Cases Nos. 10/95, 23/98
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
DECISION
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF ITEM 6 OF
CHAPTER I OF THE REASONING PART OF THE RULING OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
"ON THE COMPLIANCE OF ITEM 5 OF ARTICLE 1, PARTS 3
AND 4 OF ARTICLE 10, PART 1 OF ARTICLE 15, ARTICLE
20, ITEM 2 OF ARTICLE 21, PART 2 OF ARTICLE 32,
PARTS 2, 3 AND 4 OF ARTICLE 34, ITEMS 2 AND 5 OF
ARTICLE 35, ITEM 2 OF ARTICLE 37 AND ITEMS 2 AND 3
OF ARTICLE 38 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON
EDUCATION WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA" OF 13 JUNE 2000 AS WELL AS ON THE
PETITION OF THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE OF THE REPUBLIC
OF LITHUANIA, THE PETITIONER, REQUESTING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF ITEM 1 OF THE REASONING PART OF THE
RULING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC
OF LITHUANIA "ON THE COMPLIANCE OF THE 30 AUGUST
1995 RESOLUTION NO.1164 OF THE GOVERNMENT OF
LITHUANIA 'ON THE CAPITALISATION OF THE CREDITS OF
SOME ENTERPRISES OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE'
WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA,
AS WELL AS WITH ARTICLE 13 OF THE LAW OF THE
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA ON BUDGETING, ARTICLE 9 OF THE
LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA ON STATE REGULATION
OF ECONOMIC RELATIONS IN AGRICULTURE, AND PART 1,
ARTICLE 43 OF COMPANY LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA" OF 28 FEBRUARY 1996
6 December 2007
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 Minister of Justice of the
Republic of Lithuania (who submitted the petition requesting
construction of provisions of the rulings of the Constitutional
Court of the Republic of Lithuania), the petitioner, who was
Donatas Glodenis, chief specialist of the Division of Religious
Issues and Legal Registration of the Register Department of the
Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania,
pursuant to Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court of the Republic of Lithuania, at the public Court hearing,
on 4 December 2006, considered the petition of the Minister of
Justice of the Republic of Lithuania requesting to construe the
following:
- the provision "Naming of churches and religious
organisations as traditional is <...> an act stating both their
tradition and the status of their relations with society, which
does not depend on the willpower of the legislator. Such an act
reflects the development and the situation of the religious
culture in society" of Item 6 of Chapter I of the reasoning part
of the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania "On the compliance of Item 5 of Article 1, Parts 3 and
4 of Article 10, Part 1 of Article 15, Article 20, Item 2 of
Article 21, Part 2 of Article 32, Parts 2, 3 and 4 of Article 34,
Items 2 and 5 of Article 35, Item 2 of Article 37 and Items 2 and
3 of Article 38 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Education
with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania" of 13 June
2000;
- the provisions "the provision of Part 1 of Article 43 of
the Constitution providing for the presence of traditional
Lithuanian churches and religious organisations is the
constitutional basis upon which a different status of traditional
churches and organisations may be established if compared with
other churches and religious organisations. It means that,
without limiting the rights guaranteed for all churches and
religious organisations, additional rights for traditional
churches and religious organisations may also be ensured by law
which are not enjoyed by the churches and organisations which are
not traditional" of Item 6 of Chapter I of the reasoning part of
the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania "On the compliance of Item 5 of Article 1, Parts 3 and
4 of Article 10, Part 1 of Article 15, Article 20, Item 2 of
Article 21, Part 2 of Article 32, Parts 2, 3 and 4 of Article 34,
Items 2 and 5 of Article 35, Item 2 of Article 37 and Items 2 and
3 of Article 38 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Education
with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania" of 13 June
2000;
- the provision "thus the constitutional principle of
equality of people of its own accord does not deny the fact that
law may establish different legal regulation concerning certain
categories of people who are in different situation. This should
also be applied to legal persons, and not only to natural persons
as the former are, as a rule, corporations of natural persons" of
Item 1 of the reasoning part of the Ruling of the Constitutional
Court of the Republic of Lithuania "On the compliance of the 30
August 1995 Resolution No.1164 of the Government of Lithuania 'On
the capitalisation of the credits of some enterprises of the
Ministry of Agriculture' with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania, as well as with Article 13 of the Law of the Republic
of Lithuania on Budgeting, Article 9 of the Law of the Republic
of Lithuania on State Regulation of Economic Relations in
Agriculture, and Part 1, Article 43 of Company Law of the
Republic of Lithuania" of 28 February 1996, the provision
"without limiting the rights guaranteed for all churches and
religious organisations, additional rights for traditional
churches and religious organisations may also be ensured by law
which are not enjoyed by the churches and organisations which are
not traditional" of the reasoning part of Item 6 of Chapter I of
the reasoning part of the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of
the Republic of Lithuania "On the compliance of Item 5 of Article
1, Parts 3 and 4 of Article 10, Part 1 of Article 15, Article 20,
Item 2 of Article 21, Part 2 of Article 32, Parts 2, 3 and 4 of
Article 34, Items 2 and 5 of Article 35, Item 2 of Article 37 and
Items 2 and 3 of Article 38 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Education with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania" of
13 June 2000.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
1. On 28 February 1996, in constitutional justice case No.
10/95 subsequent to the petition of a group of members of the
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting
to investigate whether Resolution of the Government of the
Republic of Lithuania No. 1164 "On the capitalisation of the
credits of some enterprises of the Ministry of Agriculture" of 30
August 1995 was not in conflict with the Constitution, with
Article 13 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Budgeting,
Article 9 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on State
Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture, and Paragraph 1
of Article 43 of Company Law of the Republic of Lithuania, the
Constitutional Court passed the Ruling "On the compliance of the
30 August 1995 Resolution No.1164 of the Government of Lithuania
'On the capitalisation of the credits of some enterprises of the
Ministry of Agriculture' with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania, as well as with Article 13 of the Law of the Republic
of Lithuania on Budgeting, Article 9 of the Law of the Republic
of Lithuania on State Regulation of Economic Relations in
Agriculture, and Part 1, Article 43 of Company Law of the
Republic of Lithuania" (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1996,
No. 20-537; hereinafter also referred to as the Constitutional
Court ruling of 28 February 1996).
2. On 13 June 2000, in constitutional justice case No. 23/
98 subsequent to the petition of a group of members of the Seimas
of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting to
investigate the compliance of: Item 5 of Article 1 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Education with Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3
of Article 26, Paragraph 1 of Article 40 and Paragraphs 1, 2, 5
and 7 of Article 43 of the Constitution, Paragraph 3 of Article
10 of the same law with Paragraph 1 of Article 40, Paragraph 2 of
Article 41, and Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 120 of the
Constitution; Paragraph 4 of Article 10 of the same law with
Paragraph 2 of Article 26, Paragraph 2 of Article 29, Paragraph 1
of Article 40 and Paragraphs 3 and 7 of Article 43 of the
Constitution; Paragraphs 1 of Article 15 of the same law with
Paragraph 2 of Article 38, and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 39
of the Constitution; Article 20 of the same law with Paragraphs
1, 2, 3 and 5 of Article 26, Paragraph 2 of Article 29, Paragraph
1 of Article 40 and Paragraph 7 of Article 43 of the
Constitution; Item 2 of Article 21 of the same law with Paragraph
1 of Article 40 of the Constitution; Paragraph 2 of Article 32 of
the same law with Paragraph 1 of Article 25, Paragraphs 1, 2 and
3 of Article 26 and Paragraph 1 of Article 40 of the
Constitution; Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 34 of the same law
with Paragraph 4 of Article 40 of the Constitution; Paragraph 4
of Article 34 of the same law with Paragraph 1 of Article 40,
Paragraph 2 of Article 41 and Paragraph 2 of Article 120 of the
Constitution; Items 2 and 5 of Article 35 of the same law with
Paragraph 2 of Article 120 of the Constitution; Item 2 of Article
37 and Items 2 and 3 of Article 38 of the same law with Paragraph
2 of Article 120 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court
passed the Ruling "On the compliance of Item 5 of Article 1,
Parts 3 and 4 of Article 10, Part 1 of Article 15, Article 20,
Item 2 of Article 21, Part 2 of Article 32, Parts 2, 3 and 4 of
Article 34, Items 2 and 5 of Article 35, Item 2 of Article 37 and
Items 2 and 3 of Article 38 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Education with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania"
(Official gazette Valstybės žinios, 2000, No. 49-1424;
hereinafter also referred to as the Constitutional Court ruling
of 13 June 2000).
3. The Minister of Justice, the petitioner, requests that
the Constitutional Court construe the following:
- the provision "Naming of churches and religious
organisations as traditional is <...> an act stating both their
tradition and the status of their relations with society, which
does not depend on the willpower of the legislator. Such an act
reflects the development and the situation of the religious
culture in society" of Item 6 of Chapter I of the reasoning part
of the Constitutional Court ruling of 13 June 2000;
- the provisions "the provision of Part 1 of Article 43 of
the Constitution providing for the presence of traditional
Lithuanian churches and religious organisations is the
constitutional basis upon which a different status of traditional
churches and organisations may be established if compared with
other churches and religious organisations. It means that,
without limiting the rights guaranteed for all churches and
religious organisations, additional rights for traditional
churches and religious organisations may also be ensured by law
which are not enjoyed by the churches and organisations which are
not traditional" of Item 6 of Chapter I of the reasoning part of
the Constitutional Court ruling of 13 June 2000;
- the provisions "thus the constitutional principle of
equality of people of its own accord does not deny the fact that
law may establish different legal regulation concerning certain
categories of people who are in different situation. This should
also be applied to legal persons, and not only to natural persons
as the former are, as a rule, corporations of natural persons" of
Item 1 of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling
of 28 February 1996, and the provision "without limiting the
rights guaranteed for all churches and religious organisations,
additional rights for traditional churches and religious
organisations may also be ensured by law which are not enjoyed by
the churches and organisations which are not traditional" of Item
6 of Chapter I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 13 June 2000.
II
At the Constitutional Court hearing, D. Glodenis, the
representative of the Minister of Justice, the petitioner, who
has submitted the petition requesting construction of the
Constitutional Court rulings, explained the reasons which
encouraged the petitioner to apply to the Constitutional Court,
as well as presented documents demonstrating how the provisions
of the Constitutional Court ruling of 13 June 2000, whose
construction is requested in the petition, are interpreted in the
public administration and courts' practice.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. The Law on the Constitutional Court consolidates the
powers of the Constitutional Court to officially construe its
rulings (Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court). The
Constitutional Court has the powers also to construe its other
final acts (Constitutional Court decisions of 6 April 2004, 14
March 2006 (Case No. 13/2000-14/2000-20/2000-21/2000-22/2000-25/
2000-31/2000-35/2000-39/2000-8/01-31/01), 20 November 2006, and
21 November 2006).
2. Paragraph 1 of Article 61 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court provides that a ruling of the Constitutional
Court may only be officially construed by the Constitutional
Court at the request of the parties to the case, of other
institutions or persons to whom it was sent, or on its own
initiative. Under Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court ruling shall be
sent inter alia to the Minister of Justice. Therefore, the
Minister of Justice is entitled to request that the
Constitutional Court construe provisions of a respective ruling.
3. A decision concerning construction of a Constitutional
Court ruling shall be adopted as a separate document (Paragraph 2
of Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court).
4. The Constitutional Court has stated in its acts that the
purpose of the institute of construction of Constitutional Court
rulings and other final acts is to reveal the contents and
meaning of corresponding Constitutional Court rulings or other
final acts more broadly and in more detail if it is necessary in
order to ensure proper execution of that Constitutional Court
ruling or other final act so that this Constitutional Court
ruling or other final would be followed (Constitutional Court
decisions of 14 March 2006 (Case No. 13/2000-14/2000-20/2000-21/
2000-22/2000-25/2000-31/2000-35/2000-39/2000-8/01-31/01) and 21
November 2006).
5. A ruling of the Constitutional Court is integral, its
resolving part is based upon the arguments of the part of
reasoning; while construing its ruling, the Constitutional Court
is bound both by the content of the part of resolution and that
of reasoning of its ruling; the decision adopted concerning
construction of a Constitutional Court ruling is inseparable from
the Constitutional Court ruling (Constitutional Court decisions
of 12 January 2000, 11 February 2004, 13 February 2004, 10
February 2005, 14 March 2006 (Case No. 13/2000-14/2000-20/2000-
21/2000-22/2000-25/2000-31/2000-35/2000-39/2000-8/01-31/01), the
decision of 28 March 2006, the decision of 21 November 2006).
6. Under Paragraph 3 of Article 61 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court must construe its
ruling without changing its content.
This provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 61 of the Law on
the Constitutional Court means, among other things, that while
construing its ruling, the Constitutional Court cannot construe
its content so that the meaning of its provisions, inter alia the
notional entirety of the elements constituting the content of the
ruling, the arguments and reasons upon which that Constitutional
Court ruling is based, is changed, also that the Constitutional
Court may not construe what was not investigated in that
constitutional justice case, subsequent to which the construed
ruling was adopted, either (Constitutional Court decision of 14
March 2006 (Case No. 13/2000-14/2000-20/2000-21/2000-22/2000-25/
2000-31/2000-35/2000-39/2000-8/01-31/01), 28 March 2006, and 21
November 2006). The Constitutional Court has stated that the
consideration of a petition requesting to construe a
Constitutional Court ruling or its other final act does not imply
a new constitutional justice case (Constitutional Court decision
of 21 November 2006).
In this context it is to be noted that the formula "shall
be final and not subject to appeal" of Paragraph 2 of Article 107
of the Constitution, which provides that the decisions of the
Constitutional Court on issues ascribed to its competence by the
Constitution shall be final and not subject to appeal, means that
the Constitutional Court rulings, conclusions and decisions by
which a constitutional justice case is finished, i.e. final acts
of the Constitutional Court, are obligatory to all state
institutions, courts, all enterprises, establishments and
organisations, as well as officials and citizens, including the
Constitutional Court itself: final acts of the Constitutional
Court are obligatory to the Constitutional Court itself, they
restrict the Constitutional Court in the aspect that it may not
change them or review them if there are no constitutional grounds
for that (Constitutional Court ruling of 28 March 2006, decision
of 21 November 2006).
Therefore in the official construction (subsequent to a
petition of the persons that participated in the case, other
institutions and individuals, to whom the Constitutional Court
ruling was sent, also on the initiative of the Constitutional
Court itself) of rulings and other final acts of the
Constitutional Court, the constitutional doctrine is not
corrected. The correction of the official constitutional doctrine
(which, undoubtedly, must always have a constitutional basis and
be explicitly reasoned in a respective act of the Constitutional
Court) is to be related with the consideration of new
constitutional justice cases and creation of new Constitutional
Court precedents therein, but not with official construction of
provisions of the Constitutional Court rulings and other final
acts (Constitutional Court decision of 21 November 2006, also
Constitutional Court rulings of 28 March 2006, 9 May 2006,
decision of 8 August 2006, ruling of 24 October 2007).
7. It is also to be noted that the uniformity and
continuity of the official constitutional doctrine implies a
necessity to construe each construed provision of a
Constitutional Court ruling or its other final act by taking
account of the entire official constitutional doctrinal context,
also of other provisions (explicit and implicit) of the
Constitution, which are related with the provision (provisions)
of the Constitution in the course of construction of which in a
Constitutional Court ruling or its other final act the
corresponding official constitutional doctrine was formulated. No
official constitutional doctrinal provision of a Constitutional
Court ruling or its other final act may be construed in
isolation, by ignoring its meaning and systemic links with the
other official constitutional doctrinal provisions set forth in
that Constitutional Court ruling or its other final act, in other
Constitutional Court acts, as well as with other provisions
(explicit and implicit) of the Constitution (Constitutional Court
decision of 21 November 2006).
II
1. The Minister of Justice inter alia requests to construe
the provision "Naming of churches and religious organisations as
traditional is <...> an act stating both their tradition and the
status of their relations with society, which does not depend on
the willpower of the legislator. Such an act reflects the
development and the situation of the religious culture in
society" of Item 6 of Chapter I of the reasoning part of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 13 June 2000.
2. As noted by the Minister of Justice, the petitioner, in
the public administration practice this provision is interpreted
as such a definition identifying the criteria of tradition of a
religious community or association, based on which tradition is
an indicator of the quality of the status of relations with
society, i.e. meaning that "traditional religious communities and
associations are those which are recognised in society as such",
while "the criteria of identifying their tradition should be
essentially socio-cultural", although another, alternative
criterion for the identification of tradition was used in the
public administration practice, specifically, the criterion of
institutional succession, in which in identifying whether a
community is traditional the last word should be given to a
religious community representing the religious trend which is
named as traditional. According to the petitioner, situations
occur in the public administration practice when a religious
community seeks its entry in the Legal Persons Register as
traditional, however, it does not belong to a traditional
religious association (or has seceded from it) that unites the
predominant part of the religious communities practicing the same
faith. According to the petitioner, "it is obvious that from the
socio-cultural point of view a religious community is a successor
of traditions of the same religious tradition, which the
legislator named as traditional by Article 5 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Religious Communities and Associations and that
the society recognises this community as such", and "then it is
not clear whether the public administration institution (the
Ministry of Justice) is obligated by the Constitution to
recognise the tradition of such a religious community, or, based
on the criterion of the institutional succession, <...> to reject
the request of such a religious community".
3. It is to be noted that the said provisions as requested
for construction by the Minister of Justice are a part of a
larger text; Item 6 of Chapter I of the reasoning part of the
Constitutional Court decision of 13 June 2000 in the entirety is
set forth as follows:
"It is established in Part 1 of Article 43 of the
Constitution, that the state shall recognise traditional
Lithuanian churches and religious organisations, as well as other
churches and religious organisations provided that they have a
basis in society and their teaching and rituals do not contradict
morality or the law.
The constitutional provision that the state shall
recognise traditional Lithuanian churches and religious
organisations presupposes the fact that the legislator may, in
certain cases, name certain religious organisations as
traditional in Lithuania. Naming of churches and religious
organisations as traditional is a special way of their
recognition by the state.
The constitutional establishment of the institute of
recognition of churches and religious organisations as
traditional means that such recognition by the state is
irrevocable. Tradition is neither created nor abolished by an act
of the will of the legislator. Naming of churches and religious
organisations as traditional is not an act of their establishment
as traditional organisations but an act stating both their
tradition and the status of their relations with society, which
does not depend on the willpower of the legislator. Such an act
reflects the development and the situation of the religious
culture in society. It needs to be noted that the provision of
Part 1 of Article 43 of the Constitution providing for the
presence of traditional Lithuanian churches and religious
organisations is the constitutional basis upon which a different
status of traditional churches and organisations may be
established if compared with other churches and religious
organisations. It means that, without limiting the rights
guaranteed for all churches and religious organisations,
additional rights for traditional churches and religious
organisations may also be ensured by law which are not enjoyed by
the churches and organisations which are not traditional."
4. It was noted that each construed provision of a
Constitutional Court ruling or its other final act must be
construed by taking account of the entire official constitutional
doctrinal context, also of other provisions (explicit and
implicit) of the Constitution, which are related with the
provision (provisions) of the Constitution in the course of
construction of which in a Constitutional Court ruling or its
other final act the corresponding official constitutional
doctrine was formulated, that no official constitutional
doctrinal provision of a Constitutional Court ruling or its other
final act may be construed in isolation, by ignoring its meaning
and systemic links with the other official constitutional
doctrinal provisions set forth in that Constitutional Court
ruling or its other final act, in other Constitutional Court
acts, as well as with other provisions (explicit and implicit) of
the Constitution.
5. Therefore, the provision "Naming of churches and
religious organisations as traditional is <...> an act stating
both their tradition and the status of their relations with
society, which does not depend on the willpower of the
legislator. Such an act reflects the development and the
situation of the religious culture in society" of Item 6 of
Chapter I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 13 June 2000 is to be construed considering the entire
context of that Constitutional Court ruling, and that the
Constitution explicitly consolidates the recognition by the state
of the institute of churches and religious organisations
traditional in Lithuania (Paragraph 1 of Article 43 of the
Constitution), as well as other provisions of the Constitution.
6. In this context it is to be noted that the Constitution
consolidates a threefold status of churches and religious
organisations acting in Lithuania: some churches and religious
organisations are traditional in Lithuania, other churches and
religious organisations (non-traditional in Lithuania) are
recognised by the state, yet other churches and religious
organisations acting in Lithuania have neither the status of
traditional in Lithuania nor are they recognised by the state.
7. In the systemic construction of the provision "Naming of
churches and religious organisations as traditional is <...> an
act stating both their tradition and the status of their
relations with society, which does not depend on the willpower of
the legislator. Such an act reflects the development and the
situation of the religious culture in society" of Item 6 of
Chapter I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 13 June 2000 it is to be stated that:
- under the Constitution, the Seimas has the powers to
name in the law (it not only can, but also must do so) as to
which churches and religious organisations are traditional in
Lithuania; such naming is the statement of an objective fact that
some churches and religious organisations are traditional in
Lithuania, but it is not the creation of tradition of respective
churches and religious organisations, since their existence as
traditional does not depend on the willpower of the legislator;
- only those churches and religious organisations may be
named as traditional in the law, the tradition of which does not
raise any doubts, since they are a part of the social, cultural
and spiritual heritage of the society formed in Lithuania
historically over the centuries; for churches and religious
organisations to be recognised as traditional in Lithuania, it is
far from sufficient for them to inter alia act in Lithuania for
several decades or meet other formal criteria established by the
legislator, since tradition of churches and religious
organisations does not appear even over several generations, but
it is a long-term process progressing uninterrupted over the
centuries, which is to be related with a long-lived spiritual and
cultural development of the Lithuanian society and which has an
essential impact on it; therefore, in laws the legislator must
name those churches and religious organisations as traditional in
Lithuania, which undoubtedly correspond to the aforementioned
concept of tradition and may not name those churches and
religious organisations as traditional in Lithuania, which do not
correspond to the aforementioned concept; upon stating and naming
in the law, which churches and religious organisations are
traditional in Lithuania, the legislator may not extend this
list, unless a very long time has passed after such statement and
the extension of such a list would reflect the changed
development and status of religious culture of the Lithuanian
society;
- since the tradition of specific churches and religious
organisations in Lithuania is an objective status of relations of
churches and religious organisations with the society
irrespective of the willpower of the legislator, the legislator
may not withdraw the statement of the existence of this
tradition.
8. In the context of the petition of the Minister of
Justice, the petitioner, it is to be noted that the
Constitutional Court ruling of 13 June 2000 (the construction of
the provision of Item 6 of Chapter I of the reasoning part
whereof is requested), inter alia, states that the secular
character of the state consolidated in the Constitution
presupposes the non-interference of the state in the internal
life of churches and religious organisations, while the tradition
of religion is not identified with its being a state religion.
Churches and religious organisations shall conduct their affairs
freely according to their canons and statutes (Paragraph 4 of
Article 43 of the Constitution). The status of churches and other
religious organisations in the state shall be established by
agreement or by law (Paragraph 5 of Article 43 of the
Constitution).
The constitutional provision that "the status of churches
and other religious organisations in the State shall be
established by agreement or by law" may not be interpreted as an
obligation for the state to make respective agreements with all
churches and religious organisations traditional in Lithuania,
also with other churches and religious organisations recognised
by the state. The state freely decides regarding entering into
respective agreements or not, and if to be entered, whom they
will be entered with. The said constitutional provision may not
be interpreted in such a way that once the state has entered into
a specific agreement with a certain church or a religious
organisation, it has to enter into respective agreements with
other churches and religious organisations acting in Lithuania.
9. The petition of the Minister of Justice, the petitioner,
as well as the explanations of his representative at the hearing
of the Constitutional Court reveals that the Constitutional Court
is requested to construe the provision "Naming of churches and
religious organisations as traditional is <...> an act stating
both their tradition and the status of their relations with
society, which does not depend on the willpower of the
legislator. Such an act reflects the development and the
situation of the religious culture in society" of Item 6 of
Chapter I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 13 June 2000 from such a point of view, whether in the
course of deciding regarding the entry of religious communities
in the Legal Persons Register as traditional, thus regarding
their attribution to a respective church or a religious
organisation traditional in Lithuania, it is possible to follow
not only the concept of tradition of churches and religious
organisations as set forth in the Constitutional Court ruling of
13 June 2000, which in the petition of the petitioner is named as
"socio-cultural criterion" of tradition of churches and religious
organisations, but also "the institutional succession criterion"
of a respective religious community traditional in Lithuania as
pointed in the petition of the petitioner, i.e. the institutional
ties of the respective religious community or association with a
religious community traditional in Lithuania, which unites the
majority religious communities practicing the same faith; this
petition of the petitioner, inter alia, is reasoned by the
difficulties in the public administration practice, when a
certain religious community which seeks the entry in the Legal
Persons Register as being traditional in Lithuania has no
institutional ties with a religious community that is traditional
in Lithuania and that unites the majority of religious
communities practicing the same faith (for example, it has
seceded from it).
10. In the context of the petition of the Minister of
Justice, the petitioner, it is to be noted that the establishment
of specific criteria for the guidance of the public
administration subjects in decision-making regarding the entry
into a respective register of religious communities and
associations as belonging to traditional ones in Lithuania is the
prerogative of the legislator. However, whatever criteria the
legislator may establish for the guidance of the public
administration subjects in decision-making regarding the entry
into a respective register of religious communities and
associations as belonging to traditional in Lithuania, those
criteria may not deviate from the constitutional concept of
tradition of churches and religious organisations, moreover, they
may not negate them.
11. It should be noted that the Constitutional Court ruling
of 13 June 2000 contains neither the notion of "socio-cultural
criterion", nor the notion "institutional succession criterion".
The above-mentioned Constitutional Court ruling generally
provides no consideration which criteria should be used for the
entry of religious communities and associations into a respective
register as traditional in Lithuania, nor does it assess the
existing public administration practice; it only clarifies the
constitutional concept of tradition of churches and religious
organisations.
12. It was noted that the Constitutional Court may not
construe whatever it did not consider in the constitutional
justice case, in which the ruling, the construction of which is
requested, was passed.
13. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the
Constitutional Court will not construe the provision "Naming of
churches and religious organisations as traditional is <...> an
act stating both their tradition and the status of their
relations with society, which does not depend on the willpower of
the legislator. Such an act reflects the development and the
situation of the religious culture in society" of Item 6 of
Chapter I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 13 June 2000 from the point of view indicated by the
Minister of Justice, the petitioner, namely, whether this
provision means that in the course of deciding regarding the
entry into a respective register of religious communities as
traditional in Lithuania it is possible to follow some
"institutional succession criterion" of a respective traditional
religious community, i.e. institutional ties with a religious
community traditional in Lithuania, which unites the majority
religious communities practicing the same faith.
III
1. The Minister of Justice inter alia requests to construe
the provisions "the provision of Part 1 of Article 43 of the
Constitution providing for the presence of traditional Lithuanian
churches and religious organisations is the constitutional basis
upon which a different status of traditional churches and
organisations may be established if compared with other churches
and religious organisations. It means that, without limiting the
rights guaranteed for all churches and religious organisations,
additional rights for traditional churches and religious
organisations may also be ensured by law which are not enjoyed by
the churches and organisations which are not traditional" of Item
6 of Chapter I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 13 June 2000.
2. According to the Minister of Justice, the petitioner,
Article 5 of the Law on Religious Communities and Associations
names traditional religious communities and associations which
are recognised by the state, while, under Article 6 thereof, the
status of a religious community recognised by the state may also
be obtained by other religious communities, if they act
sufficiently long in Lithuaniaat least 25 years, also if they
have support in society, and if their teaching and rituals do not
contradict the law and public morals; the drafters of this law
sought equal rights to all communities and associations, both
traditional in Lithuania and other ones, which may differ from
certain points of view (such as in the area of teaching faith at
school) in comparison to those rights which are enjoyed by other
religious communities which did not obtain state recognition
(however, which where registered as religious communities with
the rights of legal persons). The petitioner finds it unclear,
whether the said provisions of the Constitutional Court ruling
mean that these "additional" rights are established only on the
basis of tradition, but not on the basis of the state recognition
and that the status of a religious community recognised by the
state does not form constitutional grounds for the establishment
of "additional rights" to respective religious communities, also
whether these provisions may be interpreted as meaning that the
Constitution does not allow granting rights to religious
communities that were recognised by the state when such rights
are not enjoyed by other religious communities that have not been
recognised by the state. According to the petitioner, "the
analysis of practice of law-making since 2000 makes it obvious
that for the purpose of granting privileges to specific religious
communities or associations the criterion of tradition, rather
than that of the recognition by the state, is applied", therefore
"the institute of recognition of religious communities by the
state loses its content, while religious communities that
obtained it <
> or have started the process regarding the
obtaining of state recognition <...> find themselves in a very
indefinite situation".
3. Therefore, the Minister of Justice, the petitioner,
requests to construe whether the provisions "the provision of
Part 1 of Article 43 of the Constitution providing for the
presence of traditional Lithuanian churches and religious
organisations is the constitutional basis upon which a different
status of traditional churches and organisations may be
established if compared with other churches and religious
organisations. It means that, without limiting the rights
guaranteed for all churches and religious organisations,
additional rights for traditional churches and religious
organisations may also be ensured by law which are not enjoyed by
the churches and organisations which are not traditional" of Item
6 of Chapter I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 13 June 2000 mean the following:
- certain rights, which are not enjoyed by other churches
and religious organisations recognised by the state, are
established to the churches and religious organisations
traditional in Lithuania specifically on that constitutional
basis that these churches and religious organisations are
traditional in Lithuania;
- if any other (non-traditional in Lithuania) church or
religious organisation is recognised by the state, in itself this
does not provide grounds to establish such rights to them, to
which churches and religious organisations traditional in
Lithuania are entitled because they are traditional in Lithuania;
- the Constitution does not allow the establishment of such
rights to churches and religious organisations that are not
traditional in Lithuania, which are not enjoyed by churches and
religious organisations that are nor recognised by the state.
4. It was noted that under Paragraph 1 of Article 43 of the
Constitution, the state shall recognise the churches and
religious organisations that are traditional in Lithuania,
whereas other churches and religious organisations shall be
recognised provided that they have support in society and their
teaching and practices are not in conflict with the law and
public morals. It was also noted that the naming of churches and
religious organisations as traditional in Lithuania is a special
way of state recognition.
It was also noted that the Constitution consolidated a
threefold status of churches and religious organisations acting
in Lithuania: some churches and religious organisations are
traditional in Lithuania, other churches and religious
organisations (that are not traditional in Lithuania) are
recognised by the state, yet other churches and religious
organisations acting in Lithuania have the status of being
neither traditional in Lithuania, nor are they recognised by the
state.
5. It has been held in this Constitutional Court decision
that the naming in the law as to which churches and religious
organisations are traditional in Lithuania, is the statement of
an objective fact that certain churches and religious
organisations are traditional in Lithuania, but not the creation
of tradition of respective churches and religious organisations,
since their being traditional does not depend on the willpower of
the legislator, that the tradition in Lithuania of certain
churches and religious organisations is an objective status of
relation of churches and religious organisations with society,
which does not depend on the willpower of the legislator, also
that the legislator may not withdraw his statement of the
existence of this tradition.
In this context it is to be stated that the provision "the
State shall recognise <...> other churches and religious
organisations <...> provided that they have support in society
and their teaching and practices are not in conflict with the law
and public morals" of Paragraph 1 of Article 43 of the
Constitution means that churches and religious organisations,
which are not traditional in Lithuania may be distinguished from
other churches and religious organisations that are not
traditional by means of granting a special status to them, by
means of establishment that they are churches and religious
organisations recognised by the state. Taking into account the
fact that the said special status is nothing else, but the
establishment of the status in the state of a respective church
and a religious organisation, as well as that this special status
may be granted only to those churches and religious
organisations, which have support in society, it is to be held
that the granting of this status is within the prerogative of the
legislator.
The condition "have support in society" consolidated in
Paragraph 1 of Article 43 of the Constitution means that for a
respective church and a religious organisation the support of
society should be strong and long-termed, therefore, it may not
be limited to a small group of people or a small part of the
society, or to several decades of activities, or to one or a few
generations. The said support in society for a respective church
and religious organisation should be such that it would be
subjected to no doubt. While deciding whether a certain church or
religious organisation may be granted state recognition, it
should be ascertained that there is support in society for that
church or religious organisation. Under Paragraph 1 of Article 43
of the Constitution, it should also be ascertained that the
teaching and practices of that church and religious organisation
are not in conflict with the law and public morals. If those
conditions are not satisfied, state recognition may not be
granted to a respective church or religious organisation.
6. Therefore, the provision "the State shall recognise
<...> other churches and religious organisations <...> provided
that they have support in society and their teaching and
practices are not in conflict with the law and public morals" of
Paragraph 1 of Article 43 of the Constitution implies a different
legal situation, other than that, which is implied by the
provision of this part that "the State shall recognise the
churches and religious organisations that are traditional in
Lithuania". The churches and religious organisations that are not
traditional in Lithuania may obtain state recognition by the
willpower and resolution of the Seimas. It is to be noted that
such state recognition, other than the statement that a certain
church or religious organisation is traditional in Lithuania, may
be withdrawn, if a respective church or religious organisation
recognised by the state looses its support in society or its
teaching and practices become contradictory to laws or public
morals.
It means that the different status of churches and
religious organisations that are traditional in Lithuania and
other churches and religious organisations originates from the
Constitution itself. Therefore, from the Constitution itself stem
the powers of the legislator to establish by law such rights to
the churches and religious organisations that are traditional in
Lithuania, which are not enjoyed by churches and religious
organisations that are not traditional in Lithuania (obviously,
the establishment of such rights must be substantiated
constitutionally). Namely this is sated in the provisions: "the
provision of Part 1 of Article 43 of the Constitution providing
for the presence of traditional Lithuanian churches and religious
organisations is the constitutional basis upon which a different
status of traditional churches and organisations may be
established if compared with other churches and religious
organisations. It means that, without limiting the rights
guaranteed for all churches and religious organisations,
additional rights for traditional churches and religious
organisations may also be ensured by law which are not enjoyed by
the churches and organisations which are not traditional" of Item
6 of Chapter I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 13 June 2000.
7. Taking account of the arguments set forth one is to hold
that the provisions "the provision of Part 1 of Article 43 of the
Constitution providing for the presence of traditional Lithuanian
churches and religious organisations is the constitutional basis
upon which a different status of traditional churches and
organisations may be established if compared with other churches
and religious organisations. It means that, without limiting the
rights guaranteed for all churches and religious organisations,
additional rights for traditional churches and religious
organisations may also be ensured by law which are not enjoyed by
the churches and organisations which are not traditional" of Item
6 of Chapter I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 13 June 2000 mean the following:
- certain rights, which are not enjoyed by other churches
and religious organisations recognised by the state, are
established to the churches and religious organisations
traditional in Lithuania specifically on that constitutional
basis that these churches and religious organisations are
traditional in Lithuania;
- if any other (non-traditional in Lithuania) church or
religious organisation is recognised by the state, in itself this
does not provide grounds to establish such rights to them, to
which churches and religious organisations traditional in
Lithuania are entitled because they are traditional in Lithuania.
8. It was mentioned that the Minister of Justice, the
petitioner, also requests to construe whether the provisions "the
provision of Part 1 of Article 43 of the Constitution providing
for the presence of traditional Lithuanian churches and religious
organisations is the constitutional basis upon which a different
status of traditional churches and organisations may be
established if compared with other churches and religious
organisations. It means that, without limiting the rights
guaranteed for all churches and religious organisations,
additional rights for traditional churches and religious
organisations may also be ensured by law which are not enjoyed by
the churches and organisations which are not traditional" of Item
6 of Chapter I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 13 June 2000 mean that the Constitution does not allow
the establishment of such rights to churches and religious
organisations that are not traditional in Lithuania, which are
not enjoyed by churches and religious organisations that are nor
recognised by the state.
9. The purpose of the said provisions of the official
constitutional doctrine is to show that, under the Constitution,
the status of churches and religious organisations that are
traditional in Lithuania differs from the status of all other
churches and religious organisations acting in Lithuania (namely
because that "without limiting the rights guaranteed for all
churches and religious organisations, additional rights for
traditional churches and religious organisations may also be
ensured by law which are not enjoyed by the churches and
organisations which are not traditional"). It should be noted
that the fragment of the text from Item 6 of Chapter I of the
reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 13 June 2000
does not discuss similarities and differences of the status of
churches and religious organisations that were not recognised by
the state and churches and religious organisations that are
recognised by the state (but which are not traditional in
Lithuania).
10. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the
Constitutional Court will not construe whether the provisions
"the provision of Part 1 of Article 43 of the Constitution
providing for the presence of traditional Lithuanian churches and
religious organisations is the constitutional basis upon which a
different status of traditional churches and organisations may be
established if compared with other churches and religious
organisations. It means that, without limiting the rights
guaranteed for all churches and religious organisations,
additional rights for traditional churches and religious
organisations may also be ensured by law which are not enjoyed by
the churches and organisations which are not traditional" of the
reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 13 June 2000
mean that the Constitution does not allow the establishment of
such rights to churches and religious organisations that are not
traditional in Lithuania, which are not enjoyed by churches and
religious organisations that are nor recognised by the state.
11. The Minister of Justice, the petitioner, requests to
construe the provisions "thus the constitutional principle of
equality of people of its own accord does not deny the fact that
law may establish different legal regulation concerning certain
categories of people who are in different situation. This should
also be applied to legal persons, and not only to natural persons
as the former are, as a rule, corporations of natural persons" of
the reasoning part of Item 1 of the Constitutional Court ruling
of 28 February 1996 and the provision "without limiting the
rights guaranteed for all churches and religious organisations,
additional rights for traditional churches and religious
organisations may also be ensured by law which are not enjoyed by
the churches and organisations which are not traditional" of Item
6 of Chapter I of the Constitutional Court ruling of 13 June
2000.
12. While providing the reasons for his request, the
Minister of Justice, the petitioner, states that "the size of
granting privileges (the rights which are enjoyed by traditional
religious communities and which are not enjoyed by other
religious communities) and the principle whereby such privileges
are granted are not clear". According to the petitioner, "in the
practice of law-making the provision of Item 6 of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 13 June 2000 was often interpreted
by making a statement that the legislator may at his own
discretion establish the rights to traditional churches and
religious organisations, which are different from the rights
established to other churches and religious organisations,
provided such regulation does not violate the essential rights to
the freedom of religion and faith as consolidated in the
Constitution and the right of churches and other religious
organisations to conduct their affairs freely according to their
internal rules". The petitioner states that the Constitutional
Court ruling of 13 June 2000 "also does not establish the option
of granting privileges, but simply points that the basis for
granting privileges is the provision of the Constitution that
there are churches and religious organisations that are
traditional in Lithuania". The permission of granting privileges,
upon an analysis of the Constitutional Court jurisprudence, in
the opinion of the petitioner, could be the provision "thus the
constitutional principle of equality of people of its own accord
does not deny the fact that law may establish different legal
regulation concerning certain categories of people who are in
different situation. This should also be applied to legal
persons, and not only to natural persons as the former are, as a
rule, corporations of natural persons" of the Constitutional
Court ruling of 28 February 1996. The petitioner states that "in
the application of this provision as grounds for permission to
grant privileges to traditional churches and other religious
organisations, an answer to the question should be sought whether
natural persons united under a traditional religious community do
form a category of persons that have a different position than
those that united under a religious community (a legal person) on
the basis of other religious beliefs". In the opinion of the
petitioner, "although the interpretations of the permission to
grant privileges as consolidated in the above-mentioned ruling of
13 June 2000 seem possible, an impression is made that they
necessarily create presumptions primarily in the process of law-
making, and later in the practical implementation of legal acts
for existence of discrimination on the basis of religion".
According to the petitioner, "it is likely that specifically due
to the uncertainty of the term of permission to grant privileges
as consolidated in the Constitutional Court ruling of 13 June
2000, its application in the law-making practice after 2000
considerably increased the number of provisions in legal acts,
which grant privileges to traditional religious communities only
".
13. It is to be noted that, as held in this Constitutional
Court decision, a different status of churches and religious
organisations that are traditional in Lithuania in comparison to
other churches and religious organisations recognised by the
state originated from the Constitution itself. It was also held
that from the Constitution itself stem the powers of the
legislator to establish by law such rights for churches and
religious organisations that are traditional in Lithuania, which
are not enjoyed by churches and religious organisations that are
not traditional in Lithuania.
Therefore, from the Constitution itself also stems a
possibility, while in some casesthe necessity, to establish
differentiated legal regulation of corresponding relations with
regard to churches and religious organisations that are
traditional in Lithuania, as well as with regard to the churches
and religious organisations that are recognised by the state, as
collective legal subjects.
The establishment of such differentiated legal regulation
may not be interpreted as it in itself negates the human
constitutional right to freely choose any religion or belief and,
either alone or with others, in private or in public, to profess
his religion, to perform religious practices, to practice and
teach his belief; in itself, it does not mean that some believers
are discriminated while others are granted privileges.
14. It is clear from the arguments of the Minister of
Justice, the petitioner, that an attempt is made to oppose two
provisions of the official constitutional doctrine: one of them,
set forth in Item 1 of the reasoning part of the Constitutional
Court ruling of 28 February 1996 reveals one of the aspects of
the general constitutional principle of equal rights (equality)
of personsthat this constitutional principle does not negate the
possibility of differentiated legal regulationwhich is a
universal provision, intended to all legal subjects that may be
very different, while the other provision, set forth in Item 6 of
Chapter I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 13 June 2000, is intended only to such differentiated
legal regulation, when one of the subjects of the regulated
relations is churches and religious organisations.
Such opposition has no legal basis.
15. In this context it is to be noted that the provision
"thus the constitutional principle of equality of people of its
own accord does not deny the fact that law may establish
different legal regulation concerning certain categories of
people who are in different situation. This should also be
applied to legal persons, and not only to natural persons as the
former are, as a rule, corporations of natural persons" of Item 1
of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 28
February 1996, as requested for construction, was adopted in the
constitutional justice case, which investigated the compliance of
Government Resolution No. 1164 "On the capitalisation of the
credits of some enterprises of the Ministry of Agriculture" of 30
August 1995 with articles (paragraphs thereof) of the
Constitution, the Law on Budgeting, the Law on the State
Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture, and the Company
Law. The said Constitutional Court ruling does not mention a word
about churches and religious organisations, does not discuss
constitutional right of an individual to freely choose any
religion or belief and, either alone or with others, in private
or in public, to profess his religion, to perform religious
practices, to practice and teach his belief, does not provide any
provisions whether "natural persons united under a traditional
religious community do form a category of persons that have a
different position than those that united under a religious
community (a legal person) on the basis of other religious
beliefs", nor does it contain any provisions regarding the
possibility to grant privileges to specific religious communities
and associations as indicated in the petition of the petitioner.
16. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the
Constitutional Court will not construe the provisions "thus the
constitutional principle of equality of people of its own accord
does not deny the fact that law may establish different legal
regulation concerning certain categories of people who are in
different situation. This should also be applied to legal
persons, and not only to natural persons as the former are, as a
rule, corporations of natural persons" of Item 1 of the reasoning
part of its ruling of 28 February 1996.
17. It is also to be noted that the provision "without
limiting the rights guaranteed for all churches and religious
organisations, additional rights for traditional churches and
religious organisations may also be ensured by law which are not
enjoyed by the churches and organisations which are not
traditional" of Item 6 of Chapter I of the reasoning part of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 13 June 2000 as requested for
construction (together with the said provisions of Item 1 of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 28 February 1996) is a part of the
larger text, the provisions stated wherein have already been
construed in this decision of the Constitutional Court (in Item 7
of Chapter III of the reasoning part).
In this case it is obvious that upon construction of the
entirety there is no sense of construing a part thereof.
18. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the
Constitutional Court will not make another construction (in the
context of respective provisions of Item 1 of the reasoning part
of the Constitutional Court ruling of 28 February 1996) of the
provision "without limiting the rights guaranteed for all
churches and religious organisations, additional rights for
traditional churches and religious organisations may also be
ensured by law which are not enjoyed by the churches and
organisations which are not traditional" of Item 6 of Chapter I
of the reasoning part of its ruling of 13 June 2000.
Pursuant to Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania, Articles 1 and 61 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 construe that the provisions "the provision of Part 1
of Article 43 of the Constitution providing for the presence of
traditional Lithuanian churches and religious organisations is
the constitutional basis upon which a different status of
traditional churches and organisations may be established if
compared with other churches and religious organisations. It
means that, without limiting the rights guaranteed for all
churches and religious organisations, additional rights for
traditional churches and religious organisations may also be
ensured by law which are not enjoyed by the churches and
organisations which are not traditional" of Item 6 of Chapter I
of the reasoning part of the ruling of 13 June 2000 of the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania mean that
certain rights, which are not enjoyed by other churches and
religious organisations recognised by the state, are established
to the churches and religious organisations traditional in
Lithuania specifically on that constitutional basis that these
churches and religious organisations are traditional in
Lithuania, and if any other (non-traditional in Lithuania) church
or religious organisation is recognised by the state, in itself
this does not provide grounds to establish such rights to them,
to which churches and religious organisations traditional in
Lithuania are entitled because they are traditional in Lithuania.
2. To provide no construction of whether the provisions
"the provision of Part 1 of Article 43 of the Constitution
providing for the presence of traditional Lithuanian churches and
religious organisations is the constitutional basis upon which a
different status of traditional churches and organisations may be
established if compared with other churches and religious
organisations. It means that, without limiting the rights
guaranteed for all churches and religious organisations,
additional rights for traditional churches and religious
organisations may also be ensured by law which are not enjoyed by
the churches and organisations which are not traditional" of Item
6 of Chapter I of the reasoning part of the ruling of 13 June
2000 of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania
mean that the Constitution does not allow the establishment of
such rights to churches and religious organisations that are not
traditional in Lithuania, which are not enjoyed by churches and
religious organisations that are nor recognised by the state.
3. To provide no construction of whether the provision
"Naming of churches and religious organisations as traditional is
<...> an act stating both their tradition and the status of their
relations with society, which does not depend on the willpower of
the legislator. Such an act reflects the development and the
situation of the religious culture in society" of Item 6 of
Chapter I of the reasoning part of the ruling of 13 June 2000 of
the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania means that
in the course of deciding regarding the entry into a respective
register of religious communities as traditional in Lithuania it
is possible to follow some "institutional succession criterion"
of a respective traditional religious community, i.e.
institutional ties with a religious community traditional in
Lithuania, which unites the majority religious communities
practicing the same faith.
4. To provide no construction of the provisions "thus the
constitutional principle of equality of people of its own accord
does not deny the fact that law may establish different legal
regulation concerning certain categories of people who are in
different situation. This should also be applied to legal
persons, and not only to natural persons as the former are, as a
rule, corporations of natural persons" of Item 1 of the reasoning
part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 28 February 1996.
This decision of the Constitutional Court is final and not
subject to appeal.
The decision 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