THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
DECISION
ON THE PETITION OF THE THIRD VILNIUS CITY LOCAL COURT, THE
PETITIONER, REQUESTING TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER ARTICLES 2 AND 3 OF
DECREE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA NO. 1K-838
"ON CROSSING OUT THE PERSONS AWARDED WITH MEDALS OF THE STATE OF
LITHUANIA FROM THE LIST OF THE AWARDED PERSONS" OF 22 DECEMBER
2006 ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA, ARTICLE 132 (WORDING OF 1 JULY 1993) OF THE REPUBLIC
OF LITHUANIA LAW ON ORDERS, MEDALS AND OTHER DECORATIONS, AND
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLE 4 OF THE REPUBLIC
OF LITHUANIA LAW ON PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (WORDING OF 17 JUNE
1999)
14 October 2008
Vilnius
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court Armanas
Abramavičius, Toma Birmontienė, Pranas Kuconis, Kęstutis
Lapinskas, Zenonas Namavičius, Ramutė Ruškytė, Egidijus Šileikis,
Algirdas Taminskas and Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis,
with the secretary of the sittingDaiva Pitrėnaitė,
at a procedural sitting of the Constitutional Court
considered the petition (No. 1B-29/2008) of the Third Vilnius
City Local Court, the petitioner, requesting to investigate
whether Articles 2 and 3 of Decree of the President of the
Republic of Lithuania No. 1K-838 "On Crossing out the Persons
Awarded with Medals of the State of Lithuania from the List of
the Awarded Persons" of 22 December 2006, to the extent whereby
Decree of the President of the Republic of Lithuania No. 1373 "On
Awarding Orders and Medals of the State of Lithuania on the
Occasion of the Day of State (Coronation of King Mindaugas of
Lithuania)" of 14 June 2001 was amended by crossing out Jurij
Borisov from the list of the persons awarded with the Medal of
Darius and Girėnas, since the intentional crime committed by the
said person discredits the name of the awarded person (Supreme
Court of Lithuania ruling of 18 October 2005), and by obligating
Jurij Borisov to return the Medal of Darius and Girėnas and the
documents of the award to the Grand Master of the Orders of the
State of Lithuania, are not in conflict with the principle of
separation of powers entrenched in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article
5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, with
Paragraph 1 of Article 109 thereof, the constitutional principles
of a state under the rule of law and legitimate expectations,
Article 132 (wording of 1 July 1993) of the Republic of Lithuania
Law on Orders, Medals and other Decorations, and with Items 1, 2,
3, and 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Republic of Lithuania
Law on Public Administration (wording of 17 June 1999).
The Constitutional Court
has established:
The Third Vilnius City Local Court, the petitioner, was
investigating a civil 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 Articles 2 and 3 of Decree of the President of the
Republic No. 1K-838 "On Crossing out the Persons Awarded with
Medals of the State of Lithuania from the List of the Awarded
Persons" of 22 December 2006 (hereinafter also referred to as the
22 December 2006 decree of the President of the Republic), to the
extent whereby Decree of the President of the Republic No. 1373
"On Awarding Orders and Medals of the State of Lithuania on the
Occasion of the Day of State (Coronation of King Mindaugas of
Lithuania)" of 14 June 2001 was amended by crossing out Jurij
Borisov from the list of the persons awarded with the Medal of
Darius and Girėnas, since the intentional crime committed by the
said person discredits the name of the awarded person (Supreme
Court of Lithuania ruling of 18 October 2005), and by obligating
Jurij Borisov to return the Medal of Darius and Girėnas and the
documents of the award to the Grand Master of the Orders of the
State of Lithuania, are not in conflict with the principle of
separation of powers entrenched in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article
5 of the Constitution, with Paragraph 1 of Article 109 thereof,
the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law
and legitimate expectations, Article 132 (wording of 1 July 1993)
of the Law on Orders, Medals and other Decorations, and with
Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Law on
Public Administration (wording of 17 June 1999).
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. On 22 December 2006, the President of the Republic issued
Decree No. 1K-838 "On Crossing out the Persons Awarded with
Medals of the State of Lithuania from the List of the Awarded
Persons", which inter alia provides:
"Article 2.
Pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Article 18 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on State Awards and taking account of the advice of
the State Awards Council,
I shall amend Decree No. 1373 'On Awarding Orders and Medals
of the State of Lithuania on the Occasion of the Day of State
(Coronation of King Mindaugas of Lithuania)' of 14 June 2001 by
crossing out Jurij BORISOV from the list of the persons awarded
the Medals of Darius and Girėnas, as the intentional crime
committed by him (Supreme Court of Lithuania ruling of 18 October
2005) discredits the name of the awarded person.
Article 3.
Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of Article 18 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Orders, Medals and other Decorations,
I shall obligate Jurij BORISOV to return the Medal of Darius
and Girėnas and the documents of the award to the Grand Master of
the Orders of the State of Lithuania.
Article 4.
This decree shall come into force as from the day of its
signing."
On 28 December 2006, this decree was published in the
official gazette "Valstybės žinios".
2. The Third Vilnius City Local Court, the petitioner,
requests to investigate whether Articles 2 and 3 of the 22
December 2006 decree of the President of the Republic to the
extent whereby Decree of the President of the Republic No. 1373
"On Awarding Orders and Medals of the State of Lithuania on the
Occasion of the Day of State (Coronation of King Mindaugas of
Lithuania)" of 14 June 2001 was amended by crossing out Jurij
Borisov from the list of the persons awarded with the Medal of
Darius and Girėnas, since the intentional crime committed by the
said person discredits the name of the awarded person (Supreme
Court of Lithuania ruling of 18 October 2005), and by obligating
Jurij Borisov to return the Medal of Darius and Girėnas and the
documents of the award to the Grand Master of the Orders of the
State of Lithuania, are not in conflict with the principle of
separation of powers entrenched in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article
5 of the Constitution, with Paragraph 1 of Article 109 thereof,
the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law
and legitimate expectations, Article 132 (wording of 1 July 1993)
of the Law on Orders, Medals and other Decorations, and with
Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Law on
Public Administration (wording of 17 June 1999).
This petition of the petitioner is to be treated as a
petition, requesting to investigate whether Articles 2 and 3 of
the 22 December 2006 decree of the President of the Republic are
not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5 and
Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of the Constitution, the
constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and
legitimate expectations, Article 132 (wording of 1 July 1993) of
the Law on Orders, Medals and other Decorations, and with Items
1, 2, 3, and 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Law on Public
Administration (wording of 17 June 1999).
II
1. On 12 September 1991, the Supreme Council of the Republic
of Lithuania adopted the Law on Orders, Medals and other
Decorations. Article 124 of this law established that this law
shall come into force as from the day of its adoption.
The Law on Orders, Medals and other Decorations (wording of
12 September 1991) was amended and supplemented by the Republic
of Lithuania Law "On Establishing the Commemorative Medal of
January 13 and on Amending and Supplementing the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Orders, Medals and other Decorations", which was
adopted by the Supreme Council on 18 December 1991.
2. On 1 July 1993, the Seimas adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Law "On Establishing the Medal of Darius and Girėnas
and on Amending and Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania Law
on Orders, Medals and other Decorations", Article I of which
established the Medal of Darius and Girėnas.
Item 1 of Article II of the Law "On Establishing the Medal
of Darius and Girėnas and on Amending and Supplementing the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Orders, Medals and other
Decorations" supplemented Article 3 (wording of 18 December 1991)
of the Law on Orders, Medals and other Decorations with Item 11
whereby the Medal of Darius and Girėnas was attributed to medals
and other decorations of the State of Lithuania.
Item 5 of Article II of the Law "On Establishing the Medal
of Darius and Girėnas and on Amending and Supplementing the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Orders, Medals and other
Decorations" amended Paragraph 3 (wording of 18 December 1991) of
Article 26 of the Law on Orders, Medals and other Decorations and
this paragraph was set forth in a new wording. It was established
in Paragraph 3 (wording of 1 July 1993) of the said article that
Paragraph 1 (whereby the persons who were removed from office by
a court decision, or who were punished by deprivation of freedom,
may not be nominated for award with orders, medals or other
decorations for five years after the removal from office, or
after the fulfilment of the punishment, or after exoneration of
the punishment) and Paragraph 2 (whereby those sentenced on
probation may not be nominated for award with orders, medals or
other decorations before the probation is over) shall not be
applied inter alia to awards with the Medal of Darius and
Girėnas.
Item 6 of Article II of the Law "On Establishing the Medal
of Darius and Girėnas and on Amending and Supplementing the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Orders, Medals and other
Decorations" supplemented the Law on Orders, Medals and other
Decorations (wording of 12 September 1991 with amendments and
supplements made by the Law "On Establishing the Commemorative
Medal of January 13 and on Amending and Supplementing the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Orders, Medals and other
Decorations", which was adopted by the Supreme Council on 18
December 1991) with Chapter XX titled "The Statute for the Medal
of Darius and Girėnas". Article 132 of this Chapter provided:
"The forfeiture of the Medal of Darius and Girėnas is possible
only by a court decision."
It was established in Article 32 (wording of 12 September
1991) of the Law on Orders, Medals and other Decorations that if
bearers of orders or persons awarded with medals and other
decorations are punished by a court, where the punishment is
related with the forfeiture of the decorations, they also lose
the priorities granted by the orders, medals and other
decorations, and are crossed out from the list of decorated
persons (Paragraph 1); the court shall inform the Grand Master of
Orders about the said persons (Paragraph 2).
3. The said law (wording of 12 September 1991 with
subsequent amendments and supplements) has been amended and/or
supplemented by the Republic of Lithuania Law on Supplementing
Article 133 of the Law on Orders, Medals and other Decorations,
which was adopted by the Seimas on 3 July 1997, the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Supplementing Article 91 of the Law on Orders,
Medals and other Decorations, which was adopted by the Seimas on
5 November 1998, and the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending
Articles 95, 96 and 97 of the Law on Orders, Medals and other
Decorations, however, Item 11 (wording of 1 July 1993) of Article
3, Paragraph 3 (wording of 1 July 1993) of Article 26, Article 32
(wording of 12 September 1991), and Article 132 (wording of 1
July 1993) thereof have not been amended and/or supplemented.
4. On 18 June 2002, the Seimas adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on State Awards. This law was officially published
in the official gazette "Valstybės žinios" on 3 July 2002. Under
Article 44 of the Law on State Awards, upon the entry of the Law
on State Awards into force, the Law on Orders, Medals and other
Decorations (wording of 12 September 1991 with subsequent
amendments and supplements) became no longer valid.
On 27 May 2003, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania
Law on Supplementing Article 37 of the Law on State Awards.
5. Under Article 1 of the Law on State Awards, this law
shall define state awards of Lithuania, the structure of badges
of the awards, establish the procedure of bestowal, wearing,
withdrawal of orders, medals and other decorations, as well as
the rights of the awarded persons. Under Paragraph 4 of Article 6
of the same law, persons awarded the state orders, medals and
other decorations of Lithuania prior to the entry into force of
this law shall enjoy the same rights as the persons awarded in
accordance with this law.
6. In the context of the petition of the Third Vilnius City
Local Court, the petitioner, it needs to be noted that the Law on
State Awards is applied not only to the persons awarded under
this law, but also to the persons who were awarded by orders or
medals prior to the entry of this law into force when one has in
mind certain aspects of the rights (inter alia the aspects of
preservation, implementation, limitation or forfeiture of these
rights) acquired under the Law on Orders, Medals and other
Decorations (wording of 12 September 1991 with subsequent
amendments and supplements).
7. The procedure of forfeiture of the state awards is
established in Article 18 titled "Withdrawal and Forfeiture of
State Awards" of the Law on State Awards, which inter alia
provides: "If the deeds of the awarded persons degrade the name
of such persons, the President of the Republic may strike the
said persons off the list of the bearers of the orders or the
persons awarded the medals or other decorations" (Paragraph 1);
"Persons struck off the list of the bearers of the orders or the
persons awarded the medals and other decorations must return the
badges conferred upon them and the documents of awarding to the
Grand Master of the Orders. Such persons shall forfeit the rights
granted by the awards" (Paragraph 4).
8. Under Article 4 of the Law on State Awards, state awards
are orders, medals and other decorations bestowed by a decree of
the President of the Republic (listed namely in this article).
The Medal of Darius and Girėnas is not included in the list of
state awards enumerated in this article. Article 43 of the Law on
State Awards provides that the Medal of Darius and Girėnas shall
be bestowed by the Minister of National Defence and the Minister
of Transport and Communications.
In its decision of 29 December 2006, the Constitutional
Court held that, under the now valid legal regulation, the Medal
of Darius and Girėnas is not a state award, however, this
provision may not be applied to the awards with the Medal of
Darius and Girėnas which were granted under the Law on Orders,
Medals and other Decorations (wording of 12 September 1991 with
subsequent amendments and supplements) which had been valid
before the entry into force of the Law on State Awards.
III
1. On 14 June 2001, the President of the Republic issued
Decree No. 1373 "On Awarding Orders and Medals of the State of
Lithuania on the Occasion of the Day of State (Coronation of King
Mindaugas of Lithuania)", Article 1 whereof inter alia provides:
"Article 1.
On the Occasion of the Day of State (Coronation of King
Mindaugas of Lithuania), for merits to the State of Lithuania and
for efforts to spread the name of Lithuania in the world and for
help to integrate it into the community of states of the world,
the following citizens of the Republic of Lithuania and foreign
states shall be awarded orders and medals: <
>
the Medal of Darius and Girėnas
shall be bestowed to Jurij Borisovthe President of the
joint stock company 'Avia Baltika' and a supporter of Lithuanian
aviators.
Article 2.
This decree shall come into force as from the day of its
signing."
On 4 July 2001, this decree was published in the official
gazette "Valstybės žinios".
2. By the 22 November 2004 judgement passed by the First
Vilnius City Local Court, under Paragraph 1 of Article 287 of the
Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, J. Borisov was
sentenced for commission of the 16 March 2003-24 March 2004
continuous intentional crime and imposed a fine in the size of
LTL 10,000 (80 MSL).
By the 6 April 2005 judgement of the college of judges of
the Criminal Cases Division of the Vilnius Regional Court, the 22
November 2004 judgement of the First Vilnius City Local Court was
amended: the part of the judgement by which J. Borisov was
sentenced for the actions committed on 16-17 March 2003 was
rescinded, and he was acquitted of the commission of these
actions under Paragraph 1 of Article 287 of the Criminal Code;
the rest of the appealed judgement was ruled to be in effect.
By its 18 October 2005 ruling, the Supreme Court of
Lithuania rescinded the part of the 6 April 2005 judgement of the
college of judges of the Criminal Cases Division of the Vilnius
Regional Court, wherein J. Borisov was acquitted of the actions
committed in March 2003, and ruled the 22 November 2004 judgement
of the First Vilnius City Local Court to be in effect without any
amendments.
3. It has been mentioned that on 22 December 2006, the
President of the Republic issued Decree No. 1K-838 "On Crossing
out the Persons Awarded with Medals of the State of Lithuania
from the List of the Awarded Persons" by Article 2 whereof the
President of the Republic, pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Article 18
of the Law on State Awards and taking account of the advice of
the State Awards Council, crossed out J. Borisov from the list of
the persons awarded the Medals of Darius and Girėnas, as the
intentional crime committed by him (Supreme Court of Lithuania
ruling of 18 October 2005) discredits the name of the awarded
person, and by Article 3 of the said decree, the President of the
Republic obligated J. Borisov to return the Medal of Darius and
Girėnas and the documents of the award to the Grand Master of the
Orders of the State of Lithuania.
IV
1. As mentioned, the Third Vilnius City Local Court, the
petitioner, requests to investigate whether Articles 2 and 3 of
the 22 December 2006 decree of the President of the Republic are
not in conflict with inter alia Article 132 (wording of 1 July
1993) of the Law on Orders, Medals and other Decorations.
2. It is clear from the arguments of the petition that the
petitioner doubts as to the compliance of Articles 2 and 3 of the
22 December 2006 decree of the President of the Republic with
Article 132 (wording of 1 July 1993) of the Law on Orders, Medals
and other Decorations due to the fact that, according to the
petitioner, it was impermissible to cross out J. Borisov from the
list of the persons awarded with the Medal of Darius and Girėnas
by means of the disputed decree of the President of the Republic,
since, at the time when J. Borisov was awarded, Article 132
(wording of 1 July 1993) of the Law on Orders, Medals and other
Decorations was in force, whereby the forfeiture of the Medal of
Darius and Girėnas was possible only by a court decision.
According to the petitioner, after the President of the Republic
had applied the provisions of Article 18 (wording of 18 June
2002) of the Law on State Awards, the legitimate expectation of
J. Borisov that he can be forfeited of the Medal of Darius and
Girėnas only by a court decision was violated.
Therefore, the petitioner doubts whether the President of
the Republic, when he issued the decree of 22 December 2006
(Articles 2 and 3 thereof), was allowed to follow the Law on
State Awards (wording of 18 June 2002 with subsequent amendment),
or whether he had to follow the Law on Orders, Medals and other
Decorations (wording of 12 September 1991 with subsequent
amendments and supplements) which at the time of the issuance of
the 22 December 2006 decree of President of the Republic was no
longer valid.
The petitioner points out that the Law on State Awards,
Article 18 whereof was followed by the President of the Republic
when he issued the disputed decree, is not effective
retrospectively (lex retro non agit), since, although "also the
determination regarding exceptions to the application of this
principle is within the competence of the legislator", however,
"the Law on State Awards does not contain such a position
(Article 45 of the Law)."
3. It needs to be noted that, as mentioned, the Law on State
Awards inter alia establishes the procedure of withdrawal of
orders, medals and other decorations, as well as the rights of
the awarded persons (Article 1 (wording of 18 June 2002)), while
Paragraph 4 (wording of 18 June 2002) of Article 6 of the same
law provides that "persons awarded the state orders, medals and
other decorations of Lithuania prior to the entry into force of
this Law shall enjoy the same rights as the persons awarded in
accordance with this Law". It has also been mentioned that the
Law on State Awards is applied not only to the persons awarded
under this law, but also to the persons who were awarded by
orders or medals prior to the entry of this law into force when
one has in mind certain aspects of the rights (inter alia the
aspects of preservation, implementation, limitation or forfeiture
of these rights) acquired under the Law on Orders, Medals and
other Decorations (wording of 12 September 1991 with subsequent
amendments and supplements). The petitioner is silent as regards
the legal regulation established in Article 1 (wording of 18 June
2002) and Paragraph 4 (wording of 18 June 2002) of Article 6 of
the Law on State Awards and does not discuss the relation between
this legal regulation established in the Law on State Awards
(about which the petitioner keeps silent) and the legal
regulation established in the 22 December 2006 decree of the
President of the Republic, which is disputed by the petitioner.
4. It also needs to be noted that, while disputing the
compliance of Articles 2 and 3 of the 22 December 2006 decree of
the President of the Republic with Article 132 (wording of 1 July
1993) of the Law on Orders, Medals and other Decorations, the
petitioner refers inter alia to the Constitutional Court rulings
of 4 July 2003, 3 December 2003, and 13 December 2004 in which
the official constitutional doctrine was formulated and which
reveals the concept of the constitutional principle of legitimate
expectations. However, the petitioner refers only to individual
fragments of the official constitutional doctrine and keeps
silent about the provisions of the official constitutional
doctrine which are of special importance in the context of the
petition under consideration, inter alia that:
- under the Constitution, the President of the Republic is
the Head of State, he represents the State of Lithuania and
performs everything that he is charged with by the Constitution
and laws; various powers of the President of the Republic are
established not only in the Constitution, but in the laws adopted
by the Seimas as well (Constitutional Court ruling of 25 May
2004);
- the legal acts passed by the President of the Republic are
substatutory legal acts (Constitutional Court ruling of 30
December 2003), substatutory legal acts must be adopted on the
grounds of laws and may not be in conflict with the laws
(Constitutional Court rulings of 30 December 2003, 5 March 2004,
13 December 2004, 7 February 2005, 5 May 2007, and 13 August
2007);
- laws are applied to the facts and effects which take place
after these laws go into effect (Constitutional Court rulings of
16 March 1994, 1 December 1994, 11 January 2001, and 30 September
2003);
- the law may provide for certain formal criteria, and if a
person does not meet them, he may not be granted state awards,
or, if he has been granted an award, he must be deprived of this
state award (Constitutional Court ruling of 12 May 2006);
- "granting a certain state award is not implementation of
the right nor of a legitimate expectation of a person, even
though he has undoubted merits to Lithuania <
>" (Constitutional
Court ruling of 12 May 2006).
In this context it needs to be noted that the Constitutional
Court rulings in which these provisions of the official
constitutional doctrine were formulated, were adopted and
published under established procedure prior to the application by
the Third Vilnius City Local Court, the petitioner, to the
Constitutional Court, where the petitioner disputes the
compliance of the compliance of Articles 2 and 3 of the 22
December 2006 decree of the President of the Republic with the
Constitution and the articles of the laws specified in the
petition.
It also needs to be noted that, under the Constitution, all
acts of the Constitutional Court in which the Constitution is
construed, i.e. the official constitutional doctrine is
formulated, by their content are also binding on law-making
institutions (officials) and those that apply law, including
courts of general jurisdiction and specialised courts
(Constitutional Court decision of 20 September 2005 and rulings
of 28 March 2006 and 6 June 2006). Under Paragraph 2 (wording of
24 January 2002) of Article 33 of the Republic of Lithuania Law
on Courts, when hearing cases courts shall inter alia be guided
by the officially published rulings of the Constitutional Court.
Thus, the petitioner was supposed to know the aforesaid
doctrinal provisions formulated in final acts of the
Constitutional Court and he had to follow them.
5. The doubt of the Third Vilnius City Local Court, the
petitioner, regarding the fact whether the President of the
Republic, while issuing the disputed decree of 22 December 2006,
was allowed to follow Article 18 (wording of 18 June 2002) of the
Law on State Awards, which was in force then, should be
substantiated by a clear assessment of the relation of the legal
regulation established in the Law on State Awards (wording of 18
June 2002 with subsequent amendment) and the Law on Orders,
Medals and other Decorations (wording of 12 September 1993 with
subsequent amendments and supplements) with the disputed articles
of the 22 December 2006 decree of President of the Republic.
While substantiating his doubt, the petitioner was supposed not
only to establish the factual circumstances in the presence of
which this legal regulation was applied, but also to establish
what legal acts were in force at the time when the corresponding
legal relations came into being.
6. The Third Vilnius City Local Court, the petitioner, when
doubting whether the President of the Republic, while issuing the
disputed decree of 22 December 2006, was allowed to follow
Article 18 (wording of 18 June 2002) of the Law on State Awards:
- did not assess the different character between the legal
relations which existed at the time when the President of the
Republic issued Decree No. 1373 "On Awarding Orders and Medals of
the State of Lithuania on the Occasion of the Day of State
(Coronation of King Mindaugas of Lithuania)" of 14 June 2001 and
when the disputed decree of 22 December 2006 was issued. Decree
of the President of the Republic No. 1373 "On Awarding Orders and
Medals of the State of Lithuania on the Occasion of the Day of
State (Coronation of King Mindaugas of Lithuania)" of 14 June
2001 was issued when the Law on Orders, Medals and other
Decorations (wording of 12 September 1993 with subsequent
amendments and supplements) was in force, while the disputed
decree of the President of the Republic, dated 22 December 2006,
was issued when the Law on State Awards (wording of 18 June 2002
with subsequent amendment) was in force;
- did not properly assess that the effective judgement
passed by the First Vilnius City Local Court by which J. Borisov
was recognised guilty of the commission of the 16 March 2003-24
March 2004 continuous intentional crime (Supreme Court of
Lithuania ruling of 18 October 2005) served as the grounds for
issuance of the disputed decree of the President of the Republic,
dated 22 December 2006, whereby J. Borisov was crossed out from
the list of the persons awarded with the Medal of Darius and
Girėnas, i.e. the petitioner did not properly assess the fact
that J. Borisov, who had been awarded with a state award, the
Medal of Darius and Girėnas, committed the intentional crime
after the Law on Orders, Medals and other Decorations (wording of
12 September 1993 with subsequent amendments and supplements) was
recognised as no longer valid and the Law on State Awards
(wording of 18 June 2002 with subsequent amendment) was in force.
7. Under Item 8 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Law on
the Constitutional Court, a petition for the investigation of the
compliance of a legal act with the Constitution must contain the
position of the petitioner concerning the compliance of an
appropriate act with the Constitution and legal support of such
position containing references to laws, while under Item 5 of
Paragraph 2 of Article 67 of the Law on the Constitutional Court,
the ruling by which a court applies to the Constitutional Court
must contain legal arguments presenting the opinion of the court
on the conflict of a law or other legal act with the
Constitution.
The said requirement arising from Item 5 of Paragraph 2 of
Article 67 of the Law on the Constitutional Court means that the
courts, while arguing their opinion presented in the petition
that the law or other legal act (part thereof) is in conflict
with the Constitution, may not confine themselves to general
reasoning or statements that the law or other legal act (part
thereof), in their opinion, is in conflict with the Constitution,
but must clearly indicate which disputed articles (paragraphs,
items thereof) and to what extent, in their opinion, are in
conflict with the Constitution, and to reason their position on
the compliance of every disputed provision of the legal act (part
thereof) with the Constitution with clearly formulated legal
arguments (Constitutional Court rulings of 12 December 2005, 16
January 2006, 17 January 2006 and decisions of 17 January 2006, 5
July 2007, and 12 September 2007).
8. It has been mentioned in this decision that the Third
Vilnius City Local Court, the petitioner, is silent as regards
the legal regulation established in Article 1 (wording of 18 June
2002) and Paragraph 4 (wording of 18 June 2002) of Article 6 of
the Law on State Awards, from which it is obvious that the Law on
State Awards is applied not only to the persons awarded under
this law, but also to the persons who were awarded by orders or
medals prior to the entry of this law into force when one has in
mind certain aspects of the rights (inter alia the aspects of
preservation, implementation, limitation or forfeiture of these
rights) acquired under the Law on Orders, Medals and other
Decorations (wording of 12 September 1991 with subsequent
amendments and supplements); it has also been mentioned that the
petitioner does not discuss the relation between this legal
regulation (about which the petitioner keeps silent) and the
legal regulation, which is disputed by the petitioner. The
petitioner also keeps silent about the provisions of the official
constitutional doctrine which are of special importance in the
context of the petition under consideration, while the petitioner
was supposed to know such provisions and he had to follow them.
It has also been mentioned that the petitioner did not
assess the different character between the legal relations which
existed at the time when the President of the Republic issued
Decree No. 1373 "On Awarding Orders and Medals of the State of
Lithuania on the Occasion of the Day of State (Coronation of King
Mindaugas of Lithuania)" of 14 June 2001 and when the disputed
decree of 22 December 2006 was issued; also, that the petitioner
did not properly assess the fact that J. Borisov, who had been
awarded with a state award, the Medal of Darius and Girėnas,
committed the intentional crime after the Law on Orders, Medals
and other Decorations (wording of 12 September 1993 with
subsequent amendments and supplements) was recognised as no
longer valid and the Law on State Awards (wording of 18 June 2002
with subsequent amendment) was in force.
After one takes account of the above, there are grounds to
hold that the petition of the Third Vilnius City Local Court, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate the compliance of Articles
2 and 3 of the 22 December 2006 decree of the President of the
Republic with Article 132 (wording of 1 July 1993) of the Law on
Orders, Medals and other Decorations is grounded on the reasoning
other than that explicitly pointed out by the petition; in
addition, the arguments of the petitioner are inconsistent,
conflicting and fictitious. Although the petition employs legal
terminology, neither separate (individual) arguments, nor their
entirety provides legal grounds why, in the opinion of the
petitioner, Articles 2 and 3 of the 22 December 2006 decree of
the President of the Republic are in conflict with Article 132
(wording of 1 July 1993) of the Law on Orders, Medals and other
Decorations, which, at the time of issuance of the 22 December
2006 decree of the President of the Republic, was no longer
valid. Thus, from this standpoint such request of the petitioner
is virtually fictitious.
In its decision of 31 January 2007, the Constitutional Court
held that is in the case where the petition is based not on the
reasoning which is explicitly indicated by the petitioner, where
the petition is a fictitious one, in this regard the petition "is
to be considered as not falling within the jurisdiction of the
Constitutional Court and may not be accepted for consideration at
the Constitutional Court". These provisions are applicable
mutatis mutandis also in the course of decision of the question
of acceptance of the petition of the Third Vilnius City Local
Court, the petitioner, requesting to investigate the compliance
of Articles 2 and 3 of the 22 December 2006 decree of the
President of the Republic with Article 132 (wording of 1 July
1993) of the Law on Orders, Medals and other Decorations.
It needs to be noted that, under Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of
Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, by a decision,
the Constitutional Court shall refuse to consider petitions to
investigate the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution,
if the consideration of the petition does not fall under the
jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.
9. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to draw
a conclusion that the petition of the Third Vilnius City Local
Court, the petitioner, requesting to investigate the compliance
of Articles 2 and 3 of the 22 December 2006 decree of the
President of the Republic with Article 132 (wording of 1 July
1993) of the Law on Orders, Medals and other Decorations is to be
assessed as the one not falling under the jurisdiction of the
Constitutional Court, and this petition may not be accepted for
consideration.
10. It has been mentioned that the Third Vilnius City Local
Court, the petitioner, requests to investigate whether Articles 2
and 3 of the 22 December 2006 decree of the President of the
Republic are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 and
Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of the Constitution, the
constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and
legitimate expectations, and with Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 of
Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Law on Public Administration
(wording of 17 June 1999).
11. It needs to be noted that the petition of the petitioner
requesting to investigate the compliance of disputed Articles 2
and 3 of the 22 December 2006 decree of the President of the
Republic with the Constitution and the articles of the indicated
laws is an integral one: the integrity of the petition is
determined by the fact that the arguments regarding the
compliance of the disputed Decree of the President of the
Republic (articles thereof) with the Constitution and Items 1, 2,
3, and 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Law on Public
Administration (wording of 17 June 1999) are directly related
with the doubts concerning the compliance of the said Decree of
the President of the Republic (articles thereof) with Article 132
(wording of 1 July 1993) of the Law on Orders, Medals and other
Decorations.
12. It has been held in this decision that the petition of
the Third Vilnius City Local Court, the petitioner, requesting to
investigate the compliance of Articles 2 and 3 of the 22 December
2006 decree of the President of the Republic with Article 132
(wording of 1 July 1993) of the Law on Orders, Medals and other
Decorations is to be assessed as the one not falling under the
jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.
13. Having held that the acceptance of the petition of the
Third Vilnius City Local Court, the petitioner, requesting to
investigate the compliance of Articles 2 and 3 of the 22 December
2006 decree of the President of the Republic with Article 132
(wording of 1 July 1993) of the Law on Orders, Medals and other
Decorations for consideration is to be refused, one is also to
hold that the petition of this petitioner, requesting to
investigate whether Articles 2 and 3 of the 22 December 2006
decree of the President of the Republic are not in conflict with
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of
the Constitution, the constitutional principles of a state under
the rule of law and legitimate expectations, and with Items 1, 2,
3, and 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Law on Public
Administration (wording of 17 June 1999), cannot be accepted for
consideration, either.
14. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the
consideration of the petition of the Third Vilnius City Local
Court, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether Articles
2 and 3 of the 22 December 2006 decree of the President of the
Republic are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5
and Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of the Constitution, the
constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and
legitimate expectations, and with Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 of
Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Law on Public Administration
(wording of 17 June 1999), is to be refused.
Conforming to Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 22, Article 28,
Item 2 of Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 of Article 69 of the Law on
the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has adopted the
following
decision:
To refuse to accept the petition (No. 1B-29/2008) of the
Third Vilnius City Local Court, the petitioner, requesting to
investigate whether Articles 2 and 3 of Decree of the President
of the Republic of Lithuania No. 1K-838 "On Crossing out the
Persons Awarded with Medals of the State of Lithuania from the
List of the Awarded Persons" of 22 December 2006 are not in
conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1 of
Article 109 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the
constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and
legitimate expectations, Article 132 (wording of 1 July 1993) of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on Orders, Medals and other
Decorations, and with Items 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Paragraph 1 of
Article 4 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Public
Administration (wording of 17 June 1999), for consideration.
This decision of the Constitutional Court is final and not
subject to appeal.
The decision is promulgated in the name of the Republic of
Lithuania.
Justices of the Constitutional Court:
Armanas Abramavičius
Toma Birmontienė
Pranas Kuconis
Kęstutis Lapinskas
Zenonas Namavičius
Ramutė Ruškytė
Egidijus Šileikis
Algirdas Taminskas
Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis