THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
RULING
ON THE COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION OF
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA NO. 1154
"ON CONFIRMATION OF FOREST AREAS OF STATE
IMPORTANCE" OF 23 OCTOBER 1997 (WORDING 28 MAY 2002)
WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
AND PARAGRAPH 2 (WORDING OF 3 AUGUST 2001) OF
ARTICLE 4 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON THE
RESTORATION OF THE RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP OF CITIZENS
TO THE EXISTING REAL PROPERTY, AS WELL AS ON THE
PETITION OF THE ŠIAULIAI REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE
COURT, A PETITIONER, REQUESTING TO INVESTIGATE
WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF RESOLUTION OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA NO. 1154 "ON
CONFIRMATION OF FOREST AREAS OF STATE IMPORTANCE" OF
23 OCTOBER 1997 (WORDING 14 JULY 2005) ARE NOT IN
CONFLICT WITH ARTICLE 23 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, ITEM 1 (WORDING OF 23 MARCH
2004) OF PARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 5, ITEM 3 (WORDING
OF 2 APRIL 2002) OF PARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 5 AND
ARTICLE 12 (WORDING OF 14 OCTOBER 2003) OF THE
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON THE RESTORATION OF THE
RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP OF CITIZENS TO THE EXISTING REAL
PROPERTY
6 September 2007
Vilnius
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court Armanas
Abramavičius, Toma Birmontienė, Egidijus Kūris, Kęstutis
Lapinskas, Zenonas Namavičius, Ramutė Ruškytė, Vytautas
Sinkevičius, Stasys Stačiokas, and Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis,
with the secretary of the hearingDaiva Pitrėnaitė,
in the presence of the representative of the Government of
the Republic of Lithuania, the party concerned, who was Robertas
Klovas, Director of the Legal and Personnel Department of the
Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania;
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 14 August 2007 heard case No. 44/04-10/06 subsequent
to the following:
1) the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative
Court, a petitioner, requesting to investigate whether Resolution
of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No. 750 "On
Amending Resolution of the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania No. 1154 'On Confirmation of Forest Areas of State
Importance' of 23 October 1997" of 28 May 2002 to the extent
that, according to the petitioner, the forest area of plots Nos.
4, 5 and 6 of section 106 in Varnikai village of the Trakai
district was assigned, under the schemes drafted by the Ministry
of Environment, to the forest areas of state importance, is not
in conflict with Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania and Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of
Citizens to the Existing Real Property (petition No. 1B-46/2004);
2) the petition of the Šiauliai Regional Administrative
Court, a petitioner, requesting to investigate whether Item 2 of
Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No. 765
"On Amending Resolution of the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania No. 1154 'On Confirmation of Forest Areas of State
Importance' of 23 October 1997" of 14 July 2005 to the extent
that, according to the petitioner, the land formerly owned by A.
Donelaitis in the former village of Margiai, was specified in the
Scheme of Forest Areas of State Importance in the Šiauliai City
Municipality subsequent to the schemes drafted by the Ministry of
Environment and was attributed to areas of forests of state
importance, is not in conflict with Article 23 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the provision of Item
1 of Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the
Existing Real Property whereby the rights of ownership to land
shall be restored by giving back in kind the vacant (non-built-
up) land in the former locality where one had possessed it, the
provision of Item 3 of Paragraph 2 of Article 5 thereof whereby
the rights of ownership to land shall be restored by assigning
without payment a new plot of land into the ownership of a
citizen, which is prepared or not prepared for use in a manner
prescribed by the Government, when the Government has approved
its size in the same town in which he previously owned the land,
and with Article 12 thereof in which, according to the
petitioner, conditions are established when the land may be
bought out by the state (petition No. 1B-11/2006).
By the Constitutional Court decision of 10 October 2006,
the petition (No. 1B-46/2004) of the Vilnius Regional
Administrative Court, a petitioner, and the petition (No. 1B-11/
2006) of the Šiauliai Regional Administrative Court, a
petitioner, were joined into one case and it was given reference
No. 44/04-10/06.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
1. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner,
was considering an administrative case. By its ruling, the said
court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the
Constitutional Court with a petition, requesting to investigate
whether Government Resolution No. 750 "On Amending Resolution of
the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No. 1154 'On
Confirmation of Forest Areas of State Importance' of 23 October
1997" of 28 May 2002 (hereinafter also referred to as Government
resolution No. 750 of 28 May 2002) to the extent that, according
to the petitioner, the forest area of plots Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of
section 106 in Varnikai village of the Trakai district was
assigned, under the schemes drafted by the Ministry of
Environment, to the forest areas of state importance, is not in
conflict with Article 23 of the Constitution and Paragraph 2 of
Article 4 of the Law on Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of
Citizens to the Existing Real Property.
2. The Šiauliai Regional Administrative Court, a
petitioner, was considering an administrative case. By its ruling
the said court suspended the consideration of the case and
applied to the Constitutional Court with a petition, requesting
to investigate whether Item 2 of Government Resolution No. 765
"On Amending Resolution of the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania No. 1154 'On Confirmation of Forest Areas of State
Importance' of 23 October 1997" of 14 July 2005 (hereinafter also
referred to as Government resolution No. 765 of 14 July 2005) to
the extent that, according to the petitioner, the land formerly
owned by A. Donelaitis in the former village of Margiai, was
specified in the Scheme of Forest Areas of State Importance in
the Šiauliai City Municipality subsequent to the schemes drafted
by the Ministry of Environment and was attributed to areas of
forests of state importance, is not in conflict with Article 23
of the Constitution, the provision of Item 1 of Paragraph 2 of
Article 5 of the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of
Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property whereby the
rights of ownership to land shall be restored by giving back in
kind the vacant (non-built-up) land in the former locality where
one had possessed it, the provision of Item 3 of Paragraph 2 of
Article 5 thereof whereby the rights of ownership to land shall
be restored by assigning without payment a new plot of land into
the ownership of a citizen, which is prepared or not prepared for
use in a manner prescribed by the Government, when the Government
has approved its size in the same town in which he previously
owned the land, and with Article 12 thereof in which, according
to the petitioner, conditions are established when the land may
be bought out by the state.
II
1. The petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative
Court, a petitioner, is grounded on the following arguments.
By Order of the Director of the Department of Forests and
Protected Territories No. 170 "On Specifying the Areas and
Boundaries of Forests of State Importance in the Trakai District"
of 12 October 2000, plots Nos. 4-13 of forest section 106 of
Trakai Historical National Park were entered into the list of
forests of state importance.
By Government resolution No. 750 of 28 May 2002, the said
section is ascribed to the forests areas of state importance.
Thus, plots Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of section 106 of the forest area of
Trakai Historical National Park, which are in Varnikai village of
the Trakai district, are subject to buying out by the state
subsequent to the Law on Restoration of the Rights of Ownership
of Citizens to the Existing Real Property.
According to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a
petitioner, a person is making a claim to plots Nos. 4, 5 and 6
of the said section, who seeks to restore the rights of ownership
to these plots.
In the opinion of the Vilnius Regional Administrative
Court, a petitioner, Government resolution No. 750 of 28 May 2002
to the extent that plots Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of section 106 of the
forest area of Trakai Historical National Park, which are in
Varnikai village of the Trakai district, were attributed, under
the schemes drafted by the Ministry of Environment, to the forest
areas of state importance is in conflict with Article 23 of the
Constitution and Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Law on
Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the
Existing Real Property.
2. The petition of the Šiauliai Regional Administrative
Court, a petitioner, is grounded on the following arguments.
According to the schemes approved by Government Resolution
No. 1651 "On Ascribing Forests of the Counties of Alytus,
Klaipėda, Marijampolė, Šiauliai, Tauragė, Telšiai, Utena and
Vilnius to Groups of Forests" of 21 October 2002, as well as
Government Resolution No. 1370 "On Amending Resolution of the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania No. 1154 'On Confirmation
of Forest Areas of State Importance' of 23 October 1997" of 3
November 2004, the land, according to the Šiauliai Regional
Administrative Court, a petitioner, which was formerly owned by
A. Donelaitis, is attributed to the territory of town forests.
According to the petitioner, by Government resolution No. 765 of
14 July 2005 this land was ascribed to the areas of forests of
state importance.
According to the Šiauliai Regional Administrative Court, a
petitioner, claims have been made to this part of the plot by the
persons who seek to restore their rights of ownership to the said
part of the plot and they had filed corresponding applications
prior to the issuing of the disputed Government resolution No.
765 of 14 July 2005.
In the opinion of the Šiauliai Regional Administrative
Court, a petitioner, Item 2 of Government Resolution No. 765 "On
Amending Resolution of the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania No. 1154 'On Confirmation of Forest Areas of State
Importance' of 23 October 1997" of 14 July 2005 to the extent
that, according to the petitioner, the land formerly owned by A.
Donelaitis in the former village of Margiai, was specified in the
Scheme of Forest Areas of State Importance in the Šiauliai City
Municipality subsequent to the schemes drafted by the Ministry of
Environment to areas of forests of state importance, is in
conflict with Article 23 of the Constitution, the provision of
Item 1 of Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Law on the Restoration
of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real
Property whereby the rights of ownership to land shall be
restored by giving back in kind the vacant (non-built-up) land in
the former locality where one had possessed it, the provision of
Item 3 of Paragraph 2 of Article 5 thereof whereby the rights of
ownership to land shall be restored by assigning without payment
a new plot of land into the ownership of a citizen, which is
prepared or not prepared for use in a manner prescribed by the
Government, when the Government has approved its size in the same
town in which he previously owned the land, and with Article 12
thereof in which, according to the petitioner, conditions are
established when the land may be bought out by the state.
III
In the course of preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations were received
from R. Klovas, the representative of the Government, the party
concerned.
1. It is maintained in the explanations of the
representative of the Government, the party concerned, that the
disputed provision of Government resolution No. 750 of 28 May
2002 is not in conflict with the Constitution and Paragraph 2 of
Article 4 of the Law on Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of
Citizens to the Existing Real Property.
1.1. The guarantee of protection of ownership entrenched in
the Constitution is a status quo guarantee, which protects the
rights of ownership enjoyed by a person. A corresponding
territory may be recognised as necessary to the state; the
necessities of the state are also needs of society, therefore,
the application requesting to restore the rights of ownership in
kind to the corresponding territory had no influence on the
decision of the Government to recognise a respective territory as
forests of state importance. If the Government, taking account of
the application requesting to restore the rights of ownership in
kind, had not recognised the corresponding territory as forests
of state importance, the interests of one person would have been
put above the interests of society; thus, the provision of
Article 3 of Article 5 of the Constitution whereby state
institutions shall serve the people, would have been violated.
The legislator, upon choosing limited restitution, established in
the Law on Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to
the Existing Real Property as to in what cases and what property
is not returned in kind but is bought out by the state.
1.2. Under Item 1 of Article 13 of the Law on Restoration
of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real
Property, the Government has the powers to confirm the areas of
forests of state importance which are subject to buying out, to
establish that certain territories are forests of state
importance. The Government also has such powers under Article 4
of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Land. Thus, Government
resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997 and its subsequent
amendments, including Government resolution No. 750 of 28 May
2002, were adopted in pursuance of lawslegal acts of superior
power. The Republic of Lithuania Forestry Law does not
consolidate any concrete criteria under which the Government can
ascribe the forests specified in Item 6 of Paragraph 4 of Article
4 of the Forestry Law to the areas of forests of state
importance, nor does it establish any duty of state institutions
to establish such criteria in substatutory legal acts; the right
to adopt decisions on ascribing of forests to the areas of
forests of state importance is established to the Government by
the law. However, it is important that the forests ascribed to
the areas of forests of state importance be necessary for needs
of society, i.e. that they be of state importance. It was
precisely such forests that were recognised as forests of state
importance by Government resolution No. 750 of 28 May 2002.
Forests of state importance were confirmed the first time
by Government resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997. In the
course of preparation a draft of this Government resolution and
its subsequent amendments, specialists of the Lithuanian Forest
Inventory and Management Institute used to submit proposals to
the Government regarding the attribution of the forests specified
in Item 6 of Paragraph 4 of Article 4 of the Forestry Law to the
areas of forests of state importance; they proposed that inter
alia the forests in protected territories, whose former owners do
not wish to retrieve them, be attributed to the areas of forests
of state importance.
1.3. Plots Nos. 4, 5 and 6 (which are in Varnikai village
of the Trakai district) of section 106 of forest area of Trakai
Historical National Park are of particular value. In 1993, while
executing Government Resolution No. 912 "On Approving the
Planning Scheme of Trakai Historical National Park" of 6 December
1993, the Lithuanian Forest Inventory and Management Institute
prepared a draft of organisation of forest exploitation of Trakai
Historical National Park and established that plots Nos. 4-13 of
section 106 shall be the forests of the reserve which are not
subject to returning and privatisation. In 2001, upon state
inventorying of forests, by his Order No. 636 "On Approval of
Projects of Organisation of Forest Exploitation" of 22 December
2001, the Minister of Environment inter alia approved the project
of organisation of forest exploitation of Trakai Historical
National Park, according to which in plots Nos. 4-13 of section
106 there are not any domains of private owners, and, while
following the Procedure for Ascribing of Forests to Groups of
Forests approved by Government resolution No. 1171 of 26
September 2001, due to the particular value of these forests,
ascribed them to the group of ecosystem protection forests (the
change of whose purpose is forbidden).
The value and state importance of the disputed territory
had been recognised prior to the first application, in 1996,
requesting to restore the rights of ownership to these plots;
such value and importance are recognised at present as well. The
decision to restore the rights of ownership to plots Nos. 4, 5
and 6 of section 106 of the forest area of Trakai Historical
National Park, which are in Varnikai village of the Trakai
district, has not been adopted yet; until such decision is not
adopted, the persons who seek to restore the rights of ownership
do not enjoy subjective rights to the respective property yet.
2. The representative of the Government, the party
concerned, requests that the Constitutional Court refuse to
consider the petition of the Šiauliai Regional Administrative
Court, a petitioner, requesting to investigate whether Item 2 of
Government Resolution No. 765 "On Amending Resolution of the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania No. 1154 'On Confirmation
of Forest Areas of State Importance' of 23 October 1997" of 14
July 2005 to the extent that, according to the petitioner, the
land formerly owned by A. Donelaitis in the former village of
Margiai, was specified in the Scheme of Forest Areas of State
Importance in the Šiauliai City Municipality subsequent to the
schemes drafted by the Ministry of Environment to areas of
forests of state importance, is not in conflict with Article 23
of the Constitution, the provisions of the articles (parts
thereof) (specified by the petitioner) of the Law on the
Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the
Existing Real Property, and grounds his position on the following
arguments.
2.1. Government resolution No. 765 of 14 July 2005 does not
regulate the relations linked with the land previously owned by
A. Donelaitis in the former Margiai villagethey are regulated by
Government resolution No. 1651 whereby the corresponding
territory was ascribed to forest parks.
2.2. Forest parks are to be equalled to forests of state
importance. Under Paragraph 1 of Article 47 of the Constitution,
inter alia forests and parks of state importance shall belong by
the right of exclusive ownership to the Republic of Lithuania.
Under Item 2 of Paragraph 4 of Article 4 of the Forestry Law,
forests of state importance, to which inter alia town forests are
attributed, shall belong to the Republic of Lithuania by right of
exclusive ownership (such provision is valid as from 1 January
1995); under Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 13 of the Law on
the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the
Existing Real Property, also forest parks are ascribed to the
objects bought out by the state, whose lists together with the
areas of forests specified therein are approved by the
Government, while under Article 6 of the Law on Land, the land
which is ascribed to forests of state importance by procedure
established in laws and by the Government shall belong to the
Republic of Lithuania by right of exclusive ownership and it
shall not be permitted to acquire such land as private ownership.
According to R. Klovas, the legislator reasonably ascribed
town forests to forests of state importance, since they are of
particular ecological importance: they improve the quality of the
environment of towns, they diminish the negative impact (which is
very big in towns) to the environment, as well as perform an
important social and recreational functions: they ensure
qualitative recreation in urban territories.
2.3. According to laws, the Government enjoys the powers to
approve the areas of forests of state importance, which meet the
criteria established in Article 4 of the Law on Forests. The
attribution of a certain territory to the areas of forests is not
to be related with volitional decisions by empowered state
institutions (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania ruling of
29 May 2004 in administrative case No. A-14-499-2004). Even
though the Government does not ascribe a certain territory (which
meets the criteria established in the Forestry Law and which is
within the territory of a town) to the areas of forests of state
importance, this territory, under the Forestry Law, nevertheless
is regarded as a forest of state importance and the rights of
ownership to it may not be restored in kind.
IV
In the course of the preparation of the case, written
explanations were received from A. Kuliešis, Director of the
State Service for Organisation of Forest Exploitation of the
Ministry of Environment, and G. Abaravičius, Director of the
Directorate of Trakai Historical National Park.
V
1. At the Constitutional Court hearing, R. Klovas, the
representative of the Government, the party concerned, virtually
reiterated the arguments set forth in his written explanations
and submitted additional explanations and additional documents,
which are included into this constitutional justice case.
2. At the Constitutional Court hearing the specialist, who
was A. Kuliešis, Director of the State Service for Organisation
of Forest Exploitation of the Ministry of Environment, took the
floor.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner,
requests to investigate whether Government Resolution No. 750 "On
Amending Resolution of the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania No. 1154 'On Confirmation of Forest Areas of State
Importance' of 23 October 1997" of 28 May 2002 to the extent
that, according to the petitioner, the forest area of plots Nos.
4, 5 and 6 of section 106 in Varnikai village of the Trakai
district was assigned, under the schemes drafted by the Ministry
of Environment, to the forest areas of state importance, is not
in conflict with Article 23 of the Constitution and Paragraph 2
of Article 4 of the Law on Restoration of the Rights of Ownership
of Citizens to the Existing Real Property, while the Šiauliai
Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requests to
investigate whether Item 2 of Government Resolution No. 765 "On
Amending Resolution of the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania No. 1154 'On Confirmation of Forest Areas of State
Importance' of 23 October 1997" of 14 July 2005 to the extent
that, according to the petitioner, the land formerly owned by A.
Donelaitis in the former village of Margiai, was specified in the
Scheme of Forest Areas of State Importance in the Šiauliai City
Municipality subsequent to the schemes drafted by the Ministry of
Environment and was attributed to areas of forests of state
importance, is not in conflict with Article 23 of the
Constitution, the provision of Item 1 of Paragraph 2 of Article 5
of the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of
Citizens to the Existing Real Property whereby the rights of
ownership to land shall be restored by giving back in kind the
vacant (non-built-up) land in the former locality where one had
possessed it, the provision of Item 3 of Paragraph 2 of Article 5
thereof whereby the rights of ownership to land shall be restored
by assigning without payment a new plot of land into the
ownership of a citizen, which is prepared or not prepared for use
in a manner prescribed by the Government, when the Government has
approved its size in the same town in which he previously owned
the land, and with Article 12 thereof in which, according to the
petitioner, conditions are established when the land may be
bought out by the state.
2. On 23 October 1997, the Government adopted Resolution
No. 1154 "On Confirmation of Forest Areas of State Importance"
(hereinafter also referred to as Government resolution No. 1154
of 23 October 1997), which came into force on 30 October 1997,
whereby it inter alia confirmed the areas of forests of state
importance according to the schemes prepared by the Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry of the Republic of Lithuania (Item 1)
and commissioned the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to
submit, within 2 months of the entry of this resolution into
force, the schemes pointed out in Item 1 to the interested
ministries and the administrations of county chiefs (Item 2.1.).
In this Government resolution the areas of forests were indicated
according to counties and districts; the areas of forests of
state importance which were ascribed to towns were not indicated
therein.
Government resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997 had a
constituent part titled "The Areas of Forests of State
Importance", in which inter alia for the Trakai district 30.7
thousand ha of the area of forests of state importance were
confirmed (Section 42). The same Government resolution confirmed
the areas of forests of state importance for the Šiauliai County,
however, no areas of forests of state importance were
individually specified for the City of Šiauliai.
3. Government resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997 was
amended by the following: Government Resolution No. 379 "On
Partial Amendment of Resolution of the Government of the Republic
of Lithuania No. 1154 'On Confirmation of Forest Areas of State
Importance' of 23 October 1997" of 31 March 1998 (hereinafter
also referred to as Government resolution No. 379 of 31 March
1998); Government resolution No. 111 "On Partial Amendment of
Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No.
1154 'On Confirmation of Forest Areas of State Importance' of 23
October 1997" of 4 February 1999 (hereinafter also referred to as
Government resolution No. 111 of 4 February 1999).
Item 2 of Government resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997
(wording of 4 February 1999) inter alia established: "To
commission the Department of Forests and Protected Territories
under the Ministry of Environment: <
> 2.3. to specify the areas
of forests of state importance and their boundaries according to
the prepared land reform projects of organisation of land
exploitation (without diminishing the areas of forests of state
importance which have been confirmed in the counties), after
coordinating this question with the Ministry of Agriculture and
the corresponding administrations of county chiefs."
4. Government resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997
(wording of 4 February 1999) was amended by Government Resolution
No. 239 "On Partial Amendment of Resolution of the Government of
the Republic of Lithuania No. 1154 'On Confirmation of Forest
Areas of State Importance' of 23 October 1997" of 1 March 2000
(hereinafter also referred to as Government resolution No. 239 of
1 March 2000).
Although Government resolution No. 239 of 1 March 2000 came
into force on 9 March 2000, it was established in Item 4 thereof
that its "Items 1 and 2 shall come into force as from 1 April
2000"; thus, the application of all provisions of Government
resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997 (wording of 1 March 2000)
had to be begun on 1 April 2000.
5. It was established in Government resolution No. 1154 of
23 October 1997 (wording of 1 March 2000, including the
provisions applicable as from 1 April 2000):
"Conforming to the Republic of Lithuania Law on the
Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the
Existing Real Property, the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania resolves:
1. To confirm the 1003 ha areas of forests of state
importance according to the schemes prepared by the Department of
Forests and Protected Territories under the Ministry of
Environment.
2. To commission the Department of Forests and Protected
Territories under the Ministry of Environment:
2.1. To submit, within 2 months of the entry of this
resolution into force, the schemes pointed out in Item 1 to the
interested ministries and the administrations of county chiefs;
2.2. In the course of the land reform, upon forming
available free tracts of forest, to submit, under established
procedure, proposals (upon coordination with the land management
departments of corresponding county chiefs administrations) to
the Government of the Republic of Lithuania regarding the
attribution of these tracts to forests of state importance;
2.3. To specify the areas and boundaries of forests of
state importance according to the prepared land reform projects
of organisation of land exploitation (without diminishing the
areas of forests of state importance which have been confirmed in
the counties), after coordinating this question with the Ministry
of Agriculture and the corresponding administrations of county
chiefs."
Government resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997 (wording
of 1 March 2000, including the provisions applicable as from 1
April 2000) had a constituent part titled "The Areas of Forests
of State Importance" (wording of 1 March 2000, including the
provisions applicable as from 1 April 2000), in which inter alia
for the Trakai district 32.42 thousand ha of the area of forests
of state importance were confirmed (Section 43). The same
Government resolution confirmed the areas of forests of state
importance for the Šiauliai County, however, no areas of forests
of state importance were individually specified for the City of
Šiauliai.
6. By Government Resolution No. 750 "On Amending Resolution
of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No. 1154 'On
Confirmation of Forest Areas of State Importance' of 23 October
1997" of 28 May 2002 (the compliance of which (to the
corresponding extent) with the Constitution and Paragraph 2 of
Article 4 of the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of
Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property is disputed
by the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner),
Government Resolution No. 1154 "On Confirmation of Forest Areas
of State Importance" of 23 October 1997 (with subsequent
amendments) was amended and set forth in a new wording.
It was established in Government resolution No. 1154 of 23
October 1997 (wording of 28 May 2002):
"1. To confirm the 1014.12 thousand ha of the area of
forests of state importance (annexed) according to the schemes
prepared by the Ministry of Environment.
2. To commission the Ministry of Environment:
2.1. To submit, within 2 months of the entry of this
resolution into force, the schemes pointed out in Item 1 to the
interested ministries and the administrations of county chiefs;
2.2. In the course of the land reform, upon forming
available free tracts of forest, to submit, under established
procedure, proposals (upon coordination with the land management
departments of corresponding county chiefs administrations) to
the Government of the Republic of Lithuania regarding the
attribution of these tracts to forests of state importance."
It needs to be mentioned that this Government resolution no
longer contained the provision that used to be in Item 2.3 of
Government resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997 (wording of 1
March 2000) whereby it was required to specify the areas and
boundaries of forests of state importance according to the
prepared land reform projects of organisation of land
exploitation (without diminishing the areas of forests of state
importance which have been confirmed in the counties), after
coordinating this question with the Ministry of Agriculture and
the corresponding administrations of county chiefs.
In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue,
it needs to be noted that in Government resolution No. 1154 of 23
October 1997 (wording of 28 May 2002) the areas of forests of
state importance were indicated according to counties, districts
and towns; however, one individually indicated not all areas of
forests of state importance that were ascribed to towns, but only
to towns of Druskininkai, Klaipėda and Vilnius.
Government resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997 (wording
of 28 May 2002) had a constituent part titled "The Areas of
Forests of State Importance" (wording of 28 May 2002), in which
inter alia for the Trakai district 33.87 thousand ha of the area
of forests of state importance were confirmed (Section 44). The
same Government resolution confirmed the areas of forests of
state importance for the Šiauliai county, however, no areas of
forests of state importance were individually specified for the
city of Šiauliai.
7. Neither the schemes prepared by the Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry of the Republic of Lithuania, which were
pointed out in Government resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997
(wordings of 23 October 1997 and 31 March 1998), nor the schemes
prepared by the Department of Forests and Protected Territories
under the Ministry of Environment, which were pointed in this
Government resolution (wordings of 4 February 1999, 1 March 2000
and 28 May 2002), were published in the official gazette
"Valstybės žinios" (in which legal acts are published
officially).
7.1. In this context, it needs to be noted that the
Constitutional Court ruling of 27 June 2007 recognised that the
Republic of Lithuania Law "On the Procedure of Publication and
Coming into Force of Laws and Other Legal Acts of the Republic of
Lithuania" (wording of 6 April 1993), to the extent that it did
not establish that the legal acts (parts thereof) of especially
large size and complex structure, inter alia such which include
graphic parts of especially large size, regarding the publication
of which very big technical problems would appear, could
officially be published not in the official gazette "Valstybės
žinios", but in other sources and/or in other ways, as well as to
the extent that it did not establish that the said legal acts
(parts thereof) of especially large size and complex structure,
even if it is required to officially announce them in the
official gazette "Valstybės žinios", could be officially
published in special editions of the official gazette "Valstybės
žinios", was in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the
Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law.
7.2. The same Constitutional Court inter alia held that:
- the ConstitutionParagraph 2 of Article 7 thereof
together with the constitutional principle of a state under the
rule of lawrequires that not only the general procedure of the
official publishing of legal acts be established, but also such
differentiated legal regulation that in the cases when due to an
especially big size of a legal act, its complex structure,
technical problems which arise due to the publication of the
graphic part or other reasons solid enough, which
constitutionally ground the separate publishing of the textual
and graphic parts of the legal act and/or their publishing in
different ways, certain legal acts (parts thereof) would be
published while following an alternative (in comparison with the
general procedure of the official publishing of the legal acts)
procedure of the official publishing of legal acts, in other
sources and/or in other ways. It was mentioned that the official
publishing of certain graphic parts of legal acts separately from
the textual part (in a different source) and/or in a different
way than the textual part is to be considered not as a rule, but
as an exception; such exceptions must be expressis verbis
provided for in the law; all that is mutatis mutandis applicable
also for the situations when two or more textual parts of the
legal act must be published separately and/or in different ways;
- also in the cases when the graphic part of the legal act
is published separately from the textual part (in a different
source) and/or in a different way than the textual part
(publishing of the graphic part separately from the textual part
(in a different source) and/or in a different way than the
textual part should not be come the rule, but rather an
exception), one must follow the requirements of publicity and
formality of publishing of the legal acts which stem from the
Constitution, as well as one must ensure that due to the separate
publication of the textual and the graphic part of the legal
acts, no preconditions would appear to question the authenticity
of their contents; inter alia it is necessary that: by following
the general (usual) procedure of official publishing of the legal
acts in the corresponding source one would announce that the
corresponding legislative decision has been adopted regarding a
certain question; it should be clear from the legal acts
published in this source that a certain constituent part
(constituent parts) of this legal act has (have) not been
published therein; that it would be clear where one can
familiarize himself with the constituent part (constituent parts)
of the legal act, which was (were) not published in the said
source; that one would ensure in practice the accessibility of
the corresponding part of the legal act (thus, also all the legal
act as a whole) to the subjects of law, moreover, no grounded
doubts regarding the authenticity of the contents of the
constituent part (constituent parts) of the legal act which was
(were) not published in the said source should arise for those
subjects of law; if these conditions are followed, and,
certainly, if the non-publishing of a certain constituent part
(constituent parts) of the legal act may be constitutionally
grounded, in itself there are no grounds to state that a certain
legal act is "non-published" or that it is "published" not
publicly, not officially, i.e. not meeting the requirements of
Paragraph 2 of Article 7 of the Constitution, and not heeding the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law; such
ensuring (in the specified cases) of the possibilities to
familiarize oneself with the contents of the constituent part
(constituent parts) of the legal act which was (were) not
published in the said source, thus, also of all the legal act as
a whole, if there are enough solid reasons for that, in itself
does not give grounds to question the compliance of the
corresponding legal act with the Constitution;
- also such legal situations are possible, when upon
establishing the only source for the official publishing of legal
acts and the only way of the official publishing of legal acts,
such legal regulation would be not only unreasonable, but also
legally deficient, constitutionally groundless, as it would not
enable the law enshrined in the corresponding legal acts to reach
its goals because it would be impossible to implement certain
legislative decisions in an expeditious way and as fast as
possible, the protection of the secrecy of corresponding
information would not be guaranteed, the provisions of the legal
act (for example, the graphic parts) would be understood
inadequately due to not very high quality of printing, etc. Thus,
one would deviate from the constitutional concept of the official
public publishing of legal acts (moreover, the expenses of the
publishing could be groundlessly big);
- under the Constitution, the subjects of legal relations
are bound to behave in good faith and without violating law, they
have the duty to try to find out by themselves the requirements
of law: it is required by the general principle of law bona
fides, which is inseparable from the constitutional principle of
a state under the rule of law; if the non-publishing of a certain
constituent part of a legal act may be constitutionally grounded,
and if one complies with the discussed conditions that the said
source must make it public that a corresponding legislative
decision has been adopted regarding a certain question, it must
be clear from the legal acts published in this source that a
certain constituent part of the legal act is not published in
this source, it must be clear where one can familiarize himself
with the constituent part of the legal act which is not published
in the said source; the accessibility of the corresponding legal
regulation to the subjects of law must be ensured in a practical
way and no doubts could arise to them regarding the authenticity
of the contents of the constituent part of the legal act which
was not published in the said source; no subject of law can
decide not to follow the requirements of law only because of the
fact that these requirements arise from such part of the legal
act which was published separately from others.
7.3. It also needs to be mentioned that Paragraph 1 of
Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending Articles 3
and 12 of the Law on the Procedure of Publication and Coming into
Force of Laws and Other Legal Acts and Supplementing the Law with
Article 3¹, which was adopted by the Seimas on 16 January 2007
and which came into force on 16 January 2007, amended Item 4
(wording of 10 December 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the
Law on the Procedure of Publication and Coming into Force of Laws
and Other Legal Acts, and Article 2 thereof supplemented the said
law with new Article 3¹.
Item 4 (wording of 16 January 2007) of Paragraph 1 of
Article 3 of the Law on the Procedure of Publication and Coming
into Force of Laws and Other Legal Acts established that, under
this law, the Government resolutions, save the cases provided for
in Article 3¹ of this law, must be published in the official
gazette "Valstybės žinios". Under Article 3¹ (wording of 16
January 2007) of the Law on the Procedure of Publication and
Coming into Force of Laws and Other Legal Acts, in the cases when
the resolutions of the Seimas, Government resolutions and the
legal acts adopted by the heads of other institutions of state
governance and collegial institutions include annexes (drawings,
tables, graphs, schemes, maps, etc.), to announce which in the
official gazette "Valstybės žinios" there are no technical
possibilities, such legal acts are on the same day officially
published: in the Internet website of the official gazette
"Valstybės žinios" (www.valstybes-zinios.lt)the legal act with
annexes (Item 1 of Paragraph 1); in the official gazette
"Valstybės žinios"the legal act without annexes (Item 2 of
Paragraph 1); the legal acts specified in this article shall be
officially published in the official gazette "Valstybės žinios"
and in the Internet website of the official gazette "Valstybės
žinios" by the officials who signed them (Paragraph 2).
7.4. The schemes prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture
and Forestry, which were pointed out in Government resolution No.
1154 of 23 October 1997 (wordings of 23 October 1997 and 31 March
1998) and the schemes prepared by the Ministry of Environment,
which were pointed in this Government resolution (wordings of 4
February 1999, 1 March 2000 and 28 May 2002) are of big format.
7.5. It needs to be noted that there are not any data that
the commissioning to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry,
which was established in Government resolution No. 1154 of 23
October 1997, to submit the said schemes to the interested
ministries and the administrations of county chiefs, as well as
analogous commissioning to this ministry or the Ministry of
Environment, which was established by subsequent wordings of the
Government resolution, were executed improperly. Also, there are
not any data that the said schemes are inaccessible to subjects
of law or that they faced reasonable doubts regarding the
authenticity of the contents of the said schemes, which were not
published in the official gazette "Valstybės žinios". In the
administrative cases one decided to apply to the Constitutional
Court with petitions requesting to investigate into the
compliance of provisions of Government resolution No. 750 of 28
May 2002 and Government resolution No. 765 of 14 July 2005 with
the Constitution and articles (parts thereof) of the Law on the
Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the
Existing Real Property, there was not any dispute regarding these
issues.
8. Government Resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997
(wording of 28 October 2002) was amended by the following:
Government Resolution No. 2013 "On Amending Resolution of the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania No. 1154 'On Confirmation
of Forest Areas of State Importance' of 23 October 1997" of 20
December 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Government resolution
No. 2013 of 20 December 2002); Government Resolution No. 980 "On
Amending Resolution of the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania No. 1154 'On Confirmation of Forest Areas of State
Importance' of 23 October 1997" of 23 July 2003; Government
Resolution No. 159 "On Amending Resolution of the Government of
the Republic of Lithuania No. 1154 'On Confirmation of Forest
Areas of State Importance' of 23 October 1997" of 12 February
2004 (hereinafter referred to as Government resolution No. 159 of
13 February 2004); Government Resolution No. 1214 "On Amending
Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No.
1154 'On Confirmation of Forest Areas of State Importance' of 23
October 1997" of 23 September 2004 (hereinafter referred to as
Government resolution No. 1214 of 23 September 2004); Government
Resolution No. 1370 "On Amending Resolution of the Government of
the Republic of Lithuania No. 1154 'On Confirmation of Forest
Areas of State Importance' of 23 October 1997" of 3 November 2004
(hereinafter referred to as Government resolution No. 1370 of 3
November 2004).
By Government resolution No. 1370 of 3 November 2004, the
constituent part of Government resolution No. 1154 of 23 October
1997 (wording of 23 September 2004) which was titled "The Areas
of Forests of State Importance" (wording of 23 September 2002)
was amended and inter alia the areas of forests of state
importance were confirmed: to the city of Šiauliai0.26 thousand
ha and to the Trakai district28.46 thousand ha.
In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue
it needs to be noted that the areas of forests of state
importance by individually indicating the areas of the city of
Šiauliai were confirmed by Government resolution No. 1154 of 23
October 1997 only when this Government resolution was set forth
in the wording of 23 November 2004.
9. Government resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997
(wording of 3 November 2004) was amended by Government Resolution
No. 765 "On Amending Resolution of the Government of the Republic
of Lithuania No. 1154 'On Confirmation of Forest Areas of State
Importance' of 23 October 1997" of 14 July 2005 (the compliance
of Item 2 of which (to the corresponding extent) with the
Constitution and articles (parts thereof) of the Law on the
Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the
Existing Real Property is disputed by the Šiauliai Regional
Administrative Court, a petitioner).
It was established in Government resolution No. 1154 of 23
October 1997 (wording of 14 July 2005):
"Conforming to Article 13 of the Republic of Lithuania Law
on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the
Existing Real Property (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1997,
No. 65-1558; 1999, No. 48-1522; 2001, No. 35-1163, No. 108-3904;
2002, No. 112-4965), Article 4 of the Republic of Lithuania
Forestry Law (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2001, No. 96-
1872; 2001, No. 35-1161; 2003, No. 123-5593) and Article 6 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Land (Official Gazette Valstybės
žinios, 1994, No. 34-620; 2004, No. 28-868) the Government of the
Republic of Lithuania resolves:
1. To confirm the 1095.74 ha areas of forests of state
importance according to the schemes prepared by the Ministry of
Environment (Annexes 1-60).
2. To commission the Ministry of Environment:
2.1. To submit, within 2 months of the entry of this
resolution into force, the schemes pointed out in Item 1 to the
interested ministries and the administrations of county chiefs;
2.2. In the course of the land reform, upon forming
available free plots of forest, to submit, under established
procedure, proposals (upon coordination with the chiefs of
corresponding counties) to the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania regarding the attribution of these plots to forests of
state importance;
3. To commission the county chiefs to submit, after the
prepared land reform projects of organisation of land
exploitation have been confirmed, proposals to the Ministry of
Environment regarding attribution of vacant plots of forest of
the state land fund to the areas of forests of state importance."
Government resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997 (wording
of 14 July 2005) had a constituent part titled "The Areas of
Forests of State Importance" (wording of 14 July 2005) in which
inter alia the following areas of forests of state importance
were confirmed: to the city of Šiauliai0.26 thousand ha (Section
37, Annex 37) and to the Trakai district28.46 thousand ha
(Section 56, Annex 56).
Every of the sixty aforesaid annexes of Government
resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997 (wording of 14 July 2005)
is a scheme of the area of forests of state importance in a
corresponding town or district, which, along with Government
resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997 (wording of 14 July 2005),
was published in the official gazette "Valstybės žinios", and
reference is made to the said scheme in the website which
published the text of this Government resolution. In this context
it needs to be mentioned that some schemes of the areas of
forests of state importance published in the official gazette
"Valstybės žinios" are hard to understand due to the poor quality
of printing and small scale.
10. Government resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997
(wording of 14 July 2005) was later amended by the following:
Government Resolution No. 1299 "On Amending Resolution of the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania No. 1154 'On Confirmation
of Forest Areas of State Importance' of 23 October 1997" of 2
December 2005; Government Resolution No. 383 "On Amending
Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No.
1154 'On Confirmation of Forest Areas of State Importance' of 23
October 1997" of 26 April 2006 (hereinafter referred to as
Government resolution No. 383 of 26 April 2006); Government
Resolution No. 916 "On Amending Resolution of the Government of
the Republic of Lithuania No. 1154 'On Confirmation of Forest
Areas of State Importance' of 23 October 1997" of 19 September
2006 (hereinafter referred to as Government resolution No. 916 of
19 September 2006); Government Resolution No. 1376 "On Amending
Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No.
1154 'On Confirmation of Forest Areas of State Importance' of 23
October 1997" of 29 December 2006 (hereinafter referred to as
Government resolution No. 1376 of 29 December 2006); Government
Resolution No. 713 "On Amending Resolution of the Government of
the Republic of Lithuania No. 1154 'On Confirmation of Forest
Areas of State Importance' of 23 October 1997" of 11 July 2007
(hereinafter referred to as Government resolution No. 713 of 11
July 2007).
11. Government Resolution No. 750 "On Amending Resolution
of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania No. 1154 'On
Confirmation of Forest Areas of State Importance' of 23 October
1997" of 28 May 2002 (the compliance of which (to the
corresponding extent) with the Constitution and Paragraph 2 of
Article 4 of the Law on Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of
Citizens to the Existing Real Property is disputed by the Vilnius
Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner) amended certain
provisions of Government resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997
(wording of 1 March 2000, including the provisions applicable as
from 1 April 2000), while Government Resolution No. 765 "On
Amending Resolution of the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania No. 1154 'On Confirmation of Forest Areas of State
Importance' of 23 October 1997" of 14 July 2005 (the compliance
of which (to the corresponding extent) with the Constitution and
articles (parts thereof) of the Law on Restoration of the Rights
of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property is
disputed by the Šiauliai Regional Administrative Court, a
petitioner) amended certain provisions of Government resolution
No. 1154 of 23 October 1997 (wording of 3 November 2004).
One is also to note that by Item 2 of Government Resolution
No. 765 "On Amending Resolution of the Government of the Republic
of Lithuania No. 1154 'On Confirmation of Forest Areas of State
Importance' of 23 October 1997" of 14 July 2005 (which is
disputed by the Šiauliai Regional Administrative Court, a
petitioner), Item 1 of Government resolution No. 1154 "On
Confirmation of Forest Areas of State Importance" of 23 October
1997 (wording of 3 November 2004) was set forth in a different
manner; it was established in the said item (wording of 14 July
2005): "To confirm the 1095.74 ha areas of forests of state
importance according to the schemes prepared by the Ministry of
Environment (Annexes 1-60)."
12. Thus, in the constitutional justice case at issue it is
disputed whether the following is not in conflict with the
Constitution and articles (parts thereof) of the Law on
Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the
Existing Real Property:
- Section 44 of the constituent part titled "The Areas of
Forests of State Importance" of Government Resolution No. 1154
"On Confirmation of Forest Areas of State Importance" of 23
October 1997 (wording of 28 May 2002) to the extent that the 33.
87 thousand ha of the area of forests of state importance
confirmed (according to the corresponding scheme prepared by the
Ministry of Environment) for the Trakai district encompass,
according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a
petitioner, plots Nos. 4-13 of forest section 106 of Trakai
Historical National Park which are in Varnikai village of the
Trakai district;
- whether Section 37 of the constituent part titled "The
Areas of Forests of State Importance" of the same Government
resolution (wording of 14 July 2005) to the extent that the 0.26
thousand ha of the area of forests of state importance confirmed
(according to the corresponding scheme prepared by the Ministry
of Environment) for the city of Šiauliai encompass, according to
the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, the land
formerly owned by A. Donelaitis in the former village of Margiai.
13. While investigating the compliance of corresponding
sections of the constituent part titled "The Areas of Forests of
State Importance" of Government resolution No. 1154 "On
Confirmation of Forest Areas of State Importance" of 23 October
1997 (wordings of 28 May 2002 and 14 July 2005) with the
Constitution and articles (parts thereof) of the Law on
Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the
Existing Real Property, it is possible to elucidate the contents
of corresponding provisions (sections) by taking account of the
corresponding schemes, namely, the schemes of forests of state
importance of the city of Šiauliai and the Trakai district.
14. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a
petitioner, does not indicate anything as to which wording of
Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Law on Restoration of the Rights
of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property that, in
its opinion, the disputed section (to the corresponding extent)
of Government resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997 (wording of
28 May 2002) is in conflict with, however, it is clear from the
arguments of the petition that it is the wording of 3 August
2001.
Paragraph 2 (wording of 3 August 2001) of Article 4 of the
Law on Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the
Existing Real Property provides:
"Land shall be given back in kind to a citizen or citizens
in the former locality by the right of common ownership, with the
exception of the land which under Article 12 of this Law is
attributed to the land subject to purchase by the State, and the
land that citizens are not willing to get back in its former
locality in the case specified in Paragraph 10 of this Article.
By agreement of co-owners of land, land may be returned in kind
by separate plots of land. Projects of parcelling out plots of
land acquired by the right of common ownership, shall be prepared
with the funds of the owners of such land according to the
uniform-amount rates of executing works, as set by the
Government."
15. It needs to be noted that the Vilnius Regional
Administrative Court, a petitioner, disputes expressis verbis the
compliance of Section 44 (to the corresponding extent) of the
annex titled "The Areas of Forests of State Importance" of
Government resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997 (wording of 28
May 2002) with not entire Paragraph 2 (wording of 3 August 2001)
of Article 4 of the Law on Restoration of the Rights of Ownership
of Citizens to the Existing Real Property, but only with the
provision "land shall be given back in kind <
> in the former
locality" of the same paragraph.
However, the mere fact that there is the exception to the
general rule (pointed out by the petitioner), it is obvious that
this provision is closely related with other provisions of this
paragraph (as well as with other provisions of this law). If one
failed to take account of the said exception, the investigation
subsequent to the petition of the petitioner would become
impossible at all.
16. The Šiauliai Regional Administrative Court, a
petitioner, does not point out any wording of Items 1 and 3 of
Paragraph 2 of Article 5 and Article 12 of the Law on Restoration
of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real
Property with which, according to the petitioner, the disputed
section of Government resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997
(wording of 14 July 2005) is in conflict, however, it is clear
from the arguments of the petition that it is the wording of 23
March 2004 of Item 1 of Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Law on
Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the
Existing Real Property, the wording of 2 April 2002 of Item 3 of
the same paragraph, and the wording of 14 October 2003 of Article
12 of the same law.
Under Item 1 (wording of 23 March 2004) of Paragraph 2 of
Article 5 of the Law on Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of
Citizens to the Existing Real Property, the rights of ownership
to the land, which was situated prior to 1 June 1995 within the
territory that was attributed in the prescribed manner to towns,
shall be restored: "by giving back in kind to a citizen or
citizens the vacant (non-built-up) land in the former locality by
the right of common ownership, as well as to a citizen,
possessing the buildings by the ownership right, a plot of land
in use by this citizen the boundaries of which are defined in
territorial planning documents, with the exception of the land
attributed under Article 12 of this Law to the land subject to
purchase by the State, as well as the land a citizen does not
wish to be given back in the former locality. The area of the
vacant (non-built-up) land given back in kind shall be reduced to
the size of a plot of land of one hectare, provided that plots of
land are designed on it, which are being transferred without
payment to citizens for individual construction under Item 3 of
Paragraph 2 of this Article and they may not be designed within
other territories of a town due to the lack of vacant (non-built-
up) land in this town. The formation of plots of land being given
back in kind in vacant (non-built-up) areas of land in the former
locality and the preparation of their plans shall, in accordance
with the procedure and conditions set out by the Government, be
organised and the plans shall be approved by the director of the
municipal administration."
Under Item 3 (wording of 2 April 2002) of Paragraph 2 of
Article 5 of the Law on Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of
Citizens to the Existing Real Property, the rights of ownership
to the land, which was situated prior to 1 June 1995 within the
territory that was attributed in the prescribed manner to towns,
shall be restored: "by assigning without payment a new plot of
land into the ownership of a citizen, which is prepared or not
prepared for use in a manner prescribed by the Government, when
the Government has approved its size in the same town in which he
previously owned the land, with the exception of the territory of
Curonian Spit National Park, or at the request of the citizensin
the town where they reside (except the towns of Vilnius, Kaunas,
Klaipėda, Šiauliai, Panevėžys, Alytus, Marijampolė, Druskininkai,
Palanga, Birštonas and the territory of Curonian Spit National
Park). New plots of land in the parts lying within the areas of
the towns which are entered in the Register of Immovable Cultural
Properties of the Republic of Lithuania (the List of Cultural
Areas) shall not be assigned to ownership for construction of a
private house or other purposes (except the cases when in this
territory construction of a private house is intended for a
citizen according to the territorial planning documents on the
land possessed by him by the right of ownership); utilised plots
of land shall be assigned without payment into ownership only to
those persons who own residential houses or other structures by
the right of ownership in these parts lying within the areas of
towns. When the citizen refuses to accept a new plot of land
prepared or not prepared for use (for choice) in a manner
prescribed by the Government, which is assigned without payment
to the ownership of the said citizen for construction of a
private house, at his request, he shall be given as a
compensation an average amount of money due for a plot of land,
the size whereof is established by the Government, in that town
in accordance with Article 16 of this Law. Such sum of money
shall be fixed by the Government."
It was established in Article 12 (wording of 14 October
2003) of the Law on Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of
Citizens to the Existing Real Property:
"The land shall be purchased by the State from the citizens
specified in Article 2 of this Law and it shall be compensated
for it pursuant to Article 16 of this Law if:
1) it is occupied by State-owned and local-authority-owned
roads; airfields (the list plots of lands thereof shall be
approved by the Government); it is occupied by military units and
designated for the protection of State borders (plots of land and
their boundaries shall be approved by the Government); it lies
within the area of the utilised deposits of mineral resources;
2) in a rural area and, after 1 June 1995, within the
territory assigned to towns it is occupied, pursuant to laws, by:
plots of land of households (homesteads) plots; plots of land
necessary for exploitation of buildings and facilities of state
institutions and organisations, as well as those serving public
needs (under construction or already built) except plots of land
occupied by buildings and structures designated for rest and
recreation; other territories used for public needs (streets,
squares, public gardens, cemeteries, water bodies, beaches,
etc.); it is allotted for construction of private houses. Areas
and boundaries of such plots (territories) of land shall be
established in territorial planning documents;
3) it was situated prior 1 June 1995 within the territory
assigned to towns and, according to the detailed plans approved
in the manner prescribed by law, is occupied by: plots of land
necessary for exploitation of buildings, construction works or
equipment (under construction or already built); territories in
which other infrastructural facilities in use or new onesthe
complex (energy, transport, communications, construction,
education, healthcare, recreation and tourism, protection of
objects of nature and cultural objects as well as waste
management, national defence, civil protection, fire protection)
of various fields of activities, rendering services to the
economy and population, ensuring security of the State and its
residents, protection of objects of nature and cultural objects;
plots of land intended to be used for ports and their equipment,
for building national railways, main pipe installations, high
tension power lines, for important construction of national
significance, for general purposes of the population, for public
construction and recreation; for firming up points of state
geodesic, gravimetric and astronomical networks; for matters
related to the protection of complexes and objects of nature,
archaeology and history; for exploitation and common (public) use
of facilities of community economy, social, educational
facilities, health resort treatment, recreational, rehabilitation
facilities, facilities intended for leisure, which are necessary
for fulfilment of municipal functions and the importance of which
for the local community is recognised by the municipal council by
its decision; for implementation of economic projects significant
for the State, the national importance of which is recognised by
the Seimas or the Government by a respective decision; plots of
land intended to be assigned without payment to the ownership of
the persons for private construction under Paragraph 2 of Article
5 of this Law, if such plots of land have already been designed
on the land subject to be returned to a citizen;
4) it is occupied by gardens of gardeners' societies;
5) it lies within the territory of state reserves, national
and regional park reserves and of Curonian Spit National Park;
6) it is acquired into private ownership in accordance with
laws;
7) the land is, according to laws, allotted and used an
individual farm of residents, as well as allotted for office
entitlement parcels. The size and boundaries of the plots of such
land shall be established in newly drawn-up land survey plans of
land reform;
8) it is allotted in a rural area for use by institutions
of science and studies, public establishments formed by these
institutions, organising practical training and research,
establishments of vocational training, state institutions of
social guardianship and care, state specialised seed-growing,
stock-breeding farms and specialised stock-breeding companies.
The list of users of this land and the size of the plots of land
utilised by them shall be established by the Government;
9) it is with formed ponds, industrial fishery ponds
(including the land occupied by the equipment of the pond dam);
10) it is in compliance with the conditions laid down in
the first sentence of Paragraph 6 of Article 16 of this Law;
11) it is allotted and used for a peasants' farm in
accordance with laws, provided that the user of such land has
been allowed to buy it and cash or single state grants have been
paid for it;
12) it lies within the territories of state parks and state
reserves which are especially valuable ecologically,
archeologically and recreationally. The boundaries of such
territories shall be established by the Government;
13) it is occupied by residential houses, parts thereof,
flats which are subject to purchase by the State according to
Article 15 of this Law. The areas and boundaries of these plots
of land, parts thereof shall be defined in territorial planning
documents."
17. It needs to be noted that the Šiauliai Regional
Administrative Court, a petitioner, disputes expressis verbis the
compliance of Section 37 (to the corresponding extent) of the
annex titled "The Areas of Forests of State Importance" of
Government resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997 (wording of 14
July 2005) with not entire Item 1 (wording of 23 March 2004) of
Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Law on Restoration of the Rights
of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property, but only
with the provision "the rights of ownership to the land shall be
restored by giving back in kind the vacant (non-built-up) land in
the former locality" of the same item; not with entire Item 3
(wording of 2 April 2002) of Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the same
law, but only with the provision "the rights of ownership to the
land shall be restored by assigning without payment a new plot of
land into the ownership of a citizen, which is prepared or not
prepared for use in a manner prescribed by the Government, when
the Government has approved its size in the same town in which he
previously owned the land."
However, the mere fact that in Item 1 (wording of 23 March
2004) and Item 3 (wording of 2 April 2002) of Paragraph 2 of
Article 5 of the Law on Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of
Citizens to the Existing Real Property there are exceptions to
the general rule (pointed out by the petitioner), it is obvious
that these provisions are closely related with other provisions
of these items (as well as with other provisions of this law). If
one failed to take account of the said exception, the
investigation subsequent to the petition of the petitioner would
become impossible at all.
II
On the compliance of Section 44 of the constituent part
titled "The Areas of Forests of State Importance" of Government
resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997 (wording of 28 May 2002)
to the extent that the 33.87 thousand ha of the areas of forests
of state importance confirmed (under the corresponding scheme
drafted by the Ministry of Environment) to the Trakai district
encompass, according to the Vilnius Regional Administrative
Court, a petitioner, also plots Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of section 106 of
the forest area of Trakai Historical National Park, which are in
Varnikai village of the Trakai district, with Article 23 of the
Constitution and Paragraph 2 (wording of 3 August 2001) of
Article 4 of the Law on Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of
Citizens to the Existing Real Property.
1. In the constitutional justice case at issue one inter
alia disputes the compliance of Section 44 of the constituent
part titled "The Areas of Forests of State Importance" of
Government resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997 (wording of 28
May 2002) to the extent that the 33.87 thousand ha of the areas
of forests of state importance confirmed (under the corresponding
scheme drafted by the Ministry of Environment) to the Trakai
district encompass, according to the Vilnius Regional
Administrative Court, a petitioner, also plots Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of
section 106 of the forest area of Trakai Historical National
Park, which are in Varnikai village of the Trakai district, with
Article 23 of the Constitution and Paragraph 2 (wording of 3
August 2001) of Article 4 of the Law on Restoration of the Rights
of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property.
It is clear from the arguments of the Vilnius Regional
Administrative Court, a petitioner, that it had doubts as to
whether the disputed legal regulation is not in conflict with
Article 23 of the Constitution and Paragraph 2 (wording of 3
August 2001) of Article 4 of the Law on Restoration of the Rights
of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property in the
aspect that, according to the petitioner, the Government assigned
plots Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of section 106 of the forest area of Trakai
Historical National Park, which are in Varnikai village of the
Trakai district, to the areas of forests of state importance,
although one had not adopted a decision regarding the application
to restore the rights of ownership to these plots.
The fact whether the said person is reasonably claiming the
restoration of the rights of ownership to the said plots in kind
(whether his application is grounded on the Law on Restoration of
the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real
Property) is not a matter of investigation in the constitutional
justice case at issue. The decisions of these issues is within
the jurisdiction of the court that is deciding a corresponding
administrative case.
2. While deciding, subsequent to the petition of the
Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting
to investigate whether Section 44 of the constituent part titled
"The Areas of Forests of State Importance" of Government
resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997 (wording of 28 May 2002)
(to the corresponding extent and in the aspect that this legal
regulation is disputed by the petitioner) is not in conflict with
Article 23 of the Constitution and Paragraph 2 (wording of 3
August 2001) of Article 4 of the Law on Restoration of the Rights
of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property, it needs
to be noted that plots Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of section 106 of the
forest area of Trakai Historical National Park, are in the
territory of Varnikai Botanical-Zoological Reserve, which is in
Trakai Historical National Park.
2.1. Trakai Historical National Park (8 thousand ha) was
established by Resolution of the Supreme Council No. I-1244 "On
Founding Dzūkija, Curonian Spit, Žemaitija National Parks, Trakai
Historical National Park and Viešvilė State Reserve" of 23 April
1991 (Sub-item 4 of Item 1). Also plots Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of
section 106 of the forest area of Trakai Historical National
Park, which are in Varnikai village of the Trakai district,
became part of the territory of the aforesaid park. In this
context, it needs to be noted that until then Trakai Landscape
Reserve (founded as far back as 1960) used to be there.
2.2. On 22 April 1992, the Government adopted Resolution
No. 283 "On Approving the Provisional Regulations for Dzūkija,
Curonian Spit and Žemaitija National Parks and Trakai Historic
National Park and the Regulations for Viešvilė State Nature
Reserve" (hereinafter referred to as Government Resolution No.
283 of 22 April 1992), Item 1 of which approved inter alia the
Provisional Regulations for Trakai Historical National Park.
Under Item 9 of the said provisional regulations, the
territory of Trakai National Historical Park was grouped,
according to the natural and cultural values, their character,
forms of protection and possibilities of use, into functional
zones; one of them was conservational zone, to which inter alia
Varnikai Botanical-Zoological Reserve was attributed. Under Item
8.1 of these provisional provisions, one of the most important
tasks of Trakai Historical National Park is to preserve inter
alia the Varnikai forest complex.
It was established in Item 4 of the Provisional Regulations
for Trakai Historical National Park that the forests of the
territory of Trakai Historical National Park, save small forests
jutting out in landed property, water bodies, save those
privatised under the procedure established by laws of the
Republic of Lithuania, land of reserves and recreation zones is
state-owned property and that in other territory of the park
there may be both state owned and private land property.
The Provisional Regulations for Trakai Historical National
Park were amended and supplemented by Government Resolution No.
239 "On Partial Amendment of the Provisional Regulations for
Trakai Historical National Park" of 13 February 1995, however,
the said provisions were not amended.
2.3. On 6 December 1993, the Government adopted Resolution
No. 912 "On Approving the Planning Scheme of Trakai Historical
National Park" by Article 1 whereof it approved the Planning
Scheme of Trakai Historical National Park (the plan of the park
territory with its functional zones and the explanatory note)
submitted by the Department for Monument Maintenance under the
Ministry of Construction and Urban Planning.
In Chapter 3 titled "Zoning of Trakai Historical National
Park" of the said scheme the territory of Trakai Historical
National Park was grouped into functional zones according to
natural and cultural values, their character, the forms of
protection and possibilities of use; Varnikai Botanical-
Zoological Reserve was attributed to one of such zones (Item 1).
Under Item 2.9 titled "Conservational Zone" of the constituent
part titled "The Zones of Trakai Historical National Park" of
this scheme, Varnikai Botanical-Zoological Reserve encompassed
inter alia Varnikai forest, thus, also plots Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of
section 106 of the forest area of Trakai Historical National
Park, which are in Varnikai village of the Trakai district.
2.4. On 4 April 2000, the Government adopted Resolution No.
388 "On Approving the Regulations for Trakai Historical National
Park" (hereinafter referred to as Government resolution No. 388
of 4 April 2000) by Item 1 whereof it approved the Regulations
for Trakai Historical National Park.
Under Item 5.8 of the said regulations, one of the tasks of
Trakai Historical National Park is to protect inter alia the
complex of forest, swamps, grasslands and lakes of Varnikai
Botanical-Zoological Reserve together with the plants and wild
animals characteristic of their ecotopes.
Under the Regulations for Trakai Historical National Park,
the land of Trakai Historical National Park reserves shall be
state-owned property, while in other territory of the park there
can be both state-owned and private land ownership (Item 9); the
state shall have the right of priority to acquire the land plots
and other real property sold in the territory of the historical
national park (Item 10); in the course of restoration of the
rights of ownership subsequent to the Law on Restoration of the
Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property,
the land, water bodies and forests are returned or transferred as
ownership to the owners for limited targeted use under procedure
established by laws of the Republic of Lithuania (Item 11).
2.5. As mentioned, by Order of the Director of the
Department of Forests and Protected Territories No. 170 "On
Specifying the Areas and Boundaries of Forests of State
Importance in the Trakai District" of 12 October 2000, plots Nos.
4-13 of forest section 106 of Trakai Historical National Park
were entered into the list of forests of state importance.
3. It is clear from the said legal regulation that the
State of Lithuania has always treated and treats the territory,
which had been attributed to Trakai Landscape Reserve prior to
1991 and laterto Trakai Historical National Park, as a valuable
natural complexas a protected territory with special landscape
(countryside) and botanical zoological valuefor which a special
legal regime must be established; this is a universally known
fact. It is also universally known that these territories are a
special historical and cultural value and this fact does not give
rise to any doubts.
3.1. In this context it needs to be mentioned that under
Item 1 of Article 21 of the Law on Protected Territories, which
was adopted by the Seimas on 9 November 1993, national parks
(which are protected territoriesstate parks, i.e. protected
territories of complex (integral) character) are founded in order
to protect and manage the landscape complexes and
anthropoecosystems of national importance, which represent the
natural and cultural peculiarities of ethnocultural areas of the
Republic of Lithuania and to regulate the use thereof; specific
national parks are historical national parks, which are founded
in order to preserve the cultural complexes of historical centres
of Lithuanian statehood and of their natural environment; under
Sub-item 2 of Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 3 (wording of 9
November 1993) of this law, reserves (they are protected
territoriespreservation (conservational) territories) are
established for the protection of the natural and/or cultural
complexes, ensembles and locations valuable from the scientific
or cognitive point of view; the economic and recreational
activities are regulated and limited therein.
3.2. The approach of the State of Lithuania to the
territory attributed to Trakai Historical National Park as a
valuable natural complexa territory to be protectedinter alia
to the complex of Varnikai forest as an inseparable part of this
protected territory, is reflected by the Provisional Regulations
for Trakai Historical National Park approved by Government
resolution No. 283 of 22 April 1992 and the legal regulation
established by Government resolution No. 388 of 4 April 2000,
inter alia Item 8.1 of the Provisional Regulations for Trakai
Historical National Park approved by said Government resolution
No. 283 of 22 April 1992 and Item 5.8 of the Regulations for
Trakai Historical National Park approved by Government resolution
No. 388 of 4 April 2000.
3.3. In this context it also needs to be mentioned that, on
15 June 2005, the Minister of Environment, while implementing the
21 May 1992 Council of the European Communities Directive 92/43/
EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
flora (with most recent amendments made by Regulation (EC) No.
1882/203 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29
September 2003), issued Order No. D1-302 "On the List of
Localities Which Meet the Criteria for Selection of Territories
Important for Protection of Natural Habitats, Which is to be
Submitted to the European Commission" by Item 1 whereof the List
of Localities Which Meet the Criteria for Selection of
Territories Important for Protection of Natural Habitats which
was to be submitted to the European Commission was approved. In
Section 235 the entire Varnikai forest and the surrounding
territory (its boundaries coincide with the boundaries of
Varnikai Botanical-Zoological Reserve of Trakai Historical
National Park) was included into the coherent European ecological
network of special areas of conservation titled Natura 2000.
It needs to be held that the territory of Trakai Historical
National Park, inter alia the complex of Varnikai forest as an
inseparable part of this territory, is to be specially protected
not only due to its national, but also international importance;
it meets the criteria for selection of European territories
important for protection of natural habitats.
3.4. In its rulings of 13 May 2005 and 27 June 2007, the
Constitutional Court held that the Constitution treats the
natural environment, its fauna and flora, individual objects of
nature and districts of particular value as national values of
universal importance; their protection and securing that natural
resources be used moderately and that they be restored and
augmented are a public interest the guaranteeing of which is a
constitutional obligation of the state.
4. While investigating, subsequent to the petition of the
Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting
to investigate whether Section 44 of the constituent part titled
"The Areas of Forests of State Importance" of Government
resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997 (wording of 28 May 2002)
(to the corresponding extent and in the aspect that this legal
regulation is disputed by the petitioner) is not in conflict with
Article 23 of the Constitution and Paragraph 2 (wording of 3
August 2001) of Article 4 of the Law on Restoration of the Rights
of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property, it needs
to be noted that in its acts the Constitutional Court has
formulated a broad official constitutional doctrine of ownership;
in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court the provisions
of Article 23 of the Constitution are construed in the context of
other norms and principles of the Constitution, inter alia in the
context of the provisions of Article 54 thereof, which
consolidate the protection of the natural environment, wildlife
and plants, individual objects of nature and areas of particular
value and a sustainable use of natural resources, their
restoration and increase, as well as in the context of the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. In the
Constitutional Courts acts also a broad official constitutional
doctrine of restitutionthe restoration of the rights of
ownership of citizens to the existing real property.
4.1. Article 23 of the Constitution provides that property
shall be inviolable (Paragraph 1); the rights of ownership shall
be protected by laws (Paragraph 2); property may be taken over
only for the needs of society according to the procedure
established by law and shall be justly compensated for (Paragraph
3).
In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue,
one is to mention these provisions of the official constitutional
doctrine, which have been formulated in the Constitutional Court
acts adopted in previous constitutional justice cases.
- the inviolability of property and protection of
subjective rights of ownership cannot be interpreted as the
grounds to oppose the rights and interests of the owner against
the public interest, the rights, freedoms and legitimate
interests of other persons;
- the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution are to
be construed while taking account also of the provision of
Paragraph 1 (wording of 23 January 2003) of Article 47 of the
Constitution whereby the underground, internal waters, forests,
parks, roads, historical, archaeological and cultural objects of
state importance shall belong by the right of exclusive ownership
to the Republic of Lithuania (it used to be consolidated in
Paragraph 3 (wording of 25 October 1992) and Paragraph 4 (wording
of 20 June 1996) of the same article), which means that the
objects, inter alia forests of state importance, specified in
Paragraph 1 (wording of 23 January 2003) of Article 47 of the
Constitution, may belong only to the state by right of ownership,
save the exceptions stemming from the Constitution itself; the
state (its institutions, officials) cannot adopt any decisions on
the grounds of which the said objects would move from the state
ownership to the ownership of other subjects, save the situations
permitted by the Constitution itself; the fact that forests of
state importance are treated in the Constitution as belonging to
the Republic of Lithuania by right of ownership does not mean
that they (which belonged to certain persons by right of
ownership and which were later recognised as being of state
importance) should necessarily be taken over to state ownership
(according to the procedure established by law and by justly
compensating for it); the Constitution also tolerates such legal
regulation when after the law establishes the features under
which forests of state importance are defined, then such forest
would have to belong only to the state under the right of
ownership: in such a case, if the forests, which belong to
someone but not the state by right of ownership, were recognised
as being of state importance, they could be taken over to state
ownership;
- forests, parks, water bodies are special objects of
ownership; under the Constitution, natural environment, wildlife
and plants, individual objects of nature and areas of particular
value are national values of universal importance; their
protection and securing that natural resources be used moderately
and that they be restored and augmented are a public interest the
guaranteeing of which is a constitutional obligation of the
state; the special ecological, social and economic significance
of the forest with regard to environment and public interests
determines certain limitations and restrictions of the rights of
the owners of the forest;
- one may recognise not any internal waters, forests, and
parks as internal waters, forests, and parks of state importance,
but only those whose continual value is so big and the necessity
to preserve it to the posterity is so pressing that in case they
were not recognised as being of state importance, a threat for
their preservation would arise; while taking account of the
special continual value of forests and parks of state importance
and the necessity to preserve them to the posterity, the state is
under constitutional obligation to take care of these objects and
preserve them; with regard to the said objects, if compared with
other objects, a special, particular legal regime may be
established legislatively in order to take care of and preserve
them; the features according to which forests of state importance
may be defined must be detailed and particularised by the
legislator while paying heed to the Constitution;
- the state, being under constitutional obligation to act
so that the protection of natural environment and of its
individual objects, moderate use of natural resources and their
restoration and augmentation are guaranteed, may legislatively
establish the legal regulation under which the use of individual
objects (natural resources) of natural environment be limited;
- if the objects of nature which are in areas of particular
value belong by right of ownership to the state, then, regardless
of whether or not they are recognised as objects of state
importance, they may be transferred to ownership of other persons
only in the case (and only in this manner), when this is
constitutionally grounded.
Recognising continuity of ownership rights and their
restoration, on 15 November 1990 the Supreme Council adopted a
principled decision and confirmed these provisions: continuity of
ownership rights of citizens of Lithuania is recognised; citizens
of Lithuania have the right, within the limits and under
procedure defined by the law, to retrieve in kind the property
that belonged to them, while in the absence of the possibility to
retrieve itto receive compensation. On 18 June 1991, the Supreme
Council adopted the Republic of Lithuania Law "On the Procedure
and Conditions of Restoration of Citizens' Rights of Ownership to
the Existing Real Property", which established to what persons,
what property and under what conditions and procedure the rights
of ownership were to be restored. According to this law (with
subsequent amendments and supplements), limited restitution was
carried outthe former owners were being restored their rights of
ownership to land, forests and water bodies. The restitution
process is still going on; it is regulated by the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Restoration of Citizens' Rights of Ownership
to the Existing Real Property (with subsequent amendments and
supplements), which was adopted by the Seimas on 1 July 1997, and
which replaced the said Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of
Restoration of Citizens' Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real
Property" (with subsequent amendments and supplements) which was
adopted by the Supreme Council on 18 June 1991.
In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue,
one is to mention the following provisions of the official
constitutional doctrine of restitution the restoration of the
rights of ownership of citizens to the existing real property:
- the legislator, while regulating the relations of
restoration of the rights of ownership, enjoys discretion to
establish the conditions and procedure for restoration of the
rights of ownership; while doing so, the legislator is bound by
the Constitution, thus, also by the constitutional principles of
protection of the rights of ownership, and the constitutional
striving for an open, just, and harmonious civil society;
- when one establishes, by means of laws, the conditions
and procedure of restoration of the rights of ownership, it is
necessary to take account of the changed social, economic, and
other conditions; in the process of the restoration of the rights
of ownership it is necessary to co-ordinate the interests of the
persons who seek to restore the rights of ownership and the needs
of society, that in the course of restoration of the rights of
some persons it is not permitted to violate the rights of other
persons and that it is impossible to attain justice by
recognizing the interests of only one group or one person and by
denying the interests of others at the same time;
- it can be established in laws that objects of property
are not restored in kind to the persons who have the right to
restore the rights of ownership, but are bought out by the state;
the provision of restitution laws that if it is impossible to
return the property in kind, one must assign compensation, is not
in conflict with the principles of inviolability of property and
protection of rights of ownership, since fair compensation also
ensures restoration of the rights of ownership; the legislator
also enjoys powers to establish (of course, without overstepping
the limitations explicitly and implicitly established in the
Constitution) also that in case there is not any possibility to
return in kind precisely the property that used to belong to the
person by right of ownership prior to the unlawful
nationalisation or other unlawful disseizing, the rights of
ownership are also restored in other ways, inter alia by granting
a plot of land or forest of equal value in another locality, i.e.
by granting, instead of the property held by right of ownership,
property which previously never belonged to the said person by
right of ownership; the Constitution does not prohibit to
regulate, by means of a law, the restoration of the rights of
ownership to the existing real property in a differentiated
manner also in the aspect that the conditions and procedure of
the restoration of the rights of ownership may differ inter alia
also according to the fact as to what kind of ownership (land,
forest, water body) the rights of ownership are restored, as well
as according to the fact in what territory the property to which
the rights of ownership are restored is situated; however, one
must heed the constitutional principle of a state under the rule
of law which includes inter alia the protection of legitimate
expectations, legal certainty and legal security;
- it was not the State of Lithuania that unlawfully
nationalised or disseized in other unlawful ways the property of
the owners; while striving to restore justice in part at least,
i.e. to restore the violated rights of ownership, one chose
restricted restitution, but not restitutio in integrum; in the
process of restoration of the rights of ownership one must seek
to attain a balance between the persons to whom the rights of
ownership are restored and the interests of the entire society;
it is impossible to identify the buying out of the existing real
property from the citizens to whom the right of ownership is
restored with the seizure of property from the owner for the
needs of society (under Paragraph 3 of Article 23 of the
Constitution); the concept of the needs of society due to which,
in the course of the restitution, property is not returned to the
owners in kind, but is bought out by the state, is much broader
than the content of the notion "needs of society" employed in
Paragraph 3 of Article 23 of the Constitution;
- it is not permitted to construe the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law that it, purportedly,
does not permit in general that the legislator, after it began
the restoration of the rights of ownership under certain
conditions, later change these conditions, inter alia establish
new, additional conditions, when by this one seeks to protect
certain constitutional values, upon which harm might be inflicted
or conditions for such harm to appear might be created, if the
conditions of the restoration of the rights of ownership to the
existing real property established earlier were not changed; if
it becomes clear that certain values protected and defended by
the Constitution, upon which harm might be inflicted or
conditions for such harm to appear might be created, the
legislator not only may, but also must correspondingly amend the
conditions and procedure for the restoration of the rights of
ownership to the existing real property which were established
previously;
- inter alia the legal regulation whereby land, forests and
parks which are in areas of particular value and which belong by
right of ownership to the state may be transferred to ownership
of certain other subjects either gratis or for an unreasonably
small price, as well as the legal regulation whereby land,
forests, parks and water bodies which are in areas of particular
value and which belong by right of ownership to the state may be
transferred to ownership of other persons when the rights of
ownership are being restored to them in equivalent kind, i.e.
when one transfers to ownership of the person, who did not have
the ownership right to the object that is in areas of particular
valueland, forest or parkprecisely such object in kind, would
lack constitutional grounds.
5. It needs to be noted that from the very beginning of the
process of restitution it was prohibited to restore the rights of
ownership in kind to the forests which are in territories of
special value, inter alia in state parks, state reserves, or such
restoration of the rights of ownership was highly limited. For
instance, under Article 13 (wording of 18 June 1991) of the Law
"On the Procedure and Conditions of Restoration of Citizens'
Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property", the forests
of the first group were bought out for the needs of the state, to
which belonged inter alia forests of national parks under
Paragraph 3 (wording of 21 June 1979) of Article 28 of the then
valid Forests Code.
Later in the Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of
Restoration of Citizens' Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real
Property" absolute prohibitions to restore the rights of
ownership in kind to the forest land which was in state parks and
state reserves disappeared, however, such restoration of the
rights of ownership was subject to considerable limitations:
restoration of such rights in kind was permitted only to the
citizens residing in the corresponding protected territory or in
the villages or small towns adjoining the said territory, while
the landed properties of former owners could not be partitioned
into parts. The Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership
of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (with subsequent
amendments and supplements), which was adopted by the Seimas on 1
July 1997 and came into force on 9 July 1997, which replaced the
Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of Restoration of Citizens'
Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property" (wording of 18
June 1991 with subsequent amendments and supplements), did not
(and does not) contain any explicit provisions whereby the forest
land which is in state parks and state reserves should be bought
out by the state (i.e. not returned to the owners), however,
under Item 1 (wording of 1 July 1997 and 2 April 2001) of Article
13 of the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of
Citizens to the Existing Real Property, forests of state
importance are bought out; the areas of such forests are
confirmed by the Government.
6. As mentioned, in the constituent part titled "The Areas
of Forests of State Importance" of Government resolution No. 1154
of 23 October 1997, inter alia for the Trakai district 30.7
thousand ha of the area of forests of state importance were
confirmed (Section 42).
It is clear from the case material (inter alia from the
scheme prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry,
under which Government resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997
confirmed the areas of forests of state importance for the Trakai
district) that at that time plots Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of section 106
of the forest area of Trakai Historical National Park, which are
in Varnikai village of the Trakai district, were not attributed
to the areas of forests of state importance.
This was done by Government resolution No. 1154 "On
Confirmation of Forest Areas of State Importance" of 23 October
1997 (wording of 28 May 2002) Section 44 whereof confirmed
(according to the corresponding scheme prepared by the Ministry
of Environment) 33.87 thousand ha of the area of forests of state
importance for the Trakai district .
7. It was also mentioned that the fact whether the said
person is reasonably claiming to restoration of the rights of
ownership to plots Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of section 106 of the forest
area of Trakai Historical National Park, which are in Varnikai
village of the Trakai district in kind (whether his application
is grounded on the Law on Restoration of the Rights of Ownership
of Citizens to the Existing Real Property) is not a matter of
investigation in the constitutional justice case at issue.
In the constitutional justice case at issue the legal
regulation established in Government resolution No. 1154 "On
Confirmation of Forest Areas of State Importance" of 23 October
1997 (initial wording of 23 October 1997) is not a matter of
investigation, either.
8. While deciding, subsequent to the petitioner of the
Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, whether
Section 44 (to the corresponding extent and in the aspect that
this legal regulation is disputed by the petitioner) of the
constituent part titled "The Areas of Forests of State
Importance" of Government Resolution No. 1154 "On Confirmation of
Forest Areas of State Importance" of 23 October 1997 (wording of
28 May 2002) with Article 23 of the Constitution and Paragraph 2
(wording of 3 August 2001) of Article 4 of the Law on Restoration
of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real
Property, it needs to be noted that the Government, under Item 6
(wording of 10 April 2001) of Paragraph 4 of Article 4 of the
Forestry Law and Item 1 (wording of 1 July 1997) of Article 13 of
the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens
to the Existing Real Property, enjoyed the powers to confirm the
areas of forests of state importance, thus, also plots Nos. 4, 5
and 6 of section 106 of the forest area of Trakai Historical
National Park, which are in Varnikai village of the Trakai
district. The analogous powers of the Government were established
also in Item 3 (wording of 26 April 1994)of Article 4 of the Law
on Land.
Such powers of the Government stem not only from the
aforesaid laws, but also from the constitutional imperatives
whereby the Government shall execute laws (Item 2 of Article 94
of the Constitution), that ensuring the protection of districts
of particular value as national values of universal importance,
and ensuring that natural resources be used moderately and that
they be restored and augmented are a public interest the
guaranteeing of which is a constitutional obligation of the
state. It was also mentioned that the State of Lithuania has
always treated and treats the territory, which had been
attributed to Trakai Landscape Reserve prior to 1991 and laterto
Trakai Historical National Park, as a valuable natural complexas
a protected territory with special landscape (countryside) and
botanical zoological valuefor which a special legal regime must
be established; this territory, inter alia the complex of
Varnikai forest as an inseparable part of this territory, is to
be specially protected not only due to its national, but also
international importance.
9. As mentioned, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court,
a petitioner, disputes expressis verbis the compliance of Section
44 (to the corresponding extent) the annex titled "The Areas of
Forests of State Importance" of Government resolution No. 1154 of
23 October 1997 (wording of 28 May 2002) with not entire
Paragraph 2 (wording of 3 August 2001) of Article 4 of the Law on
Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the
Existing Real Property, but only with the provision "land shall
be given back in kind <
> in the former locality" of the same
paragraph. It was also mentioned that this provision pointed out
by the petitioner is closely related with other provisions of
this paragraph (as well as with other provisions of this law) and
if one failed to take account of the fact that not only the
general rule "land shall be given back in kind in the former
locality" is established in the said paragraph, but also its
exception, i.e. it is established that the land bought out by the
state is not returned in kind in the former locality, then the
investigation subsequent to the petition of the petitioner would
become impossible at all.
10. Taking account of the national and international
importance of the territory of Trakai Historical National Park,
inter alia the complex of Varnikai forest, as an inseparable part
of this territory, there are no grounds to assert that plots Nos.
4, 5 and 6 of section 106 of the forest area of Trakai Historical
National Park, which are in Varnikai village of the Trakai
district, had to be necessarily returned to the claimant or
claimants in kind, all the more so that one did not state, under
the established procedure, the reasonableness of such claims (the
fact whether the corresponding application or applications are
grounded on the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership
of Citizens to the Existing Real Property).
11. Thus, in itself the mere fact that plots Nos. 4, 5 and
6 of section 106 of the forest area of Trakai Historical National
Park, which are in Varnikai village of the Trakai district, were
not attributed to the areas of forests of state importance by
means of a Government resolution, and that this was done only by
Government resolution No. 1154 "On Confirmation of Forest Areas
of State Importance" of 23 October 1997 (wording of 28 May 2002),
but not earlier, does not provide grounds to assert that the
Government acted ultra vires, i.e. that it exceeded its powers.
12. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that Section 44 of the constituent part titled
"The Areas of Forests of State Importance" of Government
resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997 (wording of 28 May 2002)
(to the corresponding extent and in the aspect that this legal
regulation is disputed by the petitioner) is not in conflict with
Paragraph 2 (wording of 3 August 2001) of Article 4 of the Law on
Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the
Existing Real Property.
13. Having held this, one is also to hold that Section 44
of the constituent part titled "The Areas of Forests of State
Importance" of Government resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997
(wording of 28 May 2002) (to the corresponding extent and in the
aspect that this legal regulation is disputed by the petitioner)
is not in conflict with Article 23 of the Constitution.
III
On the compliance of Section 37 of the constituent part
titled "The Areas of Forests of State Importance" of Government
resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997 (wording of 14 July 2005)
to the extent that the 0.26 thousand ha of the areas of forests
of state importance confirmed (under the corresponding scheme
drafted by the Ministry of Environment) to the city of Šiauliai
encompass, according to the Šiauliai Regional Administrative
Court, a petitioner, also the land formerly owned by A.
Donelaitis in the former village of Margiai, with Article 23 of
the Constitution, Item 1 (wording of 23 March 2004) of Paragraph
2 of Article 5 of the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of
Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property, Item 3
(wording of 2 April 2002) of Paragraph 2 of Article 5 and Article
12 (wording of 14 October 2003) of the same law.
1. In the constitutional justice case at issue one disputes
inter alia the compliance of Section 37 of the constituent part
titled "The Areas of Forests of State Importance" of Government
resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997 (wording of 14 July 2005)
to the extent that the 0.26 thousand ha of the areas of forests
of state importance confirmed (under the corresponding scheme
drafted by the Ministry of Environment) to the city of Šiauliai
encompass, according to the Šiauliai Regional Administrative
Court, a petitioner, also the land formerly owned by A.
Donelaitis in the former village of Margiai, with Article 23 of
the Constitution, Item 1 (wording of 23 March 2004) of Paragraph
2 of Article 5 of the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of
Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property, Item 3
(wording of 2 April 2002) of Paragraph 2 of Article 5 and Article
12 (wording of 14 October 2003) of the same law.
It is clear from the arguments of the Šiauliai Regional
Administrative Court, a petitioner, that it had doubts whether
the disputed legal regulation is not in conflict with Article 23
of the Constitution, Item 1 (wording of 23 March 2004) of
Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Law on the Restoration of the
Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property,
Item 3 (wording of 2 April 2002) of Paragraph 2 of Article 5 and
Article 12 (wording of 14 October 2003) of the same law in the
aspect that, according to the petitioner, the Government assigned
the land formerly owned by A. Donelaitis in the former village of
Margiai to the areas of forests of state significance, although
one had not adopted a decision regarding the application to
restore the rights of ownership to these plots.
The fact whether the corresponding persons are reasonably
claiming the restoration of the rights of ownership to the said
plots in kind (whether their application is grounded on the Law
on Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the
Existing Real Property) is not a matter of investigation in the
constitutional justice case at issue. The decisions of these
issues is within the jurisdiction of the court that is deciding a
corresponding administrative case.
2. It needs to be noted that there is forest, namely, the
forest of a town, on the land to which one is seeking to restore
the rights of ownership in kind. No one disputes this fact.
3. While deciding, subsequent to the petition of the
Šiauliai Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting
to investigate whether Section 37 of the constituent part titled
"The Areas of Forests of State Importance" of Government
resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997 (wording of 14 July 2005)
(to the corresponding extent and in the aspect that this legal
regulation is disputed by the petitioner) is not in conflict with
Article 23 of the Constitution, Item 1 (wording of 23 March 2004)
of Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Law on the Restoration of the
Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property,
Item 3 (wording of 2 April 2002) of Paragraph 2 of Article 5 and
Article 12 (wording of 14 October 2003) of the same law, it is
necessary to elucidate whether the Government enjoyed the powers
to attribute the said land to forests of state importance.
4. In this context it needs to be noted that Government
resolutions are substatutory legal acts.
The principle of a state under the rule of law entrenched
in the Constitution implies the hierarchy of legal acts. In its
acts the Constitutional Court held more than once that the
constitutional principle does not permit that substatutory legal
acts (thus, also Government resolutions) establish any such legal
regulation which would compete with that established in the law,
and that it demands that substatutory legal acts be not in
conflict with laws, constitutional laws and the Constitution,
that substatutory legal acts must be adopted on the basis of
laws, that a substatutory legal act is an act of application of
norms of the law, irrespective of whether the act is of one-time
(ad hoc) application, or the permanent validity. The
Constitutional Court also held that in certain casesdirectly
provided for in the Constitutionif the corresponding relations
are not regulated by the laws (which detail and concretize the
constitutional legal regulation), the substatutory legal acts,
whereby the institutions implement their particular powers,
expressis verbis established and clearly defined in the
Constitution, must be issued while directly invoking the
Constitution (Constitutional Court rulings of 5 May 2007 and 13
August 2007).
5. While deciding, subsequent to the petition of the
Šiauliai Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting
to investigate whether Section 37 of the constituent part titled
"The Areas of Forests of State Importance" of Government
resolution No. 1154 of 23 October 1997 (wording of 14 July 2005)
(to the corresponding extent and in the aspect that this legal
regulation is disputed by the petitioner) is not in conflict with
Article 23 of the Constitution, Item 1 (wording of 23 March 2004)
of Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Law on the Restoration of the
Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property,
Item 3 (wording of 2 April 2002) of Paragraph 2 of Article 5 and
Article 12 (wording of 14 October 2003) of the same law, one is
to take account of the legal regulation established in the
Forestry Law at the time when the Government adopted Resolution
No. 765 "On Amending Resolution of the Government of the Republic
of Lithuania No. 1154 'On Confirmation of Forest Areas of State
Importance' of 23 October 1997" of 14 July 2005.
Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 April 2001) of Article 4 of the
Forestry Law inter alia provides that "forests of state
importance shall belong to the Republic of Lithuania by right of
exclusive ownership" and "that forests of state importance shall
be: <
> (2) town forest; <
> (6) other forests, which have been
attributed to forests of state importance by a Government
resolution."
Besides, the provision that forests of state importance
shall belong to the Republic of Lithuania by right of exclusive
ownership, if such forests are inter alia attributed to town
forests, was consolidated in the Forestry Law from the very
beginning (when the Seimas adopted this law on 22 November 1994).
Thus, regardless of the fact whether the Government has
formally attributed certain town forests to forests of state
importance, under the Forestry Law, town forests are forests of
state importance.
6. It needs to be noted that although, according to the
Šiauliai Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, the land
formerly owned by A. Donelaitis in the former village of Margiai
is attributed in Section 37 of the constituent part titled "The
Areas of Forests of State Importance" of Government Resolution
No. 1154 "On Confirmation of Forest Areas of State Importance" of
23 October 1997 (wording of 14 July 2005) to forests of state
importance and is marked as such in the corresponding scheme
prepared by the Ministry of Environment, in fact it is not so.
The said land in the aforementioned scheme is not marked as a
forest of state importance.
7. It has been held in this Constitutional Court ruling
that the land in the former village of Margiai to which one seeks
to restore the rights of ownership in kind is a forest and that
this forest is a town forest.
It has been held in this Constitutional Court ruling that
regardless of the fact whether the Government has formally
attributed certain town forests to forests of state importance,
under the Forestry Law, town forests are forests of state
importance.
Thus, under Item 2 of Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 April
2001) of Article 4 of the Forestry Law, the said forest in the
former village of Margiai is a forest of state importance,
although it, as mentioned, is not attributed to forests of state
importance in Section 37 of the constituent part titled "The
Areas of Forests of State Importance" of Government Resolution
No. 1154 "On Confirmation of Forest Areas of State Importance" of
23 October 1997 (wording of 14 July 2005) and the corresponding
scheme prepared by the Ministry of Environment.
8. Taking account of the fact that in Section 37 of the
constituent part titled "The Areas of Forests of State
Importance" of Government Resolution No. 1154 "On Confirmation of
Forest Areas of State Importance" of 23 October 1997 (wording of
14 July 2005) (according to the corresponding scheme prepared by
the Ministry of Environment) does not establish anything that,
according to the Šiauliai Regional Administrative Court, a
petitioner, is established in it, one is to hold that in this
part of the constitutional justice case at issue there is no
longer the matter of investigation subsequent to the petition of
the petitioner, requesting to investigate into the compliance of
Section 37 of the constituent part titled "The Areas of Forests
of State Importance" of Government resolution No. 1154 "On
Confirmation of Forest Areas of State Importance" of 23 October
1997 (wording of 14 July 2005) (to the corresponding extent and
in the aspect that this legal regulation is disputed by the
petitioner) with the Constitution and the Law on the Restoration
of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real
Property.
9. Paragraph 2 of Article 80 (regulating refusals of the
Constitutional Court to consider inquiries) of the Law on the
Constitutional Court provides that if in the course of the
consideration of the inquiry the matter under consideration
ceases to exist, the Constitutional Court shall dismiss the
instituted legal proceedings on the grounds thereof.
This provision of the Law on the Constitutional Court is to
be applied mutatis mutandis also to the consideration of
petitions requesting to investigate the compliance of a legal act
with the Constitution (with another legal act of higher legal
power) and to the adoption of corresponding decisions
(Constitutional Court ruling of 21 September 2006).
Under Paragraph 3 of Article 69 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, in the event that the grounds for refusal
to consider a petition have been established after the
commencement of the investigation of the case during the hearing
of the Constitutional Court, a decision to dismiss the case shall
be adopted.
Conforming to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 1, 53, 54, 55, 56, 69 and
Paragraph 2 of Article 80 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:
1. To recognise that Section 44 of the constituent part
titled "The Areas of Forests of State Importance" of Government
of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No. 1154 "On Confirmation
of Forest Areas of State Importance" of 23 October 1997 (wording
of 28 May 2002; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 54-
2121) to the extent that the 33.87 thousand ha of the area of
forests of state importance confirmed (according to the
corresponding scheme prepared by the Ministry of Environment) for
the Trakai district encompass also plots Nos. 4, 5, and 6 of
forest section 106 of Trakai Historical National Park which are
in Varnikai village of the Trakai district, is not in conflict
with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Paragraph
2 (wording of 3 August 2001) of Article 4 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of
Citizens to the Existing Real Property.
2. To dismiss the part of the case regarding the compliance
of Section 37 of the constituent part titled "The Areas of
Forests of State Importance" of Government of the Republic of
Lithuania Resolution No. 1154 "On Confirmation of Forest Areas of
State Importance" of 23 October 1997 (wording of 14 July 2005) to
the extent that the 0.26 thousand ha of the areas of forests of
state importance confirmed (under the corresponding scheme
drafted by the Ministry of Environment) to the city of Šiauliai
encompass, according to the Šiauliai Regional Administrative
Court, a petitioner, also the land formerly owned by A.
Donelaitis in the former village of Margiai, with Article 23 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, Item 1 (wording of
23 March 2004) of Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of
Citizens to the Existing Real Property, Item 3 (wording of 2
April 2002) of Paragraph 2 of Article 5 and Article 12 (wording
of 14 October 2003) of the same 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
Egidijus Kūris
Kęstutis Lapinskas
Zenonas Namavičius
Ramutė Ruškytė
Vytautas Sinkevičius
Stasys Stačiokas
Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis