevičius
Stasys Stačiokas
Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis