Case No. 39/06
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
RULING
ON THE COMPLIANCE OF PARAGRAPH 3 (WORDING OF 19
SEPTEMBER 2000) OF ARTICLE 256 OF THE CODE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE VIOLATIONS OF LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
28 May 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 hearingDaiva Pitrėnaitė,
in the presence of the representative of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania, the party concerned, who was Olga Demeško,
chief specialist of the Legal Department of the Office of the
Seimas,
pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and Article 1 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its public
hearing on 21 May 2008 heard constitutional justice case No. 39/
06 subsequent to the petition of the Rokiškis District Local
Court, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether
Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 September 2000) of Article 256 of the
Code of Administrative Violations of Law of the Republic of
Lithuania is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 31 and
Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
The Rokiškis District Local Court, the petitioner, was
investigating a case of an administrative violation of law. By
its ruling the said court suspended the consideration of the case
and applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition
requesting to investigate whether Paragraph 3 (wording of 19
September 2000) of Article 256 of the Code of Administrative
Violations of Law of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter also
referred to as the CAVL) is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of
Article 31 and Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Constitution.
II
The petition of the petitioner is grounded on the following
arguments.
1. In the legal proceedings of cases of administrative
violations of law, as well as in criminal procedure, the courts,
while administering justice, should not participate in the stage
of investigation of cases, in the course of controlling the
investigation, upholding the accusation, etc., since
administration of justice is a different function than the
preliminary investigation, criminal persecution or upholding of
accusation. When administering justice, the court investigates
the already prepared case, i.e. a case in which significant data
have been collected, which helps to establish the truth in the
case, the court decides the question of guilt of a person, who is
held administratively liable, and imposes a sanction on him or
dismisses the case. Meanwhile, under Paragraph 3 of Article 256
of the CAVL, the court is engaged into the establishment of the
circumstances of the case without limitations, therefore, the
institution which has performed not all the actions of the
investigation and after it has drawn up an administrative law
violation protocol, remains passive both in the stage of
investigation of the case of administrative violation of law and
in the stage of its consideration in court, while the court
performs the role of the accusation. It means that the court must
perform a double role: to correct the mistakes of investigation
of the institution which has drawn up the administrative law
violation protocolto collect the missing evidenceand to
consider the case of an administrative violation of law in a
corresponding manner. This permits to believe that the elements
which are not typical of administration of justice appear in the
actions of the court. The court, while violating the principles
of separation and independence of branches of powers, must
perform the functions of the executive.
2. The disputed Paragraph 3 of Article 256 of the CAVL
creates preconditions for the court to take a side with one of
the parties and, together with this party, to start collecting
evidence in prejudice of another party. The court, upon starting
to collect evidence on its own initiative, may not stay
objective. Therefore, one may state that while collecting
evidence in the course of consideration of a case in court, the
court becomes partial, and this may prevent from establishing the
truth in the case. Alongside, thus, one denies one of the main
human rights to a just, impartial and independent hearing of the
case in court and at the same time the principle of competition
which stems from this right.
III
In the course of preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations from the
representative of the Seimas, the party concerned, who was M.
Girdauskas, senior advisor of the Legal Department of the Office
of the Seimas, were received, in which it is stated that the
powers of the judge to collect evidence in cases of
administrative violations of law on his own initiative, which are
established in Paragraph 3 of Article 256 of the CAVL, should not
in themselves be regarded as being in conflict with the norms and
principles of the Constitution, inter alia with Paragraph 2 of
Article 31 and with Paragraph 2 of Article 109 thereof. The
position of the representative of the Seimas, the party
concerned, is based on the following arguments.
1. The consideration of cases of administrative violations
of law in court essentially amounts to the consideration of
criminal cases in court, therefore, while assessing the powers of
the court to collect evidence in cases of administrative
violations of law on its own initiative, one is to take account
essentially of the provisions of the official constitutional
doctrine which was formulated in the Constitutional Court ruling
of 16 January 2006, inter alia of the provisions that the court,
while seeking to establish the objective truth, must act in the
criminal procedure positivelydetermine the limits of
consideration of a criminal case and perform certain procedural
actions; when considering the criminal case, it must act so that
the issue of guilt of a person who is accused of commission of a
criminal deed would be decided fairly; the court must be equally
just to all the persons participating in the criminal procedure;
the court may not be understood as a "passive" observer of the
procedure of cases; administration of justice may not depend on
the fact what material is submitted to the court; while seeking
to objectively and comprehensively investigate all the
circumstances of the case and to establish the truth in it, the
court has the powers to perform the procedural actions itself or
to assign certain institutions (officials), inter alia the
prosecutors, to perform the corresponding actions.
2. Upon assessment of the fact that, according to their
degree of dangerousness, administrative violations of law are
closer to violations of civil law, one is also to take account of
the provisions of the official constitutional doctrine which was
formulated in the Constitutional Court ruling of 21 September
2006, inter alia of the provisions that, under the Constitution,
the relations of civil procedure must be regulated by means of
the law so that legal preconditions would be created to the court
to investigate all circumstances important to the case and to
adopt a fair decision in the case; otherwise, the powers of the
court to administer justice, which arise from inter alia Article
109 of the Constitution, would be limited or even denied, and one
would deviate from the constitutional concept of the court as the
institution which administers justice in the name of the Republic
of Lithuania, as well as from the constitutional principles of a
state under the rule of law and justice. The duty of the court to
establish the material truth which was construed by the
Constitutional Court, in the scientific doctrine of law of
Lithuanian civil procedure is first of all identified with the
duty of the court to refer not only to the evidence provided by
the parties, but also to the evidence received on its own
initiative. If the court has the powers to collect evidence on
its own initiative in the civil procedure, then, all the more so,
it must have the same powers while considering the cases of
administrative violations of law.
3. In Lithuanian legal science, the powers of the court
which considers the case of an administrative violation of law to
decide all the issues linked to the considered case on its own
are related with the principle of independence of the court, and
the powers of the court to obtain evidence on demand on its own
initiative are related with this principle.
IV
At the Constitutional Court hearing, the representative of
the Seimas, the party concerned, who was O. Demeško, virtually
reiterated the arguments set forth in the written explanations of
M. Girdauskas, the representative of the Seimas, the party
concerned.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. The Rokiškis District Local Court, the petitioner,
requests to investigate whether Paragraph 3 (wording of 19
September 2000) of Article 256 of the CAVL is not in conflict
with Paragraph 2 of Article 31 and Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of
the Constitution.
2. The CAVL was adopted on 13 December 1984 and came into
force on 1 April 1985. Until the restoration of independence of
the State of Lithuania, the CAVL (wording of 13 December 1984)
has been amended and/or supplemented more than once.
3. When the independent State of Lithuania was restored, the
CAVL (wording of 13 December 1984 with subsequent amendments and
supplements) remained in force.
4. Upon adoption of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania by the referendum of 25 October 1992, Article 2 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law "On the Procedure for Entry into Force
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania" which is a
constituent part of the Constitution, established that laws,
other legal acts or parts thereof, which were in force on the
territory of the Republic of Lithuania prior to the adoption of
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, shall be effective
inasmuch as they are not in conflict with the Constitution and
this law, and shall remain in force until they are either
declared null and void or brought in line with the provisions of
the Constitution.
5. The Constitutional Court has held that the principle of
the superiority of the Constitution implies the duty of the
legislator and other lawmaking subjects to revise, while taking
account of norms and principles of the Constitution, the legal
acts which were issued before coming into effect of the
Constitution, to ensure a harmonious hierarchical system of legal
acts, which regulate the same relationships (Constitutional Court
rulings of 3 December 1997, 6 May 1998, 29 October 2003, 5 March
2004 and 13 November 2006, as well as decision of 17 January
2007). The process of revision and assessment of legal acts as to
their conformity with the Constitution, which were adopted before
the entry into force of the Constitution, is not a onetime act;
however, this process may not last for a groundlessly long time
period (Constitutional Court ruling of 29 October 2003). Under
the Constitution, the legislator and other lawmaking subjects
have the duty to revise all legal acts adopted by them before the
entry into effect of the Constitution and which still remain in
force, also the legal acts adopted by no longer existing
institutions after the entry into effect of the Constitution and
still remaining in force, which regulate the relations which are
assigned to the sphere of regulation of a corresponding law-
making subject, as well as legal acts, which had been adopted
before the restoration of the independent State of Lithuania and
remained in force after restoration of the independent State of
Lithuania and, after the entry into effect of the Constitution,
regulate the relationships, which are assigned to the sphere of
regulation of an appropriate legislative subject, and assess
their conformity with the Constitution within a reasonably short
period (Constitutional Court rulings of 29 October 2003 and 13
November 2006).
In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue,
it needs to be noted that upon coming into force of the
Constitution, there appeared a duty for the legislator to ensure
that the relations linked to liability for administrative
violations of law would be regulated so, as it is required in the
Constitution.
6. Upon coming into force of the Constitution, the CAVL
(wording of 13 December 1984 with subsequent amendments and
supplements, made before coming into force of the Constitution)
has been amended and/or supplemented more than once.
7. It needs to be noted that on 23 December 1997, the Seimas
adopted the Law on Temporary Prolongation of the Validity of Laws
Adopted until 11 March 1990 Which are in Force in the Territory
of the Republic of Lithuania, which came into force on 27
December 1997. This law approved the list of the laws which were
adopted until 11 March 1990 and whose validity was temporarily
prolonged until 1 January 2000. This law also included the CAVL,
adopted on 13 December 1984, with subsequent amendments and
supplements.
The Law on Temporary Prolongation of the Validity of Laws
Adopted until 11 March 1990 Which are in Force in the Territory
of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 23 December 1997) has
been amended more than once, inter alia by the laws on amending
Article 1 of the Law on Temporary Prolongation of the Validity of
Laws Adopted until 11 March 1990 Which are in Force in the
Territory of the Republic of Lithuania which were adopted by the
Seimas on 7 December 1999, 20 December 2000, 31 October 2002, 11
December 2003, 9 December 2004, 13 December 2005, 14 December
2006 and 18 December 2007. Under the Law on Temporary
Prolongation of the Validity of Laws Adopted until 11 March 1990
Which are in Force in the Territory of the Republic of Lithuania
(wording of 18 December 2007), the CAVL (wording of 13 December
1984 with subsequent amendments and supplements), inter alia
Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 September 2000) of Article 256
thereof, shall be in force until 1 January 2009.
In this context it needs to be emphasised that the
constitutional requirements of legal certainty, legal security
and protection of legitimate expectations imply that the terms
within which the reform of regulation of liability for
administrative violations of law would be finished may not be
unreasonably long.
8. Article 256 (wording of 13 December 1984) of the CAVL
established the following:
"In the case of an administrative violation of law, any
factual data shall be the evidence on the basis of which the
bodies (officials) establish, under the procedure established by
a law, whether the administrative violation of law has been
committed or not, and whether that person is guilty of its
commission, as well as other circumstances which are significant
for fair decision of the case.
These data shall be established by the following means: an
administrative law violation protocol, explanations of the victim
and a person who has been held administratively liable, a
conclusion of an expert, exhibits, and a protocol regarding
seizure of items and documents, as well as other documents."
9. On 17 February 2000, the Seimas adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Amending and Supplementing the Code of
Administrative Violations of Law whose Article 333 supplemented
Paragraph 2 of Article 256 of the CAVL by establishing new means
for avermentpictures and audio and video recordsin it.
10. On 19 September 2000, the Seimas adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 187-2, 253,
256, 292, 293 and 296 of the Code of Administrative Violations of
Law and Recognition of Articles 298 and 300 Thereof as No Longer
Valid which came into force on 1 January 2001. Article 3 of this
law amended Paragraph 2 (wording of 17 February 2000) of Article
256 of the CAVL by establishing new means for averment
explanations of the specialistin it, and Article 256 (wording of
17 February 2000) of the CAVL was supplemented by Paragraph 3:
"The officials who have the right to draw up an administrative
law violation protocol, as well as the body (official) which
considers the case of an administrative violation of law, shall
collect evidence and, if necessary, appoint an expert or a
specialist."
Later, the CAVL has been amended and/or supplemented more
than once, however, Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 September 2000) of
its Article 256 has not been amended or supplemented.
11. Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 September 2000) of Article
256 of the CAVL enshrines the duty of the official who has the
right to draw up an administrative law violation protocol, as
well as the body (official) which considers the case of an
administrative violation of law inter alia to collect evidence in
the case of the administrative violation of law. The bodies
(officials) which are empowered to consider cases of
administrative violations of law, are specified in Article 216
(wording of 20 June 1995) of the CAVL in which it is established
that the cases of administrative violations of law shall be
considered by the following: administrative commissions under the
municipal councils (Item 1); the wardens of municipal wards in
rural areas (Item 2); districts' (cities') local courts (judges
of local courts) (Item 4); police, state inspectorates and other
bodies (officials) empowered to do so by laws of the Republic of
Lithuania (Item 5).
Therefore, even though Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 September
2000) of Article 256 of the CAVL does not directly specify the
districts' (cities') local courts (judges of local courts), when
one construes the legal regulation enshrined in this norm
together with the legal regulation enshrined in Article 216
(wording of 20 June 1995) of the CAVL, a conclusion is to be
drawn that in the proceedings of administrative violations of
law, also the districts' (cities') local courts (judges of local
courts), as the bodies (officials) considering cases of
administrative violations of law, are empowered to collect
evidence.
12. Even though the Rokiškis District Local Court, the
petitioner, requests to investigate the compliance of whole
Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 September 2000) of Article 256 of the
CAVL with the Constitution, it is obvious from its arguments and
the material of the case of an administrative violation of law
that, in the aspect of its compliance with Paragraph 2 of Article
31 and Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Constitution, this
paragraph is disputed only to the extent that it provides that
also the districts' (cities') local courts (judges of local
courts), as the bodies (officials) considering cases of
administrative violations of law, shall collect evidence and
appoint an expert or a specialist, if necessary.
13. Paragraph 2 of Article 31 of the Constitution provides:
"A person charged with the commission of a crime shall have the
right to a public and fair hearing of his case by an independent
and impartial court". Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the
Constitution provides: "While administering justice, the judge
and courts shall be independent".
Paragraph 2 of Article 31 and Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of
the Constitution are interrelated, as they inter alia enshrine
one of the most important principles of administration of
justiceindependence of courts and judges; the independence of
the court and the judge is, first of all, a necessary condition
for protection of human rights and freedoms (Constitutional Court
ruling of 5 February 1999).
14. In the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court
(Constitutional Court rulings of 6 December 1995, 21 December
1999, 12 February 2001, 12 July 2001, 13 May 2004, 16 January
2006 and other rulings), various aspects of independence of the
judge and the court which stems from the Constitution are
revealed.
In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue,
it needs to be noted that the function of administration of
justice determines the independence of the judge and courts
(Constitutional Court rulings of 12 July 2001 and 13 May 2004);
the independence of judges and courts is one of essential
principles of a democratic state under the rule of law
(Constitutional Court rulings of 21 December 1999, 12 February
2001 and 13 May 2004); the judge can administer justice only in
case he is independent from the parties to the case, institutions
of state power, officials, political and public associations,
natural and legal persons (Constitutional Court rulings of 12
July 2001 and 13 May 2004); the independence of the judge or
courts is not a privilege, but one of the most important
obligations of judges and courts, which stems from the right of a
person, which is guaranteed in the Constitution, to an
independent and impartial arbiter of the dispute, a necessary
condition of fair investigation of the case, therefore also of
trust in court (Constitutional Court rulings of 6 December 1995,
21 December 1999, 12 February 2001, 9 May 2006 and 22 October
2007).
15. The proper court procedure is a necessary condition for
just solution of the case (Constitutional Court ruling of 5
February 1999).
The Constitutional Court has held that the principle of the
right of the person to a proper court process entrenched in
Paragraph 2 of Article 31 of the Constitution means, inter alia,
that the court must unconditionally follow the constitutional
principles and the requirements of laws establishing them as
regards the equality of the parties of criminal proceedings
before the law and the court, and be impartial and independent.
These are the most important pre-conditions ensuring that the
circumstances of the case are investigated thoroughly, completely
and objectively and the truth is established, as well as that
penal laws be applied correctly (Constitutional Court rulings of
19 September 2000 and 16 January 2006). In criminal procedure in
court one must pay heed to clarity of the process, the equal
rights of participants of the process, their participation in the
procedure of proving, their right to a translator, the contention
and other principles, so that the circumstances of committing the
criminal deed would be investigated comprehensively, objectively
and impartially and a just decision would be adopted in the
criminal case (Constitutional Court ruling of 16 January 2006).
16. The Constitutional Court has also held that:
16.1. The provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of the
Constitution means that justice shall be administered only by the
court in the law of criminal procedure inter alia means that in
the criminal procedure, the court must also be an impartial
arbiter, who objectively assesses the data (evidence) of the
circumstances of commission of a criminal deed, which are in the
criminal case, and who adopts a just decision concerning the
guilt of the person who is accused of committing the criminal
deed, and, alongside, the court, in attempting to establish the
objective truth, has to participate in the criminal procedure
activelyto define the limits of consideration of the criminal
case, to perform certain procedural actions, not to permit that
the persons who participate in the court process abuse their
rights or powers, to solve other issues related with
consideration of the criminal case in court. While considering
the criminal case, the court must act so that the objective truth
is established in the criminal case and the issue of guilt of the
person accused of committing the criminal deed is justly decided.
The court must also be equally just to all persons who
participate in the criminal procedure (Constitutional Court
ruling of 16 January 2006).
16.2. When investigating a criminal case, without
overstepping the limits defined by the Constitution and laws, the
court is independent during the whole criminal procedure. From
the point of view of independence of the court, the fact that it
follows the corresponding norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure
of the Republic of Lithuania does not mean in itself the denial
of its independence. As the Constitutional Court has noted, the
constitutional right to a fair trial inter alia means that,
during the judicial procedure, principles and norms of law of
criminal procedure must be observed (Constitutional Court ruling
of 10 June 2003).
16.3. The norms and principles entrenched in the
Constitution, inter alia the right of the person to a public and
fair hearing of his case by an independent and impartial court,
the principles of a state under the rule of law and justice,
imply the model of the court as an institution administering
justice, where the court cannot be understood as a "passive"
observer of the process of cases, and that administration of
justice cannot depend only upon the material submitted to the
court. The court, seeking to investigate all circumstances of the
case objectively and comprehensively and to establish the truth
in the case, enjoys powers to perform procedural actions either
by itself or to commission certain institutions (officials),
inter alia prosecutors, that they perform corresponding actions
(Constitutional Court ruling of 16 January 2006); when performing
the procedural actions, the court must be impartial and act so
that it would not create preconditions to think that it is
partial or dependent.
17. The Constitutional Court has held that the legal norms
which establish the criminal liability and administrative
liability have much in common, even though one can also discern
important differences.
The Constitutional Court has also held that provided certain
sanctions established in laws by their size (strictness) amount
to criminal punishments, no matter to what type of legal
liability (criminal, administrative, disciplinary or other legal
liability) these sanctions are attributable, and no matter how
respective sanctions are named in laws, the laws must necessarily
establish procedural guarantees (which stem from the
Constitution, inter alia from Article 31 thereof) to persons, who
are held legally liable under corresponding laws. In this context
it needs to be emphasised that the provisions of Article 31 of
the Constitution cannot be construed as being designed only to
the persons who are held criminally liable (Constitutional Court
ruling of 3 November 2005).
In the constitutional justice case at issue, it needs to be
held that the requirements for consideration of criminal cases in
court which stem from the norms and principles of the
Constitution and which are set forth in this ruling are mutatis
mutandis applicable also while considering the cases of
administrative violations of law in court.
18. The Constitutional Court has held in its rulings more
than once that the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human
Rights as a source of construction of law is also important to
construction and application of Lithuanian law. The European
Court of Human Rights has held more than once that taking account
of the nature (character) of the violation of law, severity of
the sanction for the committed violation of law, in their essence
the administrative violations of law are compared to criminal
deeds, and this determines the application of all guarantees
established in Article 6 of the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Engel and
others v. the Netherlands, judgement of 8 June 1976, Series A no.
22; Öztürk v. Germany, judgement of 21 February 1984, Series A
no. 73; Escoubet v. Belgium, judgement [GC], no. 26780/95, ECHR
1999-VII; Ezeh and Connors v. United Kingdom [GC], no. 39665/98
and 40086/98, ECHR 2003-X; Gurepka v. Ukraine, no. 61406/00,
etc.).
19. As it has been mentioned, in the constitutional justice
case at issue, it is requested to investigate whether Paragraph 3
(wording of 19 September 2000) of Article 256 of the CAVL, to the
extent that it provides that also the districts' (cities') local
courts (judges of local courts), as the bodies (officials)
considering cases of administrative violations of law, shall
collect evidence and, if necessary, appoint an expert or a
specialist is not in conflict with the Constitution.
While considering the case of an administrative violation of
law, the court (judge) must investigate, verify and assess the
data (evidence) present in the case of commission of an
administrative violation of law objectively and impartially and
adopt a fair decision regarding the culpability of a person, who
is accused of commission of this violation of law. It needs to be
noted that also such situations are possible, when during the
consideration of the case in court, the circumstances come into
light which are important in order to adopt a fair decision but
which were not established by the person who drew up the
administrative law violation protocol, or when the material
submitted to the court is not enough in order to adopt a fair
decision. In such case, as it has been mentioned in this ruling,
the court (judge), while seeking to objectively and
comprehensively investigate all the circumstances of the case and
to establish the truth in it, has the powers to perform the
necessary procedural actions itself, since administration of
justice may not depend only on the fact what material is
submitted to the court. It has also been mentioned that when
performing the procedural actions, the court should act so that
it would not create preconditions to think that it is partial or
dependent.
20. It needs to be noted that the powers of the court
(judge) to collect evidence while considering the case of an
administrative violation of law certainly do not mean that the
persons who draw up the administrative law violation protocol are
exempted from the duty to collect evidence. The powers of the
court (judge) to collect evidence which stem from Paragraph 3
(wording of 19 September 2000) of Article 256 of the CAVL cannot
be interpreted as meaning that the persons (officials) who draw
up the administrative law violation protocol may submit non-full,
non-comprehensive or other non-qualitatively prepared material of
the case of an administrative violation of law to the court (or
other body (official) which considers the case of an
administrative violation of law). The legal regulation enshrined
in the CAVL, inter alia in Article 248 of the CAVL, obliges the
persons who draw up the administrative law violation protocol "to
elucidate the circumstances of each case comprehensively, fully
and objectively".
21. In this context it needs to be noted that under the
legal regulation enshrined in Paragraph 3 (wording of 19
September 2000) of Article 256 of the CAVL, similar powers to
collect evidence are established both to the persons who have the
right to draw up the administrative law violation protocol and to
the bodies (officials) which consider the case of administrative
violation of law, inter alia the districts' (cities') local
courts (judges of local courts). Such legal regulation, when
similar powers to collect evidence are established both to the
institutions (officials) which implement the executive power and
to the courts which administer justice, from the legal point of
view is incorrect and legally deficient, however, in itself, only
this fact is not the ground to recognise Paragraph 3 (wording of
19 September 2000) of Article 256 of the CAVL as being in
conflict with the Constitution.
22. Therefore, it is to be held that by the legal regulation
enshrined in Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 September 2000) of
Article 256 of the CAVL which is disputed in this constitutional
justice case, one does not deviate from the requirements
enshrined in Paragraph 2 of Article 31 and Paragraph 2 of Article
109 of the Constitution.
23. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the
conclusion needs to be drawn that Paragraph 3 (wording of 19
September 2000) of Article 256 of the CAVL, to the extent that it
provides that also the districts' (cities') local courts (judges
of local courts), as the bodies (officials) considering cases of
administrative violations of law, shall collect evidence and, if
necessary, appoint an expert or a specialist is not in conflict
with Paragraph 2 of Article 31 and Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of
the Constitution.
Conforming to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 1, 53, 54, 55 and 56 of
the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has passed
the following
ruling:
To recognise that Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 September 2000,
Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2000, No. 85-2570) of Article
256 of the Code of Administrative Violations of Law of the
Republic of Lithuania, to the extent that it provides that also
the districts' (cities') local courts (judges of local courts),
as the bodies (officials) considering cases of administrative
violations of law, shall collect evidence and, if necessary,
appoint an expert or a specialist is not in conflict with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
This ruling of the Constitutional Court is final and not
subject to appeal.
The ruling is promulgated in the name of the Republic of
Lithuania.
Justices of the Constitutional Court: Armanas Abramavičius
Toma Birmontienė
Pranas Kuconis
Kęstutis Lapinskas
Zenonas Namavičius
Ramutė Ruškytė
Egidijus Šileikis
Algirdas Taminskas
Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis