Lietuviškai
Case No. 10/04-12/04-18/04A
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
RULING
ON THE COMPLIANCE OF PARAGRAPH 8 (WORDING OF 24
JANUARY 2002) OF ARTICLE 90 OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA LAW ON COURTS WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
27 November 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 Gediminas
Sagatys, senior advisor of the Legal Division of the Office of
the Seimas;
pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and Article 1 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its public
hearing on 22 November 2006 heard case No. 10/04-12/04-18/04A
subsequent to the petitions No. 1B-09, No. 1B-11 and No. 1B-19 of
the Vilnius Regional Court, the petitioner, requesting inter alia
to investigate whether Paragraph 8 of Article 90 of the Republic
of Lithuania Law on Courts is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of
Article 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and
with the principle of a state under the rule of law which,
according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
1. The Vilnius Regional Court, the petitioner, was
considering certain civil cases.
1.1. By its ruling (petition No. 1B-08), the said court
applied to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting to
investigate whether Decree of the President of the Republic No.
164 "On the Dismissal of Judges of Local Courts and Presidents of
Courts" of 22 July 2003, to the extent that it establishes that
Darius Japertas is dismissed from the office of a judge of the
Panevėžys Local Court as well as from the office of the president
of the same court is not in conflict, as to its content and under
the procedure of the adoption established in the Constitution,
with the principles of a just civil society and state under the
rule of law which, according to the petitioner, are entrenched in
the Preamble to the Constitution, with Paragraph 1 of Article 29
of the Constitution, wherein the principle of equality of all
persons before the law is entrenched, with Article 115, wherein
it is established that judges of courts of the Republic of
Lithuania shall be dismissed from office according to the
procedure established by law, as well as with Articles 83, 84 and
86 and Paragraphs 6 and 7 of Article 90 of the Law on Courts,
wherein the issues of disciplinary liability of judges are
regulated and which establish the procedure for their dismissal
and whether Paragraph 8 of Article 90 of the Law on Courts is not
in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 31 of the Constitution
and with the principle of a state under the rule of law which,
according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the
Constitution.
1.2. By its ruling (petition No. 1B-11), the said court
applied to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting to
investigate whether Decree of the President of the Republic No.
164 "On the Dismissal of Judges of Local Courts and Presidents of
Courts" of 22 July 2003, to the extent that it establishes that
Arvydas Gudas is dismissed from the office of a judge of the
Lazdijai Local District Court as well as from the office of the
president of the same court is not in conflict, as to its content
and under the procedure of the adoption established in the
Constitution, with the principles of a just civil society and
state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner,
are entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with
Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, wherein the
principle of equality of all persons before the law is
entrenched, with Article 115 of the Constitution, wherein it is
established that Judges of courts of the Republic of Lithuania
shall be dismissed from office according to the procedure
established by law, as well as with Articles 83, 84 and 86 and
Paragraphs 6 and 7 of Article 90 of the Law on Courts, wherein
the issues of disciplinary liability of judges are regulated and
which establish the procedure for their dismissal and whether
Paragraph 8 of Article 90 of the Law on Courts is not in conflict
with Paragraph 2 of Article 31 of the Constitution and with the
principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to
the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the
Constitution.
1.3. By its ruling (petition No. 1B-19), the said court
applied to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting to
investigate whether Decree of the President of the Republic No.
164 "On the Dismissal of Judges of Local Courts and Presidents of
Courts" of 22 July 2003, to the extent that it establishes that
Palmira Linkevičienė is dismissed from the office of a judge of
the Biržai Local District Court as well as from the office of the
president of the same court is not in conflict, as to its content
and under the procedure of the adoption established in the
Constitution, with the principles of a just civil society and
state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner,
are entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with
Paragraph 1 of Article 29 and Paragraph 1 of Article 31 of the
Constitution, Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, with Article
115 of the Constitution, with Articles 83, 84 and 86 and
Paragraphs 6 and 7 of Article 90 of the Law on Courts, and
whether Paragraph 8 of Article 90 of the Law on Courts is not in
conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 31 of the Constitution and
with the principle of a state under the rule of law which,
according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the
Constitution.
After it was held by the Constitutional Court decision of
7 April 2004 that under the Constitution, the Constitutional
Court does not investigate the compliance of a law with a legal
act having the power of the law, it was decided by the same
decision inter alia to refuse to consider the petition of the
Vilnius Regional Court, the petitioner, requesting to investigate
whether Paragraph 8 of Article 920 of the Law on Courts is not in
conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and to return
the petition, to this extent, to the petitioner.
2. By the Constitutional Court decision of 3 November
2005, the specified petitions were joined into one case and it
was given reference number 10/04-12/04-18/04.
3. By the Constitutional Court decision of 14 November
2006, a part of the case subsequent to petitions No. 1B-09, No.
1B-11 and No. 1B-19 of the Vilnius Regional Court, the
petitioner, to the extent that it requests to investigate whether
Paragraph 8 of Article 90 of the Law on Courts is not in conflict
with Paragraph 2 of Article 31 of the Constitution and with the
principle of a state under the rule of law, which, according to
the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the
Constitution, was separated into an individual case and given
reference number 10/04-12/04-18/04A.
II
The petition of the Vilnius Regional Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether Paragraph 8 of
Article 90 of the Law on Courts is not in conflict with Paragraph
2 of Article 31 of the Constitution and with the principle of a
state under the rule of law, which, according to the petitioner,
is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, is based on
the following arguments.
Paragraph 8 of Article 90 of the Law on Courts entrenches
the provision that when a judge contests his dismissal from
office, he shall be entitled to appeal to the Vilnius Regional
Court. Thus, the cognizable cases for the Vilnius Regional Court
are the cases where one of the parties is the President of the
Republic. Because of the fact that, in respect of the judges of
the region, the President of the Republic has the powers
established in the Law on Courts to appoint and dismiss judges of
a regional court, to transfer judges to another court, thus, in
the opinion of the petitioner, there are grounds to think that
Paragraph 8 of Article 90 of the Law on Courts is in conflict
with Paragraph 2 of Article 31 of the Constitution, under which,
a person charged with the commission of a crime shall have the
right to a public and fair hearing of his case by an independent
and impartial court, as well as with the principle of a state
under the rule of law, which, according to the petitioner, is
entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution.
III
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations from G.
Sagatys, senior advisor of the Law Department of the Office of
the Seimas, a representative of the Seimas, the party concerned,
were received, wherein it is stated that the implication made by
the petitioner that Paragraph 8 of Article 90 of the Law on
Courts is in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 31 of the
Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law is groundless.
According to the representative of the Seimas, the
President of the Republic participates, in one way or another, in
the appointment and dismissal of judges of all levels, thus, if
one assented to the statements of the petitioner, it would mean
that there is no court in Lithuania which could utterly
independently and impartially investigate the case, a party
whereof is the President of the Republic.
The list of the grounds for dismissal of judges from
office which is entrenched in the Law on Courts is final; one of
the grounds for dismissal of a judge from officewhen by his
behaviour the judge discredits the name of the judgeis related
to the fact that it must be assessed whether by his behaviour the
judge discredited the name of the judge.
In the opinion of the representative of the Seimas, the
Law on Courts establishes a clear procedure for investigation
whether by his behaviour the judge discredited the name of the
judge. The Court of Honour of Judges participates when
investigating this issue and the Supreme Court may also
participate. Their decision that a judge by his behaviour
discredited the name of the judge is considered to be a pre-
judicial fact. When the Vilnius Regional Court considers cases of
dismissal of judges from office, not the investigation of the
material grounds (of the procedure for dismissal of a judge from
office, etc.) for the dismissal of the judge from office, but the
investigation of the formal ones is of essential significance.
According to the representative of the Seimas, the
independent and impartial consideration of cases on the dismissal
of judges from office at the Vilnius Regional Court is ensured by
the system guaranteeing independence of a judge (the
inviolability of the term of office of the judge and of the
person of the judge and the social (material) character of the
judge). The implementation of the principle of independence and
impartiality of court which is entrenched in the Constitution is
ensured by consolidating the procedural guarantees of parties of
a case. It is first of all related to the right to appeal against
the decision adopted by the Vilnius Regional Court at the court
of higher instance, as well as under the cassation procedureat
the Supreme Court of Lithuania. Moreover, the career of a judge
usually lasts longer than the office of the President of the
Republic who appointed the judge to his office, thus, there are
fewer possibilities to influence the judge directly.
In the opinion of the representative of the Seimas,
Paragraph 8 of Article 90 of the Law on Courts is not in conflict
with the Constitution.
IV
At the hearing of the Constitutional Court, G. Sagatys,
the representative of the Seimas, the party concerned, virtually
repeated the arguments set forth in the written explanations.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. The Vilnius Regional Court, the petitioner, requests
to investigate whether Paragraph 8 of Article 90 of the Law on
Courts is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 31 of the
Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law.
2. The petitioner does not specify the wording of
Paragraph 8 of Article 90 of the Law on Courts whose compliance
with the Constitution he requests to investigate. It is obvious
from the arguments of the petitions of the petitioner that the
petitioner doubted whether Paragraph 8 (wording of 24 January
2002) of Article 90 of the Law on Courts is not in conflict with
the Constitution.
Paragraph 8 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Article 90 of
the Law on Courts establishes that "when a judge contests his
dismissal he shall be entitled to appeal, within one month after
the day of his dismissal, to the Vilnius Regional Court".
Even though the petitioner requests to investigate the
compliance of whole Paragraph 8 (wording of 24 January 2002) of
Article 90 of the Law on Courts with the Constitution, it is
obvious from the arguments of the petitioner that he doubts
whether the provision "when a judge contests his dismissal he
shall be entitled to appeal <
> to the Vilnius Regional Court" of
Paragraph 8 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Article 90 of the Law
on Courts is not in conflict with the Constitution.
3. In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue, it is to be noted that the petitioner doubts the
compliance of Paragraph 8 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Article
90 of the Law on Courts with Paragraph 2 of Article 31 of the
Constitution because of the fact that the legal regulation
established in Paragraph 8 (wording of 24 January 2002) of
Article 90 of the Law on Courts is not in line with the
requirements of independence and impartiality of court entrenched
in Paragraph 2 of Article 31 of the Constitution.
4. While deciding, subsequent to the petition of the
Vilnius Regional Court, the petitioner whether the provision
"when a judge contests his dismissal from office, he shall have
the right <
> to appeal to the Vilnius Regional Court" of
Paragraph 8 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Article 90 of the Law
on Courts is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 31 of
the Constitution, as, in the opinion of the petitioner, this
provision is not in line with the requirements of independence
and impartiality of court entrenched in Paragraph 2 of Article 31
of the Constitution, one must reveal those aspects of
constitutional concept of the independence of court and its
impartiality, which are necessary in the constitutional justice
case at issue.
Taking account of the fact that the petitioner's doubt
about the compliance of the provision "when a judge contests his
dismissal from office, he shall have the right <
> to appeal to
the Vilnius Regional Court" of Paragraph 8 (wording of 24 January
2002) of Article 90 of the Law on Courts with Paragraph 2 of
Article 31 of the Constitution is related to the procedure for
the dismissal of judges from office established in the Law on
Courts (wording of 24 January 2002 with subsequent amendments and
supplements), in the context of this constitutional justice case
it is also necessary to elucidate the grounds for the dismissal
of judges from office which are established in Article 115 of the
Constitution, and the procedure for the dismissal of judges from
office which is established in Article 112 of the Constitution,
as well as the procedure for the dismissal of a judge from office
because of the fact that by his behaviour he discredited the name
of the judge, which is established in the Law on Courts (wording
of 24 January 2002 with subsequent amendments and supplements).
5. Paragraph 2 of Article 31 of the Constitution
establishes that "a person charged with the commission of a crime
shall have the right to a public and fair hearing of his case by
an independent and impartial court". Paragraph 2 of Article 109
of the Constitution entrenches that while administering justice,
the judge and courts shall be independent. These provisions of
the Constitution entrench the principle of independence and
impartiality of the judge and courts. The provisions of Paragraph
2 of Article 31 and Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the
Constitution which entrench the principle of independence and
impartiality of the judge and courts are related to Paragraph 1
of Article 30 of the Constitution, wherein it is established that
"the person whose constitutional rights or freedoms are violated
shall have the right to apply to court".
The Constitutional Court has held in its acts more than
once that from the constitutional principle of a state under the
rule of law stems the imperative that a person, who thinks that
his rights or freedoms are violated, has an absolute right to an
independent and impartial court; that this right cannot be
artificially restricted, nor that the implementation of this
right may be unreasonably burdened; that this right may not be
denied; that the defence of the violated rights in court is
guaranteed to the person regardless of his legal status; that
under the Constitution, the legislator has the duty to establish
such legal regulation, whereby all disputes regarding violation
of rights or freedoms of person could be decided in court; that
the violated rights of the person, inter alia the acquired
rights, as well as legitimate interests must be protected
regardless of whether they are directly consolidated in the
Constitution; that the rights of the person must be protected not
formally, but in reality and in an effective manner against
unlawful actions of private persons as well as against those of
state institutions or officials; that the legal regulation
consolidating the procedure of implementation of the right of a
person to judicial defence of his rights and freedoms must be in
compliance inter alia with the requirement of legal clarity which
emerges from the constitutional principle of a state under the
rule of law; that the legislator must clearly establish in laws
in what way and to what court the person may apply so that he
could really implement his right to apply to court regarding the
violation of his rights and freedoms; and that the law must
establish such legal regulation so that it could be possible to
appeal against the final act adopted by a court of general
jurisdiction or a specialised court established under Paragraph 2
of Article 111 of the Constitution at least in one court of
higher instance.
In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue, it is to be noted that the legislator has discretion,
following the constitutional principle of a state under the rule
of law, to establish at which court and under what procedure a
person may apply regarding the defence of his violated rights and
freedoms. It is also to be emphasized that, under the
Constitution, the legislator may not establish any such legal
regulation, under which a person, regardless of his legal status,
could not apply to court regarding his violated rights or this
his right would be restricted.
Thus, under the Constitution, a judge, as any other
person who thinks that he was dismissed from office groundlessly
and unlawfully, has the right to apply to court regarding the
defence of his violated right. This his right is absolute and it
is not permitted to restrict, nor to deny it.
6. Courts are one of the institutions which execute state
power (Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Constitution). The
Constitution establishes that in the Republic of Lithuania,
justice shall be administered only by courts (Paragraph 1 of
Article 109 of the Constitution). To administer justice is the
purpose and constitutional competence of the judiciary. The
judicial power implemented by courtsjurisdictional
institutionstogether with the legislative and executive branches
of power, is an all-sufficient branch of state power, one of the
branches of state power entrenched in the Constitution.
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, that the independence
of the judge and courts 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, they must guarantee the supremacy of law and protect human
rights and freedoms.
The Constitutional Court has also emphasized in its acts
more than once that the independence of judges and courts is not
an end in itself, but it 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, as well
as in Paragraph 1 of Article 30) 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.
The independence of the judge and court, as well as their
impartiality are ensured by consolidating, in the Constitution
and laws, the independence of the system of courts from the
legislative and executive powers (institutional independence),
the procedural independence of judges, the organisational
independence and self-government of courts, the status of judges,
the inviolability of the person of a judge, immunities, the
inviolability of the term of office of judges and social
(material) guarantees of judges, as well as establishing the
prohibition for the institutions of state power and governance,
Members of the Seimas and other officials, political parties and
public organisations and citizens to interfere into the activity
of the judge or court.
One of important aspects of independence of the judge
entrenched in the Constitution is the fact that while
administering justice all judges have an equal legal status in
the aspect that no different self-sufficiency guarantees of
independence of the judge while administering justice (deciding
cases) may be established. No judge, while administering justice,
is or may be subordinate to any other judge or president of any
court (inter alia the court, where he works, as well as a court
of higher level or instance). While deciding cases and adopting
decisions, the judge follows only the Constitution, the laws and
law. The judge who investigates a case must be neutral, he may
not be partial.
The constitutional right of persons to a hearing by an
impartial court also means that a judge, whose impartiality may
raise doubts, may not investigate the case of a person.
Impartiality and independence of the court are an essential
guarantee of ensuring human rights and freedoms, and is a
necessary condition of fair investigation of the case, hence a
condition of trust in court as well (Constitutional Court ruling
of 12 February 2001).
7. Courts, being one of the institutions implementing
state powerjudicial powerand administering justice, must act so
that society would have trust in them. The society's confidence
in courts is an important element of a democratic state under the
rule of law and of an open, just and harmonious civil society and
an important condition of the effective activity of the judicial
power. The society's confidence in courts is determined by
various factors, inter alia qualification of judges, their
professionalism, ability to decide cases following not only the
law, but also law, assurance of the proper legal process, respect
for the persons participating in the process, rational legal
argumentation (reasoning) of the final acts of the court, clarity
of the final acts of the court to the persons participating in
the case, etc. Judges must also meet very strict ethical and
moral requirements: their reputation must be impeccable; the
judge's behaviourboth related to the direct performance of his
office and to his activity, which is not linked to his office
should not raise any doubts about his impartiality and
independence; the judge must discharge his duties and behave so
that by his behaviour he would not discredit the name of the
judge.
8. The independence of the judge and court, as well as
their impartiality, as mentioned, are ensured inter alia by the
constitutional guarantee of inviolability of the term of office
of judges.
While ensuring the inviolability of the term of office of
a judge, the cases are provided for in Article 115 of the
Constitution, when the judge may be dismissed from office; it is
also entrenched in this Constitutional Court ruling that the
judge may be dismissed from office under the procedure
established by the law.
Under Article 74 of the Constitution, the judges
specified in this article may be dismissed from office under the
procedure for impeachment proceedings, established by the Statute
of the Seimas.
It needs to be emphasized that the Constitution
entrenches the final list of the grounds for dismissal of judges
from office and that this list may not be expanded by laws or
other legal acts.
8.1. When the requirement to establish the procedure for
dismissal of judges from office by law entrenched in Article 115
of the Constitution is construed in the context of Paragraph 4 of
Article 111 of the Constitution, under which the formation and
competence of courts shall be established by the Law on Courts,
it means that the procedure for the dismissal of judges from
office must be established not in any law, but namely in the Law
on Courts.
The formula "judges of courts shall be dismissed from
office according to the procedure established by law" used in
Article 115 of the Constitution means that the procedure for
dismissal of judges from office established in the Law on Courts
must be followed by all the subjects who, under the Constitution
and the Law on Courts, have the powers to decide the questions of
the dismissal of judges from office or have the powers to
participate while deciding the questions of the dismissal of
judges from office in the ways established in the Law on Courts.
While establishing the procedure for dismissal of judges
from office in the Law on Courts, the legislator, under the
Constitution, has certain discretion, however, while establishing
this procedure, the legislator inter alia may not deny nor
restrict the constitutional powers of the President of the
Republic, the Seimas and of the special institution of judges
specified in Paragraph 5 of Article 112 of the Constitution which
are entrenched in the Constitution. The powers of the President
of the Republic entrenched in Item 11 of Article 84 of the
Constitution, as well as the powers of the Seimas entrenched in
Item 10 of Article 67 of the Constitution in formation of the
judiciary are a significant element of the constitutional status
of these state power institutions; changing or limitation of the
specified powers of the President of the Republic or the Seimas
in this sphere, as well as establishment of such procedure for
implementation of these powers that the President of the Republic
and the Seimas would be conditioned or bound by decisions of
institutions or officials, which are not provided for in the
Constitution, would mean a change of the constitutional
competence of the President of the Republic or the Seimas. As the
Constitutional Court held in its ruling of 9 May 2006, any change
or restriction of the powers of the special institution of judges
provided for by law specified in Paragraph 5 of Article 112 of
the Constitution to advise the President of the Republic on the
appointment, promotion, transfer of judges of all courts or their
dismissal from office would mean a change of the purpose of the
special institution of judges provided for by law specified in
Paragraph 5 of Article 112 of the Constitution which arises from
the Constitution itself.
8.2. Different grounds (particularities thereof) for
dismissal of judges from office established in Article 115 of the
Constitution imply inter alia the fact that the legislator,
taking account of the particularities of the grounds for
dismissal of a judge from office, has the powers to differentiate
the legal regulation of dismissal of a judge from office in the
Law on Courts, i.e. to establish different procedures for
dismissal of a judge from office. It is also to be emphasized
that while establishing the procedures for dismissal of a judge
from office by the Law on Courts (taking account of inter alia
the ground (particularities thereof) of the dismissal), in all
cases one must heed the principle of independence of the judge
and court, the presumption of innocence, the requirements of the
proper legal proceedings and other imperatives entrenched in the
Constitution.
8.3. The Constitutional Court has held in its acts more
than once that independence of courts implies inter alia self-
regulation and self-governance of courts, that while regulating
by laws the relations linked to the formation of self-government
institutions of the judiciary, as an independent branch of state
power, the legislator enjoys broad discretion and that the
legislator has the right to consolidate in the Law on Courts
various self-government institutions of the judiciary, to
establish their formation procedure, powers, etc.
In its ruling of 9 May 2006, the Constitutional Court
held that the special institution of judges pointed out in
Paragraph 5 of Article 112 of the Constitution must give
recommendation to the President of the Republic concerning all
the questions of appointment of judges, those of their
professional career, as well as those of their dismissal from
office, save the exceptions which stem from the Constitution
itself; that while establishing the procedure for the dismissal
of judges from office, the legislator must entrench in the Law on
Courts such legal regulation, under which a special institution
of judges specified in Paragraph 5 of Article 112 of the
Constitution would be composed.
It needs to be noted that the Constitution does not
prohibit the legislator from establishing by law other self-
government institutions of the judiciary which participate in the
proceedings of the dismissal of a judge from office too, however,
these institutions cannot take over the powers directly
attributed to the President of the Republic or the special
institution of judges provided for by law, which is specified in
Paragraph 5 of Article 112 of the Constitution, nor can these
institutions change, nor restrict them.
8.4. Under Article 115 of the Constitution, judges of
courts shall be dismissed from office according to the procedure
established by law inter alia when by their behaviour they
discredit the name of the judge (Item 5). It needs to be noted
that the behaviour provided for in Item 5 of Article 115 of the
Constitution by which the name of the judge was discredited,
implies not only the establishment (statement) of corresponding
facts of objective nature, but also their assessment.
The Constitution does not expressis verbis establish what
types of behaviour of the judge is attributed to those, by which
the name of the judge is discredited. It needs to be noted that
the formula "behaviour discrediting the name of the judge" is
capacious, it includes not only the behaviour of the judge, by
which, while implementing his powers as a judge, he discredited
the name of the judge, but also the behaviour which discredited
the name of the judge with no relation to the implementation of
the powers of the judge. Under the Constitution, the legislator,
as well as the self-government institutions of the judiciary have
discretion to establish what behaviour of the judge is to be
attributed to those, by which the name of the judge is
discredited, however, neither laws, nor decisions of self-
government institutions of the judiciary may establish any
thorough (final) list of actions by which a judge discredits the
name of the judge. The question whether the behaviour of the
judge is the one by which the name of the judge is discredited
every time is decided after assessment of all the circumstances
related with the said behaviour and significant to the case.
9. Under the Constitution, judges shall be dismissed from
office: justices of the Supreme Court as well as its Presidentby
the Seimas upon the submission of the President of the Republic
(Paragraph 2 of Article 112 of the Constitution); judges of the
Court of Appeal as well as its Presidentby the President of the
Republic upon the assent of the Seimas (Paragraph 3 of Article
113 of the Constitution); judges and presidents of local and
regional courtsby the President of the Republic (Paragraph 4 of
Article 112 of the Constitution); judges and presidents of
specialised courts (at this moment, one system of specialised
courts, namely administrative ones, has been established and is
functioning)by the President of the Republic (Paragraph 4 of
Article 112 of the Constitution).
10. Under Paragraph 5 of Article 112 of the Constitution,
a special institution of judges provided for by law shall advise
the President of the Republic on the dismissal of judges from
office.
In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue, it is to be noted that, as the Constitutional Court held
in its ruling of 9 May 2006, in the cases when the President of
the Republic applies to the special institution of judges
provided for by law specified in Paragraph 5 of Article 112 of
the Constitution so that it would advise him inter alia on the
dismissal of a judge from office because his term of powers has
expired or he reached the pensionable age established by law or
the court judgement convicting that judge has come into effect,
the said special institution of judges must not only make sure
that there has been a certain behaviour (deed) of the judge, but
also assess whether by this behaviour (deed) he really
discredited the name of the judge. If by his behaviour the judge
really discredited the name of the judge, the special institution
of judges provided for by law specified in Paragraph 5 of Article
112 of the Constitution must advise the President of the Republic
to dismiss the judge from office. It is to be emphasized that in
such cases the special institution of judges provided for by law
specified in Paragraph 5 of Article 112 of the Constitution may
not decide not to advise the President of the Republic to dismiss
the judge from office, while the President of the Republic, when
he receives such advice, has the powers to dismiss the judge from
office (if the judge to be dismissed is a justice of the Supreme
Courthe has the powers to propose that the Seimas dismiss him
and if the judge to be dismissed from office is a judge of the
Court of Appealhe has the powers to request for the assent of
the Seimas in order to dismiss him from office). However, if the
special institution of judges provided for by law specified in
Paragraph 5 of Article 112 of the Constitution holds that even
though there was certain behaviour (deed) of a judge, he did not
discredit the name of the judge by that behaviour (deed), the
special institution of judges may not advise the President of the
Republic to dismiss the said judge from office, while the
President of the Republic, without having received such advice,
cannot dismiss him from office, cannot propose that the Seimas
dismiss him (if the judge to be dismissed is a justice of the
Supreme Court) and cannot request for the assent of the Seimas in
order to dismiss him from office (if the judge to be dismissed
from office is a judge of the Court of Appeal).
11. It was mentioned that in the constitutional justice
case at issue it is also important to elucidate what procedure
for the dismissal of the judge from office because of the fact
that he discredited the name of the judge is entrenched in the
Law on Courts.
At the time when the Vilnius Regional Court, the
petitioner, adopted the rulings by which it was applied to the
Constitutional Court with the petition requesting to investigate
whether Paragraph 8 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Article 90 of
the Law on Courts is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article
31 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law, the relations of disciplinary
liability of judges were regulated by Articles 83-88 (wording of
24 January 2002) of the Law on Courts and dismissal of judges was
regulated by Article 90 (wording of 24 January 2002) of the Law
on Courts.
11.1. Articles 83-88 (wording of 24 January 2002) of the
Law on Courts established disciplinary liability of judges and
the procedure of its application.
Article 83 (wording of 24 January 2002) of the Law on
Courts inter alia provides that "a disciplinary case shall be
brought against a judge by the Judicial Court of Honour"
(Paragraph 1); that "disciplinary case may be brought against a
judge at the Judicial Court of Honour <
> for the behaviour
discrediting the name of the judge <
>" (Paragraph 2); that the
behaviour discrediting the name of the judge shall be the
behaviour incompatible with the judge's honour and in conflict
with the requirements of the Judge's Code of Conduct discrediting
the name of the judge and undermining the authority of the court;
and that any misconduct in officenegligent performance of any
specific duty of a judge or failure to act without a good cause
shall also be regarded as behaviour discrediting the name of the
judge (Paragraph 3).
Article 84 (wording of 24 January 2002) of the Law on
Courts established that a disciplinary case may be instituted
against a judge immediately after at least one of the violations
specified in Paragraph 2 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Article
83 comes to light (thus, inter alia when the fact comes to light
that by his behaviour the judge discredited the name of the
judge); that the Judicial Ethics and Discipline Commission shall
have the right to institute a disciplinary case against the judge
(Paragraph 1); that the Council of Courts, as well as the
president of the court where the judge works, or the president of
any court of higher level shall have the right to propose that a
disciplinary case be instituted against the judge (Paragraph 4);
and that the instituted disciplinary case shall be transferred to
the Judicial Court of Honour (Paragraph 6).
Under Paragraph 1 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Article
86 of the Law on Courts, upon consideration of the disciplinary
case, the Judicial Court of Honour may, by its decision: dismiss
the disciplinary case because there are no grounds for the
disciplinary liability; dismiss the disciplinary case because of
missing the deadline to institute this case; limit itself to the
consideration of the case; impose a disciplinary sanction.
Paragraph 2 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Article 86 of
the Law on Courts provides:
"The Judicial Court of Honour may, by its decision,
advise the President of the Republic or the Seimas, following the
procedure provided by this Law:
1) to appoint the judge to a judicial office of a court
of a lower level;
2) to dismiss the judge from office;
3) to institute the impeachment proceedings against the
judge."
Under Paragraph 4 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Article
86 of the Law on Courts, a decision of the Judicial Court of
Honour may, within ten days after its adoption, be appealed to
the Supreme Court; such appeals shall be heard by a college of
three justices of the Supreme Court; an appeal may be filed by
the judge and the subject which recommended to institute the
disciplinary case.
11.2. Thus, the Law on Courts (wording of 24 January 2002
with subsequent amendments and supplements) provides that after
having considered the disciplinary case, the Judicial Court of
Honoura self-government institution of the judiciarymay adopt
one of the decisions specified in Article 86 (wording of 24
January 2002) of the Law on Courts, inter alia it may impose a
disciplinary sanction or adopt a decision on advising the
President of the Republic or the Seimas, following the procedure
provided by the Law on Courts, to dismiss the judge from office;
the decision of the Judicial Court of Honour may be appealed at
the Supreme Court.
It needs to be noted that the formula "the Judicial Court
of Honour" used in the Law on Courts (wording of 24 January 2002
with subsequent amendments and supplements) may not be construed
only verbatim, as permitting to state that the Judicial Court of
Honour is a court, i.e. an institution administering justice,
which is provided for in the Constitution. The mere fact that the
said formula includes the notion "court" does not mean that this
institution is a court. The fact that the said institution is
composed only of judges is not the grounds to state that it is a
court, either. Under the Constitution, the court is only such
state institution that is named in the Constitution namely as a
court, i.e. an institution which administers justice. Under the
Constitution, the Judicial Court of Honour is not nor may it be
regarded as a court: the Judicial Court of Honour provided for in
the Law on Courts is one of self-government institutions of the
judiciary which has the powers to consider deeds made by judges
and to impose disciplinary sanctions on them. It is also to be
emphasized that the Judicial Court of Honour provided for in the
Law on Courts is not a constitutional institutionunder the
Constitution, the legislator has the powers to decide whether or
not to provide for such an institution in the Law on Courts.
It was mentioned that Paragraph 4 (wording of 24 January
2002) of Article 86 of the Law on Courts provides that the
decision of the Judicial Court of Honour may be appealed at the
Supreme Court and that such appeals are considered by a three-
justice college at the Supreme Court. The specified provisions of
Paragraph 4 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Article 86 of the Law
on Courts are not a matter of investigation in this
constitutional justice case.
11.3. Under Item 5 (wording of 24 January 2002) of
Paragraph 1 of Article 90 of the Law on Courts, the judge shall
be dismissed from office when by his behaviour he discredits the
name of the judge.
Paragraph 2 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Article 90 of
the Law on Courts established that the justices of the Supreme
Court shall be dismissed by the Seimas on the recommendation of
the President of the Republic and upon the proposal of the
President of the Supreme Court. (By the Constitutional Court
ruling of 9 May 2006, Paragraph 3 (wording of 24 January 2002) of
Article 90 of the Law on Courts, in which it was established that
without the proposal of the President of the Supreme Court for
the President of the Republic to dismiss a justice of the Supreme
Court from office, the President of the Republic cannot recommend
the Seimas to dismiss a justice from the Supreme Court from
office, was recognized as being in conflict with the
Constitution.)
Paragraph 4 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Article 90 of
the Law on Courts provides that the judges of the Court of Appeal
shall be dismissed from office by the President of the Republic
upon the assent of the Seimas.
Paragraph 6 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Article 90 of
the Law on Courts provides that the judges of regional and
district courts shall be dismissed by the President of the
Republic.
Paragraph 7 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Article 90 of
the Law on Courts provided that the President of the Republic
shall be advised on the dismissal of judges of a local court, a
regional administrative court, a regional court, the Court of
Appeal of Lithuania and the Supreme Administrative Court by the
Council of Courts. (By the Constitutional Court ruling of 9 May
2006, Paragraph 7 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Article 90 of
the Law on Courts, wherein it was established that the special
institution of judges provided for by law specified in Paragraph
5 of Article 112 of the Constitution has no right to advise the
President of the Republic regarding the dismissal of justices of
the Supreme Court from office, was recognized as being in
conflict with the Constitution.)
Paragraph 8 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Article 90 of
the Law on Courts provides that when a judge contests his
dismissal from office, he shall have the right to apply to the
Vilnius Regional Court.
12. In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue, it is important to elucidate whether, under the Law on
Courts (wording of 24 January 2002 with subsequent amendments and
supplements), the institution of a disciplinary case against the
judge, who discredited the name of the judge by his behaviour,
and the decision of the Judicial Court of Honour to advise the
President of the Republic to dismiss the judge from office
because of the fact that by his behaviour he discredited the name
of the judge are a necessary (obligatory) part of the procedure
for the dismissal of a judge from office, and in case of not
fulfilment of this part, i.e. if the disciplinary case is not
instituted against the judge who by his behaviour discredited the
name of the judge and if the Judicial Court of Honour has not
advised the President of the Republic to dismiss the judge from
office because of that fact, the President of the Republic has no
powers to dismiss the judge from office because of that fact, and
whether non-institution of the disciplinary case, thus, also the
absence of the decision of the Judicial Court of Honour to
propose that the President of the Republic dismiss the judge from
office because of the said, are not an obstacle for the President
of the Republic to apply to the special institution of judges
provided for by law specified in Paragraph 5 of Article 112 of
the Constitution for advice regarding the dismissal of the judge
from office because of the fact that by his behaviour the judge
discredited the name of the judge, and after having received the
advice regarding the dismissal of the judge from office because
of the fact that by his behaviour the judge discredited the name
of the judge, to decide whether to dismiss the judge from office.
12.1. While assessing the legal regulation established in
the Law on Courts (wording of 24 January 2002 with subsequent
amendments and supplements) in a systemic manner, one is to hold
that the Law on Courts (wording of 24 January 2002 with
subsequent amendments and supplements) entrenches such overall
regulation regarding the relations of the dismissal of the judge
from office because of the fact that by his behaviour the judge
discredited the name of the judge, under which the Judicial Court
of Honour has the right inter alia to submit proposals for the
President of the Republic to dismiss the judge from office
because of the fact that by his behaviour the judge discredited
the name of the judge, and the President of the Republic, after
having received the advice from the special institution of judges
provided for by law specified in Paragraph 5 of Article 112 of
the Constitution regarding the dismissal of the judge from office
because of the fact that by his behaviour the judge discredited
the name of the judge, has the powers to decide whether to
dismiss the judge from office on the said grounds.
It is to be noted that neither Article 90 (wording of 24
January 2002) of the Law on Courts, nor other articles of this
law establish that the President of the Republic may dismiss the
judge from office because of the fact that by his behaviour the
judge discredited the name of the judge only upon the proposal
from the Judicial Court of Honour to the President of the
Republic; neither Article 90 (wording of 24 January 2002) of the
Law on Courts, nor other articles of this law establish that the
President of the Republic may apply to the special institution of
judges provided for by law specified in Paragraph 5 of Article
112 of the Constitution regarding the dismissal of the judge from
office because of the fact that by his behaviour the judge
discredited the name of the judge only in the case, when there is
a proposal from the Judicial Court of Honour for the President of
the Republic to dismiss the judge from office because of the fact
that by his behaviour the judge discredited the name of the
judge.
It is also to be noted that the constitutional powers of
the President of the Republic to apply to the special institution
of judges provided for by law specified in Paragraph 5 of Article
112 of the Constitution for advice regarding the dismissal of a
judge from office because of the fact that by his behaviour the
judge discredited the name of the judge, cannot be bound by the
presence or absence is a corresponding proposal of the Judicial
Court of Honour to the President of the Republic. Under the
Constitution, no decision of the Judicial Court of Honour in a
disciplinary case, wherein it was investigated whether by his
behaviour the judge discredited the name of the judge, whatever
the content of such decision (inter alia to dismiss the
disciplinary case if there are no grounds for disciplinary
liability; to restrict oneself to the consideration of the
disciplinary case; to impose a disciplinary sanction on the
judge), restricts nor let alone denies the constitutional powers
of the President of the Republic to apply to the special
institution of judges provided for by law specified in Paragraph
5 of Article 112 of the Constitution for advice regarding the
dismissal of the judge from office because of the fact that by
his behaviour the judge discredited the name of the judge.
Thus, the mere fact that the Law on Courts (wording of 24
January 2002 with subsequent amendments and supplements)
establishes such legal regulation under which the Judicial Court
of Honoura self-government institution of the judiciaryhas the
right to consider the disciplinary cases of judges and inter alia
to propose that the President of the Republic dismiss a judge
from office because of the fact that by his behaviour the judge
discredited the name of the judge, does not mean that the Law on
Courts (wording of 24 January 2002 with subsequent amendments and
supplements) establishes such legal regulation, under which the
implementation of the constitutional powers of the President of
the Republic to dismiss judges from office, as well as the
implementation of the constitutional powers of the special
institution of judges provided for by law specified in Paragraph
5 of Article 112 of the Constitution to advise the President of
the Republic regarding the dismissal of the judge from office,
depend on the fact whether there is the said proposal of the
Judicial Court of Honour to dismiss the judge from office.
If the said legal regulation established in the Law on
Courts (wording of 24 January 2002 with subsequent amendments and
supplements) were construed as, purportedly, establishing the
prohibition for the President of the Republic to apply to the
special institution of judges provided for by law specified in
Paragraph 5 of Article 112 of the Constitution for advice
regarding the dismissal of the judge from office until the
Judicial Court of Honour (after it has considered the
disciplinary case instituted against the judge) proposes the
President of the Republic to dismiss the judge from office
because of the fact that by his behaviour the judge discredited
the name of the judge, and as establishing the prohibition for
the President of the Republic to dismiss the judge from office
because of the fact that by his behaviour the judge discredited
the name of the judge if the Judicial Court of Honour (after it
has considered the disciplinary case instituted against the
judge) does not propose the President of the Republic to dismiss
the judge from office because of the fact that by his behaviour
the judge discredited the name of the judge, it would mean that
Article 86 (wording of 24 January 2002) (we construe it in
relation with Article 90) of the Law on Courts establishes such
legal regulation that restricts or even denies the powers of the
President of the Republic, which are established in the
Constitution, to dismiss judges of local and regional courts as
well as judges of the Court of Appeal who, by their behaviour,
discredited the name of the judge, and that restricts or even
denies the powers of the special institution of judges provided
for by law specified in Paragraph 5 of Article 112 of the
Constitution to advice the President of the Republic regarding
the dismissal of the judge from office. If the Law on Courts
(wording of 24 January 2002 with subsequent amendments and
supplements) established the said legal regulationrestricting or
even denying the powers of the President of the Republic, which
are established in the Constitution, to dismiss judges of the
local and regional courts as well as judges of the Court of
Appeal who, by their behaviour, discredited the name of the
judge, and restricting or even denying the powers of the special
institution of judges provided for by law specified in Paragraph
5 of Article 112 of the Constitution to advice the President of
the Republic regarding the dismissal of the judge from officeit
could be assessed as being in conflict with the Constitution.
Having held that the legal regulation entrenched in
Article 86 (wording of 24 January 2002) of the Law on Courts,
under which the Judicial Court of Honour has the right (after it
has considered the disciplinary case instituted against the
judge) inter alia to propose that the President of the Republic
dismiss the judge from office because of the fact that by his
behaviour the judge discredited the name of the judge, may not be
interpreted as establishing that until the Judicial Court of
Honour has proposed that the President of the Republic dismiss
the judge from office because of the fact that by his behaviour
the judge discredited the name of the judge, the President of the
Republic may not dismiss the judge from office, one is to hold
that the powers of the Judicial Court of Honour established in
the Law on Courts (wording of 24 January 2002 with subsequent
amendments and supplements), after it has considered the
disciplinary case instituted against the judge, inter alia to
propose that the President of the Republic dismiss the judge from
office because of the fact that by his behaviour the judge
discredited the name of the judge, are to be assessed not as a
necessary part of the procedure of dismissal of the judge from
office because of the fact that by his behaviour the judge
discredited the name of the judge, but only as a proposal which
draws the attention of the President of the Republic to the fact
that, in the opinion of the Judicial Court of Honour, the judge
against whom a disciplinary case was instituted because of the
fact that by his behaviour he discredited the name of the judge
should be dismissed from office. Such proposal of the Judicial
Court of Honour, either under the Constitution, or under the Law
on Courts, does not mean that upon receiving such proposal the
President of the Republic has a duty to apply to the special
institution of judges provided for by law specified in Paragraph
5 of Article 112 of the Constitution for advice regarding the
dismissal of the judge who, as it was held by the Judicial Court
of Honour, by his behaviour discredited the name of the judge.
12.2. It has been held in this constitutional justice
case that the legislator has the powers to establish what self-
government institutions of the judiciary and under what procedure
participate (may participate) in the process of the dismissal of
the judge from office and that by doing so the legislator may not
establish any such legal regulation, under which the self-
government institutions of the judiciary which participate in the
process of the dismissal of judges from office would be granted
such powers, by which the constitutional powers of the President
of the Republic, the Seimas and the special institution of judges
provided for by law specified in Paragraph 5 of Article 112 of
the Constitution would be interfered with.
The Judicial Court of Honour which is provided for in the
Law on Courts (wording of 24 January 2002 with subsequent
amendments and supplements), and which, as it was mentioned,
under Article 86 (wording of 24 January 2002) of the Law on
Courts, has the right (after it has considered the disciplinary
case instituted against the judge) inter alia to propose that the
President of the Republic dismiss the judge from office because
of the fact that by his behaviour the judge discredited the name
of the judge, is one of self-government institutions of the
judiciary which could be granted (and was granted) the said right
in the law by the legislator. It was mentioned that the mere fact
that the Law on Courts (wording of 24 January 2002 with
subsequent amendments and supplements) establishes such legal
regulation, under which the Judicial Court of Honoura self-
government institution of the judiciaryhas the right to consider
disciplinary cases of judges and inter alia to propose that the
President of the Republic dismiss the judge from office because
of the fact that by his behaviour the judge discredited the name
of the judge, does not mean that the Law on Courts (wording of 24
January 2002 with subsequent amendments and supplements)
establishes such legal regulation, under which the implementation
of the constitutional powers of the President of the Republic to
dismiss judges from office, as well as the implementation of the
constitutional powers of the special institution of judges
provided for by law specified in Paragraph 5 of Article 112 of
the Constitution to advise the President of the Republic
regarding the dismissal of the judge from office, depend on the
fact whether there is the said proposal of the Judicial Court of
Honour to dismiss the judge from office.
13. Paragraph 8 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Article
90 of the Law on Courts provides: "When a judge contests his
dismissal from office, he shall be entitled to appeal, within one
month from the day of his dismissal, to the Vilnius Regional
Court."
It was mentioned that it is obvious from the arguments of
the petitioner that he doubted the compliance of the provision
"when a judge contests his dismissal from office, he shall be
entitled to appeal <
> to the Vilnius Regional Court" of
Paragraph 8 (wording of 24 January 2002) of Article 90 of the Law
on Courts with Paragraph 2 of Article 31 of the Constitution in
the aspect that the legal regulation established in Paragraph 8
(wording of 24 January 2002) of Article 90 of the Law on Courts
is not in line with the requirements of independence and
impartiality of court entrenched in Paragraph 2 of Article 31 of
the Constitution.
14. The provision "when a judge contests his dismissal
from office, he shall be entitled to appeal <
> to the Vilnius
Regional Court" of Paragraph 8 (wording of 24 January 2002) of
Article 90 of the Law on Courts means that every judge, who was
dismissed from office on the grounds established in Article 115
of the Constitution, has the right to apply to the Vilnius
Regional Court, i.e. the cases regarding the dismissal of all
judges from office are cognizable only to this court.
It was mentioned that, under the Constitution, a judge,
as any other person who thinks that he was dismissed from office
groundlessly and unlawfully, has the right to apply to court
regarding the defence of his violated right. This his right is
absolute and it is not permitted to restrict nor to deny it. It
was also mentioned that, under the Constitution, the legislator
has discretion, following the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law, to establish at which court, inter alia a
court of general competence, and under what procedure the person
who thinks that he was dismissed from office groundlessly and
unlawfully may apply regarding the defence of his violated
rights.
It has also been held in this Constitutional Court ruling
that the Constitution provides for significant powers to the
President of the Republic, as the Head of State, in the formation
of courts. The President of the Republic participates, in one way
or another, when appointing or dismissing judges of courts of all
levels. The special institution of judges provided for by law
specified in Paragraph 5 of Article 112 of the Constitution which
advises the President of the Republic inter alia regarding the
dismissal of judges from office is a counter-balance to these
constitutional powers of the President of the Republic.
It needs to be emphasized that the mere fact that the
President of the Republic decides or participates when deciding
questions related to the career of judgesappoints and dismisses
the judges of local and regional courts and of the specialised
courts established under Paragraph 2 of Article 111 of the
Constitution and upon assent of the Seimas appoints and dismisses
the judges of the Court of Appeal as well as submits to the
Seimas candidatures to be appointed to or dismissed from the
Supreme Court justicesis not the grounds to doubt the
independence of courts and judges when they, in court, consider
cases of dismissal of judges from office, the judges whereof are
appointed by the President of the Republic. If one agreed with
the reasoning of the Vilnius Regional Court, the petitioner, that
the fact that the President of the Republic appoints and
dismisses judges of the regional courts and decides the questions
of their professional career is the grounds to doubt the
independence and impartiality of the regional court, when a party
of the case considered by this court is the President of the
Republic, one should hold that no court exists in Lithuania which
is independent and could utterly impartially investigate the
case, a party in which is the President of the Republic. It is
obvious that such a statement (if one agreed with the reasoning
of the Vilnius Regional Court, the petitioner, substantiating his
doubt regarding the compliance of the provision "when a judge
contests his dismissal from office, he shall be entitled to
appeal <
> to the Vilnius Regional Court" of Paragraph 8 (wording
of 24 January 2002) of Article 90 of the Law on Courts with
Paragraph 2 of Article 31 of the Constitution and with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law) would
be absolutely constitutionally groundless.
15. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that the provision "when a judge contests his
dismissal from office, he shall be entitled to appeal <
> to the
Vilnius Regional Court" of Paragraph 8 (wording of 24 January
2002) of Article 90 of the Law on Courts is not in conflict with
Paragraph 2 of Article 31 of the Constitution and with 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:
To recognize that the provision "when a judge contests
his dismissal from office, he shall be entitled to appeal <
> to
the Vilnius Regional Court" of Paragraph 8 (wording of 24 January
2002, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 17-649) of
Article 90 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Courts is not in
conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
This ruling of the Constitutional Court is final and not
subject to appeal.
The ruling is promulgated in the name of the Republic of
Lithuania.
Justices of the Constitutional Court: Armanas Abramavičius
Toma Birmontienė
Egidijus Kūris
Kęstutis Lapinskas
Zenonas Namavičius
Ramutė Ruškytė
Vytautas Sinkevičius
Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis