Lietuviškai
Case No. 16/03-17/03-18/03
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
RULING
ON THE COMPLIANCE OF ARTICLE 1 OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA LAW ON AMENDING ARTICLE 7 OF THE LAW ON
LAND REFORM AND ARTICLE 7 (WORDING OF 5 NOVEMBER
2002) OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON LAND
REFORM WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
12 May 2006
Vilnius
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania
composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court Armanas
Abramavičius, Toma Birmontienė, Egidijus Kūris, Kęstutis
Lapinskas, Zenonas Namavičius, Ramutė Ruškytė, Vytautas
Sinkevičius, Stasys Stačiokas, and Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis,
with the secretary of the hearingDaiva Pitrėnaitė,
in the presence of:
the representative of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania, the party concerned, who was Liucija Schulte-Ebbert,
senior advisor of the Legal Department of the Office of the
Seimas,
pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and Article 1 of the Law on Constitutional
Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its public hearing on 10
May 2006 heard case No. 16/03-17/03-18/03 subsequent to the
following petitions:
- the 26 March 2003 petition (No. 1B-14) of the Vilnius
Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting to
investigate whether Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Amending Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform and Article 3 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles
2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18 of the Law on Land Reform to
the extent that, according to the petitioner, the citizens of the
Republic of Lithuania, who were decorated with the Order of the
Cross of Vytis and the Cross of Vytis before 3 July 2002 and who
failed to submit a request before 3 July 2003, were deprived of
the right to receive a land lot gratis, are not in conflict with
Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania, the constitutional principle of protection of
legitimate expectations, and the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law;
- the 26 March 2003 petition (No. 1B-15) of the Vilnius
Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting to
investigate whether Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Amending Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform and Article 3 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles
2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18 of the Law on Land Reform to
the extent that, according to the petitioner, the citizens of the
Republic of Lithuania, who were decorated with the Order of the
Cross of Vytis and the Cross of Vytis before 3 July 2002 and who
failed to submit a request before 3 July 2003, were deprived of
the right to receive a land lot gratis, are not in conflict with
Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania, the constitutional principle of protection of
legitimate expectations, and the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law;
- the 26 March 2003 petition (No. 1B-16) of the Vilnius
Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting to
investigate whether Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Amending Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform and Article 3 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles
2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18 of the Law on Land Reform to
the extent that, according to the petitioner, it is established
that the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, who were
decorated with the Order of the Cross of Vytis and the Cross of
Vytis, shall receive gratis as ownership one land lot of the size
set by the Government which is intended for individual
construction, if the requests were submitted before the entry
into force (on 3 July 2002) of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Amending Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform, are not in conflict
with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania, the constitutional principle of protection
of legitimate expectations, and the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law.
By the Constitutional Court decision of 9 April 2003 the
aforementioned petitions were joined into one case and it was
given reference number 16/03-17/03-18/03.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
1. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, was considering an administrative case. By its ruling
the said court suspended the consideration of the case and
applied to the Constitutional Court (petition No. 1B-14)
requesting to investigate whether Article 1 of the Law on
Amending Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform and Article 3 of the
Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
15, 17, 18 of the Law on Land Reform to the extent that,
according to the petitioner, the citizens of the Republic of
Lithuania, who were decorated with the Order of the Cross of
Vytis and the Cross of Vytis before 3 July 2002 and who failed to
Vytis shall receive as ownership gratis a request before 3 July
2003, were deprived of the right to receive a land lot gratis,
are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the
Constitution, the constitutional principle of protection of
legitimate expectations, and the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law.
2. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, was considering an administrative case. By its ruling
the said court suspended the consideration of the case and
applied to the Constitutional (petition No. 1B-15) requesting to
investigate whether Article 1 of the Law on Amending Article 7 of
the Law on Land Reform and Article 3 of the Law on Amending and
Supplementing Articles 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18 of the
Law on Land Reform to the extent that, according to the
petitioner, the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, who were
decorated with the Order of the Cross of Vytis and the Cross of
Vytis before 3 July 2002 and who failed to Vytis shall receive as
ownership gratis a request before 3 July 2003, were deprived of
the right to receive a land lot gratis, are not in conflict with
Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the constitutional
principle of protection of legitimate expectations, and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
3. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, was considering an administrative case. By its ruling
the said court suspended the consideration of the case and
applied to the Constitutional (petition No. 1B-16) requesting to
investigate whether Article 1 of the Law on Amending Article 7 of
the Law on Land Reform and Article 3 of the Law on Amending and
Supplementing Articles 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18 of the
Law on Land Reform to the extent that, according to the
petitioner, it is established that the citizens of the Republic
of Lithuania, who were decorated with the Order of the Cross of
Vytis and the Cross of Vytis, shall receive gratis as ownership
one land lot of the size set by the Government which is intended
for individual construction, if the requests were submitted
before the entry into force (on 3 July 2002) of the Law on
Amending Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform, are not in conflict
with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the
constitutional principle of protection of legitimate
expectations, and the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law.
II
1. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, grounds its petitions No. 1B-14 and 1B-15 on the fact
that by the disputed articles of the Law on Amending Article 7 of
the Law on Land Reform and the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Amending and Supplementing Articles 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15,
17, 18 of the Law on Land Reform the chevaliers of the Order of
the Cross of Vytis, who were granted this award before 3 July
2002 and who failed to submit a request before the said date,
because in their trust in the state they were not in a hurry to
do that, were retrospectively deprived of the right to receive a
land lot. In order to implement their right, they had to perform
certain acts (submit a request) in the past, but they were unable
to know it back then. In the opinion of the petitioner, such
legal regulation is in conflict with the principle that the law
is valid only prospectively, also the constitutional principles
of protection of legitimate expectations and a state under the
rule of law. In addition, such legal regulation established a
privilege to the persons who had received their land lots and had
submitted respective requests before 3 July 2002, i.e. to those
who were mainly concerned with material benefits of the award,
therefore, this legal regulation is in conflict with Paragraph 1
of Article 29 of the Constitution, under which all persons are
equal before the law, the court and other state institutions and
officials.
2. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the
petitioner, grounds his petition No. 1B-16 on the fact that, in
his opinion, the disputed legal regulation, which related the
right to receive a land lot for individual construction gratis
with the date of submission of a corresponding request, is
favourable to certain holders of this right and unfavourable to
the others. Therefore, in the opinion of the petitioner, this
legal regulation is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of
the Constitution, the constitutional principle of protection of
legitimate expectations, and the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law.
III
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations were received
from the representative of the Seimas, the party concerned, who
was L. Schulte-Ebbert, in which it is asserted that the disputed
articles are not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of
the Constitution, the constitutional principle of protection of
legitimate expectations, and the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law. The Seimas representative grounds
her position on the following arguments.
1. The state must ensure only the expectations which comply
with both juridical facts related to the disputed legal
regulation: the person was decorated with the Order of the Cross
of Vytis and the Cross of Vytis and he submitted a request
regarding reception of a land lot gratis. Paragraph 1 of Article
7 of the Law on Land Reform did not establish any obligations of
the said persons that they were not aware of or were unable to be
aware of when corresponding legal relations appeared, therefore,
the rule lex retro non agit was not violated.
2. The disputed articles of the laws are equally applicable
to all persons who were decorated with the Order of the Cross of
Vytis and the Cross of Vytis and who applied for acquisition of a
land lot gratis.
3. By Article 1 of the Law on Amending Article 7 of the Law
on Land Reform the legislator in essence changed the legal
regulation that had existed until then, because he sought to
ensure the interests of the entire society, but not those of
individual persons, and not to relate state awards with material
valuesreception of land lots. By means of Article 3 of the Law
on Amending and Supplementing Articles 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15,
17, 18 of the Law on Land Reform the legal regulation established
in Article 1 of the Law on Amending Article 7 of the Law on Land
Reform was only particularised without setting any new
circumstances or terms, which the participants of certain legal
relations did not or could not know.
IV
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations were received
from G. Švedas, Vice-Minister of Justice of the Republic of
Lithuania, J. Kondrotas, Vice-Minister of Agriculture of the
Republic of Lithuania, H. Šinkūnas, Legal Advisor to the
President of the Republic of Lithuania, Head of the Legal
Department, Prof. A. Marcijonas, Head of the Department of
Constitutional and Administrative Law of the Faculty of Law of
Vilnius University.
V
At the Constitutional Court hearing L. Schulte-Ebbert, the
representative of the Seimas, the party concerned, virtually
reiterated the arguments set forth in her written explanations.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. On 18 June 2002, the Seimas adopted the Law on Amending
Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform by Article 1 whereof it
recognised Item 1 (wording of 2 July 1997) of Article 7 of the
Law on Land Reform, which established that in the procedure set
by the Government the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania who
were decorated with the Order of the Cross of Vytis and the Cross
of Vytis, spouses (in the absence of such, parents or children)
of such persons who lost their lives (or who are deceased) upon
their request shall receive gratis as ownership one land lot of
the size set by the Government, which is intended for individual
construction, as no longer valid.
The Law on Amending Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform
came into force on 3 July 2002.
2. On 5 November 2002, the Seimas adopted the Law on
Amending and Supplementing Articles 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15,
17, 18 of the Law on Land Reform by Article 3 whereof it
supplemented Article 7 (wording of 2 July 1997) of the Law on
Land Reform with new Item 1 and it was established that in the
procedure set by the Government the citizens of the Republic of
Lithuania who were decorated with the Order of the Cross of Vytis
and the Cross of Vytis, spouses (in the absence of such, parents
(adoptive parents) or children (adoptees)) of such persons who
lost their lives (or who are deceased) shall receive gratis as
ownership one land lot of the size set by the Government, which
is intended for individual construction, if their requests to
receive gratis the land plot as ownership were submitted before
the entry into force (on 3 July 2002) of the Law on Amending
Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform, also, that "the said land
lots must be planned in the territories approved by the municipal
councils before 31 December 2003".
The Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 2, 5, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18 of the Law on Land Reform came into force
on 22 November 2002.
Taking account of the fact that by Article 3 of the Law on
Amending and Supplementing Articles 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15,
17, 18 of the Law on Land Reform Article 7 (wording of 18 June
2002) of the Law on Land Reform was supplemented with new Item 1,
it is to be held that the petitioner requests to investigate
whether the provision "Land of the size set by the Government
shall be granted gratis as ownership in the procedure set by the
Government to the following citizens of the Republic of
Lithuania: <
> (1) one land lot of the size set by the
Government, which is intended for individual construction, to
those who were decorated with the Order of the Cross of Vytis and
the Cross of Vytis, spouses (in the absence of such, parents
(adoptive parents) or children (adoptees)) of such persons who
lost their lives (or who are deceased) if their requests to
receive gratis the land plot as ownership were submitted before
the entry into force (on 3 July 2002) of the Law on Amending
Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform" of Article 7 (wording of 5
November 2002) of the Law on Land Reform is not in conflict with
the Constitution.
II
On the compliance of Article 1 of the Law on Amending
Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform with Paragraph 1 of Article
29 of the Constitution, the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law, and the constitutional principle of
protection of legitimate expectations.
1. It has been mentioned that by Article 1 of the Law on
Amending Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform, Item 1 (wording of
2 July 1997) of Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform, which
established that in the procedure set by the Government the
citizens of the Republic of Lithuania who were decorated with the
Order of the Cross of Vytis and the Cross of Vytis, spouses (in
the absence of such, parents or children) of such persons who
lost their lives (or who are deceased) upon their request shall
receive gratis as ownership one land lot of the size set by the
Government, which is intended for individual construction, was
recognised as no longer valid.
2. When deciding whether Article 1 of the Law on Amending
Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform is not in conflict with the
Constitution, it is necessary to reveal the essence of the
constitutional institute of state awards.
For merits to the State of Lithuania, citizens of the
Republic of Lithuania may be awarded awards of the State of
Lithuania (orders, medals and other decorations) (Constitutional
Court ruling of 30 December 2003). The Seimas shall establish
state awards of the Republic of Lithuania (Item 18 of Article 67
of the Constitution). The President of the Republic shall confer
state awards (Item 22 of Article 84 of the Constitution). State
awards are granted to the persons for merits to the State of
Lithuania. The persons with merits to the State of Lithuania, i.
e. those who conducted exceptional deeds demanding extraordinary
efforts or even self-sacrifice and which provided exceptional
benefits to the State of Lithuania, its society or certain
spheres of life of this country, are honoured in the name of the
state by means of state awards.
It should also be noted that according to international
customs, the diplomatic protocol, i.e. according to the
established international practice, state awards can be granted
to the citizens of foreign states (inter alia Heads of States and
high-ranking officials), expressing special respect to their
state and themselves and by seeking to develop mutually
beneficial relations between Lithuania and other states.
When establishing state awards (inter alia establishing the
system thereof) the Seimas enjoys broad discretion, however, it
must follow the constitutional concept of state awards, which
implies that state awards are granted namely for merits and that
the said merits should be merits to Lithuania (the State of
Lithuania, its society, certain spheres of life of this country).
The grounds under which persons could be awarded must be clear;
they must be established by the law. The law should also
establish a procedure of presenting a person for a state award.
The constitutional concept of state awards should also be
heeded when granting state awards. The President of the Republic
has rather broad freedom of discretion to decide whether or not
to award a presented person. It should be stressed that the
Constitution does not oblige the President of the Republic to
grant a certain state award to a certain person or persons (for
certain merits), however, when granting state awards the
President of the Republic must heed inter alia the requirements
to conscientiously fulfil the duties of his office, and to be
equally just to all, established in Article 82 of the
Constitution.
On the other hand, the law may provide for certain formal
criteria, and if a person does not meet them, he may not be
granted state awards, or, if he has been granted an award, he
must be deprived of this state award.
Granting a certain state award is not implementation of the
right nor of a legitimate expectation of a person, even though he
has undoubted merits to Lithuania, but rather such assessment of
his merits, which depends on the discretion and will of the
President of the Republic.
3. In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue it should be particularly noted that a state award is a
sign of state estimation towards that person, therefore, it
should not be related to provision of material, financial or
other benefits of any kind (with an exception, of course, of the
order, medal, etc. itself). The Constitution does not imply that
a person who was granted a state award of any kind could expect,
let alone demand, any additional material, financial or other
benefits, privileges, etc. only because he has been granted the
award.
4. The constitutional institute of state awards is not
identical to other constitutional institutes, inter alia, related
to provision of support, care, welfare, maintenance, financial or
other benefits established in the Constitution (thus, grounded
constitutionally and not regarded as privileges) to various
persons.
In this context various provisions of the Constitution are
to be mentioned: Paragraph 2 of Article 38, establishing that
family, motherhood, fatherhood and childhood shall be under the
protection and care of the state; Paragraph 1 of Article 39
establishing that the state shall take care of families that
raise and bring up children at home, and shall render them
support according to the procedure established by law; Paragraph
2 of Article 42 establishing inter alia that the state shall
support culture and science; Article 52 establishing that the
state shall guarantee to citizens the right to receive old age
and disability pensions as well as social assistance in the event
of unemployment, sickness, widowhood, loss of the breadwinner,
and in other cases provided for by laws; Paragraph 1 of Article
53 establishing inter alia that the state shall take care of
people's health and shall guarantee medical aid and services for
the human being in the event of sickness; Paragraph 2 of the same
article establishing that the state shall promote physical
culture of society and shall support sport; Article 146
establishing that the state shall take care of and provide for
the servicemen who lost their health during the military service
as well as for the families of servicemen who lost their lives or
died during the military service and that the state shall also
provide for citizens who lost their health while defending the
state as well as for the families of the citizens who lost their
lives or died in defence of the state; etc.
If a person meets the requirements set by the law and there
are grounds provided for by the law, the material and financial
support, the provision of other material, financial benefits by
the state to the person can be related to the same acts
(activity) which earned the person a certain state award.
However, it should be stressed that in itself the sole fact that
the person was granted a state award should not serve as grounds
to allocate him state material and financial support, other
material and financial benefits, etc. If such regulation was
established, it would be assessed as one deviating from Paragraph
2 Article 32 of the Constitution, according to which the rights
of ownership (national and municipal included) shall be protected
by law, and if Paragraph 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution is
construed in connection with the provision of Paragraph 2 of
Article 128 of the Constitution that the procedure for the
possession, use and disposal of state property shall be
established by law, it would also be assessed as one deviating
from Paragraph 2 of Article 128 of the Constitution, as well as
from the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of
law and the constitutional concept of state awards.
Thus, under the Constitution, such legal regulation whereby
a person, who was granted a certain state award, also receives
certain material and financial benefit or privilege on the
grounds of the fact that he has been awarded, is impermissible.
It is also to be noted that such legal regulation whereby a
person who was granted a certain, even the highest, state award,
also receives a land lot gratis is not characteristic of modern
democratic states under the rule of law at all.
5. It has been mentioned that according to Item 1 (wording
of 2 July 1997) of Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform, under the
procedure set by the Government the citizens of the Republic of
Lithuania who were decorated with the Order of the Cross of Vytis
and the Cross of Vytis were granted landone land lot of the size
set by the Government which was intended for individual
constructionas ownership gratis upon their request.
6. Having held in this Constitutional Court ruling that,
under the Constitution, such legal regulation whereby a person,
who was granted a certain state award, also receives certain
material and financial benefit or privilege on the grounds of the
fact that he has been awarded, is impermissible, it should also
be held that Item 1 (wording of 2 July 1997) of Article 7 of the
Law on Land Reform, according to which in the procedure set by
the Government the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania who were
decorated with the Order of the Cross of Vytis and the Cross of
Vytis, spouses (in the absence of such, parents or children) of
such persons who lost their lives (or who are deceased), upon
their request shall receive gratis as ownership one land lot of
the size set by the Government, which is intended for individual
construction, was not in line with the constitutional concept of
state awards, the imperative of social harmony, and the
provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 23 and Paragraph 2 of
Article 128 of the Constitution.
Abolishment of unconstitutional legal regulation may not be
regarded as contradicting the Constitution (according to its
content), therefore, Article 1 of the Law on Amending Article 7
of the Law on Land Reform disputed in the constitutional justice
case at issue cannot be regarded as contradicting inter alia
Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the constitutional
principle of protection of legitimate expectations and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, which
were indicated by the petitioner.
7. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that Article 1 of the Law on Amending Article 7 of the
Law on Land Reform is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article
29 of the Constitution, the constitutional principle of
protection of legitimate expectations, and the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law.
III
On the compliance of the provision "Land of the size set by
the Government shall be granted gratis as ownership in the
procedure set by the Government to the following citizens of the
Republic of Lithuania: <
> (1) one land lot of the size set by
the Government, which is intended for individual construction, to
those who were decorated with the Order of the Cross of Vytis and
the Cross of Vytis, spouses (in the absence of such, parents
(adoptive parents) or children (adoptees)) of such persons who
lost their lives (or who are deceased) if their requests to
receive gratis the land plot as ownership were submitted before
the entry into force (on 3 July 2002) of the Law on Amending
Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform" of Item 1 (wording of 5
November 2002) of Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform with
Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, the constitutional
principle of protection of legitimate expectations, and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
1. When deciding whether the provision "Land of the size
set by the Government shall be granted gratis as ownership in the
procedure set by the Government to the following citizens of the
Republic of Lithuania: <
> (1) one land lot of the size set by
the Government, which is intended for individual construction, to
those who were decorated with the Order of the Cross of Vytis and
the Cross of Vytis, spouses (in the absence of such, parents
(adoptive parents) or children (adoptees)) of such persons who
lost their lives (or who are deceased) if their requests to
receive gratis the land plot as ownership were submitted before
the entry into force (on 3 July 2002) of the Law on Amending
Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform" of Item 1 (wording of 5
November 2002) of Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform is not in
conflict with the Constitution, one is to hold:
- this provision was established by the law already after
the Law on Amending Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform had come
into force, by Article 1 whereof the unconstitutional legal
regulation established in Article 7 (Item 1 thereof) (wording of
2 July 1997) of the Law on Land Reform, whereby landone land lot
of the size set by the Government, which is intended for
individual constructionin the procedure set by the Government
must be granted gratis as ownership to the citizens of the
Republic of Lithuania who were decorated with the Order of the
Cross of Vytis and the Cross of Vytis, spouses (in the absence of
such, parents (adoptive parents) or children (adoptees)) of such
persons who lost their lives (or who are deceased), upon their
request, had been recognised as no longer valid;
- by this provision the legal regulation, whereby landone
land lot of the size set by the Government, which is intended for
individual constructionin the procedure set by the Government
must be granted gratis as ownership to the citizens of the
Republic of Lithuania who were decorated with the Order of the
Cross of Vytis and the Cross of Vytis, spouses (in the absence of
such, parents (adoptive parents) or children (adoptees)) of such
persons who lost their lives (or who are deceased), was
reintroduced (in a certain narrower scope) into the legal system,
by establishing the condition that their requests had to be
submitted prior to 3 July 2002, i.e. before the Law on Amending
Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform came into force.
2. Thus, the legislator re-established such legal
regulation where during a certain period of time certain persons
(their spouses, parents (adoptive parents, children, (adoptees))
had to be granted land lots gratis precisely because they had
been decorated with the Order of the Cross of Vytis and the Cross
of Vytis.
3. It has been held in this Constitutional Court ruling
that, under the Constitution, such legal regulation whereby a
person, who was granted a certain state award, also receives
certain material and financial benefit or privilege on the
grounds of the fact that he has been awarded, is impermissible.
It has also been held that Item 1 (wording of 2 July 1997)
of Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform, according to which in the
procedure set by the Government the citizens of the Republic of
Lithuania, who were decorated with the Order of the Cross of
Vytis and the Cross of Vytis, spouses (in the absence of such,
parents or children) of such persons who lost their lives (or who
are deceased), upon their request shall receive gratis as
ownership one land lot of the size set by the Government, which
is intended for individual construction, was not in line with the
constitutional concept of state awards, the imperative of social
harmony, and the provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 23 and
Paragraph 2 of Article 128 of the Constitution.
4. Having held this, it should also be held that the
provision "Land of the size set by the Government shall be
granted gratis as ownership in the procedure set by the
Government to the following citizens of the Republic of
Lithuania: <
> (1) one land lot of the size set by the
Government, which is intended for individual construction, to
those who were decorated with the Order of the Cross of Vytis and
the Cross of Vytis, spouses (in the absence of such, parents
(adoptive parents) or children (adoptees)) of such persons who
lost their lives (or who are deceased) if their requests to
receive gratis the land plot as ownership were submitted before
the entry into force (on 3 July 2002) of the Law on Amending
Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform" of Article 7 (wording of 5
November 2002) of the Law on Land Reform is not in line with the
constitutional concept of state awards, the imperative of social
harmony, and the provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 23 and
Paragraph 2 of Article 128 of the Constitution.
5. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
conclude that the provision "Land of the size set by the
Government shall be granted gratis as ownership in the procedure
set by the Government to the following citizens of the Republic
of Lithuania: <
> (1) one land lot of the size set by the
Government, which is intended for individual construction, to
those who were decorated with the Order of the Cross of Vytis and
the Cross of Vytis, spouses (in the absence of such, parents
(adoptive parents) or children (adoptees)) of such persons who
lost their lives (or who are deceased) if their requests to
receive gratis the land plot as ownership were submitted before
the entry into force (on 3 July 2002) of the Law on Amending
Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform" of Article 7 (wording of 5
November 2002) of the Law on Land Reform is in conflict with
Paragraph 2 of Article 23 and Paragraph 2 of Article 128 of the
Constitution as well as the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law.
Conforming to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania, and Articles 1, 53, 54, 55, and 56 of
the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has passed
the following
ruling:
1. To recognise that Article 1 (Official Gazette Valstybės
žinios, 2002, No. 68-2763) of the Law on Amending Article 7 of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on Land Reform is not in conflict
with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
2. To recognise that the provision "Land of the size set by
the Government shall be granted gratis as ownership in the
procedure set by the Government to the following citizens of the
Republic of Lithuania: <
> (1) one land lot of the size set by
the Government, which is intended for individual construction, to
those who were decorated with the Order of the Cross of Vytis and
the Cross of Vytis, spouses (in the absence of such, parents
(adoptive parents) or children (adoptees)) of such persons who
lost their lives (or who are deceased) if their requests to
receive gratis the land plot as ownership were submitted before
the entry into force (on 3 July 2002) of the Law on Amending
Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform" of Article 7 (wording of 5
November 2002; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 112-
4974) of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Land Reform is in
conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 23 and Paragraph 2 of
Article 128 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as
well as the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of
law.
This Constitutional Court ruling 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
Vytautas Sinkevičius
Stasys Stačiokas
Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis