Case No. 14/98
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
DECISION
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF ITEMS 4 AND 7 OF THE
REASONING PART OF THE RULING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA OF 21 OCTOBER 1999
6 November 2009
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 Raimondas Šukys, First Deputy Speaker of
the Seimas, the representative of the Seimas, which submitted the
petition requesting to construe the Ruling of the Constitutional
Court of the Republic of Lithuania of 21 October 1999,
pursuant to Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court of the Republic of Lithuania, on 29 October 2009, in a
public hearing considered the petition of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania, requesting to construe the provision "the
name and family name of an individual must be written in the
state language" of Item 4 and the provision "In case legal norms
provided that the names and family names of these citizens had to
be written in other, non-Lithuanian letters, then not only the
constitutional principle of the state language would be denied
but also the activity of state and local government institutions,
that of other enterprises, establishments and organisations would
be disturbed" of Item 7 of the reasoning part of the Ruling of
the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania "On the
compliance of the 31 January 1991 Supreme Council of the Republic
of Lithuania Resolution 'On Writing of Names and Family Names in
Passports of Citizens of the Republic of Lithuania' with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania" of 21 October 1999 in
the aspect whether after the name and family name of an
individual have been entered in the state language in the
passport of the Republic of Lithuania, would it be possible to
specify the name and family name of the individual in other, non-
Lithuanian graphic signs of writing and in non-grammaticised form
in other sections for entries of the passport, when the
individual requests so and when there are original documents
issued in foreign states which confirm the identity of the
individual and wherein the name and/or family name of the
individual are written in a non-Lithuanian language.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
1. On 21 October 1999, in constitutional justice case No.
14/98 subsequent to the petition of the Vilnius Regional Court,
the petitioner, requesting to investigate if the 31 January 1991
Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution "On
Writing of Names and Family Names in Passports of Citizens of the
Republic of Lithuania" was in conformity to Articles 18, 22 29
and 37 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the
Constitutional Court adopted the Ruling "On the compliance of the
31 January 1991 Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania
Resolution 'On Writing of Names and Family Names in Passports of
Citizens of the Republic of Lithuania' with the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania" (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios,
1999, No. 2660-2662; hereinafter also referred to as the
Constitutional Court ruling of 21 October 1999).
2. It was recognised in the Constitutional Court ruling of
21 October 1999 that Item 2 of the 31 January 1991 Supreme
Council of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution "On Writing of
Names and Family Names in Passports of Citizens of the Republic
of Lithuania" was in compliance with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania.
3. The Seimas, the petitioner, requests that the
Constitutional Court construe the provision "the name and family
name of an individual must be written in the state language" of
Item 4 and the provision "In case legal norms provided that the
names and family names of these citizens had to be written in
other, non-Lithuanian letters, then not only the constitutional
principle of the state language would be denied but also the
activity of state and local government institutions, that of
other enterprises, establishments and organisations would be
disturbed" of Item 7 of the reasoning part of the Constitutional
Court ruling of 21 October 1999 in the aspect whether after the
name and family name of an individual have been entered in the
state language in the passport of the Republic of Lithuania,
would it be possible to specify the name and family name of the
individual in other, non-Lithuanian graphic signs of writing and
in non-grammaticised form in other sections for entries of the
passport, when the individual requests so and when there are
original documents issued in foreign states which confirm the
identity of the individual and wherein the name and/or family
name of the individual are written in a non-Lithuanian language.
II
At the Constitutional Court hearing, Raimondas Šukys, First
Deputy Speaker of the Seimas, the representative of the Seimas,
the petitioner, explained the reasons which prompted the Seimas
to request for construction of some provisions of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 21 October 1999 and answered to
the questions given by the justices of the Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. The powers of the Constitutional Court to officially
construe its own rulings are entrenched in Article 61 of the Law
on the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court has held in
its acts more than once that it enjoys powers to construe its
other final acts as well.
2. Paragraph 1 of Article 61 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court provides that a ruling of the Constitutional
Court may be officially construed by the Constitutional Court at
the request of the parties to the case, of other institutions or
persons to whom it was sent, or on its own initiative.
The Seimas was a party concerned in case No. 14/98 in which
the Constitutional Court ruling of 21 October 1999 was adopted.
Thus, the Seimas has the right to apply to the
Constitutional Court with a petition requesting to construe a
ruling of the Constitutional Court.
3. A decision concerning construction of a Constitutional
Court ruling shall be adopted at a Constitutional Court sitting
as a separate document (Paragraph 2 of Article 61 of the Law on
the Constitutional Court).
4. In its acts the Constitutional Court has held more than
once that the purpose of the institute of construction of
Constitutional Court rulings and other final acts is to reveal
the contents and meaning of corresponding Constitutional Court
rulings or other final acts more broadly and in more detail if it
is necessary in order to ensure proper execution of that
Constitutional Court ruling or other final act so that this
Constitutional Court ruling or other final act would be followed.
5. The Constitutional Court has held more than once that a
ruling of the Constitutional Court is integral, its resolving
part is based upon the arguments of the part of reasoning; while
construing its ruling, the Constitutional Court is bound both by
the content of the part of resolution and that of reasoning of
its ruling; the decision adopted concerning construction of a
Constitutional Court ruling is inseparable from the
Constitutional Court ruling.
6. Under Paragraph 3 of Article 61 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court must construe its
ruling without changing its content.
The Constitutional Court has held more than once that this
provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 61 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, among other things, means that, while
construing its ruling, the Constitutional Court cannot construe
its content so that the meaning of its provisions, inter alia the
notional entirety of the elements constituting the content of the
ruling, the arguments and reasons upon which that Constitutional
Court ruling is based, is changed, also that the Constitutional
Court may not construe what was not investigated in that
constitutional justice case, subsequent to which the construed
ruling was adopted, either. The Constitutional Court also held
that the consideration of a petition requesting to construe a
Constitutional Court ruling or its other final act does not imply
a new constitutional justice case.
In this context it needs to be noted that, as it has been
held by the Constitutional Court more than once, the formula
"shall be final and not subject to appeal" of Paragraph 2 of
Article 107 of the Constitution, which provides that the
decisions of the Constitutional Court on issues ascribed to its
competence by the Constitution shall be final and not subject to
appeal, also means that the Constitutional Court rulings,
conclusions and decisions by which a constitutional justice case
is finished, i.e. final acts of the Constitutional Court, are
obligatory to all state institutions, courts, all enterprises,
establishments and organisations, as well as officials and
citizens, including the Constitutional Court itself: final acts
of the Constitutional Court are obligatory to the Constitutional
Court itself, they restrict the Constitutional Court in the
aspect that it may not change them or review them if there are no
constitutional grounds for that.
Therefore in the official construction (subsequent to a
petition of the persons that participated in the case, other
institutions and individuals, to whom the Constitutional Court
ruling was sent, also on the initiative of the Constitutional
Court itself) of rulings and other final acts of the
Constitutional Court, the constitutional doctrine is not
corrected. The correction of the official constitutional doctrine
(which, undoubtedly, must always have a constitutional basis and
be explicitly reasoned in a respective act of the Constitutional
Court) is to be related with the consideration of new
constitutional justice cases and creation of new Constitutional
Court precedents therein, but not with official construction of
provisions of the Constitutional Court rulings and other final
acts (Constitutional Court decisions of 1 February 2008, 4 July
2008, 15 January 2009, 15 May 2009, and 28 October 2009).
7. It is also to be noted that the uniformity and continuity
of the official constitutional doctrine implies a necessity to
construe each construed provision of a Constitutional Court
ruling or its other final act by taking account of the entire
official constitutional doctrinal context, also of other
provisions (explicit and implicit) of the Constitution, which are
related with the provision (provisions) of the Constitution in
the course of construction of which in a Constitutional Court
ruling or its other final act the corresponding official
constitutional doctrine was formulated. No official
constitutional doctrinal provision of a Constitutional Court
ruling or its other final act may be construed in isolation, by
ignoring its meaning and systemic links with the other official
constitutional doctrinal provisions set forth in that
Constitutional Court ruling or its other final act, in other
Constitutional Court acts, as well as with other provisions
(explicit and implicit) of the Constitution (Constitutional Court
decisions of 1 February 2008, 4 July 2008, 15 January 2009, 15
May 2009, and 28 October 2009).
II
1. As mentioned, the Seimas, the petitioner, requests for
construction of the aforesaid provisions of Items 4 and 7 of the
reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 21 October
1999 in the aspect "whether after the name and family name of an
individual have been entered in the state language in the
passport of the Republic of Lithuania, would it be possible to
specify the name and family name of the individual in other, non-
Lithuanian graphic signs of writing and in non-grammaticised form
in other sections for entries of the passport, when the
individual requests so and when there are original documents
issued in foreign states which confirm the identity of the
individual and wherein the name and/or family name of the
individual are written in a non-Lithuanian language".
Thus, the Seimas, the petitioner, requests to construe
whether the aforesaid provisions of Items 4 and 7 of the
reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 21 October
1999 also mean that after the name and family name of an
individual have been entered in the state language in the
passport in the Republic of Lithuania, it is allowed:
- to specify the name and family name of the individual in
other, non-Lithuanian graphic signs of writing and in non-
grammaticised form,
- to specify this in the section for other entries of the
same passport,
- to specify this when the individual requests so and when
there are original documents issued in foreign states which
confirm the identity of the individual and wherein the name and/
or family name of the individual are written in a non-Lithuanian
language.
2. In this context it needs to be noted that in its ruling
of 21 October 1999 the Constitutional Court did not investigate
the issue related to original documents issued in foreign states
which confirm the identity of the individual and wherein the name
and/or family name of the individual are written in non-
Lithuanian graphic signs of writing.
3. As mentioned, the Constitutional Court may not construe
what was not investigated in that constitutional justice case,
subsequent to which the construed ruling was adopted.
4. Thus, the petition of the Seimas, the petitioner, is to
be treated as a petition requesting to construe whether the
aforesaid provisions of Items 4 and 7 of the reasoning part of
the Constitutional Court ruling of 21 October 1999 also mean
that, after the name and family name of an individual have been
entered in the state language in the passport of the Republic of
Lithuania, it is possible to specify the name and family name of
the individual in other, non-Lithuanian graphic signs of writing
and in non-grammaticised form in other sections for entries of
the passport, when the individual requests so.
III
1. The following was held in Item 4 of the reasoning part of
the Constitutional Court ruling of 21 October 1999, which
contains the provision "the name and family name of an individual
must be written in the state language" whose construction is
requested:
"Under Article 14 of the Constitution, Lithuanian shall be
the state language. The establishment of the status of the state
language in the Constitution means that Lithuanian is a
constitutional value. The state language preserves the identity
of the nation, it integrates a civil nation, it ensures the
expression of national sovereignty, the integrity and
indivisibility of the state, and a smooth functioning of the
state and local government establishments. The state language is
an important guarantee for the equality of rights of citizens as
it permits all the citizens to associate with state and local
government establishments under the same conditions and to
implement their rights and legitimate interests. The
constitutional establishment of the status of state language also
means that the legislator must establish by law that the use of
this language is ensured in public life, and, in addition, he
must provide for the means of protection of the state language.
Lithuanian, after it has acquired the status of the state
language in the Constitution, must be used in all state and local
government institutions and in all establishments, enterprises
and organisation which are on the territory of Lithuania; laws
and other legal acts must be promulgated in the state language;
office-work, accounting, accountabilities and financial papers
must be in Lithuanian; state and local government institutions,
establishments, enterprises and organisations correspond with
each other in the state language.
The Constitutional Court emphasises that the constitutional
status of the state language means that Lithuanian is compulsory
only in the public life of Lithuania. In other spheres of life
persons may use any language acceptable to them without
restrictions.
Taking account of the fact that the passport of the citizen
of the Republic of Lithuania is an official document certifying a
permanent legal link between an individual and the state, i.e.
the citizenship of an individual, and the fact that citizenship
relations belong to the sphere of public life of the state, the
name and family name of an individual must be written in the
state language. Otherwise, the constitutional status of the state
language would be denied."
2. Item 7 of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 21 October 1999, which contains the provision "In case
legal norms provided that the names and family names of these
citizens had to be written in other, non-Lithuanian letters, then
not only the constitutional principle of the state language would
be denied but also the activity of state and local government
institutions, that of other enterprises, establishments and
organisations would be disturbed" whose construction is requested
inter alia held the following:
"It needs to be noted that the norms of the Resolution of
the Supreme Council establishing that the name and family name of
an individual shall be written in Lithuanian letters in the
passport of the citizen of the Republic of Lithuania according to
the pronunciation are applicable to all citizens without
exception regardless of their nationality or other distinctions.
It is the matter of the decision of an individual to what
nationality he belongs, i.e. no one save the individual himself
is competent to decide the question of ascription of this
individual to any nationality, therefore it is impossible to
establish any exclusive rules for the use of the state language
by taking account of the nationality of an individual. Nor may
the nationality of an individual serve the basis for him to
demand that the rules arising from the status of the state
language be not applied as far as he is concerned. Otherwise, the
constitutional principle of equality of all persons before the
law might be violated.
Attention is to be paid to the fact that individuals
residing in Lithuania ascribe themselves to more than a hundred
nationalities. Various letters are used in their languages which
often are totally or in part different from Lithuanian letters.
In case legal norms provided that the names and family names of
these citizens had to be written in other, non-Lithuanian
letters, then not only the constitutional principle of the state
language would be denied but also the activity of state and local
government institutions, that of other enterprises,
establishments and organisations would be disturbed. Due to this
citizens would face more difficulties in implementing their
rights and legitimate interests and the principle of their
equality before the law established in the Constitution would be
violated.
Writing of entries in the passport of the citizen of the
Republic of Lithuania in the state language does not deny the
right of citizens attributing themselves to various national
groups to write their names and family names in any language as
long as it is not linked with the sphere of use of the state
language pointed out in the law."
3. The provisions of Items 4 and 7 of the Constitutional
Court ruling of 21 October 1999 were formulated while construing
inter alia Article 14 of the Constitution in which it is
established that Lithuanian shall be the state language.
4. The constitutional concept of the state language was
formed not only in the Constitutional Court ruling of 21 October
1999, whose provisions are requested to be construed, but also in
inter alia the Constitutional Court ruling of 10 May 2006.
The Constitutional Court ruling of 10 May 2006 inter alia
held:
"<
> according to the Constitution, the Lithuanian language,
as the state language, is the means of public expression and
internal communication of state and municipal institutions as
well as communication with members of the community. It is an
important element of the statehood, a factor uniting all citizens
of the Republic of Lithuania, integrating the state communitythe
civil Nationbecause it ensures equal opportunities for all
citizens of the state to participate in the governance of their
country, to make decisions of national importance, also the right
to enter on equal terms in the state service. The knowledge of
the state language is a prerequisite and a necessary condition
for full-fledged participation of the citizens in the governance
of the state."
5. The provision (which is requested to be construed) of
Item 7 of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling
of 21 October 1999 inter alia employs the formulation "Lithuanian
letters".
In this context it needs to be mentioned that the basis of
the graphic signs of writing of the Lithuanian language, as the
state language of Lithuania, as well as of the absolute majority
of the state (official) languages of European countries, is Latin
letters.
Under the Constitution, the graphic signs of writing of the
Lithuanian language and the essential issues related with their
use, inter alia the principles of corresponding transcription,
must be defined by the legislator or a state institution
authorised by him.
6. As mentioned, the Constitutional Court has held more than
once that a ruling of the Constitutional Court is integral.
In this context it needs to be noted that the provision "the
name and family name of an individual must be written in the
state language" of Item 4 and the provision "In case legal norms
provided that the names and family names of these citizens had to
be written in other, non-Lithuanian letters, then not only the
constitutional principle of the state language would be denied
but also the activity of state and local government institutions,
that of other enterprises, establishments and organisations would
be disturbed" of Item 7 of the reasoning part of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 21 October 1999 are interrelated
and are to be construed as a whole.
The aforesaid doctrinal provisions, which are requested to
be construed, imply that the name and family name of an
individual must be written in the state language in the passport
of the Republic of Lithuania, and that only the entry of the name
and family name of an individual in the state language is the
official confirmation of the identity of that individual, which
gives rise to corresponding legal effects linked to the use of
the name and family name of that individual in public life in
Lithuania.
7. It is generally known that in addition to the section
wherein the data confirming the identity of the individual are
entered (first of all, the name and family name of the
individual), there are sections designed for entering additional
data about the individual or for placing additional markings (in
which, by the way, not only the state (official) language is
used). This is characteristic of the passport of the Republic of
Lithuania as well.
It needs to be noted that if the name and family name of the
individual were entered in non-Lithuanian graphic signs of
writing and in non-grammaticised form in other sections for
entries of the passport, when the individual requests so, the
official confirmation of the identity of the individual in the
state language would persist in the same passport of the citizen.
Alongside, it should be noted that the entry of the name and
family name of the individual in non-Lithuanian graphic signs of
writing in other sections for entries of the passport should not
be made equal to the entry regarding the identity of the
individual made in the state language.
In the said cases, there would not be any grounds to
maintain that upon entering the name and family name of an
individual in non-Lithuanian graphic signs of writing and in non-
grammaticised form in other sections for entries of the passport,
when the individual requests so, the imperatives that "the name
and family name of an individual must be written in the state
language" and that the state language must be used in public
life, which arise form the Constitution, would be denied.
Thus, the legislator, upon establishing that the name and
family name of an individual are written in Lithuanian graphic
signs of writing in the passport of a citizen of the Republic of
Lithuania, enjoys discretion also to establish that it is allowed
to enter the name and family name of the individual in non-
Lithuanian graphic signs of writing and in non-grammaticised form
in other sections for entries of the passport, when the
individual requests so. In such a case the legislator should
establish the grounds for writing of the name and family name in
a non-state language in other sections for entries in the
passport, inter alia the fact as to what objective criteria
should be followed so that it would be possible to enter the name
and family name of the individual in non-Lithuanian graphic signs
of writing and in non-grammaticised form in other sections for
entries of the passport of a citizen of the Republic of
Lithuania.
While establishing the grounds for writing the name and
family name of an individual in a non-state language in the
passport of a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania, the
legislator should heed the fact that, as mentioned, the basis of
the graphic signs of writing of the Lithuanian language, as the
state language of Lithuania, as well as of the absolute majority
of the state (official) languages of European countries, is Latin
letters.
8. While construing, subsequent to the petition of the
Seimas, the petitioner, the provision "the name and family name
of an individual must be written in the state language" of Item 4
and the provision "In case legal norms provided that the names
and family names of these citizens had to be written in other,
non-Lithuanian letters, then not only the constitutional
principle of the state language would be denied but also the
activity of state and local government institutions, that of
other enterprises, establishments and organisations would be
disturbed" of Item 7 of the reasoning part of the Constitutional
Court ruling of 21 October 1999, one is to draw a conclusion
that, after the name and family name of an individual have been
entered in the state language in the passport of the Republic of
Lithuania, it is allowed to specify the name and family name of
the individual in other, non-Lithuanian graphic signs of writing
and in non-grammaticised form in other sections for entries of
the passport, when the individual requests so; such entry of the
name and family name of the individual in non-Lithuanian graphic
signs of writing in other sections for entries of the passport
should not be made equal to the entry regarding the identity of
the individual made in the state language.
Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania, and Articles 1 and 61 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has adopted the
following
decision:
To construe that the provision "the name and family name of
an individual must be written in the state language" of Item 4
and the provision "In case legal norms provided that the names
and family names of these citizens had to be written in other,
non-Lithuanian letters, then not only the constitutional
principle of the state language would be denied but also the
activity of state and local government institutions, that of
other enterprises, establishments and organisations would be
disturbed" of Item 7 of the reasoning part of the 21 October 1999
Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1999, No. 2660-2662) also
means that, after the name and family name of an individual have
been entered in the state language in the passport of the
Republic of Lithuania, it is allowed to specify the name and
family name of the individual in other, non-Lithuanian graphic
signs of writing and in non-grammaticised form in other sections
for entries of the passport, when the individual requests so;
such entry of the name and family name of the individual in non-
Lithuanian graphic signs of writing in other sections for entries
of the passport should not be made equal to the entry regarding
the identity of the individual made in the state language.
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