Case No. 25/01
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
DECISION
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF ITEMS 6.1, 6.2
AND 7 OF CHAPTER III OF THE REASONING PART OF THE RULING
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
OF 14 JANUARY 2002
18 December 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 Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis, a Member of
the Seimas, the petitioner who submitted the petition requesting
to construe the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania
of 14 January 2002, and who was the representative of the group
of Members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania in
constitutional justice case No. 25/01,
pursuant to Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court Republic of Lithuania, on 16 December 2009, in a public
Court hearing heard the petition of Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis,
a Member of the Seimas, requesting to construe the provisions of
Items 6.1, 6.2 and 7 of Chapter III of the reasoning part of the
Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania
of 14 January 2002 in the aspect whether:
- state funds are allotted only to state schools of higher
education, or whether they also include the funds which are
allotted in order to secure the free-of-charge studies of the
students who are good at their studies and who study in state
schools of higher education;
- these funds, which are allotted by the state in order to
secure the free-of-charge studies of the citizens who study in
schools of higher education and who are good at their studies may
be allotted also to those citizens of the Republic of Lithuania,
who study in non-state schools of higher education;
- the notion "citizens who study in a state school of higher
education and who are good at their studies" includes only those
citizens who are good at their studies only in a state school of
higher education, or whether it also includes the citizens who
were good at their studies in the secondary school prior to their
entry into the school of higher education;
- the criteria of "good learning at a school of higher
education" include only those citizens, who study in a state
school of higher education, or whether these criteria include
also the results achieved by the citizens in secondary schools
prior to their entry into a state school of higher education;
- "the one who is good at his studies in a state school of
higher education" means that the results of students' learning
must be evaluated while taking account of the assessment received
in every session, or whether the assessment results can include a
longer periodfrom the results of finishing secondary studies
(inclusive) till the results achieved, for example, during the
first two years of studies in a school of higher education;
- the provision "the criteria enabling to establish which
students can be said to demonstrate good academic results should
be established by law" means that these criteria should be
established by the legislator or whether these criteria may be
established by sub-statutory legal acts approved by the
Government or a minister.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
1. On 14 January 2002, in constitutional justice case No.
25/01, the Constitutional Court adopted the Ruling "On the
compliance of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Approving the
Financial Indicators of the 2001 State Budget and Budgets of
Local Governments (wording of 19 December 2000), the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Approval of Indicators Determining the
Amount and Levelling of Revenues of Local Governments Budgets for
2001, 2002 and 2003 and Article 16 of the Republic of Lithuania
Law on the State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture
with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania" (Official
Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 5-186; hereinafter referred
to as the Constitutional Court ruling of 14 January 2002).
2. It was inter alia recognised in the Constitutional Court
ruling of 14 January 2002 that the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Approving the Financial Indicators of the 2001 State Budget and
Budgets of Local Governments (wording of 19 December 2000) to the
extent that it did not specify allocations for each state higher
school separately conflicted with Paragraph 3 of Article 40 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the principle
of separation of powers entrenched in the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania.
3. The petitioner requests for the construction of the
following provisions of Items 6.1, 6.2 and 7 of Chapter III of
the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 14
January 2002:
"6.1. Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the Constitution refers
to state higher schools. Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Article 40
thereof, non-governmental teaching and educational institutions
may be established according to the procedure prescribed by law.
These provisions presume that not only state but also non-state
higher schools may function in Lithuania. State higher schools
have to be allotted state funds that have to be provided for in
the state budget.
<...>
6.2. There has to be a balance between the legitimate
interests of a person and the needs of both the society and the
state. The financial possibilities of the state (including
possibilities to fund higher education) are not and cannot be
unlimited. <...>
7. Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the Constitution establishes
the right of every citizen with a good academic progress in a
state higher school to free higher education. This right presumes
that funds must be provided out of the state budget to guarantee
higher education free of charge to citizens who demonstrate good
academic progress in state higher schools.
7.1. According to the Constitution, the state must cover
tuition for citizens who demonstrate good academic results in
case of the following three conditions: 1) the student is a
citizen of the Republic of Lithuania; 2) he studies at a state
higher school; 3) he demonstrates good academic results, i.e. his
academic results meet the established criteria of good academic
results.
Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the Constitution,
higher education tuition of citizens who are students at state
higher schools and demonstrate good academic results cannot be
imposed on these persons themselves in whatever form. Higher
education of citizens who are students at state higher schools
and demonstrate good academic results is financed by the state.
According to the Constitution, the state has a duty to provide
for the principles and procedure of allocation of state funds
necessary to finance tuition of citizens who are students at
state higher schools and demonstrate good academic results, and
also to establish control of their legal utilisation.
<...>
7.2. <...> Therefore, the criteria enabling to establish
which students can be said to demonstrate good academic results
and which would, consequently, as prescribed by the Constitution,
have the right that their education in state higher schools be
financed by the state, should be established by law."
It is requested that these provisions be construed in the
aspect whether:
- state funds are allotted only to state schools of higher
education, or whether they also include the funds which are
allotted in order to secure the free-of-charge studies of the
students who are good at their studies and who study in state
schools of higher education;
- these funds, which are allotted by the state in order to
secure the free-of-charge studies of the citizens who study in
schools of higher education and who are good at their studies may
be allotted also to those citizens of the Republic of Lithuania,
who study in non-state schools of higher education;
- the notion "citizens who study in a state school of higher
education and who are good at their studies" includes only those
citizens who are good at their studies only in a state school of
higher education, or whether it also includes the citizens who
were good at their studies in the secondary school prior to their
entry into the school of higher education;
- the criteria of "good learning a school of higher
education" include only those citizens, who study in a state
school of higher education, or whether these criteria include
also the results achieved by the citizens in secondary schools
prior to their entry into a state school of higher education;
- "the one who is good at his studies in a state school of
higher education" means that the results of students' learning
must be evaluated while taking account of the assessment received
in every session, or whether the assessment results can include a
longer periodfrom the results of finishing secondary studies
(inclusive) till the results achieved, for example, during the
first two years of studies in a school of higher education;
- the provision "the criteria enabling to establish which
students can be said to demonstrate good academic results should
be established by law" means that these criteria should be
established by the legislator or whether these criteria may be
established by sub-statutory legal acts approved by the
Government or a minister.
This petition was received at the Constitutional Court on 25
June 2009.
II
At the Constitutional Court hearing, V. P. Andriukaitis, a
Member of the Seimas, who submitted the petition requesting to
construe some provisions of the Constitutional Court ruling of
14 January 2002, explained the reasons which were set forth in
the petition and which prompted him to apply to the
Constitutional Court, presented additional explanations and
answered to questions presented by the justices.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. The powers of the Constitutional Court to officially
construe its own rulings are entrenched in the Law on the
Constitutional Court (Article 61). 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.
V. P. Andriukaitis, a Member of the Seimas, was the
representative of a group of Members of the Seimas, the
petitioner, in constitutional justice case No. 25/01 (he requests
for construction of the provisions of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 14 January 2002, which was adopted in the said case).
Thus, under Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, V.
P. Andriukaitis has the right to request that the Constitutional
Court construe the provisions of the Constitutional Court ruling
of 14 January 2002.
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; the resolving
part of a ruling of the Constitutional Court 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 has held
more than once 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.
It has also been held in the jurisprudence of the
Constitutional Court more than once that 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 6 December 2007, 1
February 2008, 4 July 2008, 15 January 2009, 15 May 2009, 28
October 2009, and 6 November 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. The Constitutional Court
has held more than once that 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 4 July 2008, 15 January 2009,
15 May 2009, 6 October 2009 and 6 November 2009).
II
1. The provisions of the Constitutional Court ruling of 14
January 2002, the construction of which is requested, are in
Items 6-7 of Chapter III of the Constitutional Court ruling of 14
January 2002, wherein it is held:
"6. According to Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the
Constitution, every person has the right to higher education
according to their individual abilities.
6.1. Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the Constitution refers to
state higher schools. Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Article 40
thereof, non-governmental teaching and educational institutions
may be established according to the procedure prescribed by law.
These provisions presume that not only state but also non-state
higher schools may function in Lithuania. State higher schools
have to be allotted state funds that have to be provided for in
the state budget.
The constitutional provision that higher education is
available to everyone according to his abilities means that both
state and non-state higher schools established according to the
procedure prescribed by law, the entire system of higher
education establishments, have to be accessible to every person.
This provision also means that those who seek higher education
cannot be subjected to requirements that are based on criteria
other than their abilities. The said provision is closely related
to the principle of equality of individuals enshrined in Article
29 of the Constitution, to the provision contained in Paragraph 2
thereof that a person may not have his rights restricted in any
way, or be granted any privileges, on the basis of his or her
sex, race, nationality, language, origin, social status,
religion, convictions, or opinions.
It should be noted that state institutions have the duty not
only not to impose any requirements inconsistent with the
constitutional principle of equality of persons on those who seek
higher education, but also to ensure that higher schools do not
impose such requirements themselves. The law must provide for
such legal regulation that would ensure everyone an opportunity
to seek higher education according to their individual abilities.
6.2. There has to be a balance between the legitimate interests
of a person and the needs of both the society and the state. The
financial possibilities of the state (including possibilities to
fund higher education) are not and cannot be unlimited. The
constitutional provisions that higher education shall be
available to everyone according to their individual abilities
cannot be interpreted as imposing a duty on the state to ensure
funding of any higher education for anyone capable of seeking it
without proper consideration of the needs and possibilities of
the society and the state. The constitutional provisions that
higher education shall be available to everyone according to
their individual abilities cannot be interpreted in a way that
would deny an individual's constitutional right to seek higher
education according to his abilities even when the state does not
finance his education because that would exceed the needs and
possibilities of the society and the state. The need of the
society and the state to have graduate specialists in various
areas and the possibility to finance only a certain number of
specialists cannot be an obstacle for a person to seek higher
education according to his abilities not at the expense of the
state even when this exceeds the needs and possibilities of the
society and the state.
It follows from Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the
Constitution that if a state higher school is able to provide
higher education in accordance with the requirements set by the
state not only to the persons whose studies are financed by the
state but also to those who seek higher education in a state
higher school not at the expense of the state, then the legal
regulation obstructing or even prohibiting a state higher school
to admit these persons to that higher school cannot be
established.
7. Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the Constitution establishes
the right of every citizen with a good academic progress in a
state higher school to free higher education. This right presumes
that funds must be provided out of the state budget to guarantee
higher education free of charge to citizens who demonstrate good
academic progress in state higher schools.
7.1. According to the Constitution, the state must cover
tuition for citizens who demonstrate good academic results in
case of the following three conditions: 1) the student is a
citizen of the Republic of Lithuania; 2) he studies at a state
higher school; 3) he demonstrates good academic results, i.e. his
academic results meet the established criteria of good academic
results.
Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the Constitution,
higher education tuition of citizens who are students at state
higher schools and demonstrate good academic results cannot be
imposed on these persons themselves in whatever form. Higher
education of citizens who are students at state higher schools
and demonstrate good academic results is financed by the state.
According to the Constitution, the state has a duty to provide
for the principles and procedure of allocation of state funds
necessary to finance tuition of citizens who are students at
state higher schools and demonstrate good academic results, and
also to establish control of their legal utilisation.
On the other hand, the Constitution does not contain a
prohibition for the state to undertake higher financial
obligations, in accordance with its possibilities, to students of
higher schools. The undertaking of higher financial obligations
than implied in the constitutional provision stipulating that
citizens who demonstrate good academic results shall be
guaranteed education free of charge in state higher schools,
should not deny the aim for a just and harmonious society
enshrined in the Constitution.
7.2. The constitutional provision that citizens who
demonstrate good academic results shall be guaranteed education
free of charge in state higher schools means that a citizen who
demonstrated good academic results has the right that his
education in a state higher school be financed by the state.
According to the Constitution, it is financed out of the funds of
the state budget. Therefore, the criteria enabling to establish
which students can be said to demonstrate good academic results
and which would, consequently, as prescribed by the Constitution,
have the right that their education in state higher schools be
financed by the state, should be established by law."
2. Thus in the said Items 6-7 of Chapter III of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 14 January 2002, the construction
of the provision of which is requested by the petitioner, the
Constitutional Court, while construing the provisions of
Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the Constitution, interpreted inter
alia the duty of the state to finance, from the state budget,
state schools of higher education and the studies of the citizens
who are good at their studies.
3. The petitioner, while requesting to construe what is the
meaning of the duty of the state to finance the studies of
citizens who are good at their studies also requests to construe
whether the results of learning of the citizens at the secondary
school may have any influence in deciding whether these persons
are to be regarded as being good at their studies in a state
school of higher education.
It needs to be noted that in the constitutional justice
case, wherein the 14 January 2002 ruling was adopted, the
Constitutional Court did not investigate whether the results of
learning of the citizens at the secondary school may have any
influence in deciding whether these persons are to be regarded as
being good at their studies in a state school of higher
education, therefore, this is not the matter of construction in
this decision.
4. Thus, subsequent to the petition of the petitioner, the
Constitutional Court will construe whether the specified
provisions of Items 6.1, 6.2 and 7 of Chapter III of the
reasoning part of the of the Constitutional Court ruling of 14
January 2002 mean that:
- state funds allotted to state schools of higher education
include also the funds which are allotted in order to secure the
free-of-charge studies of the students who are good at their
studies in state schools of higher education;
- the funds, which are allotted by the state in order to
secure the free-of-charge studies of the citizens who are good at
their studies in state schools of higher education may be
allotted also to those citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, who
study in non-state schools of higher education;
- only the citizens whose learning complies with the
criteria of good studies at a school of higher education are
citizens who are good at their studies in a state school of
higher education, whose free-of-charge studies are guaranteed;
the results of studies of such citizens must be assessed after
each session, or whether the assessment results can include a
longer period;
- the criteria enabling to establish which students are good
at their studies should be established by law, but not by sub-
statutory legal acts approved by the Government or a minister.
5. The Constitutional Court construed the specified
provisions of Items 6.1, 6.2 and 7 of Chapter III of the
reasoning part of the of the Constitutional Court ruling of 14
January 2002 while interpreting Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the
Constitution which provides: "Higher education shall be
accessible to everyone according to his individual abilities.
Citizens who are good at their studies shall be guaranteed
education at State schools of higher education free of charge."
6. It has been mentioned that provisions of a Constitutional
Court ruling must be construed 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 may be construed in isolation, by ignoring its meaning and
systemic links with the other official constitutional doctrinal
provisions, as well as with other provisions of the Constitution.
7. The official constitutional doctrine of free-of-charge
studies of citizens who are good at their studies at state
schools of higher education was developed not only in the
Constitutional Court ruling of 14 January 2002, but also in other
Constitutional Court acts, therefore, the provisions of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 14 January 2002 are to be
construed while taking account of the entire official
constitutional doctrinal context.
8. It has been mentioned that the petitioner requests to
construe whether the specified provisions of Items 6.1, 6.2 and 7
of Chapter III of the reasoning part of the of the Constitutional
Court ruling of 14 January 2002 inter alia mean that state funds
allotted to state schools of higher education include also the
funds which are allotted in order to secure the free-of-charge
studies of the students who are good at their studies in state
schools of higher education.
9. As mentioned, inter alia the following was held in the
Constitutional Court ruling of 14 January 2002:
- "State higher schools have to be allotted state funds that
have to be provided for in the state budget" (Item 6.1 of Chapter
III of the reasoning part).
- "Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the Constitution establishes
the right of every citizen with a good academic progress in a
state higher school to free higher education. This right presumes
that funds must be provided out of the state budget to guarantee
higher education free of charge to citizens who demonstrate good
academic progress in state higher schools" (Item 7 of Chapter III
of the reasoning part).
- "Higher education of citizens who are students at state
higher schools and demonstrate good academic results is financed
by the state" (Item 7.1 of Chapter III of the reasoning part).
- "The constitutional provision that citizens who
demonstrate good academic results shall be guaranteed education
free of charge in state higher schools means that a citizen who
demonstrated good academic results has the right that his
education in a state higher school be financed by the state.
According to the Constitution, it is financed out of the funds of
the state budget" (Item 7.2 of Chapter III of the reasoning
part).
10. The provisions of the Constitutional Court ruling of 14
January 2002, which are specified by the petitioner, are to be
construed inseparably also from the provisions of Item 8 of
Chapter III of the reasoning part of the said ruling, wherein it
was inter alia held: "While providing for state budget funds for
state higher schools, the needs of the society and the state
ensured by these schools, their existing and future programs,
also their way of ensuring adherence to the set teaching
standards, the correspondence of the content and level of
teaching to the qualification recognised by the state, state
obligations to these schools etc. should be considered."
11. The duty of the state to finance state schools of higher
education, inter alia the studies of citizens learning in them,
was interpreted by the Constitutional Court also in the ruling of
20 March 2008 wherein inter alia it was held:
- "The State Budget funds allocated to schools of higher
education also encompass the funds for financing the studies of
the citizens studying in state schools of higher education, who
are good at their studies. However, it needs to be noted that <
>
the Constitution guarantees higher education covered by state
funds not to all citizens who are good at their studies in state
schools of higher education <
>, but only to those <
> who are
prepared in order to meet the demand of specialists of
corresponding areas (trends), which is established by the state.
It is namely for financing of their studies that one has to
provide the necessary funds in the State Budget. If learning of
these citizens does not correspond to the criteria of good
learning established by law, the state does not have to finance
their studies";
- "While submitting a requisition to a school of higher
education to admit a certain number of students, the state must
guarantee that the State Budget will provide for corresponding
funds and these state funds will cover their expenses of studies,
of course, providing their learning will correspond to the
criteria of good learning established by law."
12. Taking account of the aforesaid doctrinal provisions,
one is to draw a conclusion that the specified provisions of
Items 6.1, 6.2 and 7 of Chapter III of the reasoning part of the
of the Constitutional Court ruling of 14 January 2002 inter alia
mean that funds from the State Budget must be allocated to state
schools of higher education, inter alia the funds necessary in
order that the free-of-charge education would be guaranteed to
the citizens who are learning at state schools of higher
education, who are prepared in order to meet the demand of
specialists of corresponding areas (trends), which is established
by the state, and whose learning complies with the criteria of
good learning established by the law.
13. It has been mentioned that the petitioner requests to
construe whether the specified provisions of Items 6.1, 6.2 and 7
of Chapter III of the reasoning part of the of the Constitutional
Court ruling of 14 January 2002 inter alia mean that the funds,
which are allotted by the state in order to secure the free-of-
charge studies of the citizens who are good at their studies in
state schools of higher education may be allotted also to those
citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, who study in non-state
schools of higher education.
14. In this context it needs to be noted that, as mentioned,
Item 6 of Chapter III of the reasoning part of the of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 14 January 2002, the construction
of the provisions of which is requested by the petitioner, held
the following: "Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the Constitution
refers to state higher schools. Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of
Article 40 thereof, non-governmental teaching and educational
institutions may be established according to the procedure
prescribed by law. These provisions presume that not only state
but also non-state higher schools may function in Lithuania.
<...> The constitutional provision that higher education is
available to everyone according to his abilities means that both
state and non-state higher schools established according to the
procedure prescribed by law, the entire system of higher
education establishments, have to be accessible to every person."
15. The Constitutional Court, while interpreting the duty of
the state to finance state schools of higher education from the
State Budget, held the following in its ruling of 20 March 2008:
- " Under commissioning of the state, specialists of certain
areas (trends) may also be prepared in non-state schools of
higher education by funds of the State Budget. In addition, it is
permitted to support citizens, who study in schools of higher
education of other states, by funds of the State Budget."
- "The law may not establish any such model of financing of
higher education, which would not be based upon a balanced
assessment of the needs of society and the state and the
financial capabilities of the state, where the state would
clearly obviously be unable to implement such model; the
establishment of such model would be in conflict inter alia with
the constitutional imperative of social harmony and would not
allow the state to perform its various other obligations."
As mentioned, in its ruling of 20 March 2008, the
Constitutional Court also held that, "while submitting a
requisition to a school of higher education to admit a certain
number of students, the state must guarantee that the State
Budget will provide for corresponding funds and these state funds
will cover their expenses of studies, of course, providing their
learning will correspond to the criteria of good learning
established by law".
16. Thus, it is impossible to construe the Constitution,
inter alia Paragraph 3 of Article 41 thereof, as meaning that,
purportedly, subsequent to a requisition of the state,
specialists of corresponding areas (trends) cannot be prepared in
non-state schools of higher education by means of funds of the
State Budget. Also such situations are possible, where
specialists of corresponding areas (trends) cannot be prepared in
state schools of higher education due to objective circumstances
(for instance, situations are possible, when state schools of
higher education do not possess special training facilities,
etc., in order to prepare the specialists of corresponding areas
(trends) which are necessary for the state). Alongside, it needs
to be noted that in such cases the state requisition submitted to
a non-state school of higher education for preparation of
specialists of corresponding areas (trends) by funds from the
State Budget must be grounded on a balanced assessment of the
needs of society and of the state and that of financial
capabilities of the state and it may not be in conflict with
inter alia the constitutional imperative of social harmony. In
such cases the state, while submitting the requisition to non-
state schools of higher education, must guarantee that the
expenses of learning (studies) of such specialists will be
covered by state funds, in cases their learning will meet the
criteria of good learning established by law.
17. Taking account of the arguments set forth and the
mentioned doctrinal provisions, one is to draw a conclusion that
the specified provisions of Items 6.1, 6.2 and 7 of Chapter III
of the reasoning part of the of the Constitutional Court ruling
of 14 January 2002 inter alia mean that: upon assessing the needs
of society and the state and the financial capabilities of the
state, in cases when specialists of corresponding areas (trends)
cannot be prepared in state schools of higher education due to
objective circumstances, they may be prepared also in non-state
schools of higher education upon requisition of the state and
from funds of the State Budget; in such a case the state must
guarantee that the expenses of learning (studies) of such
specialists will be covered by state funds, in cases the learning
of the said individuals will meet the criteria of good learning
established by law.
18. It has been mentioned that the petitioner requests to
construe whether the specified provisions of Items 6.1, 6.2 and 7
of Chapter III of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court
ruling of 14 January 2002 inter alia mean that: only the citizens
whose learning complies with the criteria of good studies at a
school of higher education are citizens who are good at their
studies in a state school of higher education, whose free-of-
charge studies are guaranteed; the results of studies of such
citizens must be assessed after each session, or whether the
assessment results can include a longer period.
19. In the course of the construction of the provisions of
Items 6.1, 6.2 and 7 of Chapter III of the reasoning part of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 14 January 2002 which were
specified by the petitioner, it needs to be noted that the
Constitution does not provide explicitly which citizens are to
regarded as the ones who are good at their studies.
The Constitutional Court, while interpreting the provision
of Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the Constitution that the state
has a duty to guarantee free-of-charge education at state schools
of higher education to the citizens who are good at their
studies, has held that:
- "According to the Constitution, the state must cover
tuition for citizens who demonstrate good academic results in
case of the following three conditions: 1) the student is a
citizen of the Republic of Lithuania; 2) he studies at a state
higher school; 3) he demonstrates good academic results, i.e. his
academic results meet the established criteria of good academic
results" (Constitutional Court rulings of 14 January 2002, 20
March 2008);
- "a citizen who is good at his studies is to be regarded
the one who 'is good at his studies, i.e. his learning meets the
established criteria of learning well'" (Constitutional Court
rulings of 14 January 2002, 20 March 2008);
- "the criteria enabling to establish which students can be
said to demonstrate good academic results and which would,
consequently, as prescribed by the Constitution, have the right
that their education in state higher schools be financed by the
state, should be established by law" (Constitutional Court
rulings of 14 January 2002, 7 June 2007, 20 March 2008);
- "it is impossible to construe the constitutional provision
whereby citizens who are good at their studies shall be
guaranteed education at state schools of higher education free of
charge, as meaning that, purportedly, the Constitution guarantees
higher education covered by state funds to all citizens who are
good at their studies in state schools of higher education, no
matter under what conditions they were admitted to such schools,
i.e. also to those citizens who are good at their studies, who,
however, in the course of admittance to a corresponding state
school of higher education were not admitted to the places whose
number announced in advance conforms to the obligation of the
state to fund the preparation of a certain number of specialists,
and who were admitted to study at the state school of higher
education at their own expense" (Constitutional Court ruling of
20 March 2008).
20. As mentioned, in its ruling of 20 March 2008, the
Constitutional Court inter alia held: "the Constitution
guarantees higher education covered by state funds not to all
citizens who are good at their studies in state schools of higher
education <
>, but only to those <
> who are prepared in order to
meet the demand of specialists of corresponding areas (trends),
which is established by the state. <
> If learning of these
citizens does not correspond to the criteria of good learning
established by law, the state does not have to finance their
studies."
21. The said constitutional provisions imply that free-of-
charge education is guaranteed at state schools of higher
education to the citizens who study subsequent to the requisition
by the state in order to meet the demand of specialists of
corresponding areas (trends), which is established by the state,
provided the learning of such citizens corresponds to the
criteria of good learning established by law, and, also, that the
criteria enabling to establish which students can be said to
demonstrate good academic results and which would, consequently,
as prescribed by the Constitution, have the right that their
education in state higher schools be financed by the state,
should be established by law.
22. In this context it needs to be mentioned that, as it has
been held in the Constitutional Court rulings more than once,
under Paragraph 3 of Article 40 of the Constitution, schools of
higher education shall be granted autonomy, which inter alia
includes the right independently to establish the procedure of
science and studies as well as syllabi, and to decide other
issues related thereto.
In the course of establishment of the procedure of science
and studies, the procedure for assessment of the knowledge
acquired in a state school of higher education must be
established as well. Such a procedure must be known in advance,
it must be clear and objective.
It needs to be noted that the knowledge of the individuals
who learn at state schools of higher education must be assessed
on a regular basis, within the corresponding periods of learning
at these schools. Legal acts can name these periods in a varied
manner. As a rule, basic checking of the knowledge of the
individuals who study in Lithuanian state schools of higher
education as regards the studied subjects is regularly conducted
after each period of academic learningsemester.
It needs to be mentioned that the procedure (established in
the state school of higher education) of assessment of the
knowledge acquired in the state school of higher education must
inter alia be such so that on the grounds of this procedure it
would be possible to assess whether the results of learning of
the citizens studying in state schools of higher education
subsequent to the requisition of the state (i.e. those who are
prepared in order to meet the demand of specialists of
corresponding areas (trends), which is established by the state)
correspond to the criteria of good learning established by law.
It needs to be noted that the citizens who are good at their
studies in state schools of higher education and who study in
state schools of higher education subsequent to the requisition
by the state (i.e. in order to meet the demand of specialists of
corresponding areas (trends), which is established by the state)
must be guaranteed the education free of charge as long as their
learning corresponds to the criteria of good learning established
by law.
Alongside, it needs to be noted that the citizens who were
admitted in state schools of higher education to study subsequent
to the requisition by the state (i.e. in order to meet the demand
of specialists of corresponding areas (trends), which is
established by the state) must be guaranteed the education free
of charge till the first basic checking of the knowledge of the
subjects studied by them.
23. Taking account of the arguments set forth and the
mentioned doctrinal provisions, one is to draw a conclusion that
the specified provisions of Items 6.1, 6.2 and 7 of Chapter III
of the reasoning part of the of the Constitutional Court ruling
of 14 January 2002 inter alia mean that:
- free-of-charge education is guaranteed at state schools of
higher education to the citizens who study subsequent to the
requisition by the state in order to meet the demand of
specialists of corresponding areas (trends), which is established
by the state, the learning of whom corresponds to the criteria of
good learning established by law;
- the assessment of the results of learning (according to
the criteria of good learning established by law) of the citizens
who study in state schools of higher education subsequent to the
requisition by the state (i.e. in order to meet the demand of
specialists of corresponding areas (trends), which is established
by the state) must be conducted on a regular basis after checking
the knowledge of the studied subjects after each period of
academic learning.
24. It has been mentioned that the petitioner requests to
construe whether the specified provisions of Items 6.1, 6.2 and 7
of Chapter III of the reasoning part of the of the Constitutional
Court ruling of 14 January 2002 mean that the criteria enabling
to establish which students are good at their studies should be
established by law, but not by sub-statutory legal acts issued by
the Government or a minister.
25. It needs to be noted that establishment of the criteria
enabling to establish which students can be said to demonstrate
good academic results and which would, consequently, as
prescribed by the Constitution, have the right that their
education in state higher schools be financed by the state, is
directly related to the guarantee of the implementation of the
right of a human being (i.e. a citizen who is good at his studies
in a state school of higher education) to seek to acquire higher
education at a state school of higher education free of charge.
In this context it needs to be mentioned that in its rulings of
13 December 2004 and 5 May 2007, the Constitutional Court held
that "according to the Constitution the legal regulation related
to defining the content of human rights and freedoms and
consolidating the guarantees of their implementation may be
established only by means of a law".
26. It also needs to be noted that, as mentioned, in its
ruling of 14 January 2002, the Constitutional Court held: "<...>
the criteria enabling to establish which students can be said to
demonstrate good academic results and which would, consequently,
as prescribed by the Constitution, have the right that their
education in state higher schools be financed by the state,
should be established by law." The same was reiterated also in
the Constitutional Court rulings of 7 June 2007 and 20 March
2008.
27. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that the specified provisions of Items 6.1, 6.2
and 7 of Chapter III of the reasoning part of the of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 14 January 2002 inter alia mean
that the criteria enabling to establish which students are good
at their studies must be established only by means of a law.
Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and Article 1 and 61 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has passed the
following
decision:
To construe that the following provisions of Items 6.1, 6.2
and 7 of Chapter III of the reasoning part of the Ruling of the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania of 14 January
2002 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 5-186):
"6.1. Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the Constitution refers
to state higher schools. Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Article 40
thereof, non-governmental teaching and educational institutions
may be established according to the procedure prescribed by law.
These provisions presume that not only state but also non-state
higher schools may function in Lithuania. State higher schools
have to be allotted state funds that have to be provided for in
the state budget.
<...>
6.2. There has to be a balance between the legitimate
interests of a person and the needs of both the society and the
state. The financial possibilities of the state (including
possibilities to fund higher education) are not and cannot be
unlimited. <...>
7. Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the Constitution establishes
the right of every citizen with a good academic progress in a
state higher school to free higher education. This right presumes
that funds must be provided out of the state budget to guarantee
higher education free of charge to citizens who demonstrate good
academic progress in state higher schools.
7.1. According to the Constitution, the state must cover
tuition for citizens who demonstrate good academic results in
case of the following three conditions: 1) the student is a
citizen of the Republic of Lithuania; 2) he studies at a state
higher school; 3) he demonstrates good academic results, i.e. his
academic results meet the established criteria of good academic
results.
Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the Constitution,
higher education tuition of citizens who are students at state
higher schools and demonstrate good academic results cannot be
imposed on these persons themselves in whatever form. Higher
education of citizens who are students at state higher schools
and demonstrate good academic results is financed by the state.
According to the Constitution, the state has a duty to provide
for the principles and procedure of allocation of state funds
necessary to finance tuition of citizens who are students at
state higher schools and demonstrate good academic results, and
also to establish control of their legal utilisation.
<...>
7.2. <...> Therefore, the criteria enabling to establish
which students can be said to demonstrate good academic results
and which would, consequently, as prescribed by the Constitution,
have the right that their education in state higher schools be
financed by the state, should be established by law"
inter alia mean that:
- funds from the State Budget must be allocated to state
schools of higher education, inter alia the funds necessary in
order that the free-of-charge education would be guaranteed to
the citizens who are learning at state schools of higher
education, who are prepared in order to meet the demand of
specialists of corresponding areas (trends), which is established
by the state, and whose learning complies with the criteria of
good learning established by the law;
- upon assessing the needs of society and the state and the
financial capabilities of the state, in cases when specialists of
corresponding areas (trends) cannot be prepared in state schools
of higher education due to objective circumstances, they may be
prepared also in non-state schools of higher education upon
requisition of the state and from funds of the State Budget; in
such a case the state must guarantee that the expenses of
learning (studies) of such specialists will be covered by state
funds, in cases the learning of the said individuals will meet
the criteria of good learning established by law;
- free-of-charge education is guaranteed at state schools of
higher education to the citizens who study subsequent to the
requisition by the state in order to meet the demand of
specialists of corresponding areas (trends), which is established
by the state, the learning of whom corresponds to the criteria of
good learning established by law;
- the assessment of the results of learning (according to
the criteria of good learning established by law) of the citizens
who study in state schools of higher education subsequent to the
requisition by the state (i.e. in order to meet the demand of
specialists of corresponding areas (trends), which is established
by the state) must be conducted on a regular basis after checking
the knowledge of the studied subjects after each period of
academic learning;
- the criteria enabling to establish which students are good
at their studies must be established only by means of a law.
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