Case No. 13/06
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
DECISION
ON DISMISSING THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE SUBSEQUENT TO THE
PETITION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL OF LITHUANIA, THE PETITIONER,
REQUESTING TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER PARAGRAPH 8 (WORDING OF 24
JANUARY 2002) OF ARTICLE 90 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON
COURTS IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC
OF LITHUANIA
3 December 2007
Vilnius
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court Armanas
Abramavičius, Egidijus Kūris, Kęstutis Lapinskas, Zenonas
Namavičius, Ramutė Ruškytė, Vytautas Sinkevičius, Stasys
Stačiokas and Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis,
with the secretary of the sittingDaiva Pitrėnaitė,
at a procedural sitting of the Constitutional Court
considered the petition (No. 1B-12/2006) of the Court of Appeal
of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether:
- Paragraph 8 of Article 90 of the Republic of Lithuania
Law on Courts is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 102
and Item 1 of Paragraph 2 of Article 105 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania;
- Decree of the President of the Republic of Lithuania No.
225 "On Dismissing a Judge of a Local Court" of 3 March 2005 is
not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Item 2 of Article
115 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and
Paragraph 1 of Article 45 and Item 4 of Article 52 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Courts.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
1. The Court of Appeal of Lithuania, the petitioner, was
investigating a civil case. By its ruling, the said court
suspended the investigation of the case and applied to the
Constitutional Court with a petition, requesting to investigate
whether:
- Paragraph 8 of Article 90 of the Law on Courts is not in
conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 102 and Item 1 of Paragraph
2 of Article 105 of the Constitution;
- Decree of the President of the Republic No. 225 "On
Dismissing a Judge of a Local Court" of 3 March 2005 (hereinafter
also referred to as Decree of the President of the Republic No.
225 of 3 March 2005) is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of
Article 29, Item 2 of Article 115 of the Constitution and
Paragraph 1 of Article 45 and Item 4 of Article 52 of the Law on
Courts.
2. By Ordinance of the President of the Constitutional
Court No. 2B-38 of 12 April 2006, subsequent to this petition,
the preparation of case No. 13/06 for the Constitutional Court
hearing was begun.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. The petitioner requests to investigate whether inter
alia Paragraph 8 of Article 90 of the Law on Courts is not in
conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 102 and Item 1 of Paragraph
2 of Article 105 of the Constitution.
2. In the resolving part of the ruling whereby it was
applied to the Constitutional Court, the petitioner does not
point out as to what is the wording of Paragraph 8 of Article 90
of the Law on Courts which he disputes, however, it is clear from
the petition of the petitioner that he has doubts 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 provides that "when a judge contests his
dismissal from office, he shall be entitled to appeal within one
month from the day of the dismissal to the Vilnius Regional
Court".
Although the petitioner requests to investigate the
compliance of entire Paragraph 8 (wording of 24 January 2002) of
Article 90 of the Law on Courts with the Constitution, it is
clear from the arguments of his petition that he doubts whether
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 the Constitution.
3. In the constitutional justice case subsequent to the
petitions of the Vilnius Regional Court, the petitioner,
requesting to investigate whether inter alia Paragraph 8 of
Article 90 of the Law on Courts was not in conflict with
Paragraph 2 of Article 31 of the Constitution and the principle
of a state under the rule of law which is, according to the
petitioner, entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, on 27
November 2006, the Constitutional Court adopted the 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", in which it
recognised 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 was not in conflict with
the Constitution.
This Constitutional Court ruling is still in force.
4. Thus, the issue of 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,
the compliance of which with the Constitution is doubted by the
Court of Appeal of Lithuania, the petitioner, with the
Constitution, was decided in the Constitutional Court 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" of 27 November 2006.
5. Under Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Law on
the Constitutional Court, by a decision, the Constitutional Court
shall refuse to consider petitions to investigate the compliance
of a legal act with the Constitution, if the compliance of the
legal act with the Constitution specified in the petition has
already been investigated by the Constitutional Court and the
ruling on this issue adopted by the Constitutional Court is still
in force.
In the event that it is established before consideration of
the constitutional justice case at a public hearing of the
Constitutional Court that there are grounds for refusal to
consider the petition of a petitioner, a decision to dismiss the
case is adopted in a procedural sitting of the Constitutional
Court (Constitutional Court decision of 8 August 2006).
6. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
hold that there are grounds to refuse to consider the petition of
the petitioner 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 1 of Article 102 and Item 1 of
Paragraph 2 of Article 105 of the Constitution. In this part of
the case the legal proceedings are to be dismissed.
7. The Court of Appeal of Lithuania, the petitioner, also
requests to investigate whether Decree of the President of the
Republic No. 225 of 3 March 2005 is not in conflict with
Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Item 2 of Article 115 of the
Constitution and Paragraph 1 of Article 45 and Item 4 of Article
52 of the Law on Courts.
The preparation of the constitutional justice case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, subsequent to the petition of the
Court of Appeal of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting to
investigate whether Decree of the President of the Republic No.
225 of 3 March 2005 is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of
Article 29, Item 2 of Article 115 of the Constitution and
Paragraph 1 of Article 45 and Item 4 of Article 52 of the Law on
Courts, is to be continued.
Conforming to Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 22, Article 28,
Item 3 of Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 of Article 69 of the Law on
the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has adopted the
following
decision:
1. To dismiss the instituted legal proceedings in the part
of the case subsequent to the petition of the Court of Appeal of
Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether
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 Paragraph 1 of
Article 102 and Item 1 of Paragraph 2 of Article 105 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
2. To continue the preparation the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, subsequent to the petition of the
Court of Appeal of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting to
investigate whether Decree of the President of the Republic of
Lithuania No. 225 "On Dismissing a Judge of a Local Court" of 3
March 2005 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2005, No. 31-984)
is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Item 2 of
Article 115 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and
Paragraph 1 of Article 45 and Item 4 of Article 52 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Courts.
Justices of the Constitutional Court:
Armanas Abramavičius
Egidijus Kūris
Kęstutis Lapinskas
Zenonas Namavičius
Ramutė Ruškytė
Vytautas Sinkevičius
Stasys Stačiokas
Romualdas Kęstutis
Urbaitis