Lietuviškai
Case No. 12/06
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
RULING
ON THE COMPLIANCE OF THE TITLE "THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT-A
JUDICIAL INSTITUTION" OF ARTICLE 1 OF THE LAW ON THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA AND OF
PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE SAME ARTICLE WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
6 June 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 representative of a group of
Members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the
petitioner, who was Egidijus Klumbys, a member of the Seimas;
in the presence of the representatives of the Seimas of
the Republic of Lithuania, the party concerned, who were
Česlovas Juršėnas, Deputy Speaker of the Seimas, and Ona
Buišienė, Director of the Legal Department of the Office of the
Seimas;
pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania, in its public hearing on 5 June 2006
heard case No. 12/06 subsequent to the petition of a group of
Members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, consisting
of Egidijus Klumbys, Julius Veselka, Vytautas Čepas, Violeta
Boreikienė, Henrikas Žukauskas, Algimantas Salamakinas,
Arimantas Dumčius, Ona Valiukevičiūtė, Marija Aušrinė
Pavilionienė, Algirdas Monkevičius, Petras Gražulis, Laima
Mogenienė, Alfredas Pekeliūnas, Leokadija Počekovska, Vytas
Navickas, Viktoras Rinkevičius, Rytis Kupčinskas, Petras
Auštrevičius, Petras Boguška, Jonas Ramonas, Jonas Juozapaitis,
Vytautas Galvonas, Kęstutis Glaveckas, Valentinas Mazuronis,
Algirdas Sysas, Remigijus Ačas, Aldona Balsienė, Audrius
Endzinas, Algimantas Matulevičius, Rimantas Smetona, Rima
Baškienė, Valerijus Simulik, Vaclovas Karbauskis and Saulius
Pečeliūnas, the petitioner, requesting to investigate, whether
the title and Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Constitutional Court are not in conflict
with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1 of Article
111 of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
1. A group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner,
applied to the Constitutional Court with a petition, requesting
to investigate whether the Law on the Constitutional Court is
not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5, Paragraph
1 of Article 111, Chapters VIII and IX of the Constitution.
2. By the Constitutional Court decision "On the petition
of a group of the Seimas, the petitioner, requesting to
investigate whether the Republic of Lithuania Law on the
Constitutional Court is not in conflict with the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania" of 29 March 2006, it was decided:
- to accept the petition of the petitioner, requesting to
investigate whether the title and Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of
the Law on the Constitutional Court are not in conflict with
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1 of Article 111
of the Constitution;
- to return the petition to the petitioner, requesting to
investigate whether the title and Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of
the Law on the Constitutional Court are not in conflict with
Chapters VIII and IX of the Constitution.
II
The petition of the petitioner, requesting to investigate
whether the title "The Constitutional Court-a Judicial
Institution" and Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Constitutional Court, under which the
Constitutional Court shall be a free and independent court
which implements judicial power according to the procedure
established by the Constitution and this Law, are not in
conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1
of Article 111 of the Constitution is based on the following
arguments.
In Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Constitution it is
established that in Lithuania, state power shall be executed by
the Seimas, the President of the Republic and the Government,
and the Judiciary. Under Paragraph 1 of Article 111 of the
Constitution, the courts of the Republic of Lithuania shall be
the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the Court of Appeal of
Lithuania, regional courts and local courts. According to the
petitioner, the Constitutional Court is not included in this
"final list", while separate Chapter VIII of the Constitution
is designated to it. According to the petitioner, under
Paragraph 2 of Article 5, the scope of power shall be limited
by the Constitution. The fact that Chapter IX of the
Constitution is designated to the Court, which executes state
power, while separate Chapter VIII of the Constitution-to the
Constitutional Court, certifies that under the Constitution,
the Constitutional Court is not a court and it does not execute
state power.
III
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations were
received from Č. Juršėnas, Deputy Speaker of the Seimas, and
Ona Buišienė, Director of the Legal Department of the Office of
the Seimas, both of whom were representatives of the Seimas,
the party concerned, in which it is stated that the title and
Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court
are not in conflict with the Constitution. The position of the
representatives of the party concerned is based on the
following arguments.
1. While construing the Constitution, various methods of
construction of law are applied: systemic, historical,
theological, logic and other. The mere literal method of
construction, preferred by the petitioner, is not enough, as
this method does not allow to "see" the Constitution as a
whole, and the essence of the legal regulation is distorted by
reading the Constitution only literally. All the provisions of
the Constitution are interrelated not only formally, but also
according to the content, they constitute an integral and
harmonious system.
While grounding his doubts on the fact that the
Constitutional Court and other courts are placed in different
chapters of the Constitution, the petitioner gives too much
prominence to the arrangement structure without going into the
content of these chapters.
2. The trinomial system of powers is entrenched in the
Constitution. The place of the Constitutional Court in this
system is determined by the purpose of the Constitutional Court
and the peculiarities of its executive function. Under Articles
102 and 105 of the Constitution, the most important function of
the Constitutional Court is to guarantee the supremacy of law
while investigating and deciding disputes on whether laws and
other acts adopted by the Seimas are not in conflict with the
Constitution, whether the acts of the President of the Republic
and the Government are not in conflict with the Constitution
and laws, as well as while presenting conclusions in the cases
provided for in the Constitution. While fulfilling these powers
the Constitutional Court administers constitutional justice.
The Constitutional Court is the institutional guarantee of the
principles of the supremacy of the Constitution and a state
under the rule of law entrenched in the Constitution. The
Constitutional Court decisions on the unconstitutionality of
laws and other legal acts adopted by the Seimas and acts of the
President of the Republic and those of the Government have a
legal impact on the application of the legal acts adopted by
these state power executing subjects and create a duty for them
to harmonize the adopted acts with the requirements of the
Constitution.
3. The following shows the judicial nature of the
Constitutional Court as an institution of state power: the
title of the Constitutional Court (in the Constitution, the
Constitutional Court is named as the Court not incidentally-the
Nation, the creator of the Constitution, considered it as a
judicial institution); the procedure of formation of the
Constitutional Court (the Constitutional Court, as other
institutions of judicial power, is formed not on the political,
but on the professional basis); the principles and guarantees
of the activity of the justices of the Constitutional Court
(while in office, the justices are independent of any other
state or municipal institution, person or organisation and they
only follow the Constitution; before taking office, the
justices of the Constitutional Court take the oath; they have
the right concerning inviolability of their person; the powers
of a justice of the Constitutional Court cease only on the
bases entrenched in Article 108 of the Constitution); the
restrictions on work and political activities which are
provided for for court judges apply also to justices of the
Constitutional Court; the function of the Constitutional Court
is the constitutional judicial control; the "form of activity"
of the Constitutional Court (under Article 106 of the
Constitution, only certain subjects may initiate a
constitutional justice case at the Constitutional Court and
only by observing the rules established in the Law on the
Constitutional Court; the Constitutional Court investigates a
constitutional justice case while observing the rules of the
constitutional legal proceedings (i.e. judicial process) which,
under Paragraph 2 of Article 102 of the Constitution, is
established in the Law on the Constitutional Court); and the
legal power of Constitutional Court decisions (they may suspend
the validity of legal acts, discontinue the application of the
legal acts, they are adopted in the name of the state and are
valid in the whole territory of the country, they are final and
obligatory to all institutions of state power, all officials
and citizens). These features of the Constitutional Court, as
an institution of state power, confirm that the Constitutional
Court is a court-a special court which ensures constitutional
justice. The fact that a separate chapter is designated for the
Constitutional Court in the Constitution shows not the
extrajudicial nature of this institution, but the significance
of the Constitutional Court, as a special institution of
judicial constitutional control and its particular role in
ensuring constitutional justice.
IV
1. At the hearing of the Constitutional Court, the
representative of the group of Members of the Seimas, the
petitioner, who was E. Klumbys, a member of the Seimas,
virtually repeated the arguments set forth in the petition of
the petitioner.
2. At the hearing of the Constitutional Court, the
representatives of the Seimas, the party concerned, who were Č.
Juršėnas and O. Buišienė, virtually repeated the arguments set
forth in their written explanations.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. On 3 February 1993, the Seimas adopted the Law on the
Constitutional Court, which came into force on 7 February 1993.
This law has been amended and/or supplemented more than once,
however, its Article 1 has not been amended and/or
supplemented.
2. In Article 1 titled "The Constitutional Court-a
Judicial Institution" of the Law on the Constitutional Court it
is established:
"The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania
shall guarantee the supremacy of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania in the legal system as well as
constitutional legality by deciding, according to the
established procedure, whether the laws and other acts adopted
by the Seimas are not in conflict with the Constitution and
whether acts of the President of the Republic and the
Government are not in conflict with the Constitution or laws.
In cases established in the Constitution and this Law, the
Constitutional Court shall present conclusions to the Seimas
and the President of the Republic.
The Constitutional Court shall be a free and independent
court which implements judicial power according to the
procedure established by the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania and this Law."
3. The purpose of the Constitutional Court is to guarantee
the supremacy of the Constitution in the legal system as well
as constitutional legality. Such purpose is entrenched in
Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, and it is
also established therein that the Constitutional Court shall do
that by deciding whether the laws and other acts adopted by the
Seimas are not in conflict with the Constitution and whether
acts of the President of the Republic and the Government are
not in conflict with the Constitution or laws. The status of
the Constitutional Court as free and independent court is
entrenched in this article of the Law on the Constitutional
Court.
4. The petitioner requests to investigate whether the
title "The Constitutional Court-a Judicial Institution" and
Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court
are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5 and
Paragraph 1 of Article 111 of the Constitution.
5. In Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5 of the Constitution
it is established:
"In Lithuania, State power shall be executed by the
Seimas, the President of the Republic and the Government, and
the Judiciary.
The scope of power shall be limited by the Constitution."
6. In Paragraph 1 of Article 111 of the Constitution it is
established: "The courts of the Republic of Lithuania shall be
the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, regional
courts and local courts."
7. Under the Constitution, in Lithuania state power shall
be organised and implemented on the basis of the principle of
separation of powers. The Constitutional Court has held in its
acts more than once that this constitutional principle means
that the legislative, executive and judicial powers are
separated, and sufficiently independent; there must be a
balance among them; that every institution of power has the
competence corresponding to its purpose whose concrete content
depends on the state power to which this institution belongs
and on the place of the institution among other institutions of
power as well as the relation of its powers with those of other
institutions; that after the powers to a concrete institution
of state power have been directly established in the
Constitution, no institution of state power may either take
over or transfer or refuse such powers; and that such powers
may neither be changed nor restricted by a law.
8. Courts are one kind of institutions of state power
entrenched in the Constitution. The constitutional purpose and
competence of courts is administration of justice.
The Constitutional Court has held in its acts more than
once that the function of administration of justice determines
the independence of the judge and courts, which is one of the
essential principles of a democratic state under the rule of
law: courts, while administering justice, must ensure the
implementation of the rights established in the Constitution,
the laws and other legal acts, to guarantee the supremacy of
law, and to protect human rights and freedoms. The independence
of judges and courts is not an end in itself: this is a
necessary condition of protection of human rights and freedoms,
not a privilege but one of the main duties of a judge and
courts arising from the right (guaranteed in the Constitution
(inter alia Paragraph 2 of Article 109 in which it is
established that while administering justice the judge and
courts shall be independent, as well as in Paragraph 1 of
Article 30, in which it is established that the person whose
constitutional rights or freedoms are violated shall have the
right to apply to court)) of every person who thinks that his
rights or freedoms are violated to an independent and impartial
arbiter of the dispute, which, under the Constitution and laws,
would in essence solve the dispute at law (Constitutional Court
rulings of 6 December 1995, 1 October 1997, 21 December 1999, 8
May 2000, 12 February 2001, 12 July 2001, 4 March 2003, 17
August 2004, 29 December 2004, 16 January 2006, 28 March 2006
and 9 May 2006). The autonomy and independence of the judicial
power from other branches of state power are determined by the
fact, that differently than other branches of state power, it
is formed not on the political, but on the professional basis
(Constitutional Court rulings of 21 December 1999, 12 July
2001, Constitutional Court conclusion of 31 March 2004,
Constitutional Court rulings of 28 March 2006 and 9 May 2006).
9. The courts that under the Constitution implement
judicial power in Lithuania are to be attributed not to one,
but to two or more (if that, taking account of the
Constitution, is established in certain laws) systems of the
courts. Under the Constitution and laws, at present in
Lithuania there are three systems of courts: (1) the
Constitutional Court executes constitutional judicial control;
(2) the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the Court of Appeal of
Lithuania, regional courts and local courts, specified in
Paragraph 1 of Article 111 of the Constitution, constitute the
system of courts of general jurisdiction; (3) under Paragraph 2
of Article 111 of the Constitution, for the consideration of
administrative, labour, family and cases of other categories,
specialised courts may be established to law; one system of
specialised courts, namely, administrative ones, which is
composed of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania and
regional administrative courts, is established and is
functioning at present (Constitutional Court rulings of 13
December 2004, 16 January 2006, 28 March 2006 and 9 May 2006).
10. The powers of the Constitutional Court, as part of the
judiciary system, are entrenched in the Constitution.
10.1. In Paragraph 1 of Article 102 of the Constitution,
it is established that the Constitutional Court shall decide
whether the laws and other legal acts of the Seimas are not in
conflict with the Constitution and whether the acts of the
President of the Republic and the Government are not in
conflict with the Constitution or laws.
While construing Paragraph 1 of Article 102 of the
Constitution in the context of other provisions of the
Constitution, the whole constitutional legal regulation, inter
alia the hierarchy of all legal acts arising from the
Constitution, the Constitutional Court has held that the
Constitutional Court has the exclusive competence to
investigate and decide on whether any act of the Seimas, the
President of the Republic or the Government, as well as any act
(part thereof) adopted by referendum is not in conflict with
any act of greater power, inter alia (and, first of all) with
the Constitution, namely: whether any constitutional law (part
thereof) is not in conflict with the Constitution, whether any
law (part thereof) and the Statute of the Seimas (part thereof)
are not in conflict with the Constitution and constitutional
laws, whether any substatutory legal act (part thereof) of the
Seimas is not in conflict with the Constitution, constitutional
laws, laws, and the Statute of the Seimas, whether any act
(part thereof) of the President of the Republic is not in
conflict with the Constitution, constitutional laws and laws,
and whether any act (part thereof) of the Government is not in
conflict with the Constitution, constitutional laws and laws
(Constitutional Court ruling of 28 March 2006).
10.2. In Paragraph 3 of Article 105 of the Constitution it
is established that the Constitutional Court shall present
conclusions: (1) whether there were violations of election laws
during elections of the President of the Republic or elections
of members of the Seimas; (2) whether the state of health of
the President of the Republic allows him to continue to hold
office; (3) whether international treaties of the Republic of
Lithuania are not in conflict with the Constitution; (4)
whether concrete actions of the Members of the Seimas and state
officials against whom an impeachment case has been instituted
are in conflict with the Constitution.
10.3. Under Paragraph 1 of Article 107 of the
Constitution, a law (or part thereof) or other act (or part
thereof) of the Seimas, act of the President of the Republic,
act (or part thereof) of the Government may not be applied from
the day of official promulgation of the decision of the
Constitutional Court that the act in question (or part thereof)
is in conflict with the Constitution.
In Paragraph 2 of Article 107 of the Constitution it is
established that the decisions of the Constitutional Court on
issues ascribed to its competence by the Constitution shall be
final and not subject to appeal.
The Constitutional Court has noted that Paragraph 1 of
Article 107 of the Constitution is to be construed as meaning
that every legal act (or part thereof) passed by the Seimas,
the President of the Republic or the Government or adopted by
referendum, which is recognised as being in conflict with any
legal act of greater power, inter alia (and, first of all) with
the Constitution, is removed from the Lithuanian legal system
for good, it may never be applied anymore. The power of the
Constitutional Court to recognise a legal act or part thereof
as unconstitutional may not be overruled by a repeated adoption
of a like legal act or part thereof (Constitutional Court
rulings of 30 May 2003 and 28 March 2006).
10.4. Thus, while deciding constitutional justice cases
under corresponding petitions of petitioners, the
Constitutional Court has the constitutional powers to annul the
legal power of the corresponding legal acts (parts thereof) if
they are in conflict with legal acts of greater power, alia
(and, first of all) with the Constitution. In order to be able
to establish and adopt a decision whether the investigated
legal acts (parts thereof) are not in conflict with legal acts
of greater power, the Constitutional Court has the
constitutional powers to officially construe the investigated
legal acts and the said legal acts of greater power.
Thus, also the exclusive powers of the Constitutional
Court to construe the Constitution officially and to provide
the official concept of the provisions of the Constitution-to
form the official constitutional doctrine arise from the
Constitution itself. Under the Constitution, the concept of the
constitutional provisions, the arguments set forth in the
Constitutional Court rulings as well as in other acts of the
Constitutional Court-conclusions and decisions, are also
binding on law-making and law-applying institutions
(officials), including courts of general jurisdiction and
specialised courts established under Paragraph 2 of Article 111
of the Constitution (Constitutional Court decision of 20
September 2005 and ruling of 28 March 2006).
10.5. In the Constitution, the procedure of formation of
the Constitutional Court is determined, the bases and
guarantees of the implementation (activity) of the powers of
the Constitutional Court are established and the status of the
justices of the Constitutional Court and is entrenched, etc.
11. Thus, under the Constitution, the Constitutional Court
is the institution of constitutional justice, which implements
constitutional judicial control (Constitutional Court rulings
of 28 March 2006 and 9 May 2006). The Constitutional Court has
held in its acts more than once that when deciding, under its
competence, on the compliance of legal acts of lower power
(parts thereof) with legal acts of greater power, inter alia
(and, first of all) with the Constitution, as well as when
executing its other constitutional powers, the Constitutional
Court-an individual and independent court-administers
constitutional justice and guarantees the supremacy of the
Constitution in the legal system and constitutional legitimacy
(Constitutional Court rulings of 12 July 2001, 29 November
2001, 13 December 2004 and 28 March 2006).
12. It needs to be noted that the title-the Constitutional
Court-of the constitutional justice institution which is
ascribed to execute constitutional judicial control is
expressis verbis entrenched in the Constitution itself.
It is to be emphasized that a state power institution,
which is named as a court in the Constitution itself, in its
constitutional nature may not be considered as not a court,
i.e. as not a judicial institution.
13. The petitioner grounds his petition requesting to
investigate the compliance of the title "The Constitutional
Court-a Judicial Institution" of Article 1 and Paragraph 3 of
the same article of the Law on the Constitutional Court, under
which the Constitutional Court shall be a free and independent
court which implements judicial power according to the
procedure established by the Constitution and this law, with
the Constitution on the fact that the provisions entrenching
the constitutional basis of the Constitutional Court activity
are set forth in a separate Chapter of the Constitution-its
Chapter VIII titled "The Constitutional Court", and not in
Chapter IX thereof tilted "The Court".
14. The Constitution is an integral act (Paragraph 1 of
Article 6 of the Constitution). The Constitutional Court has
held in its acts more than once: all the Constitutional
provisions are interrelated so that the content of some
provisions of the Constitution determine the content of its
other provisions; the norms and principles of the Constitution
constitute a harmonious system; there is a balance among the
values established in the Constitution; it is not permitted to
construe any provision of the Constitution only literally, it
is not permitted to appose any provision of the Constitution
against other provisions of the Constitution, nor to construe
them so that the content of any other constitutional provision
might be distorted or denied, since thus the essence of the
entire constitutional regulation would be distorted and the
balance of the constitutional values would be disturbed.
It needs to be specially emphasized that, as the
Constitutional Court has held in its acts more than once, it is
impossible to construe the Constitution (and law in general)
only literally, by means of application of only the linguistic
(verbal) method of law construction. In case one has made the
literal (linguistic, verbal) construction of the Constitution
absolute, the content of the overall constitutional legal
regulation is also lessened, and, if not all, then at least
some values entrenched in, and defended and protected by the
Constitution, are ignored, and, possibly, preconditions are
created by which the aims that the Nation consolidated in the
Constitution adopted by referendum might be violated.
In this context it is to be noted that it is not
permissible to make only the literal (linguistic, verbal)
method of construction of the Constitution, but also any other
method of construction absolute. As the Constitutional Court
has held in its rulings more than once, when construing the
Constitution, one must apply various methods of construction of
law: systemic, the one of general principles of law, logical,
teleological, the one of intentions of the legislator, the one
of precedents, historical, comparative, etc. Only such
comprehensive interpretation of the Constitution may provide
conditions for realisation of the purpose of the Constitution
as a social agreement and the act of the supreme legal power,
and for ensuring that the meaning of the Constitution will not
be deviated from, that the spirit of the Constitution will not
be denied, and that the values upon which the Nation has based
the Constitution adopted by it will be consolidated in reality
(Constitutional Court rulings of 25 May 2004, 13 December 2004
and 28 March 2006).
15. The mere fact that there are separate Chapters "The
Court" and "The Constitutional Court" in the Constitution, is
not and may not be a basis to construe that, allegedly, as it
seems to the petitioner, the Constitutional Court is not a
court-part of the judicial power and is somewhere out of the
limits of the judiciary system. Such presumption made by the
petitioner is essentially wrong and not reasoned
constitutionally at all. On the contrary, the fact that there
are two separate Chapters "The Court" and "The Constitutional
Court" in the Constitution does not deny the fact that the
Constitutional Court which, under the Constitution, executes
constitutional judicial control, is a part of the system of
courts, but it emphasizes its particular status in the system
of judicial power as well as in the system of all the state
institutions executing state power; in this way, the
peculiarities of the constitutional purpose and competence of
the Constitutional Court are emphasized.
16. It is also to be emphasized that there are significant
links between courts of general jurisdiction and specialised
courts established under Paragraph 2 of Article 111 of the
Constitution and the Constitutional Court, the institution of
constitutional justice, inter alia: every court of general
jurisdiction and specialised court (its judge), as a
petitioner, have the right to initiate constitutional justice
cases at the Constitutional Court on the basis established in
the Constitution (Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 106 and
Paragraph 2 of Article 110). All courts of general
jurisdiction-the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the Court of
Appeal of Lithuania, regional courts and local courts-as well
as specialised courts (the Supreme Administrative Court of
Lithuania and regional administrative courts) are bound by the
fact that, under Article 107 of the Constitution, decisions on
issues attributed to the competence of the Constitutional Court
are final and not subject to appeal. All courts of general
jurisdiction and specialised courts are bound by the official
constitutional doctrine formed in the jurisdiction of the
Constitutional Court, etc. However, the said court systems-the
Constitutional Court, when executing constitutional judicial
control, and the courts of general jurisdiction as well as the
specialised courts established under Paragraph 2 of Article 111
of the Constitution, in the organisational and administrative
aspects are separated in the Constitution.
17. It is to be emphasized that the presumption made by
the petitioner that the Constitutional Court is not a court and
does not implement state power is not in line with the concept
of power and the powers of the Constitutional Court established
in the Constitution at all. The fact that under the
Constitution, the Constitutional Court has the powers to
recognize legal acts of other institutions that implement state
power-the Seimas, the President of the Republic, the
Government-as being in conflict with legal acts of greater
power, first of all, with the Constitution, and, thus, to
abolish the legal power of these acts and to remove these legal
acts from the Lithuanian legal system for good, the fact that
only the Constitutional Court has the constitutional powers to
construe the Constitution officially-to provide with the
concept of the provisions of the Constitution which is binding
on all the law-making and law-applying institutions as well as
on the Seimas, the representation of the Nation, obviously
testify that the Constitutional Court may not be an institution
not implementing state power. The presumption made by the
petitioner that the Constitutional Court is not a court and
does not implement state power is utterly irrational, not only
is it not in line with the constitutional concept of state
power implementing institutions-it strikes the raison d'?tre of
the petition of the petitioner himself in this constitutional
justice case, since, as states the petitioner, if the
Constitutional Court is not a court and does not implement
state power, it is not comprehensible why the petitioner
applies namely to this court, requesting to investigate whether
a legal act, passed by the Seimas-one of the institutions
implementing state power (in this case-legislative power) is
not in conflict with the Constitution.
18. While taking account of the arguments set forth, a
conclusion is to be made that the title "The Constitutional
Court-a Judicial Institution" of Article 1 and Paragraph 3 of
the same article of the Law on the Constitutional Court are not
in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph
1 of Article 111 of the Constitution.
Conforming to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 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:
To recognise that the title "The Constitutional Court-a
Judicial Institution" of Article 1 and Paragraph 3 (Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1993, No. 6-120) of the same article
of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of
Article 5 and Paragraph 1 of Article 111 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania.
This ruling of the Constitutional Court is final and not
subject to appeal.
The ruling is promulgated in the name of the Republic of
Lithuania.
Justices of the Constitutional Court: Armanas Abramavičius
Toma Birmontienė
Egidijus Kūris
Kęstutis Lapinskas
Zenonas Namavičius
Ramutė Ruškytė
Vytautas Sinkevičius
Stasys Stačiokas
Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis