Case No. 12/05-14/05-18/05-20/05-21/05-22/05-25/05-01/06-
03/06-06/06-07/06-
08/06-15/06-17/06-21/06-24/06-25/06-28/06-40/06-41/06-47/
06-48/06-53/06-
55/06-63/06-02/07-07/07-09/07-13/07-15/07-19/07-20/07-21/
07-22/07
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
RULING
ON THE COMPLIANCE OF PARAGRAPH 3 (WORDING OF 11 NOVEMBER
2004) OF ARTICLE 3.194 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
7 June 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, Vytautas Sinkevičius, Stasys
Stačiokas, and Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis,
with the secretary of the hearingDaiva Pitrėnaitė,
in the presence of the representatives of the Seimas of
the Republic of Lithuania, the party concerned, who were Julius
Sabatauskas, a Member of the Seimas, and Edvinas Mušinskis,
senior advisor of the Legal Department of the Office of the
Seimas,
pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and Article 1 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its public
hearing on 29 May 2007 heard constitutional justice case No. 12/
05-14/05-18/05-20/05-21/05-22/05-25/05-01/06-03/06-06/06-07/06-
08/06-15/06-17/06-21/06-24/06-25/06-28/06-40/06-41/06-47/06-48/
06-53/06-55/06-63/06-68/06-02/07-07/07-09/07-13/07-15/07-19/07-
20/07-21/07-22/07 subsequent to the following:
(1) the petition of the Utena District Local Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision "the
court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary to
the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the right
and duty of parents is to support their children until they come
of age (petition No. 1B-17/2005);
(2) the petition of the Panevėžys City Local Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision "the
court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary to
the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code is not in conflict with Paragraph
6 of Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule
of law which is, according to the petitioner, consolidated in the
Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
(petition No. 1B-19/2005);
(3) the petition of the Panevėžys Regional Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision "the
court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary to
the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the right
and duty of parents is to support their children until they come
of age and with the constitutional principle of a state under the
rule of law which is, according to the petitioner, consolidated
in the Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
(petition No. 1B-24/2005);
(4) the petition of the Biržai District Local Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision "the
court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary to
the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania (petition No. 1B-26/
2005);
(5) the petition of the Šakiai District Local Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision "the
court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary to
the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the right
and duty of parents is to support their children until they come
of age (petition No. 1B-27/2005);
(6) the petition of the Kaišiadorys District Local Court,
the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision
"the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary
to the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the right
and duty of parents is to support their children until they come
of age (petition No. 1B-28/2005);
(7) the petition of the Šiauliai District Local Court,
the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision
"the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary
to the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the right
and duty of parents is to support their children until they come
of age (petition No. 1B-33/2005);
(8) the petition of the Šilutė District Local Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision "the
court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary to
the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the right
and duty of parents is to support their children until they come
of age (petition No. 1B-01/2006);
(9) the petition of the Šilutė District Local Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision "the
court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary to
the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the right
and duty of parents is to support their children until they come
of age (petition No. 1B-02/2006);
(10) the petition of the Jonava District Local Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision "the
court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary to
the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania (petition No. 1B-07/
2006);
(11) the petition of the First Vilnius City Local Court,
the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision
"the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary
to the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the right
and duty of parents is to support their children until they come
of age (petition No. 1B-09/2006);
(12) the petition of the Visaginas City Local Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision "the
court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary to
the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the right
and duty of parents is to support their children until they come
of age (petition No. 1B-10/2006);
(13) the petition of the Klaipėda Regional Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision "the
court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary to
the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the right
and duty of parents is to support their children until they come
of age (petition No. 1B-15/2006);
(14) the petition of the First Vilnius City Local Court,
the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision
"the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary
to the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the right
and duty of parents is to support their children until they come
of age (petition No. 1B-16/2006);
(15) the petition of the Panevėžys Regional Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision "the
court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary to
the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the right
and duty of parents is to support their children until they come
of age and with the constitutional principle of a state under the
rule of law which is, according to the petitioner, consolidated
in the Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
(petition No. 1B-19/2006);
(16) the petition of the Marijampolė District Local
Court, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic
of Lithuania is not in conflict with Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania (petition No. 1B-
20/2006);
(17) the petition of the First Vilnius City Local Court,
the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision
"the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary
to the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the right
and duty of parents is to support their children until they come
of age (petition No. 1B-24/2006);
(18) the petition of the Telšiai District Local Court,
the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision
"the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary
to the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the right
and duty of parents is to support their children until they come
of age (petition No. 1B-27/2006);
(19) the petition of the First Vilnius City Local Court,
the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision
"the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary
to the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the right
and duty of parents is to support their children until they come
of age (petition No. 1B-43/2006);
(20) the petition of the Panevėžys City Local Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision "the
court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary to
the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code is not in conflict with Paragraph
6 of Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule
of law which is, according to the petitioner, consolidated in the
Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
(petition No. 1B-44/2006);
(21) the petition of the Kupiškis District Local Court,
the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision
"the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary
to the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law which
is, according to the petitioner, consolidated in the Preamble to
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania (petition No. 1B-
53/2006);
(22) the petition of the Marijampolė District Local
Court, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic
of Lithuania is not in conflict with Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania (petition No. 1B-
56/2006);
(23) the petition of the Trakai District Local Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision "the
court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary to
the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the right and duty
of parents is to support their children until they come of age
and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule
of law which is, according to the petitioner, consolidated in the
Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
(petition No. 1B-58/2006);
(24) the petition of the Šiauliai City Local Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision "the
court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary to
the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the right
and duty of parents is to support their children until they come
of age (petition No. 1B-59/2006);
(25) the petition of the Šiauliai City Local Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision "the
court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary to
the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the right
and duty of parents is to support their children until they come
of age (petition No. 1B-70/2006);
(26) the petition of the Alytus District Local Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision "the
court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary to
the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the right
and duty of parents is to support their children until they come
of age (petition No. 1B-74/2006);
(27) the petition of the Visaginas City Local Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision "the
court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary to
the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the right
and duty of parents is to support their children until they come
of age (petition No. 1B-01/2007);
(28) the petition of the Panevėžys City Local Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision "the
court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary to
the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code is not in conflict with Paragraph
6 of Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule
of law which is, according to the petitioner, consolidated in the
Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
(petition No. 1B-06/2007);
(29) the petition of the Klaipėda District Local Court,
the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision
"the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary
to the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the right
and duty of parents is to support their children until they come
of age (petition No. 1B-10/2007);
(30) the petition of the Kaišiadorys District Local
Court, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic
of Lithuania is not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6
of Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
that the right and duty of parents is to support their children
until they come of age (petition No. 1B-14/2007);
(31) the petition of the First Vilnius City Local Court,
the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision
"the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary
to the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the right
and duty of parents is to support their children until they come
of age (petition No. 1B-18/2007);
(32) the petition of the Klaipėda Regional Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision "the
court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary to
the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the duty of
parents is to support their children until they come of age
(petition No. 1B-19/2007);
(33) the petition of the Klaipėda Regional Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision "the
court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary to
the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the duty of
parents is to support their children until they come of age
(petition No. 1B-20/2007);
(34) the petition of the First Vilnius City Local Court,
the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision
"the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary
to the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the right
and duty of parents is to support their children until they come
of age (petition No. 1B-22/2007) and
(35) the petition of the Klaipėda Regional Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision "the
court may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary to
the child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and he is not older than
24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania is
not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the duty of
parents is to support their children until they come of age
(petition No. 1B-23/2007).
By the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania
decision of 22 May 2007, petition No. 1B-17/2005 of the Utena
District Local Court, petitions Nos. 1B-19/2005, 1B-44/2006 and
1B-06/2007 of the Panevėžys City Local Court, petitions Nos. 1B-
24/2005 and 1B-19/2006 of the Panevėžys Regional Court, petition
No. 1B-26/2005 of the Biržai District Local Court, petition No.
1B-27/2005 of the Šakiai District Local Court, petitions Nos. 1B-
28/2005 and 1B-14/2007 of the Kaišiadorys District Local Court,
petition No. 1B-33/2005 of the Šiauliai District Local Court,
petitions Nos. 1B-01/2006 and 1B-02/2006 of the Šilutė District
Local Court, petition No. 1B-07/2006 of the Jonava District Local
Court, petitions Nos. 1B-09/2006, 1B-16/2006, 1B-24/2006, 1B-43/
2006 and 1B-01/2007 of the First Vilnius City Local Court,
petitions Nos. 1B-15/2006, 1B-19-2007, 1B-20/2007 and 1B-23/2007
of the Klaipėda Regional Court, petitions Nos. 1B-20/2006 and 1B-
56/2006 of the Marijampolė District Local Court, petition No. 1B-
27/2006 of the Telšiai District Local Court, petition No. 1B-53/
2006 of the Kupiškis District Local Court, petition No. 1B-58/
2006 of the Trakai District Local Court, petitions Nos. 1B-59/
2006 and 1B-70/2006 of the Šiauliai City Local Court, petition
No. 1B-74/2006 of the Alytus District Local Court and petition
No. 1B-10/2007 of the Klaipėda District Local Court were joined
into one case and it was given reference number 12/05-14/05-18/
05-20/05-21/05-22/05-25/05-01/06-03/06-06/06-07/06-08/06-15/06-
17/06-21/06-24/06-25/06-28/06-40/06-41/06-47/06-48/06-53/06-55/
06-63/06-68/06-02/07-07/07-09/07-13/07-15/07-19/07-20/07-21/07-
22/07.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
1. The Utena District Local Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the Civil Code (hereinafter
also referred to as the CC) is not in conflict with the provision
of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution that the right
and duty of parents is to support their children until they come
of age (petition No. 1B-17/2005).
2. The Panevėžys City Local Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of the Law on Amending Article 3.194
of the Civil Code is not in conflict with Paragraph 6 of Article
38 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law which is, according to the
petitioner, consolidated in the Preamble to the Constitution
(petition No. 1B-19/2005).
3. The Panevėžys Regional Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with
the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution
and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule
of law which is, according to the petitioner, consolidated in the
Preamble to the Constitution (petition No. 1B-24/2005).
4. The Biržai District Local Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with
the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution
(petition No. 1B-26/2005).
5. The Šakiai District Local Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with
the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution
that the right and duty of parents is to support their children
until they come of age (petition No. 1B-27/2005).
6. The Kaišiadorys District Local Court, a petitioner,
was considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court
suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the
Constitutional Court with the petition requesting to investigate
whether the provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the
support is necessary to the child when he learns at day-time
departments of secondary, higher education or vocational schools
and he is not older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording
of 11 November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in
conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the
Constitution that the right and duty of parents is to support
their children until they come of age (petition No. 1B-28/2005).
7. The Šiauliai District Local Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with
the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution
that the right and duty of parents is to support their children
until they come of age (petition No. 1B-33/2005).
8. The Šilutė District Local Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with
the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution
that the right and duty of parents is to support their children
until they come of age (petition No. 1B-01/2006).
9. The Šilutė District Local Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with
the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution
that the right and duty of parents is to support their children
until they come of age (petition No. 1B-02/2006).
10. The Jonava District Local Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with
the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution
(petition No. 1B-07/2006).
11. The First Vilnius City Local Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with
the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution
that the right and duty of parents is to support their children
until they come of age (petition No. 1B-09/2006).
12. The Visaginas City Local Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with
the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution
that the right and duty of parents is to support their children
until they come of age (petition No. 1B-10/2006).
13. The Klaipėda Regional Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with
the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution
that the right and duty of parents is to support their children
until they come of age (petition No. 1B-15/2006).
14. The First Vilnius City Local Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with
the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution
that the right and duty of parents is to support their children
until they come of age (petition No. 1B-16/2006).
15. The Panevėžys Regional Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with
the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution
that the right and duty of parents is to support their children
until they come of age and with the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law which is, according to the
petitioner, consolidated in the Preamble to the Constitution
(petition No. 1B-19/2006).
16. The Marijampolė District Local Court, a petitioner,
was considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court
suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the
Constitutional Court with the petition requesting to investigate
whether the provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the
support is necessary to the child when he learns at day-time
departments of secondary, higher education or vocational schools
and he is not older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording
of 11 November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in
conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the
Constitution (petition No. 1B-20/2006).
17. The First Vilnius City Local Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with
the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution
that the right and duty of parents is to support their children
until they come of age (petition No. 1B-24/2006).
18. The Telšiai District Local Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with
the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution
that the right and duty of parents is to support their children
until they come of age (petition No. 1B-27/2006).
19. The First Vilnius City Local Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with
the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution
that the right and duty of parents is to support their children
until they come of age (petition No. 1B-43/2006).
20. The Panevėžys City Local Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of the Law on Amending Article 3.194
of the Civil Code is not in conflict with Paragraph 6 of Article
38 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law which is, according to the
petitioner, consolidated in the Preamble to the Constitution
(petition No. 1B-44/2005).
21. The Kupiškis District Local Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with
Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution and with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law which
is, according to the petitioner, consolidated in the Preamble to
the Constitution (petition No. 1B-53/2006);
22. The Marijampolė District Local Court, a petitioner,
was considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court
suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the
Constitutional Court with the petition requesting to investigate
whether the provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the
support is necessary to the child when he learns at day-time
departments of secondary, higher education or vocational schools
and he is not older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording
of 11 November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in
conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the
Constitution (petition No. 1B-56/2006).
23. The Trakai District Local Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with
the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution
that the right and duty of parents is to support their children
until they come of age and with the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law which is, according to the
petitioner, consolidated in the Preamble to the Constitution
(petition No. 1B-58/2006).
24. The Šiauliai City Local Court, the petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with
the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution
that the right and duty of parents is to support their children
until they come of age (petition No. 1B-59/2006).
25. The Šiauliai City Local Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with
the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution
that the right and duty of parents is to support their children
until they come of age (petition No. 1B-70/2006).
26. The Alytus District Local Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with
the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution
that the right and duty of parents is to support their children
until they come of age (petition No. 1B-74/2006).
27. The Visaginas City Local Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with
the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution
that the right and duty of parents is to support their children
until they come of age (petition No. 1B-01/2007).
28. The Panevėžys City Local Court, the petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of the Law on Amending Article 3.194
of the Civil Code is not in conflict with Paragraph 6 of Article
38 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law which is, according to the
petitioner, consolidated in the Preamble to the Constitution
(petition No. 1B-06/2007).
29. The Klaipėda District Local Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with
the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution
that the right and duty of parents is to support their children
until they come of age (petition No. 1B-10/2007).
30. The Kaišiadorys District Local Court, a petitioner,
was considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court
suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the
Constitutional Court with the petition requesting to investigate
whether the provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the
support is necessary to the child when he learns at day-time
departments of secondary, higher education or vocational schools
and he is not older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording
of 11 November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in
conflict with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the
Constitution that the right and duty of parents is to support
their children until they come of age (petition No. 1B-14/2007).
31. The First Vilnius City Local Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with
the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution
that the right and duty of parents is to support their children
until they come of age (petition No. 1B-18/2007).
32. The Klaipėda Regional Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with
the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution
that the duty of parents is to support their children until they
come of age (petition No. 1B-19/2007).
33. The Klaipėda Regional Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with
the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution
that the duty of parents is to support their children until they
come of age (petition No. 1B-20/2007).
34. The First Vilnius City Local Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with
the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution
that the right and duty of parents is to support their children
until they come of age (petition No. 1B-22/2007).
35. The Klaipėda Regional Court, a petitioner, was
considering a civil case. By its ruling the said court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with the petition requesting to investigate whether the
provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when the support is
necessary to the child when he learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and he is not
older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with
the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution
that the duty of parents is to support their children until they
come of age (petition No. 1B-23/2007).
II
1. The petitions of the petitioners are based on the fact
that the Constitution consolidates the duty of parents to support
their children only until they come of age (Paragraph 6 of
Article 38) and it does not provide that parents have to support
children of full legal age, meanwhile, Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC enshrines a virtually
different principle (an exception to the general rule): parents
must also support their children who are capable of working and
of full legal age and to whom the support is necessary as long as
they learn at day-time departments of secondary, higher education
or vocational schools and they are not older than 24 years of
age.
2. In the petitions of some petitioners, the relation of
the disputed provision of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November
2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC with other articles (paragraphs
thereof) of the CC is interpreted.
III
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations from the
Member of the Seimas J. Sabatauskas and E. Mušinskis, the
representatives of the Seimas, the party concerned, were
received, wherein it is stated that the disputed provision of
Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the
CC is not in conflict with the Constitution. The position of the
representatives of the party is grounded on the following
arguments.
1. The Member of the Seimas J. Sabatauskas provided inter
alia the following arguments.
1.1. According to this representative of the Seimas, the
party concerned, the duty of the parents to support their
children, to take care of them and to seek to ensure the
appropriate living conditions for them needs to be related not
only to the age and capacity of the children, but one must also
heed other social circumstances, the situation in the state and
the public interest. The relations between parents and children
are special ones; time does not restrict mutual support, respect,
spiritual and moral support, communication relations (i.e.
personal relations). Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the
Constitution may not be construed only verbatim, as while
construing it in such a way, one could state that, purportedly,
the parents, when their children come of age, lose not only the
duty, but also the right to support them.
1.2. In the opinion of the Member of the Seimas J.
Sabatauskas, the Constitution does not establish the full legal
age; it is the legislator who is supposed to establish it. Upon
changing the full legal age, the extent of the duty to support
would also change. Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution
does not prevent the legislator from establishing peculiarities
of support for the persons of a certain group also without
changing the established general full legal age. The persons who
come of age, i.e. who attained 18 years of age and who became
absolutely capable persons, who learn at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools, can work and
receive funds for living, however, because of the fact that they
study, they must be at educational establishments, in the places
of practical training, libraries, etc., usually, they cannot
properly take advantage of this possibility and ensure themselves
the proper living conditions. If a person wants to achieve good
learning or studying results, he must have a possibility to
devote enough time for that, which is hardly possible if he has
to work and earn for living. Thus, the persons of full legal age,
but not older than 24 years of age, who learn at day-time
departments of secondary, higher education or vocational schools
differ from other persons of full legal age who are not older
than 24 years of age by the type of their activity. It is
expedient and reasonable to establish a different legal
regulation to them. The society should be concerned with raising
of the level of education of its members and the parents should
be concerned, according to their capabilities, to contribute to
the society's perfection. While adjudging the material support,
the court must, each time taking into consideration the
possibilities of the parents and the social status of the child,
assess what amount of money is to be considered reasonable and
grounded.
1.3. According to this representative of the Seimas, the
party concerned, the laws provide parents with the rights and
concessions which are related to having children and which are
not related to the age of children, thus, if the parents are not
obliged to support their children who came of age or to provide
them with other support, rendering such concessions to the
parents would be groundless.
2. E. Mušinskis presented inter alia the following
arguments.
2.1. In the opinion of this representative of the Seimas,
the party concerned, namely the parents must ensure the
conditions for their children to grow, the parents must take care
of the well-being and health of their children, the parents must
support them, provide them with help and support, which is
necessary for the child to prepare for an independent life in
society. The possibilities provided by the power of parents
include not only the rules of law, but also of morality and
customs; the power of parents is designed for the implementation
of the innate rights and interests of their children. Proper
implementation of the power of parents and taking care of
children while taking advantage of all the possibilities provided
by the power of parents is not only the right of parents, but
also their duty which may not be abandoned by any of the parents.
Reasonable establishment and proper implementation of the rights
and duties which compose the content of the power of parents is
not only a matter of the parents, but also that of the state. The
essential element of the power of parents and the necessary
condition of the proper implementation of the power of parents is
the implementation of the duty to provide the child with material
support. If the child is not provided with the material support,
the implementation of other duties (for example, taking care of
the child's health and education properly and creation of the
conditions for the harmonious and universal development of the
child) is impossible, too.
2.2. According to E. Mušinskis, while assessing the
regulation of the material support which is enshrined in the laws
in a systemic manner, a conclusion is to be drawn that the full
legal age is a social and legal category rather than the age of a
person; the full legal age, upon reaching which the power of
parents over the children is over, is not only a certain age, but
also the entirety of the legal, social and physiological
circumstances which determines the preparedness of the person to
start a full-fledged and independent life, for which the support
of the parents is no longer needed. The duration of the duty to
provide material support to children which is consolidated in the
Constitution and the CC is related not only to the certain age of
the child but also with the appearance or termination of certain
circumstances. Upon assessing the change of the society, the
changes in the social status of young people, the importance and
need of the social interrelations between parents and children
necessary for the children to become firmly settled in modern
society, the legislator may establish exceptions to the general
principle that the duty of the parents to provide their children
with material support ends when the child turns 18 years old, i.
e. he becomes of full legal age.
2.3. In the opinion of the representative of the Seimas,
the party concerned, in itself such a situation when the pupils
and students have also to work does not correspond to the full-
fledgedness of learning; thus, the constitutional right of these
persons to acquire higher education is denied. While seeking to
avoid such cases and taking account of the fact that young people
who learn in vocational schools and schools of higher education
and who, due to certain reasons, do not receive the material
support from the state, cannot themselves receive the income
necessary to acquire education, Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC enshrined the disputed
provision which, according to E. Mušinskis, is a compromise: the
court may adjudge the support from the parents in order to ensure
learning when the support is necessary to the child when he
learns at day-time departments of secondary, higher education or
vocational schools and he is not older than 24 years of age; i.e.
namely from the persons who, taking account of their special
legal, social and biological relation with the children, are
responsible for providing the children with necessary help and
support. The age limit of 24 years of age, upon exceeding which
the support is suspended, is grounded, as a person, who graduates
from school and enters a school of higher education in the same
year, is supposed to acquire higher education namely when he is
24 years of age. Thus, the material support of the parents may be
adjudged in order to acquire only one higher education and only
for such person who, upon graduation of the secondary school,
entered a school of higher education at once, i.e. he continued
studies without the break during which he could start working
and, thus, save the funds necessary in order to acquire higher
education. The obligation to support a child who is capable of
working and of full legal age and who studies in a vocational
school or a school of higher education is not absolute, but
conditional: when applying the disputed provision of Paragraph 3
(wording of 11 November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC, the
court, following the principles of justice, reasonableness and
fairness, has absolute discretion to assess, in its opinion, the
important circumstances in order to adopt a just decision.
2.4. According to E. Mušinskis, such situation when the
children of full legal age who learn at educational
establishments and who do not have parents are more protected
legally (as the support which is necessary for them in order to
acquire education is guaranteed) than the children of full legal
age who have the parents, is deficient. The disputed provision of
Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the
CC seeks to guarantee in a legal manner the constitutional right
to education, which is based only on the abilities and knowledge
of the person, also to the children of full legal age who have
their parents.
IV
1. In the course of the preparation of the case for the
judicial consideration, written explanations were received from
V. Blinkevičiūtė, Minister of Social Security and Labour of the
Republic of Lithuania, R. Žakaitienė, Minister of Education and
Science of the Republic of Lithuania and P. Koverovas, State
Secretary of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of
Lithuania.
It needs to be noted that the opinions of the ministries
concerning the compliance of the disputed provision of Paragraph
3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC with
the Constitution were different: in the Ministry of Social
Security and Labour and in the Ministry of Education and Science
it was thought that the disputed provision of Paragraph 3
(wording of 11 November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC was not
in conflict with the Constitution, while in the Ministry of
Justicethat it was in conflict with the Constitution.
2. In the course of the preparation of the case for the
judicial consideration, written explanations were also received
from G. Žandaravičius, Head of the Service of Children Rights'
Protection of the Healthcare and Social Security Department of
the Vilnius City Municipality.
3. In the course of the preparation of the case for the
judicial consideration, a letter (including annexes) from J.
Januškienė, Justice of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, was
received, from which it is clear that the courts (judges) had
doubts concerning the disputed provision "the court may adjudge
support <
> when the support is necessary to the child when he
learns at day-time departments of secondary, higher education or
vocational schools and he is not older than 24 years of age" of
Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the
CC also in the cases, in which it was not applied to the
Constitutional Court.
V
At the hearing of the Constitutional Court, the
representatives of the Seimas, the party concerned, who were J.
Sabatauskas and E. Mušinskis, virtually repeated the arguments
set forth in their written explanations, as well as presented
additional explanations, and inter alia stated that the disputed
provision of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of Article
3.194 of the CC, from the point of view of the juridical
technique, may be assessed in a critical manner.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. The petitionersthe Utena District Local Court
(petition No. 1B-17/2005), the Panevėžys Regional Court
(petitions Nos. 1B-24/2005 and 1B-19/2006), the Biržai District
Local Court (petition No. 1B-26/2005), the Šakiai District Local
Court (petition No. 1B-27/2005), the Kaišiadorys District Local
Court (petitions Nos. 1B-28/2005 and 1B-14/2007), the Šiauliai
District Local Court (petition No. 1B-33/2005), the Šilutė
District Local Court (petitions Nos. 1B-01/2006 and 1B-02/2006),
the Jonava District Local Court (petition No. 1B-07/2006), the
First Vilnius City Local Court (petitions Nos. 1B-09/2006, 1B-
16/2006, 1B-24/2006, 1B-43/2006, 1B-18/2007 and 1B-22/2007), the
Visaginas City Local Court (petitions Nos. 1B-10/2006 and 1B-01/
2007), the Klaipėda Regional Court (petitions Nos. 1B-15/2006,
1B-19/2007, 1B-20/2007 and 1B-23/2007), the Marijampolė District
Local Court (petitions Nos. 1B-20/2006 and 1B-56/2006), the
Telšiai District Local Court (petition No. 1B-27/2006), the
Kupiškis District Local Court (petition No. 1B-53/2006), the
Trakai District Local Court (petition No. 1B-58/2006), the
Šiauliai City Local Court (petitions Nos. 1B-59/2006 and 1B-70/
2006), the Alytus District Local Court (petition No. 1B-74/2006),
the Klaipėda District Local Court (petition No. 1B-10/2007)
request to investigate whether the provision "the court may
adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary to the child
when he learns at day-time departments of secondary, higher
education or vocational schools and he is not older than 24 years
of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of Article
3.194 of the CC is not in conflict with the Constitution.
The Panevėžys City Local Court (petitions Nos. 1B-19/
2005, 1B-44/2006 and 1B-06/2007), a petitioner, requests to
investigate whether the provision "the court may adjudge support
<
> when the support is necessary to the child when he learns at
day-time departments of secondary, higher education or vocational
schools and he is not older than 24 years of age" of the Law on
Amending Article 3.194 of the Civil Code is not in conflict with
the Constitution. Thus, even though this petitioner disputes the
compliance of the provision of the Law on Amending Article 3.194
of the Civil Code with the Constitution, it is obvious that he
had doubts on whether Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004)
(to the specified extent) of Article 3.194 of the CC was not in
conflict with the Constitution.
2. Subsequent to the petitions of the petitioners, in the
constitutional justice case at issue, the Constitutional Court
will investigate the compliance of the provision "the court may
adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary to the child
when he learns at day-time departments of secondary, higher
education or vocational schools and he is not older than 24 years
of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of Article
3.194 of the CC with the provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 38
of the Constitution that the duty of parents is to support their
children until they come of age and with the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law.
3. On 18 July 2000, the Seimas adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Confirmation, Entry into Force and
Implementation of the Civil Code (which came into force on 6
September 2000), Article 1 whereof confirmed a new Civil Code.
The new CC came into force on 1 July 2001 (save the specified
exceptions). It has been amended and/or supplemented more than
once.
4. In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue, it needs to be noted that in Section Two titled "Mutual
Support Duties of Parents and Children" of Chapter XII titled
"Mutual Property Rights and Duties of Parents and Children" of
Book Three "Family Law" of the CC, the provisions are set forth,
which compose inter alia the institute of support of underage
children, the essence of which is that the parents have the duty
to provide their underage children with material support.
4.1. Article 3.194 titled "Adjudgment of support"
(wording of 18 July 2000) of the said section established: if the
parents (or one of the parents) fail in the duty to maintain
their underage children, the court may adjudge support in an
action brought by one of the parents or the child's guardian
(curator) or the state institution for the protection of the
child's rights (Paragraph 1); support may also be adjudged if on
divorce or on separation the parents did not agree on the support
of their underage children in the procedure provided for in this
Book (Paragraph 2); the court shall adjudge support until the
child attains full legal age except in cases where the child
lacks capacity for work due to a disability determined before the
full legal age (Paragraph 3); the exaction of the adjudged
support shall be terminated when the child: (1) is emancipated;
(2) attains full legal age; (3) is adopted; (4) dies (Paragraph
4); if the person obliged to pay support dies, the duty of
support shall pass to his or her successors within the limits of
the inherited property irrespective of the way the estate is
accepted under the rules of Book Five hereof (Paragraph 5).
4.2. Thus, Article 3.194 (wording of 18 July 2000) of the
CC was designed to regulate such relations which appear when the
parents do not implement their duty to provide their underage
children with material support (or when they did not agree on the
support of their underage children) as well as to provide the
children who came of age with material support if the child lacks
capacity for work due to a disability determined to him before he
reached full legal age. This article did not regulate any other
relations.
4.3. In this context, it needs to be noted that under
Paragraph 1 of Article 2.5 of the CC, a person becomes of full
legal age when he turns 18 years old.
Such a notion of full legal age which is enshrined in the
CC complies with the notion of the full legal age which is
consolidated in the Constitution, wherein the notion "a person of
full legal age" is used in such way as it was universally
understood (and enshrined in the then valid legal acts) at the
moment when the Constitution was drafted and adopted: while
drafting and adopting the Constitution, the full legal age was
related namely with the age of 18 years old. It also needs to be
noted that, under the Constitution, the citizens who on the day
of election have reached 18 years of age, shall have the
electoral right; it is obvious that such right may only be
established for persons of full legal age and that, on the other
hand, it is not permitted that such right be not established for
the persons of full legal age (save the exceptions which stem
from the Constitution).
5. Article 1 of the Law on Amending Article 3.194 of the
Civil Code which was adopted by the Seimas on 11 November 2004
(and which came into force on 26 November 2004) amended Paragraph
3 (wording of 18 July 2000) of Article 3.194 of the CC and set it
forth in a new wording; the following was established: "The court
shall adjudge support until the child attains full legal age
except in cases where the child lacks capacity for work due to a
disability determined before the full legal age or when the
support is necessary to the child when he learns at day-time
departments of secondary, higher education or vocational schools
and he is not older than 24 years of age."
6. After the said amendment was made, Article 3.194
(wording of 11 November 2004) of the CC regulates not only the
relations which appear when the parents do not implement their
duty to provide their underage children with material support (or
they did not agree on the support of their underage children), as
well as to provide the children who came of age with material
support if the child lacks capacity for work due to a disability
determined to him before full legal age, but also the relations
which are linked to the powers of the court to adjudge support to
the children of full legal age, to whom the support is necessary
and who learn at day-time departments of secondary, higher
education or vocational schools and who are not older than 24
years of age.
7. The disputed provision of Article 3.194 (wording of 11
November 2004) of the CC means that the parents have the duty
which arises from the law to provide their children of full legal
age with material support, provided they are not older than 24
years of age, who learn at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational schools and who need the said
support; if such person of full legal age applies to court in
order to be adjudged the support from the parents because of the
fact that he learns at day-time departments of secondary, higher
education or vocational schools, and the court establishes that
the support is necessary for this child, the court must adjudge
the support to him which must be provided by the parents as long
as the said person of full legal age learns at the corresponding
educational establishment, but only until he attains 24 years of
age.
Thus, the disputed provision of Article 3.194 (wording of
11 November 2004) of the CC is formulated in an imperative
manner: the court has the duty to adjudge the support specified
in the said provision in all cases under the conditions specified
in that provision.
This provision is treated by courts namely as an
imperative one.
For instance, the Supreme Court of Lithuania expressis
verbis held so in its ruling of 23 January 2007 which was adopted
in civil case No. 3K-7-130/2007. While in the 23 January 2007
ruling which was adopted in civil case No. 3K-7-104/2007, even
though it held that the court, upon assessment of the evidence
and upon consideration and establishment of the significant
circumstances, has the "right of discretion" to adjudge support
to the person who learns in secondary school, the Supreme Court
of Lithuania was following the provision that the court may do so
"under other conditions established in Paragraph 3 of Article 3.
194 of the CC" and that "by the regulation enshrined in Paragraph
3 of Article 3.194 of the CC, the state seeks to help the pupil
to enjoy his right to education, thus, the parents must also help
the pupil and/or student to implement this right <
>".
The fact that the courts treat the said provision as
imperative is testified by the 35 petitions in this
constitutional justice case from the courts of the Republic of
Lithuania (petitioners) who initiated this case.
8. It needs to be noted that the institute of support of
underage children (parents have the duty to provide their
underage children with material support) which is enshrined in
Section Two titled "Mutual Support Duties of Parents and
Children" of Chapter XII titled "Mutual Property Rights and
Duties of Parents and Children" of Book Three "Family Law" of the
CC and the institute of support of the children of full legal age
who learn at day-time departments of secondary, higher education
or vocational schools are not identical, they differ essentially,
as the subjects of the corresponding legal relations are
essentially different: in the first case, one of the subjects of
the legal relations is always an underage child who has the right
to receive the material support from his parents, while the other
subject is one of his parents or both his parents, thus, the
legal relations appear between the underage person and the person
(persons) of full legal age (or emancipated persons); in the
second case, one of the subjects of the legal relations is always
a person of full legal age who learns at the day-time department
of a secondary, higher education or vocational school and to whom
the support is necessary, and the other subject is also one of
his parents or both his parents, thus, the legal relations appear
between the persons of full legal age.
9. While revealing the content of the disputed provision
of Article 3.194 (wording of 11 November 2004) of the CC, one
needs to take account of the entirety of the legal regulation,
which had been by then enshrined in a corresponding textual form,
in Section Two titled "Mutual Support Duties of Parents and
Children" of Chapter XII titled "Mutual Property Rights and
Duties of Parents and Children" of Book Three "Family Law" of the
CC, and namely of the following provisions:
- Paragraph 1 of Article 3.192 titled "Parents' duty to
maintain their children" of the CC enshrines the duty of parents
to provide their underage children with material support;
- the amount for support must be commensurate with the
needs of the children and the financial situation of their
parents; it must ensure the existence of conditions necessary for
the child's development (Paragraph 2 of Article 3.192 of the CC);
- both parents must provide support to their underage
children in accordance with their financial situation (Paragraph
3 of Article 3.192 of the CC);
- according to Paragraph 3 of Article 3.193 titled
"Parental agreement on the support of their underage children" of
the CC, if one of the parents does not abide by the agreement on
the support of their underage children approved by the court, the
other parent shall be have a right to apply to the court for the
issuance of the writ of execution;
- according to Paragraph 1 of Article 3.194 titled
"Adjudgment of support" (wording of 18 July 2000) of the CC, if
the parents (or one of the parents) fail in the duty to maintain
their underage children, the court may issue a support order in
an action brought by one of the parents or the child's guardian
(curator) or the state institution for the protection of the
child's rights;
- according to Paragraph 3 (wording of 18 July 2000) of
Article 3.194 of the CC, the court shall adjudge support until
the child attains full legal age except in cases where the child
lacks capacity for work due to a disability determined before the
full legal age;
- the enforcement of the support order shall be
terminated when the child: (1) is emancipated; (2) attains full
legal age; (3) is adopted; (4) dies (Paragraph 4 of Article 3.194
of the CC);
- if the person obliged to pay support dies, the duty of
support shall pass to his or her successors within the limits of
the inherited property irrespective of the way the estate is
accepted under the rules of Book Five hereof (Paragraph 5 of
Article 3.194 of the CC);
- according to Article 3.195 titled "Support duty when
the children are separated from their parents" of the CC, the
parents' duty to maintain their underage children shall be
retained after the separation of the children from their parents
or the limitation of parental authority except in cases where the
child is adopted;
- according to paragraph 1 of Article 3.196 titled "The
form and amount of support" of the CC, the court may adjudge
support obligating the parents (one of the parents) who fail in
their duty to maintain their children to provide support to their
children in the following ways: (1) periodical monthly payments;
(2) a certain lump sum; (3) award of certain property; according
to Paragraph 2 of this article, pending the outcome of the case,
the court may give a ruling on the provisional payment of
support;
- according to Article 3.197 titled "Coercive pledge
(hypothec)" of the CC, if necessary, in making a decision on
adjudging support, the court may institute pledge (hypothec)
against the property of the parents (one of the parents). If the
court decision on the exaction of the support is not executed,
the support shall be exacted from the property subject to the
pledge according to the procedure established in laws;
- according to Article 3.199 titled "Kinds of income from
which support payments shall be made" of the CC, support for
children shall be exacted from the wages and all the other kinds
of income of the father (mother) obliged to pay the support;
- according to Article 3.201 titled "Changing the amount
and form of support" of the CC, in an action brought by the
child, the child's father (mother), the state institution for the
protection of the child's rights or a public prosecutor the court
may reduce or increase the amount of the adjudged support if,
after the awarding of the support, the financial situation of the
parties has undergone a fundamental change;
- according to Article 3.204 titled "Children maintained
by the State" of the CC, the state shall maintain underage
children receiving no support from their parents or adult close
relatives who are in a position to maintain the child (Paragraph
1); the amount, procedure and conditions of such support shall be
established by the Government (Paragraph 2); after providing
support to an underage child under this article, the state shall
have the right of recourse to recover the support provided to the
child from the child's parents or his other adult close relatives
provided the court declared the reasons why they failed to
provide support to the child to be insufficient (Paragraph 3).
10. All these provisions were designed for the institute
of support of underage children, as well as children who lack
capacity for work due to a disability determined to them before
the full legal age.
After the Seimas, on 11 November 2004, amended Paragraph
3 (wording of 18 July 2000) of Article 3.194 of the CC and set it
forth in a new wording, alongside with the provision that the
court shall adjudge support until the child attains full legal
age except in cases where the child lacks capacity for work due
to a disability determined before the full legal age that had
existed until then, there appeared also a new provision where the
court shall adjudge support, when the support is necessary to the
child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary, higher
education or vocational schools and he is not older than 24 years
of age.
Such amendment of the legal regulation virtually means
that a new institute of support of children of full legal age who
learn at day-time departments of secondary, higher education or
vocational schools and to whom the support is necessary, which
had never existed in the legal system before, was created, as
well as that this new legal institute was mechanically included
into the entirety of the legal regulation designed for the
institute of support of only underage children, as well as
children who lack capacity for work due to a disability
determined before the full legal age.
It needs to be noted that the said novel of the legal
regulation was made without correcting (without amending or
supplementing) the articles (paragraphs thereof) of Section Two
titled "Mutual Support Duties of Parents and Children" (wording
of 18 July 2002) of Chapter XII titled "Mutual Property Rights
and Duties of Parents and Children" of Book Three "Family Law" of
the CC which, as it was mentioned, until then were designed for
the institute of support of only underage children, as well as
children who lack capacity for work due to a disability
determined before the full legal age.
Without doing that, certain articles (paragraphs thereof)
of the said section, by continuing to regulate the relations
linked to the powers of the court to adjudge support to underage
children, as well as to children who lack capacity for work due
to a disability determined before the full legal age, started to
regulate the relations linked to the powers of the court to
adjudge support to the children of full legal age, to whom the
support is necessary and who learn at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and who are not
older than 24 years of age.
It also needs to be noted that entire Section Two titled
"Mutual Support Duties of Parents and Children" of Chapter XII
titled "Mutual Property Rights and Duties of Parents and
Children" of Book Three "Family Law" of the CC (or any other
place of the CC) does not clearly regulate what needs to be taken
into account by the court, while deciding whether to adjudge the
parents' support to the person of full legal age, to whom the
support is necessary and who learns at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools and who is not
older than 24 years of age, as well as from what kind of income
which is received by the parents (or one of them) such support
may be adjudged, etc.
Thus, the essential elements of the institute of support
of children of full legal age, to whom the support is necessary
and who learn at day-time departments of secondary, higher
education or vocational schools, are not established.
Because of the fact that, as it was mentioned, the
institute of support of underage children and the institute of
support of the children of full legal age who learn at day-time
departments of secondary, higher education or vocational schools
are not identical, they differ essentially (as the subjects of
the corresponding legal relations are essentially different),
when the court is deciding whether to adjudge the parents'
support to the person of full legal age who learns at day-time
departments of secondary, higher education or vocational schools,
the possibilities of the court to refer to the provisions of
Article 1.8 of the CC which enshrine the analogy of the law
(Paragraph 1) and to apply the provisions of Section Two titled
"Mutual Support Duties of Parents and Children" of Chapter XII
titled "Mutual Property Rights and Duties of Parents and
Children" of Book Three "Family Law" of the CC which belong to
the institute of support of underage children become more
difficult.
Due to the imperative character of the disputed provision
of Article 3.194 (wording of 11 November 2004) of the CC in such
cases also the possibilities of the court to refer to the
provisions of Article 1.8 of the CC which enshrine the analogy of
law (Paragraph 2) and to Paragraph 4 of Article 1.5 of the CC,
under which the court, while construing laws and applying them,
must follow the principles of justice, reasonableness and good
faith become much more difficult: even if the court tried to
follow these principles (as well as general principles of law),
legal indetermination and ambiguity (because of the imperative
character of the disputed provision, as well as because of the
fact that, as it was mentioned, the essential elements of the
institute of support of the children of full legal age who learn
at day-time departments of secondary, higher education or
vocational schools were not established) would remain big.
11. It was mentioned that the petitioners request to
investigate whether the provision "the court may adjudge support
<
> when the support is necessary to the child when he learns at
day-time departments of secondary, higher education or vocational
schools and he is not older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3
(wording of 11 November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not
in conflict inter alia with the provision of Paragraph 6 of
Article 38 of the Constitution that the right and duty of parents
is to support their children until they come of age, because of
the fact that, according to the petitioners, neither this
paragraph, nor any other part of the Constitution provides that
the parents must support their children of full legal age.
12. While construing the provision of Paragraph 6 of
Article 38 of the Constitution that the right and duty of parents
is to support their children until they come of age, it needs to
be noted that it is designed to regulate the relations between
parents and their underage children. It does not regulate the
relations between parents and their children after the children
come of age.
12.1. It also needs to be noted that this constitutional
provision may not be construed as meaning that, purportedly, the
legislator cannot, in general, establish the duty of the parents
to provide their children of full legal age with support to whom
the support is necessary, if such duty may be grounded on other
provisions of the Constitution.
In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue, it needs to be emphasized that the said provision of
Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution may not be
construed as meaning that, purportedly, the legislator cannot, in
general, establish the duty of the parents to provide support to
their children of full legal age to whom the support is
necessary, so that they could acquire corresponding education.
12.2. For example, taking account of the fact that in
Lithuania secondary education is usually acquired when the pupil
has already come of age (18 years old), it is obvious that the
parents have the duty to support their child for the period of
time in which the pupil, studying honestly and showing good
results, may acquire secondary education, as well as such
secondary education which could be granted together with the
professional one. Such duty of the parents is to be derived not
only from the laws, but also from the entirety of the provisions
of the Constitution, inter alia from the constitutional
consolidation of the value of the relations between parents and
children, the striving for a just and harmonious civil society,
and the social orientation of the state.
12.3. The possibility to legislatively consolidate the
duty of the parents to provide material support to their children
of full legal age while they learn at schools of higher
education, inter alia their day-time departments, is to be
assessed differently. The legislator cannot disregard the
circumstance that in this case legal relations appear between the
persons of full legal agethe student of a school of higher
education and one of the parents or both parents.
The Constitutional Court has held that the principle of
solidarity which is enshrined in the Constitution does not deny
personal responsibility for one's destiny (Constitutional Court
rulings of 12 March 1997, 25 November 2002, 3 December 2003, 5
March 2004 and 13 December 2004). It needs to be emphasized that
the relations between parents and children, even if they came of
age, in most aspects are special, their links are
constitutionally valuable. However, in itself it does not mean
that it is possible to establish such legal regulation that the
burden of implementation of the decisions which were
independently adopted by the children who came of age would
unconditionally be transferred to the parents, who no longer have
(under the CC) and may not have (under the Constitution) any
power (power of parents) over their children of full legal age
who adopt those decisions. In the context of the constitutional
justice case at issue, it needs to be noted that under Paragraph
1 of Article 2.5 of the CC, on attaining full legal age, the
person shall have full civil capacityby his acts he may acquire
civil rights and create civil duties.
It is obvious that the parents have moral obligations
also to their children who came of age, as well as the children
have moral obligations to their parents. However, it needs to be
emphasized that one may ensure the implementation of not all
moral obligations (or their implementation "to the full extent")
by enshrining the analogous legal duties in legal acts.
Article 38 of the Constitution not only consolidates that
the right and duty of parents is to bring up their children to be
honest people and faithful citizens and to support them until
they come of age (Paragraph 6), but also inter alia the fact that
the duty of children is to respect their parents, to take care of
them in their old age, and to preserve their heritage (Paragraph
7).
Upon the decision of the legislator to establish by law
the duty of the parents to provide material support to their
children of full legal age to whom the support is necessary, when
they learn at schools of higher education, one may not deny any
of the rights (inter alia the right of ownership) and legitimate
interests of parents which are defended and protected by the
Constitution, nor the rights and legitimate interests of other
persons, also one may not restrict, let alone deny the powers of
the court to administer justice. For instance, while enshrining
the said duty of parents, it is not permitted not to pay heed to
the possibilities of parents and their duties to other persons
(inter alia underage children, other members of the family,
dependants). One may not establish any such legal regulation
which would create preconditions (because of the implementation
of such duty of the parents established by the law) to
essentially aggravate the situation of the parents or other
persons, let alone establish such duty of the parents to provide
material support to their children of full legal age, to whom the
support is necessary when they learn at schools of higher
education, which, in general, could not be fulfilled by the
parents without inflicting essential harm to the their rights or
the rights of other persons. Nor may one establish any such legal
regulation whereby the court, in all cases, when the parents or
one of the parents has certain income or other property,
especially when this income or other property is not big (it
needs to be emphasized that their size or sufficiency may not be
assessed only according to such formal criteria as the minimum
standard of living, minimum monthly salary, average remuneration
for work, etc. which are established in legal acts at present),
would have the duty to adjudge support to the child of full legal
age to whom the support is necessary when he learns at a school
of higher education. It is to be particularly emphasized that one
may not establish any such legal regulation whereby the support
is adjudged from the parents who themselves need support,
guardianship, etc.
It also needs to be noted that, under the Constitution,
the legal regulation where the court could adjudge the parents'
support to the person of full legal age who seeks to acquire not
the first higher education, even though he needs the support, as
well as the legal regulation whereby the court could adjudge the
parents' support to such person of full legal age who seeks
education (inter alia higher education) who learns dishonestly,
who is an underachiever and who misuses the rights of the family,
would be intolerable.
These as well as other imperatives which defend the
rights and legitimate interests of the parents and other persons
are determined by the fact that, as it was said, the institute of
support of the children of full legal age to whom the support is
necessary and who learn at day-time departments of schools of
higher education essentially differs from the institute of
support of underage children; the adjudgment of support to
persons of full legal age may not be grounded on the same
principles as to underage children. Otherwise, the concept of
full legal age itself which is consolidated in the Constitution
and in the whole legal system would be denied.
12.4. It needs to be emphasized that upon the decision of
the legislator to establish by law the duty of the parents to
provide material support to their children of full legal age to
whom the support is necessary, when they learn at schools of
higher education, one may not limit himself only to the
establishment of the said duty, especially when the extent of
this duty becomes clear only when the court is deciding the case
regarding the adjudgment of support, but one must establish all
the essential elements of this legal institute. Otherwise, legal
ambiguity and uncertainty would be created; alongside, one would
create preconditions for appearance of the legal situations,
where the possibilities of the court to administer justice would
be aggravated (and sometimes it would be impossible to administer
justice at all) and, thus, the rights and freedoms of the person,
as well as other constitutional values, could be violated.
12.5. It also needs to be noted that upon the decision of
the legislator to establish by law the duty of the parents to
provide material support to their children of full legal age to
whom the support is necessary, when they learn at schools of
higher education, one may establish such legal regulation whereby
it would be possible to adjudge the parents' support to the said
person to whom the support is necessary only in the case when
this person has made use of all the reasonable opportunities to
provide himself with the funds necessary for his learning
(studies) at a school of higher education.
12.6. It also needs to be noted that under the
Constitution, the State of Lithuania is socially oriented, thus,
it has the constitutional obligation and must accept the burden
of implementation of certain commitments. The constitutional
principle of social solidarity implies the opportunity to
distribute this burden to a certain extent also among the members
of society, however, this distribution must be constitutionally
grounded, it may not be disproportionate and it may not deny the
social orientation of the state and the obligations to the state
which stem from the Constitution.
In this context, it needs to be noted that as the
Constitutional Court has held, the constitutional human right to
seek higher education presumes the state's duty to ensure
preconditions necessary in order to implement this right; an
individual's constitutional right to seek higher education
according to his abilities even when the state does not finance
his education because that would exceed the needs and
possibilities of the society and the state may not be denied too
(Constitutional Court ruling of 14 January 2002). The
constitutional principle of the state social orientation and the
constitutional imperative of an open, just and harmonious society
and a state under the rule of law implies inter alia the fact
that the state must seek to create such system of support for the
persons who seek to acquire higher education that every person
who learns at a school of higher education, and to whom the
support is necessary, would have a possibility to get a state
loan necessary for his studies, that the conditions of the
repayment of such loan would not be groundlessly aggravated and
that the imperative of Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the
Constitution that citizens who are good at their studies shall be
guaranteed education at state schools of higher education free of
charge would be implemented in reality. In this context, in needs
to be noted that as the Constitutional Court held in its ruling
of 14 January 2002, the right of every citizen with a good
academic progress in a state higher school to free higher
education which is established in Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of
the Constitution presumes that funds must be provided out of the
state budget to guarantee higher education free of charge to
citizens who demonstrate good academic progress in state higher
schools; the criteria enabling to establish which students can be
said to demonstrate good academic results and which would,
consequently, as prescribed by the Constitution, have the right
that their education in state higher schools be financed by the
state, should be established by law.
13. Taking account of the fact that the provision of
Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Constitution that the duty of
parents is to support their children until they come of age is
designed to regulate the relations of the underage children and
it does not regulate the relations between the parents and
children when the children came of age, a conclusion needs to be
drawn that the provision "the court may adjudge support <
> when
the support is necessary to the child when he learns at day-time
departments of secondary, higher education or vocational schools
and he is not older than 24 years of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording
of 11 November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC is not in
conflict with the specified provision of Paragraph 6 of Article
38 of the Constitution.
14. The compliance of the disputed provision "the court
may adjudge support <
> when the support is necessary to the
child when he learns at day-time departments of secondary, higher
education or vocational schools and he is not older than 24 years
of age" of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of Article
3.194 of the CC with the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law specified in the petitions of some
petitioners is to be assessed differently.
15. The Constitutional Court has held in its acts more
than once that the inseparable elements of the principle of a
state under the rule of law are legal certainty, legal clarity
and legal security.
16. It has been held in this Constitutional Court ruling
that the CC does not clearly regulate what needs to be taken into
account by the court, when it is deciding whether to adjudge the
parents' support to the person of full legal age, to whom the
support is necessary and who learns at the day-time department of
a secondary, higher education or vocational school and who is not
older than 24 years of age, as well as from what kind of income
which is received by the parents (or one of them) such support
may be adjudged, etc.; that the essential elements of the
institute of support of children of full legal age, to whom the
support is necessary and who learn at day-time departments of
secondary, higher education or vocational schools, are not
established. It has also been held that when the court is
deciding whether to adjudge the parents' support to the person of
full legal age who learns at day-time departments of secondary,
higher education or vocational school, the possibilities of the
court to refer to the provisions of Article 1.8 of the CC which
enshrine the analogy of the law (Paragraph 1) and to apply the
provisions which belong to the institute of support of underage
children become more difficult. It has also been held that due to
the imperative character of the disputed provision of Article 3.
194 (wording of 11 November 2004) of the CC in such cases also
the possibilities of the court to refer to the provisions of
Article 1.8 of the CC which enshrine the analogy of law
(Paragraph 2) and to Paragraph 4 of Article 1.5 of the CC, under
which the court, while construing laws and applying them, must
follow the principles of justice, reasonableness and honesty
become much more difficult: even if the court tried to follow
these principles (as well as general principles of law), legal
indetermination and ambiguity would remain big.
17. Such legal regulation creates preconditions for
appearance of such legal situations, where the possibilities of
the court to administer justice would be aggravated (and
sometimes it would be impossible to administer justice at all)
and, thus, the rights and freedoms of the person as well as other
constitutional values could be violated.
This is not in line with Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of
the Constitution, under which justice shall be administered only
by courts.
18. These essential drawbacks of the legal regulation are
not related to the fact that, under the Constitution,
purportedly, one may not establish by the law the duty of the
parents to support their children of full legal age to whom such
support is necessary in order they could acquire corresponding
education (in general, the Constitution does not prohibit thatin
certain cases, such duty of the parents may be constitutionally
grounded), but to the fact that the legislator, upon establishing
the duty of the parents to provide material support to their
children of full legal age, but not older than 24 years of age,
to whom the support is necessary and who learn at day-time
departments secondary, higher education or vocational schools,
and the imperative duty of the court to adjudge such support,
alongside did not establish the essential elements of the
institute of support for the children of full legal age to whom
the support is necessary when they learn at day-time departments
of secondary, higher education or vocational schools, and thus,
he created big indetermination and ambiguity in the legal
regulation.
19. While taking account of the arguments set forth, a
conclusion is to be drawn that Paragraph 3 (wording of 11
November 2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC, to the extent that it
establishes that the court must in all cases adjudge (that it
does not have powers not to adjudge) the support from the parents
(or one of them) to the person of full legal age, to whom the
support is necessary, who has acquired secondary education and
who learns at the day-time department of a higher education or
vocational school, provided he is not older than 24 years of age,
is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of the
Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law.
20. Upon recognizing by this Constitutional Court ruling
that Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of Article 3.194
of the CC, to the extent that it establishes that the court must
in all cases adjudge (that it does not have powers not to
adjudge) the support from the parents (or one of them) to the
person of full legal age, to whom the support is necessary, who
has acquired secondary education and who learns at the day-time
department of a higher education or vocational school, provided
he is not older than 24 years of age, is in conflict with the
Constitution, and especially, when one takes account of the fact
that the CC does not establish the essential elements of the
institute of support for the children of full legal age who learn
at day-time departments of secondary, higher education or
vocational schools, it needs to be held that there exist big gaps
in the legal regulation.
In its decision of 8 August 2006, the Constitutional
Court held the following: the elimination of legal gaps is a
matter of competence of respective (competent) law-making
subject; it is possible to certain extent to fill the legal gaps
that are in legal acts of lower power also in the course of
application of law (inter alia by making use of legal analogy, by
applying general principles of law, as well as legal acts of
higher power, first of all the Constitution), thus also in the
course of construction of law (inter alia when this is done by
courts which administer justice and decide, within their
competence, individual cases and which have to construe law so
that they would be able to apply it); the courts can fill the
legal gaps that are in legal acts of lower power only ad hoc, i.
e. by this way of application of law the legal gaps are removed
only as regards a particular social relation due to which the
dispute is decided in the case investigated by the court; it is
possible to completely remove legal gaps (as well as legislative
omission) only when the law-making institutions issue respective
legal acts; the courts cannot do this, they can fill the legal
gaps, since the courts administer justice, but they are not
legislative institutions (in the positive and broadest sense of
this term); such limitation of opportunities of courts in this
area is especially evident when one confronts gaps in substantive
law. It was also held that: in all cases there is an undeniable
opportunity for courts to fill a legal gap, which is in a legal
act of lower power, ad hoc; if such empowerments of courts were
denied or not recognised, if the opportunities of courts to apply
law, first of all the supreme lawthe Constitutiondepended on
whether a certain law-making subject did not leave gaps in the
legal regulation (legal acts) that he has established, and if
courts were able to decide cases only after these legal gaps are
filled by way of law-making, then one would have to hold that the
courts, when they decide cases, apply not law, not, first of all,
the supreme lawthe Constitutionbut only a law (in the general
sense of this term), that they administer justice not according
to law, but only formally apply articles (parts thereof) of legal
acts, that constitutional values, inter alia the rights and
freedoms of the person, may be injured (and not compensated, nor
redressed) only because a corresponding law-making subject has
not legally regulated certain relations (or when he legally
regulates them, but not intensively enough); this would not be in
line with the social and constitutional purpose of courts, and it
would mean that law is treated only as its textual form and is
identified with the latter.
Thus, the fact that this Constitutional Court ruling
recognized that Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November 2004) of
Article 3.194 of the CC, to the extent that it establishes that
the court must in all cases adjudge (that it does not have powers
not to adjudge) the support from the parents (or one of them) to
the person of full legal age, to whom the support is necessary,
who has acquired secondary education and who learns at the day-
time department of a higher education or vocational school,
provided he is not older than 24 years of age, is in conflict
with the Constitution, and the fact that the CC does not
establish the essential elements of the institute of support for
the children of full legal age who learn at day-time departments
of secondary, higher education or vocational schools, do not mean
that the courts (as well as the courts which initiated this
constitutional justice case) which decide cases in which the
question of application of Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November
2004) of Article 3.194 of the CC can choose not to decide them
only because of the fact that the legislator has not yet properly
regulated the corresponding relations by the law. While deciding
such cases (regarding the adjudgment of the parents' support to
the said children), they must ad hoc fill the mentioned gaps in
the legal regulation. While doing that the courts must heed inter
alia the fact that, as it has been held in this Constitutional
Court ruling, the adjudgment of support for the persons of full
legal age may not be grounded on the same principles as for the
underage children.
On the other hand, the said possibility of the courts to
ad hoc fill in the legal gaps does not mean that the legislator
does not have the duty, while paying heed to the Constitution and
within a reasonable time period, to establish by the law the
proper legal regulation of the corresponding relations.
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 Paragraph 3 (wording of 11 November
2004, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2004, No. 171-6319) of
Article 3.194 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania, to
the extent that it establishes that the court must in all cases
adjudge (that it does not have powers not to adjudge) the support
from the parents (or one of them) to the person of full legal
age, to whom the support is necessary, who has acquired secondary
education and who still learns at the day-time department of a
higher education or vocational school, provided he is not older
than 24 years of age, is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article
109 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
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
Vytautas Sinkevičius
Stasys Stačiokas
Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis