Case No. 27/08-29/08-33/08
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
RULING
ON THE COMPLIANCE OF PARAGRAPH 7 (WORDINGS OF 13
DECEMBER 2007 AND 3 JULY 2008) OF ARTICLE 269 OF THE
CODE OF ADMINISTRATIVE VIOLATIONS OF LAW OF THE
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
10 April 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 the representatives of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania, the party concerned, who were Vidmantas
Žiemelis, a Member of the Seimas, and Girius Ivoška, an advisor
of the Criminal and Administrative Law Unit 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 3 April 2009 heard case No. 27/08-29/08-33/08
subsequent to the petitions of the Supreme Administrative Court
of Lithuania, wherein it is requested to investigate the
following:
1) whether Paragraph 7 (wordings of 13 December 2007 and 3
July 2008) of Article 269 of the Code of Administrative
Violations of Law of the Republic of Lithuania, to the extent
that it provides that it is permitted to retrieve the towed-away
vehicle (save the cases when the vehicle is confiscated) only
after paying the imposed fine or serving the time of the
administrative arrest, was/is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of
Article 109 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and
with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of
law and proportionality (petition No. 1B-27/2008);
2) whether Paragraph 7 (wordings of 13 December 2007 and 3
July 2008) of Article 269 of the Code of Administrative
Violations of Law of the Republic of Lithuania, to the extent
that it provides that it is permitted to retrieve the towed-away
vehicle (save the cases when the vehicle is confiscated) only
after paying the imposed fine or serving the time of the
administrative arrest, was/is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of
Article 109 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and
with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of
law and proportionality (petition No. 1B-30/2008);
3) whether Paragraph 7 (wording of 3 July 2008) of Article
269 of the Code of Administrative Violations of Law of the
Republic of Lithuania, to the extent that it provides that it is
permitted to retrieve the towed-away vehicle (save the cases when
the vehicle is confiscated) only after paying the imposed fine or
serving the time of the administrative arrest, is not in conflict
with Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principles of a
state under the rule of law and proportionality (petition No. 1B-
36/2008).
By the Constitutional Court Decision "On joining petitions
into one case" of 4 March 2009 petitions Nos. 1B-27/2008, 1B-30/
2008 and 1B-36/2008 were joined into one case and it was given
reference No. 27/08-29/08-33/08.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
1. The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, the
petitioner, was considering a case of an administrative violation
of law. By its ruling, the court suspended the consideration of
the case and applied to the Constitutional Court with a petition
(No. 1B-27/2008) requesting to investigate whether Paragraph 7
(wordings of 13 December 2007 and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of
the Code of Administrative Violations of Law (hereinafter also
referred to as the CAVL), to the extent that it provides that it
is permitted to retrieve the towed-away vehicle (save the cases
when the vehicle is confiscated) only after paying the imposed
fine or serving the time of the administrative arrest, was/is not
in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of the Constitution
and with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule
of law and proportionality.
2. The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, the
petitioner, was considering a case of an administrative violation
of law. By its ruling, the court suspended the consideration of
the case and applied to the Constitutional Court with a petition
(No. 1B-30/2008) requesting to investigate whether Paragraph 7
(wordings of 13 December 2007 and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of
the CAVL, to the extent that it provides that it is permitted to
retrieve the towed-away vehicle (save the cases when the vehicle
is confiscated) only after paying the imposed fine or serving the
time of the administrative arrest, was/is not in conflict with
Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of the Constitution and with the
constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and
proportionality.
3. The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, the
petitioner, was considering a case of an administrative violation
of law. By its ruling, the court suspended the consideration of
the case and applied to the Constitutional Court with a petition
(No. 1B-36/2008) requesting to investigate whether Paragraph 7
(wording of 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL, to the
extent that it provides that it is permitted to retrieve the
towed-away vehicle (save the cases when the vehicle is
confiscated) only after paying the imposed fine or serving the
time of the administrative arrest, is not in conflict with
Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of the Constitution and with the
constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and
proportionality.
II
The petitions (Nos. 1B-27/2008, 1B-30/2008 and 1B-36/2008)
of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, the petitioner,
requesting to investigate whether Paragraph 7 (wordings of 13
December 2007 and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL, to the
extent that it provides that it is permitted to retrieve the
towed-away vehicle (save the cases when the vehicle is
confiscated) only after paying the imposed fine or serving the
time of the administrative arrest, was/is not in conflict with
Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of the Constitution and with the
constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and
proportionality, are substantiated by the following arguments.
The disputed provision of Paragraph 7 (wordings of 13
December 2007 and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL is
formulated in an imperative manner. The court is not granted a
right to order, while taking account of the principles of
justice, reasonableness, proportionality, and good faith as well
as other important circumstances, to return the vehicle prior to
the time provided for in the law (i.e. prior to the payment of
the imposed fine or serving the time of the administrative
arrest). In the opinion of the petitioner, such legal regulation
groundlessly restricts court powers, i.e. it limits the exclusive
powers of the court to administer justice, which are entrenched
in Article 109 of the Constitution, therefore there are doubts as
to the compliance of the disputed provision of Paragraph 7
(wordings of 13 December 2007 and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of
the CAVL with Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of the Constitution.
In the opinion of the petitioner, the legal regulation,
which is entrenched in the disputed provision of Paragraph 7
(wordings of 13 December 2007 and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of
the CAVL, implicitly established and establishes at present that
in case a vehicle is lawfully towed away, it cannot be returned
under any circumstances until the adoption of a ruling in the
administrative violation case, since, otherwise, it would be
impossible to ensure that it will be permitted to retrieve the
vehicle only upon payment of the imposed fine or serving the time
of the administrative arrest. The disputed provision may be
interpreted as not permitting to return the vehicle lawfully
seized and towed away from the person (who is not necessarily the
violator of law) prior to payment of the imposed fine or serving
the time of the administrative arrest also in the following
situations: when confiscation of the vehicle is not imposed for
the committed violation of law; the sanction for the violation of
law for the commission of which the vehicle is towed away does
not provide for confiscation of this vehicle at all; when the
violation of law is committed and a fine or an administrative
arrest is imposed not upon the owner and/or rightful possessor of
the vehicle, but upon the unlawful possessor thereof (for
example, upon a person who unlawfully took possession of the
vehicle (stole it)); when upon towing the vehicle away to the
place of safekeeping the direct threat to the security to the
traffic or to the rights of other persons is removed.
The towing away of the vehicle and not returning thereof
until the imposed fine is paid or the time of the administrative
arrest is served restricts the rights of the owner and/or the
rightful possessor of the vehicle. Upon the towing away the
vehicle and its not returning, neither the owner, nor the
rightful possessor can use and possess it under its purpose, they
cannot in fact hand it over to other persons to be used according
to its purpose, and the right of the owner of the vehicle to
dispose of it is restricted.
In the opinion of the petitioner, there is not a fair and
reasonable balance between the restrictions, the extent
(duration) and character thereof, which are applied to persons by
the disputed provision of Paragraph 7 (wordings of 13 December
2007 and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL, and the
objectives sought by these measures. One is to make an assumption
that in case it is permitted to retrieve the towed-away vehicle
only after the imposed fine has been paid or the time of the
administrative arrest has been served, the rights of the person
are limited more than needed (more than necessary) in order to
protect public interests, there is not a reasonable and adequate
proportion between this measure and the objectives sought by this
measure, this measure is disproportionate, since the state can
secure the payment of the imposed fine or serving the time of the
administrative arrest also by other means, which would less
restrict the rights of the person.
The petitioner refers to the provisions of the official
constitutional doctrine formulated in the Constitutional Court
ruling of 2 October 2001; it was held in the said ruling of the
Constitutional Court that the provision of Paragraph 4 of Article
269 of the CAVL that in cases of decisions to impose a fine the
driving licence is not be returned until the payment of the
imposed fine was in conflict with the principle of a state under
the rule of law entrenched in the Constitution. According to the
petitioner, the not returning of the vehicle until the imposed
fine is paid or the time of the administrative arrest is served
restricts the rights of the interested persons much more than the
not returning of a driving licence until the payment of the
imposed fine. The petitioner doubts as regards the compliance of
the disputed provision of Paragraph 7 (wordings of 13 December
2007 and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL with the
constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and
proportionality.
III
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing written explanations were received
from the representatives of the Seimas, the party concerned, who
were V. Žiemelis, a Member of the Seimas, and G. Ivoška, an
advisor of the Criminal and Administrative Law Unit of the Legal
Department of the Office of the Seimas. It is maintained therein
that the provision of Paragraph 7 of Article 269 of the CAVL,
which is disputed by the petitioner, was adopted together with
the CAVL amendments which made the administrative liability for
violations of the Road Traffic Rules stricter in order that the
violations of the Road Traffic Rules made by drunk persons, or
those who are intoxicated from narcotic or psychotropic
substances, or the violations with grave consequences, would
decrease, because in 2007 there was an increase in such
violations. According to the representatives of the Seimas, the
party concerned, by means of the disputed provision of Paragraph
7 of Article 269 of the CAVL one seeks to secure that a person
who has committed the violation provided for in Paragraph 7 of
Article 269 of the CAVL would not be able to make use of the tool
of commission of the administrative violation of law until the
imposed fine is paid or the administrative arrest is served.
IV
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing written explanations were received
from T. Vaitkevičius, Vice-minister of Justice of the Republic of
Lithuania.
V
1. At the Constitutional Court hearing the Member of the
Seimas V. Žiemelis and G. Ivoška, the representatives of the
Seimas, the party concerned, took the floor.
V. Žiemelis, the representative of the Seimas, the party
concerned, inter alia noted that the provision "It is permitted
to retrieve the towed-away vehicle (save the cases when the
vehicle is confiscated) only after paying the imposed fine or
serving the time of the administrative arrest" of Paragraph 7 of
Article 269 of the CAVL was supplemented too hastily. According
to him, the disputed provision of Paragraph 7 of Article 269 of
the CAVL is formulated in an imperative manner, the court is not
granted a right to order, while taking account of the principles
of justice, reasonableness, and good faith, as well as of other
important circumstances, that the towed-away vehicle be returned
prior to the payment of the imposed fine or serving the time of
the administrative arrest, thus, there is not a fair and
reasonable balance between the measures established in the
disputed provision of Paragraph 7 of Article 269 of the CAVL and
the objectives sought by these measures. V. Žiemelis noted that
in legal acts of other states (Estonia, France, Germany,
Switzerland) no such provision has been entrenched.
2. At the Constitutional Court hearing Gintaras
Aliksandravičius (Chief of the Traffic Supervision Service of the
Police of Lithuania) took the floor and gave answers to
questions.
G. Aliksandravičius emphasised preventive objectives of the
disputed provision of Paragraph 7 of Article 269 of the CAVL,
which are to discourage persons from commission of the
violations. According to him, in some aspects the disputed
provision of Paragraph 7 of Article 269 of the CAVL restricts the
discretion of the court; in some cases the towed-away vehicle
could perhaps be returned earlier, i.e. before the payment of the
imposed fine. G. Aliksandravičius noted that not in all
situations when the violations provided for in Paragraph 7 of
Article 269 of the CAVL are committed the vehicles are towed
away.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. It has been mentioned that in its petitions Nos. 1B-27/
2008 and 1B-30/2008, the Supreme Administrative Court of
Lithuania, the petitioner, requests to investigate whether the
disputed provision of Paragraph 7 (wordings of 13 December 2007
and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL, to the extent that
it provides that it is permitted to retrieve the towed-away
vehicle (save the cases when the vehicle is confiscated) only
after paying the imposed fine or serving the time of the
administrative arrest, was/is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of
Article 109 of the Constitution and with the constitutional
principles of a state under the rule of law and proportionality,
and in its petition No. 1B-36/2008 the same court requests to
investigate whether the disputed provision of Paragraph 7
(wording of 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL, to the
extent that it provides that it is permitted to retrieve the
towed-away vehicle (save the cases when the vehicle is
confiscated) only after paying the imposed fine or serving the
time of the administrative arrest, is not in conflict with
Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of the Constitution and with the
constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and
proportionality.
These petitions of the petitioner are to be treated as a
petition requesting to investigate whether the provision "It is
permitted to retrieve the towed-away vehicle (save the cases when
the vehicle is confiscated) only after paying the imposed fine or
serving the time of the administrative arrest" of Paragraph 7
(wordings of 13 December 2007 and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of
the CAVL, was/is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 109
of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of a
state under the rule of law and proportionality.
2. The Constitutional Court has held more than once that the
constitutional principle of proportionality is one of the
elements of the constitutional principle under the state of law
(Constitutional Court rulings of 29 December 2004 and 29
September 2005); taking account of this, the petitions of the
petitioner requesting to investigate whether the disputed
provision of Paragraph 7 (wordings of 13 December 2007 and 3 July
2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL was/is not in conflict with the
constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and
proportionality is to be regarded as a petition requesting to
investigate whether this provision was/is not in conflict with
the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
Thus, in the constitutional justice case at issue the
Constitutional Court will investigate whether:
- the provision "It is permitted to retrieve the towed-away
vehicle (save the cases when the vehicle is confiscated) only
after paying the imposed fine or serving the time of the
administrative arrest" of Paragraph 7 (wording of 13 December
2007) of Article 269 of the CAVL was not in conflict with
Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of the Constitution and with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- the provision "It is permitted to retrieve the towed-away
vehicle (save the cases when the vehicle is confiscated) only
after paying the imposed fine or serving the time of the
administrative arrest" of Paragraph 7 (wording of 3 July 2008) of
Article 269 of the CAVL is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of
Article 109 of the Constitution and with the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law.
II
1. On 17 February 2000, the Seimas adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Amending and Supplementing the Code of
Administrative Violations of Law which came into force on 15
March 2000. Paragraph 4 of Article 341 of the said law
supplemented Article 269 (wording of 1 July 1997) of the CAVL
inter alia with Paragraph 7.
Paragraph 7 (wording of 17 February 2000) of Article 269 of
the CAVL prescribed: "If the violations provided for in Article
124-1 of this Code (stopping (parking) a vehicle on a pavement,
unless it is permitted by appropriate road signs, riding up the
lawn, pavement, pedestrian (bicycle) path, stopping and parking a
vehicle upon level crossings and within a 50-metre strip of road
before and beyond them, within tunnels, on and under bridges and
viaducts, on and within 5 metres of pedestrian crossings, and in
other places where it obstructs the vehicle or pedestrian
traffic) have been committed, police officers shall have the
right to tow away the vehicle or to block the wheels of such
vehicle by a special device under procedure established by the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania or an institution
authorised by it."
2. On 10 May 2001, the Seimas adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 264, 269 and
271 of the Code of Administrative Violations of Law which came
into force on 1 July 2001 (Article 5). Paragraph 1 of Article 2
of the said law amended Paragraph 7 (wording of 17 February 2000)
of Article 269 of the CAVL and it was set forth as follows: "If
the violations provided for in Article 124-1 (stopping (parking)
a vehicle on a pavement, unless it is permitted by appropriate
road signs, riding up the lawn, pavement, pedestrian (bicycle)
path, stopping and parking a vehicle upon level crossings and
within a 50-metre strip of road before and beyond them, within
tunnels, on and under bridges and viaducts, on and within 5
metres of pedestrian crossings, and in other places where it
obstructs the vehicle or pedestrian traffic), and in Article
132-1 (failing to comply with the procedure for parking vehicles
in home zones and yards) of this Code have been committed, police
officers shall have the right to tow away the vehicle or to block
the wheels of such vehicle by a special device under procedure
established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania or an
institution authorised by it."
3. On 29 January 2004, the Seimas adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 30-1, 35,
51, 124-1, 209, 214-14, 214-16, 214-17, 214-18, 224, 225-2, 239,
241-3, 242, 254, 259, 259-1, 260, 261, 262, 263, 265, 266, 267,
269, 281, 286, 288, 320, 329, 330 of the Code of Administrative
Violations of Law and Supplementing the Code with Articles 51-14,
51-15, 51-16, 51-17, 89-1, and 214-23 which came into force on 14
February 2004. Paragraph 2 of Article 31 of this law amended
Paragraph 7 (wording of 10 May 2001) of Article 269 of the CAVL
and it was set forth as follows: "If the violations provided for
in Article 124-1 (stopping (parking) a vehicle on a pavement,
unless it is permitted by appropriate road signs, parking on the
lawn, pavement, pedestrian (bicycle) path, stopping and parking a
vehicle upon level crossings and within a 50-metre strip of road
before and beyond them, within tunnels, on and under bridges and
viaducts, on and within 5 metres of pedestrian crossings, and in
other places where it obstructs the vehicle or pedestrian
traffic), and Article 132-1 (failing to comply with the procedure
for parking vehicles in home zones and yards) of this Code have
been committed, if it obstructs the vehicle or pedestrian traffic
or otherwise violates the rights of other persons, police
officers shall have the right to tow away the vehicle under
procedure established by the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania or an institution authorised by it."
4. It needs to be noted that the right of police officers to
tow away the vehicle under procedure established by the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania or an institution
authorised by it was consolidated in the CAVL after the Seimas
adopted the Law on Amending and Supplementing the Code of
Administrative Violations of Law on 17 February 2000 whereby
Article 269 (wording of 1 July 1997) of the CAVL was supplemented
inter alia with Paragraph 7. The police officers were allowed to
implemented this right in case the administrative violations of
law specified in Paragraph 7 of Article 269 of the CAVL had been
committed.
After the Seimas adopted the 10 May 2001 Law on Amending and
Supplementing Articles 264, 269 and 271 of the Code of
Administrative Violations of Law whereby Paragraph 7 (wording of
17 February 2000) of Article 269 of the CAVL was amended, the
aforesaid provision remained intact.
If one compares the legal regulation entrenched in Paragraph
7 of Article 269 of the CAVL of the wordings of 17 February 2000
and 10 May 2001 with the legal regulation entrenched in Paragraph
7 of Article 269 of the CAVL of the wording of 29 January 2004,
it is clear that the right of police officers to tow away the
vehicle persisted, however, the implementation of this right was
linked with the condition that such vehicle obstructed the
vehicle or pedestrian transport or otherwise violated the rights
of other persons.
5. On 13 December 2007, the Seimas adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 21, 26, 27,
30-1, 32, 123, 124, 124-1, 124-2, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130,
130-2, 131, 134, 187, 224, 225, 259-1, 269, 281, 312, 313, 314,
315, 320, 326, 330 of the Code of Administrative Violations of
Law and Recognising Article 124-3 Thereof as No Longer Valid,
which (save Article 32 thereof) came into force on 1 January 2008
(Article 33).
5.1. The explanatory note to the draft of this law specifies
that the objective of the prepared draft law is inter alia "to
reduce the number of road accidents during which people are
injured or killed"; Item 4 of this explanatory note points out
that it is proposed that Article 269 of the CAVL be amended and
to establish that if the violations specified in Articles 124-1,
126, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 127, Articles 129, 130-2 or
132-1 of this code have been committed, police officers shall
have the right to tow away the vehicle under procedure
established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania or an
institution authorised by it; "This provision would prevent or
limit possibilities to the drivers to make use of the vehicle
after their inebriation (drunkenness) or intoxication from
psychotropic substances is established".
5.2. This law amended Article 127 (wording of 17 February
2000) and Article 130-2 of the CAVL in the aspect that inter alia
the sanctionconfiscation of the vehiclewas provided for
violation of the administrative violations of law specified in
the said articles:
- Article 127 titled "Violation of the Road Traffic Rules
Resulting in a Minor Health Disturbance or in Damage to Property"
(wording of 13 December 2007) inter alia provides that a
violation of the Road Traffic Rules resulting in a minor health
disturbance of other persons, or a violation of the Road Traffic
Rules resulting in damage (lesser damage) to vehicles, freight
belonging to other persons, also a violation resulting in damage
(lesser damage) to roads and other road structures or other
property, if committed by a person who was inebriate (drunk) or
intoxicated from narcotic, psychotropic, or other mind-
influencing substances, shall incur, to the persons who do not
have the right to drive vehicles, a fine from LTL five thousand
to LTL five thousand five hundred with or without confiscation of
the vehicle, or an administrative arrest from ten to twenty days
with confiscation of the vehicle;
- Article 130-2 of the CAVL titled "Repeated Driving
Vehicles When the Drivers are Inebriate or Intoxicated from
Narcotic, Psychotropic, or Other Mind-influencing Substances"
(wording of 13 December 2007) inter alia provides that driving
vehicles when the drivers are inebriate or intoxicated form
narcotic, psychotropic, or other mind-influencing substances,
after the person was imposed an administrative penalty for
violations provided for in Paragraphs 1, 4, and 5 of Article 126,
Paragraph 3 of Article 127 and Article 129 of this code, shall
incur, to the persons who do not have the right to drive
vehicles, an administrative arrest from twenty to thirty days
with confiscation of the vehicle.
Paragraph 1 (wording of 3 July 2007) of Article 26 of the
CAVL titled "Confiscation of the Item Which Was the Tool or
Direct Object of Commission of the Administrative Violation of
Law and of the Receipts Received by the Commission of the
Administrative Violation of Law" of Article 26 of the CAVL was
correspondingly amendedit was provided for therein that the item
which was the tool of commission of the administrative violation
of law specified in Paragraph 3 of Article 127 and Article 130-2
of the CAVL can be confiscated. Article 224 (wording of 3 July
2007) of the CAVL was amended as wellit was provided for therein
that the district (city) local courts (judges of local courts)
shall inter alia consider cases of the administrative violations
of law provided for in Paragraph 3 of Article 127 and Article
130-2 of the CAVL.
5.3. Article 24 of the aforesaid law amended Paragraph 7
(wording of 29 January 2004) of Article 269 of the CAVL and set
it forth as follows:
"If the violations provided for in Article 124-1 (parking a
vehicle on a pavement, unless it is permitted by appropriate road
signs, parking on the lawn, pavement, pedestrian (bicycle) path,
stopping and parking a vehicle upon level crossings and within a
50-metre strip of road before and beyond them, within tunnels, on
and under bridges and viaducts, on and within 5 metres of
pedestrian crossings, and in other places where it obstructs the
vehicle or pedestrian traffic), Article 126 (driving vehicles
when the drivers are inebriate or intoxicated form narcotic,
psychotropic, or other mind-influencing substances), the Second
and Third Paragraphs of Article 127 (violation of the Road
Traffic Rules resulting in a minor health disturbance of other
persons), Article 128 (driving vehicles without the right to
drive them), Article 129 (driving vehicles when the drivers are
inebriate or intoxicated form narcotic, psychotropic, or other
mind-influencing substances and do not have the right to drive
vehicles), Article 130-2 (repeated driving vehicles when the
drivers are inebriate or intoxicated form narcotic, psychotropic,
or other mind-influencing substances and do not have the right to
drive vehicles) and Article 132-1 (failing to comply with the
procedure for parking vehicles in home zones and yards) of this
Code have been committed, if it obstructs the vehicle or
pedestrian traffic or otherwise violates the rights of other
persons, police officers shall have the right to tow away the
vehicle under procedure established by the Government of the
Republic of Lithuania or an institution authorised by it. It is
permitted to retrieve the towed-away vehicle (save the cases when
the vehicle is confiscated) only after paying the imposed fine or
serving the time of the administrative arrest."
5.4. If one compares the legal regulation established in
Paragraph 7 (wording of 29 January 2004) of Article 269 of the
CAVL with that established in Paragraph 7 (wording of 13 December
2007) of Article 269 of the CAVL, it needs to be noted that
Paragraph 7 (wording of 13 December 2007) of Article 269 of the
CAVL was supplemented with new legal regulation whereby "it is
permitted to retrieve the towed-away vehicle (save the cases when
the vehicle is confiscated) only after paying the imposed fine or
serving the time of the administrative arrest", which is disputed
by the petitioner at the constitutional justice at issue.
Thus, under Paragraph 7 (wording of 13 December 2007) of
Article 269 of the CAVL, the retrieval of the towed-away vehicle
is linked (save the cases when it is confiscated) with the
payment of the imposed fine or serving the time of the
administrative arrest.
Paragraph 7 (wording of 13 December 2007) of Article 269 of
the CAVL was also amended in the aspect that also the
administrative violations of law inter alia were specified
therein for commission of which, as mentioned, courts had the
right to impose the administrative penaltyconfiscation of the
vehicleupon the violator of law (Paragraph 3 of Article 127
(wording of 13 December 2007), Article 130-2 (wording of 13
December 2007), Paragraph 1 (wording of 13 December 2007) of
Article 26).
6. On 3 July 2008, the Seimas adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Amending and Supplementing Articles 21, 26, 27,
29, 41-4, 41-5, 44-2, 46-1, 50, 50-4, 50-7, 51-3, 56-1, 56-2, 64,
91-8, 111, 112, 112-1, 112-2, 119, 119-1, 119-2, 120, 121, 122,
122-1, 130, 136, 138, 138-1, 141, 143, 172-2, 188-10, 188-13,
207-7, 224, 225, 225-2, 227, 229, 233, 234, 237, 241-1, 242, 244,
259-1, 261, 262, 266, 269, 270, 281, 320 of the Code of
Administrative Violations of Law and Supplementing the Code with
Articles 41-11, 51-23, 84-2, 84-3, 84-4, 112-3, 112-4, 112-5,
112-6, 112-7, 112-8, 119-3, 188-18, which came into force (save
Article 9 thereof) on 17 July 2008.
6.1. Item 4 of the explanatory note of this draft law points
out that it is proposed that Paragraph 7 of Article 269 of the
CAVL be amended and to establish that "if the violations of Par.
1 of art. 130 of this code are committed, police officers have
the right to tow away the vehicle under procedure established by
the Government of the Republic of Lithuania or an institution
authorised by it. If this provision were legislatively
established, a condition would be created to more efficiently
implement a court ruling whereby confiscation of the vehicle is
ruled, while the person would not be able to continue performing
unlawful deeds by means of the tool of the violation after the
violation has been detected. Also, after a vehicle, which has
retired from the accident, is found, and when the driver thereof
is absent, it would be possible to efficiently secure safeguard
thereof and retain the evidence of the violation. In addition,
such persons would experience additional inconveniences and this
would induce them to follow the duties established in legal acts
".
6.2. The said law amended Paragraph 1 (wording of 13
December 2007) of Article 130 of the CAVL in the aspect that
inter alia the sanctionconfiscation of the vehiclewas provided
for commission of the administrative violations specified
therein. Paragraph 1 (wording of 3 July 2008) of Article 130 of
the CAVL inter alia provides that non-compliance with a
legitimate demand of a police officer in uniform to stop the
vehicle, as well as retirement from the place of a traffic
accident with which the driver is related because of violation of
the Road Traffic Rules, to persons who do not have the right to
drive vehicles, shall incur a fine from LTL four thousand to LTL
five thousand with confiscation of the vehicle, or without
confiscation thereof, or an administrative arrest from twenty to
thirty days together with confiscation of the vehicle or without
confiscation thereof.
Correspondingly Paragraph 1 (wording of 29 January 2008) of
Article 26 of the CAVL was amendedit was provided for therein
that the item which was the tool of commission of the
administrative violation of law specified in Paragraph 1 of
Article 130 of the CAVL can be confiscated. In addition, Article
224 (wording of 18 December 2007) of the CAVL was amended as
wellit was established therein that the district (city) local
courts (judges of local courts) shall inter alia consider cases
of the administrative violations of law provided for in Paragraph
1 of Article 130 of the CAVL.
6.3. Article 67 of the aforesaid law amended Paragraph 7
(wording 13 December 2007) of Article 269 of the CAVL and set it
forth as follows:
"If the violations provided for in Article 124-1 (parking a
vehicle on a pavement, unless it is permitted by appropriate road
signs, parking on the lawn, pavement, pedestrian (bicycle) path,
parking on a parking place where parking is permitted only to the
vehicles marked with the sign "Disabled", parking a vehicle upon
level crossings and within a 50-metre strip of road before and
beyond them, within tunnels, on and under bridges and viaducts,
on and within 5 metres of pedestrian crossings, and in other
places where it obstructs the vehicle or pedestrian traffic),
Article 126 (driving vehicles when the drivers are inebriate or
intoxicated form narcotic, psychotropic, or other mind-
influencing substances), the Second and Third Paragraphs of
Article 127 (violation of the Road Traffic Rules resulting in a
minor health disturbance of other persons), Article 128 (driving
vehicles without the right to drive them), Article 129 (driving
vehicles when the drivers are inebriate or intoxicated form
narcotic, psychotropic, or other mind-influencing substances and
do not have the right to drive vehicles), Paragraph 1 of Article
130 (non-compliance with a demand to stop the vehicle, or
retirement from the place of a traffic accident with which the
driver is related), Article 130-2 (repeated driving vehicles when
the drivers are inebriate or intoxicated form narcotic,
psychotropic, or other mind-influencing substances and do not
have the right to drive vehicles) and Article 132-1 (failing to
comply with the procedure for parking vehicles in home zones and
yards) of this Code have been committed, if it obstructs the
vehicle or pedestrian traffic or otherwise violates the rights of
other persons, police officers shall have the right to tow away
the vehicle under procedure established by the Government of the
Republic of Lithuania or an institution authorised by it. It is
permitted to retrieve the towed-away vehicle (save the cases when
the vehicle is confiscated) only after paying the imposed fine or
serving the time of the administrative arrest."
6.4. If one compares the disputed legal regulation
established in Paragraph 7 (wording of 13 December 2007) of
Article 269 of the CAVL with the disputed legal regulation
established in Paragraph 7 (wording of 3 July 2008) of Article
269 of the CAVL, it needs to be noted that Paragraph 7 (wording
of 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL was amended in the
aspect that it inter alia specified the administrative violations
of law for commission of which courts had the right to impose
inter alia the administrative penaltyconfiscation of the
vehicleupon the violators (Paragraph 1 (wording of 3 July 2008)
of Article 130 and Paragraph 1 (wording of 3 July 2008) of
Article 26).
It needs to be noted that if one compares the provision "It
is permitted to retrieve the towed-away vehicle (save the cases
when the vehicle is confiscated) only after paying the imposed
fine or serving the time of the administrative arrest" of
Paragraph 7 (wording of 13 December 2007) of Article 269 of the
CAVL with the provision "It is permitted to retrieve the towed-
away vehicle (save the cases when the vehicle is confiscated)
only after paying the imposed fine or serving the time of the
administrative arrest" of Paragraph 7 (wording of 3 July 2008) of
Article 269 of the CAVL, both of which are disputed by the
petitioner in the constitutional justice case at issue, one is to
draw a conclusion that the legal regulation entrenched in both
these provisions is virtually identical.
7. The provision of Paragraph 7 (wordings of 13 December
2007 and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL, which is
disputed by the petitioner, regulates the relations linked with
not returning of the towed-away vehicle within a certain time
period related with the fulfilment of an imposed administrative
penalty (a fine or an administrative arrest), i.e. the towed-away
vehicle is returned only after the person who committed the
violation of law pays the fine imposed on him or serves the time
of the administrative arrest.
Thus, the not returning of the towed-away vehicle within a
certain time period (i.e. until the imposed fine is paid or the
time of the administrative arrest is served) is to be assessed as
a measure to secure the execution of the said administrative
penalties. It needs to be noted that the time period of the not
returning of the towed-away vehicle encompasses inter alia the
time period within which the case of administrative violation of
law must be considered, the administrative penalty must be
imposed and executed.
The disputed provision of Paragraph 7 (wordings of 13
December 2007 and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL does
not provide for a possibility to return the towed-away vehicle
before the payment of the imposed fine or serving the time of the
administrative arrest also in cases when the person who committed
the violation of law is not the owner (rightful possessor) of the
towed-away vehicle.
8. The disputed provision "It is permitted to retrieve the
towed-away vehicle (save the cases when the vehicle is
confiscated) only after paying the imposed fine or serving the
time of the administrative arrest" of Paragraph 7 (wording of 13
December 2007) of Article 269 of the CAVL is designed to regulate
the relations linked with securing the payment of the imposed
fine or the service of the time of the administrative arrest.
This provision is not directly designed for regulation of the
relations linked with securing the execution of the imposed
administrative penaltyconfiscation of the vehiclehowever, in
cases when, in addition to the imposed administrative penaltya
fine or an administrative arrestalso another administrative
penaltyconfiscation of the vehicleis imposed, and such vehicle
is towed away, the prohibition to return such vehicle entrenched
in the disputed provision alongside secures the execution of the
administrative penaltyconfiscation of the vehicle.
9. The disputed provision "It is permitted to retrieve the
towed-away vehicle (save the cases when the vehicle is
confiscated) only after paying the imposed fine or serving the
time of the administrative arrest" of Paragraph 7 (wordings of 13
December 2007 and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL is to
be construed in the context of other provisions (which are not
disputed by the petitioner) of Paragraph 7 of Article 269 of the
CAVL, inter alia the provision which provides that if the
violations specified in this paragraph were committed, "<
> if it
obstructs the vehicle or pedestrian traffic or otherwise violates
the rights of other persons, police officers shall have the right
to tow away the vehicle under procedure established by the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania or an institution
authorised by it".
By means of such towing away of the vehicle one virtually
seeks to avoid the disturbance of the vehicle or pedestrian
traffic and to remove the negative consequence caused by the
violation of law (inter alia to avoid damage or loss of
property).
10. It needs to be noted that not in all cases when the
administrative violations of law specified in Paragraph 7
(wordings of 13 December 2007 and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of
the CAVL are committed the vehicle must be towed away and it is
permitted to retrieve the towed-away vehicle (save the cases when
the vehicle is confiscated) only after paying the imposed fine or
serving the time of the administrative arrest.
10.1. When the legal regulation entrenched in Paragraph 7
(wordings of 13 December 2007 and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of
the CAVL is assessed in the aspect disputed by the petitioner, it
needs to be noted that different legal consequences occur, due to
different legal situations, to the persons who commit the
violations of law specified in Paragraph 7 (wordings of 13
December 2007 and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL:
- the vehicle is not towed away if, due to such
administrative violation of law, the vehicle or pedestrian
traffic is not obstructed, or the rights of other persons are not
otherwise violated; in this case the right of the owner (rightful
possessor) of the vehicle to use the vehicle is not linked with
the fact whether the imposed fine was paid or the time of the
administrative arrest was served;
- the vehicle is not towed away, even if, due to such
administrative violation of law, the vehicle or pedestrian
traffic is obstructed, or the rights of other persons are
violated otherwise, however, the police officer, while following
the provision of Paragraph 7 (wordings of 13 December 2007 and 3
July 2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL, which grants him the right
to decide as regards the towing away the vehicle, and, while
assessing all the circumstances related with the committed
administrative violation of law, decides that the vehicle need
not be towed away; thus, in this case the right of the owner
(rightful possessor) of the vehicle to use the vehicle is not
linked with the fact whether the imposed fine was paid or the
time of the administrative arrest was served, as well;
- the vehicle is towed away, if, due to such administrative
violation of law, the vehicle or pedestrian traffic is
obstructed, or the rights of other persons are violated
otherwise, and the police officer, while following the provision
of Paragraph 7 (wordings of 13 December 2007 and 3 July 2008) of
Article 269 of the CAVL, which grants him the right to decide as
regards the towing away the vehicle, and, while assessing all the
circumstances related with the committed administrative violation
of law, decides that the vehicle must be towed away; only in this
case it will not be permitted to retrieve the towed-away vehicle
until the imposed fine is paid or the time of the administrative
arrest is served; thus, in this case the right of the owner
(rightful possessor) of the vehicle to use the vehicle is
restricted in the aspect that he will be able to use the vehicle
only after paying the imposed fine or serving the time of the
administrative arrest; it needs to be noted that in cases when in
addition to the said administrative penalties (a fine or
administrative arrest) also another administrative penalty
confiscation of the vehicleis imposed, such vehicle will not be
returned to the person regardless of whether the imposed fine is
paid or the time of the administrative arrest is served.
10.2. Thus, under Paragraph 7 (wordings of 13 December 2007
and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL, the vehicle is towed
away, if:
- a corresponding administrative violation of law provided
for in Paragraph 7 (wordings of 13 December 2007 and 3 July 2008)
of Article 269 of the CAVL has been committed and
- the vehicle obstruct the vehicle or pedestrian traffic or
otherwise violates the rights of other persons, and
- the police officer, having assessed all circumstances
linked with the commission of the administrative violation of
law, decides to tow away such vehicle.
10.3. One is to draw a conclusion that the appearance of
different legal consequences (inter alia the fact whether the
owner (rightful possessor) will have the right to use the
vehicle) to the persons who committed the administrative
violation of law specified in Paragraph 7 (wordings of 13
December 2007 and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL is,
first of all, to be linked with the fact whether upon the
corresponding administrative violation of law the vehicle
obstructs the vehicle and pedestrian traffic or otherwise
violates the rights of other persons, and whether the police
officers decide to tow away such vehicle.
11. The disputed provision of Paragraph 7 (wordings of 13
December 2007 and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL is to
be construed in the context of other articles (parts thereof) of
the CAVL and other laws.
12. Towing away of vehicles is provided for in Article 264
(wording of 18 December 2007, which came into force on 1 January
2008) of the CAVL.
Article 264 titled "Measures for Securing the Legal
Proceedings of Cases of Administrative Violations of Law"
(wording of 18 December 2007) provides:
"In cases directly established in laws of the Republic of
Lithuania, in attempt to put a stop to administrative violations
of law, to draw up protocols, to ensure that cases be considered
timely and fairly and decisions be implemented in legal cases of
administrative violations of law, an administrative detention,
frisk of a person, inspection of items, seizure of items and
documents, towing away of vehicles, blocking the wheels of a
vehicle by a special device or removal of the driver from driving
the vehicle and testing the driver in order to establish his
inebriety (drunkenness) or intoxication from narcotic or
psychotropic substances or medicines or from other intoxicating
substances, testing of persons, who are apprehended for
commission of administrative violations of law and suspected that
they are inebriate or intoxicated from narcotic or psychotropic
substances in order to establish the inebriation or intoxication,
stopping of a ship, inspection of a ship, apprehension of a ship,
shall be permissible.
For the purposes provided for in this article, the procedure
for administrative apprehension, frisk of a person, inspection of
items, seizure of items and documents, towing away of vehicles,
blocking the wheels of a vehicle by a special device or removal
of the driver from driving the vehicle and testing the driver in
order to establish his inebriety (drunkenness) or intoxication
from narcotic or psychotropic substances or medicines or from
other intoxicating substances, testing of persons, who are
apprehended for commission of administrative violations of law
and suspected that they are inebriate or intoxicated from
narcotic or psychotropic substances in order to establish the
inebriation or intoxication, stopping of a ship, inspection of a
ship, apprehension of a ship, shall be established by this Code
and other laws of the Republic of Lithuania."
Thus, the towing away of the vehicle is one of the measures
to secure the legal proceedings in cases of administrative
violations of law, the procedure of application of the legal
proceedings is established by the CAVL and other laws of the
Republic of Lithuania, the objectives of the towing away of
vehicles are inter alia prevention of administrative violations
of law and securing the execution of rulings adopted in cases of
administrative violations of law.
13. In this context one is to mention the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Road Traffic Safety (wording of 22 November
2007), Paragraph 1 of Article 1 titled "Purpose and Application
of the Law" of the said law provides that this law shall inter
alia establish obligations of the state and municipal
institutions and establishments in implementing the policy of
traffic safety, and the principal rights and obligations of
traffic participants, the persons responsible for road
supervision, police and customs officers, and other officers
performing check-ups.
13.1. Article 33 "Towing Away the Vehicle or Prohibition to
Drive" of the said law provides: the towed-away vehicle can be
moved to a parking lot of vehicles belonging to the economic
entity which, under procedure established in legal acts, enjoys
the right to engage in such economic-commercial activity, or
driving thereof is prohibited if the possessor of the vehicle,
while using it, threatens the health or life of other
participants of the traffic or of other persons, or obstructs
safe vehicle or pedestrian traffic and violates requirements of
the Road Traffic Rules approved by the Government or those of
other legal acts (Paragraph 1); the decision regarding the towing
away of the vehicle or prohibition to continue driving, provided
there are the grounds established in Paragraph 1 of this article,
can be adopted by officials of the police or of the State Road
Transport Inspectorate under the Ministry of Transport and
Communications (Paragraph 3); the police officers who adopted a
decision regarding towing away the vehicle, shall, under
procedure established in laws, inform the owner (possessor) of
the vehicle of the adopted decision regarding towing away the
vehicle (Paragraph 4); the procedure for towing away vehicles or
prohibition to drive shall be established by the Government or an
institution authorised by it (Paragraph 5); the expenses linked
with the towing away of the vehicle in the cases specified in
Paragraph 1 of this article and its safekeeping in the parking
lot, shall be reimbursed solidarily by the owner and the
possessor of the vehicle; the expenses must be reimbursed prior
to taking the vehicle back from the parking lot (Paragraph 6).
13.2. Article 2 of the Law on Road Traffic Safety (wording
of 22 November 2007) inter alia provides that the owner of a
vehicle shall mean a person to whom the vehicle belongs by right
of ownership (Paragraph 57); the possessor of the vehicle shall
mean a person who possesses and uses the vehicle on the grounds
of property, trust, rent, use or on other legitimate grounds
(Paragraph 61).
13.3. Summing up the said legal regulation entrenched in the
Law on Road Traffic Safety, one is to hold that a vehicle can be
towed away in the cases when the possessor of the vehicle, while
making use of the vehicle, commits corresponding violations of
law and threatens the health or life of other participants of the
traffic or of other persons, or obstructs safe vehicle or
pedestrian traffic. It also needs to be noted that the expenses
linked with the towing away of the vehicle and its safekeeping in
the parking lot shall be reimbursed by the owner and the
possessor of the vehicle solidarily.
14. As mentioned, under the legal regulation entrenched in
the disputed provision of Paragraph 7 (wordings of 13 December
2007 and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL, the retrieval
of the towed-way vehicle is linked with the execution of the
imposed administrative penalty (a fine, administrative arrest).
It was also mentioned that in the cases when the administrative
penaltyconfiscation of the vehicleis imposed for administrative
violations of law specified in Paragraph 7 (wordings of 13
December 2007 and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL, the
towed-away vehicle cannot be retrieved also in the case when the
imposed fine is paid and the time of the administrative arrest is
served.
14.1. It needs to be noted that, under Paragraph 4 (wording
of 13 December 2007) of Article 313 titled "The Terms and
Procedure of the Execution of the Decision on Imposing a Fine" of
the CAVL, the body (official), while taking account of the
financial condition of the person, who is being brought or who
has been brought to administrative liability, as well as of other
important circumstances, upon a written request of the person,
while taking account of the size of the fine in the course of
adoption of a decision in the case of administrative violation of
law and not later than forty days of the day of the adoption of
the decision, may arrange the payment of the fine in portions
within the period of up to two years.
Thus, when the legal regulation entrenched in Paragraph 7
(wordings of 13 December 2007 and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of
the CAVL is construed by relating it with the legal regulation
entrenched in Paragraph 4 (wording of 13 December 2007) of
Article 313 of the CAVL, it needs to be noted that also in the
cases when, under Article 313 of the CAVL, the payment of the
fine is arranged in portions within the period of up to two
years, it is allowed to retrieve the towed-away vehicle (save the
cases when it is confiscated) only after the payment of the
imposed fine is completed.
As mentioned, under Article 33 of the Law on Road Traffic
Safety (wording of 22 November 2007), the expenses linked with
the towing away of the vehicle and its safekeeping in the parking
lot shall be reimbursed by the owner and the possessor of the
vehicle solidarily.
14.2. Paragraph 1 (wording of 18 July 1994) of Article 29
titled "Administrative Arrest" of the CAVL provides that an
administrative arrest shall be established and imposed, for the
time of up to thirty days, only in exceptional cases for
administrative violations of law of individual types; the
administrative arrest shall be imposed by a court.
Article 338-1 titled "Conditional Postponement of the
Execution of the Administrative Arrest" (wording of 17 February
2000) of the CAVL provides: with regard to the person to whom the
administrative arrest is imposed or to whom the fine is exchanged
for an administrative arrest under procedure established in
Article 314 of this code, the district (city) local court (the
judge of the local court) can, with the consent of the violator,
postpone the execution of the administrative arrest from 1 to 12
months (Paragraph 1); while postponing the execution of the
imposed administrative arrest, the court orders that the violator
perform, free of charge, public work from 25 to 400 hours;
alongside, the court shall establish the time within which the
person must perform the public work free of charge (Paragraph 2);
if the person, with whose regard the execution of the
administrative arrest is postponed, has performed the public work
free of charge as ordered by the court within the time of the
postponement, the establishment within whose jurisdiction is the
performance of the said public work shall draw up a decision to
deem the time of the administrative arrest to be served
(Paragraph 3).
If a court imposed the penaltyan administrative arrestfor
the administrative violations provided for in Paragraph 7
(wordings of 13 December 2007 and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of
the CAVL, regardless of whether its execution is postponed or
not, the expenses related to the safekeeping of the vehicle at
the parking lot must be reimbursed for the whole time period
until the serving of the time of the administrative arrest or the
consideration that the administrative arrest has been served.
14.3. It needs to be noted that confiscation of the vehicle
is forceful and unpaid making thereof as state property; the
vehicle that was the tool of commission of administrative
violation of law may be confiscated; the vehicle that was the
tool of commission of administrative violation of law may be
confiscated regardless of whether it belongs to the violator of
law, or to another person by right of ownership (Paragraph 1 of
Article 26 (wordings of 13 December 2007, 29 January 2008 and 3
July 2008).
Item 1 (wording of 13 December 2007 and 3 July 2008) of
Article 320 of the CAVL provides that the decision to confiscate
the item which was the tool or direct object of commission of
administrative violation of law, as well as the receipts received
by means of the administrative violation of law, shall be
executed by bailiffs (inter alia after the violations of law
provided for in Paragraph 3 of Article 127, Paragraph 1 of
Article 130 and Article 130-2 of the CAVL were committed).
15. Summing up, one is to hold that the regulation "It is
permitted to retrieve the towed-away vehicle (save the cases when
the vehicle is confiscated) only after paying the imposed fine or
serving the time of the administrative arrest", which is disputed
by the petitioner, was entrenched in Paragraph 7 of Article 269
of the CAVL after the Seimas adopted the Law on Amending and
Supplementing Articles 21, 26, 27, 30-1, 32, 123, 124, 124-1,
124-2, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 130-2, 131, 134, 187, 224,
225, 259-1, 269, 281, 312, 313, 314, 315, 320, 326, 330 of the
Code of Administrative Violations of Law and Recognising Article
124-3 Thereof as No Longer Valid on 13 December 2007. When the
aforesaid 3 July 2008 law adopted by the Seimas amended Paragraph
7 (wording of 13 December 2007) of Article 269 of the CAVL, the
legal regulation disputed by the petitioner was not amended and
virtually remained identical.
The not returning of the towed-away vehicle within a certain
time period (i.e. until the imposed fine is paid or the time of
the administrative arrest is served) is to be assessed as a
measure, which secures the execution of the said administrative
penaltiesthe fine and the administrative arrest.
III
On the compliance of the provision "It is permitted to
retrieve the towed-away vehicle (save the cases when the vehicle
is confiscated) only after paying the imposed fine or serving the
time of the administrative arrest" of Paragraph 7 (wordings of 13
December 2007 and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL with
Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of the Constitution and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
1. It has been mentioned that, subsequent to the petitions
of the Supreme Administrative Court, the petitioner, in the
constitutional justice case at issue the Constitutional Court
will investigate whether:
- the provision "It is permitted to retrieve the towed-away
vehicle (save the cases when the vehicle is confiscated) only
after paying the imposed fine or serving the time of the
administrative arrest" of Paragraph 7 (wording of 13 December
2007) of Article 269 of the CAVL was not in conflict with
Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of the Constitution and with the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- the provision "It is permitted to retrieve the towed-away
vehicle (save the cases when the vehicle is confiscated) only
after paying the imposed fine or serving the time of the
administrative arrest" of Paragraph 7 (wording of 3 July 2008) of
Article 269 of the CAVL is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of
Article 109 of the Constitution and with the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law.
2. While deciding whether the provision "It is permitted to
retrieve the towed-away vehicle (save the cases when the vehicle
is confiscated) only after paying the imposed fine or serving the
time of the administrative arrest" of Paragraph 7 (wordings of 13
December 2007 and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL is/was
not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of the
Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law, one is to note that:
- while construing Article 109 of the Constitution (wherein
it is established that, in the Republic of Lithuania, justice
shall be administered only by courts (Paragraph 1), while
administering justice, the judge and courts shall be independent
(Paragraph 2), when considering cases, judges shall obey only the
law (Paragraph 3), the court shall adopt decisions in the name of
the Republic of Lithuania (Paragraph 4)), the Constitutional
Court has held more than once (inter alia in the rulings of 21
December 1999, 9 May 2006, 6 June 2006, 27 November 2006, and 24
October 2007) that, while administering justice, the courts are
to ensure the implementation of law expressed in the
Constitution, the laws and other legal acts, to guarantee the
rule of law and to protect human rights and freedoms. From
Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of the Constitution there appears a
duty of courts to consider cases justly and objectively, to adopt
reasoned and substantiated decisions (Constitutional Court
rulings of 15 May 2007 and 24 October 2007). The principle of
justice entrenched in the Constitution as well as the provision
that justice is administered solely by courts mean that the
constitutional value is not the adoption of a decision in court,
but rather the adoption of a just court decision; the
constitutional concept of justice implies not only a formal and
nominal justice administered by the court, not only an outward
appearance of justice administered by the court, but, most
importantly, such court decisions (other court final acts), which
by their content are not unjust; the justice administered only
formally by the court is not the justice which is consolidated in
and protected and defended by the Constitution (Constitutional
Court rulings of 21 September 2006, 24 October 2007 and 21
January 2008).
- the constitutional principles of justice and a state under
the rule of law also imply that the measures established by the
state for the violations of law must be proportionate (adequate)
to the violation of law and must comply with the lawful and
socially significant objectives sought and do not have to
restrain a person more than it is necessary in order to reach
these objectives; there must be a fair balance (proportionality)
between the objective sought to punish the violators of law and
to ensure the prevention of the violations of law and the
measures chosen for reaching this objective (Constitutional Court
rulings of 6 December 2000, 2 October 2001, 26 January 2004, 3
November 2005, 10 November 2005, 21 January 21, 15 March 2008,
and 17 September 2008); the measures established by the state for
violations of law must be necessary in a democratic society; in
the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it needs
to be noted that also such measures, which secure the
implementation of liability established by the law, are to be
attributed to the aforesaid measures;
- the Constitutional Court, while construing Article 23 of
the Constitution (wherein it is established that property shall
be inviolable (Paragraph 1), that the rights of ownership shall
be protected by laws (Paragraph 2), and that property may be
taken over only for the needs of society according to the
procedure established by law and shall be justly compensated for
(Paragraph 3)), has held that the provisions of Article 23 of the
Constitution, which constitute a whole, reveal the essence of the
protection of the rights of ownership (Constitutional Court
rulings of 27 May 2002 and 30 October 2008); Article 23 of the
Constitution enshrines the principle of inviolability of
property; under the Constitution, the owner has the right to
perform any actions in regard of his property, save those
prohibited by the law, as well as to use his property and
determine its future in any way, which does not violate the
rights and freedoms of other persons (Constitutional Court
rulings of 14 March 2006, 20 May 2008 and 30 October 2008);
- the Constitutional Court has held more than once that,
under the Constitution, the right of ownership is not absolute
also in the respect that it may be restricted by law in
connection with the nature of an object of property, deeds
committed against law and/or a need which is necessary for
society and which is constitutionally justified; the restriction
of the right of ownership is not impossible, however, in all
cases one must follow these conditions: the right of ownership is
restricted by law only; the restrictions are necessary in a
democratic society in attempt to protect the rights and freedoms
of other persons, the values entrenched in the Constitution and/
or constitutionally important objectives; one follows the
proportionality principle under which the measures provided for
in laws must be in line with the sought objectives which are
necessary to society and which are constitutionally justified.
3. In this context it needs to be noted that, on 2 October
2001, the Constitutional Court, having considered a
constitutional justice case, adopted the Ruling "On the
compliance of Paragraph 4 of Article 269 of the Republic of
Lithuania Code of Administrative Violations of Law with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania".
In the said constitutional justice case it was requested to
investigate if the provision of Paragraph 4 of Article 269 of the
Republic of Lithuania Code of Administrative Violations of Law
that in cases of decisions to impose a fine the driving licence
shall not be returned until the payment of the imposed fine was
in compliance with Paragraph 5 of Article 31 and Paragraph 1 of
Article 32 of the Constitution.
In its ruling of 2 October 2001, the Constitutional Court
held that the administrative measure of ensuring the legal
proceedings in legal cases established in the disputed provision
of Paragraph 4 of Article 269 of the CAVL is not line with the
principle of proportionality, thus with the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law as well.
The said Constitutional Court ruling inter alia held that in
the course of legislative establishment of liability and its
implementation, one must sustain a fair balance between the
interests of society and those of a person so as to evade
unreasonable restriction of the rights of the person. On the
basis of this principle, the rights of a person may be restricted
by laws to the extent only necessary for protection of public
interests, and there must be a reasonable relation between the
adopted measures and the sought legitimate and commonly important
objective. To attain this objective, such measures may be
established which would be sufficient and which would restrict
the rights of the person not more than it is necessary.
4. In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue one is to mention the position which was formulated in the
Constitutional Court Ruling "On the compliance of Part 1 of
Article 26 of the Republic of Lithuania Code of Administrative
Transgressions of Law with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania" of 8 April 1997 regarding the confiscation of an
administrative penaltyconfiscation of items which were the tool
of an administrative violation of law (contraband).
It was requested to investigate in the said constitutional
justice case whether the provision "Confiscation of the item
which was an instrument or immediate object of transgression of
administrative law shall be a coercive, gratuitous conversion of
this item into state property. Only the item which is property of
the transgressor shall be subject to confiscation with the
exception of the item which was either an immediate instrument or
an immediate object of administrative transgression of law
pertaining to legal cases of administrative transgressions of law
as provided for by Article 210 of this Code" of Paragraph 1
(wording of 23 April 1996) of Article 26 of the CAVL, whereby in
the cases of administrative violation of law of contraband the
items which were either an instrument or immediate object of
performing the said violation shall be subject to confiscation
irrespective of the fact whether these items belonged by right of
ownership to the violator or other persons who had temporarily
transferred the said item to the violator of law, was not in
conflict with Article 23 of the Constitution.
In its ruling of 8 April 1997, the Constitutional Court held
that the said provision of Paragraph 1 (wording of 23 April 1996)
of Article 26 of the CAVL was not in conflict with the
Constitution.
5. As mentioned the petitioner disputes the compliance of
the provision "It is permitted to retrieve the towed-away vehicle
(save the cases when the vehicle is confiscated) only after
paying the imposed fine or serving the time of the administrative
arrest" of Paragraph 7 (wording of 13 December 2007) of Article
269 of the CAVL with Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of the
Constitution and with the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law.
The provision of Paragraph 7 (wording of 13 December 2007)
of Article 269 of the CAVL, which is disputed by the petitioner,
is linked also with the right of police officers to tow away a
vehicle, if, due to the commission of the administrative
violation of law specified in Paragraph 7 (wording of 13 December
2007) of Article 269 of the CAVL, the vehicle or pedestrian
traffic is obstructed or the rights of other persons are violated
otherwise; in this case the right of the owner (rightful
possessor) of the vehicle to use it is restricted.
By means of such towing away of the vehicle one virtually
seeks to avoid the disturbance of the vehicle or pedestrian
traffic, to remove the negative consequences caused by the
violation of law or to prevent the appearance of such
consequences (inter alia to avoid damage or loss of property).
Thus, such measuretowing away of the vehicleis to be assessed
as proportionate and adequate to the objectives sought. It needs
to be noted that after the vehicle is towed away, a duty appears
to take the necessary measures in order that such vehicle be
protected inter alia from unlawful destruction, damage or loss.
It has also been mentioned that after the violation of law
specified in Paragraph 7 (wording of 13 December 2007) of Article
269 of the CAVL has been committed, in certain cases the vehicle
is not towed away:
- if, due to such administrative violation of law, the
vehicle or pedestrian traffic is not obstructed, or the rights of
other persons are not otherwise violated; in this case the right
of the owner (rightful possessor) of the vehicle to use the
vehicle is not linked with the fact whether the imposed fine was
paid or the time of the administrative arrest was served;
- even if, due to such administrative violation of law, the
vehicle or pedestrian traffic is obstructed, or the rights of
other persons are violated otherwise, however, the police
officer, while following the provision of Paragraph 7 (wordings
of 13 December 2007 and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL,
which grants him the right to decide as regards the towing away
the vehicle, and, while assessing all the circumstances related
with the committed administrative violation of law, decides that
the vehicle need not be towed away; thus, in this case the right
of the owner (rightful possessor) of the vehicle to use the
vehicle is not linked with the fact whether the imposed fine was
paid or the time of the administrative arrest was served, as
well.
6. As mentioned, the disputed provision "It is permitted to
retrieve the towed-away vehicle (save the cases when the vehicle
is confiscated) only after paying the imposed fine or serving the
time of the administrative arrest" of Paragraph 7 (wording of 13
December 2007) of Article 269 of the CAVL is designed to regulate
the relations linked with securing the payment of the imposed
fine or the serving the time of the administrative arrest. It was
also mentioned that although this provision is not directly
designed for regulation of the relations linked with securing the
execution of the imposed administrative penaltyconfiscation of
the vehiclehowever, in cases when, in addition to the imposed
administrative penaltya fine or an administrative arrestalso
another administrative penaltyconfiscation of the vehicleis
imposed, and such vehicle is towed away, the prohibition to
return such vehicle entrenched in the disputed provision
alongside secures the execution of the administrative penalty
confiscation of the vehicle.
6.1. Under the disputed provision of Paragraph 7 (wordings
of 13 December 2007 and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL,
when a fine or administrative arrest is imposed upon a person for
a corresponding committed administrative violation of law, it is
allowed to retrieve the towed-away vehicle only after the imposed
fine is paid or the time of the administrative arrest is served,
therefore, the not returning of the towed-away vehicle within a
certain time period (i.e. until the imposed fine is paid or the
time of the administrative arrest is served) is to be assessed as
a measure, which secures the execution of the said administrative
penaltiesthe fine and the administrative arrest. In this case,
by means of the not returning of the vehicle, one virtually
strives to secure not the safe vehicle or pedestrian traffic and
public order, but the execution of the said administrative
penaltiesthe fine and the administrative arrest.
6.2. In this context it needs to be noted that the not
returning of the towed-away vehicle within a certain time period
(i.e. until the imposed fine is paid or the time of the
administrative arrest is served) is to be assessed as a measure,
which secures the execution of the said administrative penalties.
It needs to be noted that the period of the not returning of the
towed-away vehicle encompasses inter alia the time period within
which the case of the commission of the administration of law
must be considered and the corresponding administrative penalty
must be imposed and executed.
7. While deciding whether the disputed provision of
Paragraph 7 (wording of 13 December 2007) of Article 269 of the
CAVL is not in conflict with the Constitution, it needs to be
noted that, as mentioned, under Paragraph 4 (wording of 13
December 2007) of Article 313 titled "The Terms and Procedure of
the Execution of the Decision on Imposing a Fine" of the CAVL,
the body (official), while taking account of the financial
condition of the person, who is being brought or who has been
brought to administrative liability, as well as of other
important circumstances, upon a written request of the person,
while taking account of the size of the fine in the course of
adoption a decision in the case of administrative violation of
law and not later than forty days of the day of the adoption of
the decision, may arrange the payment of the fine in portions
within the period of up to two years, meanwhile, under Paragraph
1 of Article 338-1 titled "Conditional Postponement of the
Execution of the Administrative Arrest" (wording of 17 February
2000) of the CAVL, with regard to the person to whom the
administrative arrest is imposed, with the consent of the
violator, the execution of the administrative arrest can be
postponed from 1 to 12 months. However, in these cases, too, the
return of the towed-away vehicle is directly linked with the
payment of the fine or serving the time of the administrative
arrest, i.e. such vehicle cannot be returned before the
completion of the payment of the imposed fine, the payment of
which was made to be done in portions, or the completion of
serving the time of the administrative arrest, the execution of
which was postponed, or the service of the time of the arrest the
execution whereof was postponed will be deemed to be completed.
7.1. It was also mentioned that, under Article 33 of the Law
on Road Traffic Safety (wording of 22 November 2007), which is
linked with the legal regulation entrenched in the disputed
provision of Paragraph 7 (wording of 13 December 2007) of Article
269 of the CAVL, the expenses related to the safekeeping of the
vehicle at the parking lot must be reimbursed for the whole time
period until the payment of the imposed fined or the service of
the time of the administrative arrest.
7.2. It needs to be noted that neither the disputed
provision of Paragraph 7 (wording of 13 December 2007) of Article
269 of the CAVL, nor other provisions of the CAVL provide for a
possibility to return the towed-away vehicle to the owner
(rightful possessor) prior to the payment of the imposed fine or
the service of the time of the imposed administrative arrest also
in the cases when the person who committed the violation of law
and upon whom the administrative penaltythe fine or
administrative arrestwas imposed is not the owner (rightful
possessor) of the towed-away vehicle.
8. It has been mentioned that the constitutional principles
of justice and a state under the rule of law imply that the
measures established by the state for the violations of law must
be proportionate (adequate) to the violation of law and must
comply with the lawful and universally significant objectives
sought and do not have to restrain a person more than it is
necessary in order to reach these objectives; there must be a
fair balance (proportionality) between the objective sought to
punish the violators of law and to ensure the prevention of the
violations of law and the measures chosen for reaching this
objective.
It was also mentioned that in the course of legislative
establishment of liability and its implementation, one must
sustain a fair balance between the interests of society and those
of a person so as to evade unreasonable restriction of the rights
of the person; on the basis of this principle, the rights of a
person may be restricted by laws to the extent only necessary for
protection of public interests, and there must be a reasonable
relation between the adopted measures and the sought legitimate
and commonly important objective; to attain this objective, such
measures may be established which would be sufficient and which
would restrict the rights of the person not more than it is
necessary.
It has been mentioned that the Supreme Administrative Court
of Lithuania, the petitioner, grounds its doubt regarding the
constitutionality of the disputed provision of Paragraph 7
(wording of 13 December 2007) of Article 269 of the CAVL on the
fact that the towing away of the vehicle and not returning
thereof until the imposed fine is paid or the time of the
administrative arrest is served restricts the rights of the owner
(rightful possessor) of the vehicle; after the vehicle is towed
away and is not returned, neither the owner, nor the rightful
possessor thereof may use the vehicle.
As mentioned, under the Constitution, the right of ownership
is not absolute also in the respect that it may be restricted by
law in connection with the nature of an object of property, deeds
committed against law and/or a need which is necessary for
society and which is constitutionally justified; the restriction
of the right of ownership is not impossible, however, in all
cases one must follow these conditions: the right of ownership is
restricted by law only; the restrictions are necessary in a
democratic society in attempt to protect the rights and freedoms
of other persons, the values entrenched in the Constitution and/
or constitutionally important objectives; one follows the
proportionality principle under which the measures provided for
in laws must be in line with the sought objectives which are
necessary to society and which are constitutionally justified.
9. It has been mentioned that by means of the disputed
regulation entrenched in the provision of Paragraph 7 (wording of
13 December 2007) of Article 269 of the CAVL one seeks to secure
the execution of the administrative penalty (the payment of the
imposed fine or the serving the time of the administrative
arrest).
The person, to whom the towed-away vehicle belongs by right
of ownership (or he is the rightful possessor thereof), may not
freely use it at his discretion until the payment of the imposed
fine or serving the time of administrative arrest, although by
means of such not returning of the towed-away vehicle one does
not seek to avoid the obstruction of the vehicle or pedestrian
traffic, to remove the negative consequences caused by the
violation of law or to prevent the appearance of such
consequences (inter alia to avoid the damage or loss of
property). It also needs to be noted that the owner (rightful
possessor) of the towed-away vehicle and the person who committed
the administrative violation of law due to which the vehicle was
towed away can be different persons, since also such situations
are possible when the person, who committed the administrative
violation of law due to which the vehicle was towed away, had
took possession of the vehicle unlawfully.
10. Thus, the legal regulation entrenched in Paragraph 7
(wording of 13 December 2007) of Article 269 of the CAVL is not
in line with the imperatives of inviolability and protection of
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution, and, in
addition, the said legal regulation deviates from the
constitutional principle of proportionalityone of the elements
of a state under the rule of law.
11. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that the provision "It is permitted to retrieve
the towed-away vehicle (save the cases when the vehicle is
confiscated) only after paying the imposed fine or serving the
time of the administrative arrest" of Paragraph 7 (wording of 13
December 2007) of Article 269 of the CAVL, to the extent that it
provided that it is permitted to retrieve the towed-away vehicle
only after paying the imposed fine or serving the time of the
administrative arrest, was in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of
Article 23 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle
of a state under the rule of law.
12. Having held that the provision "It is permitted to
retrieve the towed-away vehicle (save the cases when the vehicle
is confiscated) only after paying the imposed fine or serving the
time of the administrative arrest" of Paragraph 7 (wording of 13
December 2007) of Article 269 of the CAVL, to the extent that it
provided that it is permitted to retrieve a towed-away vehicle
only after paying the imposed fine or serving the time of the
administrative arrest, was in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of
Article 23 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle
of a state under the rule of law, the Constitutional Court will
not further investigate whether the disputed provision of
Paragraph 7 (wording of 13 December 2007) of Article 269 of the
CAVL was not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of the
Constitution.
14. Taking account of this and on the grounds of the
arguments which are analogous to those on the grounds of which
the Constitutional Court recognised in this ruling that the
provision "It is permitted to retrieve the towed-away vehicle
(save the cases when the vehicle is confiscated) only after
paying the imposed fine or serving the time of the administrative
arrest" of Paragraph 7 (wording of 13 December 2007) of Article
269 of the CAVL, to the extent that it provided that it is
permitted to retrieve a towed-away vehicle only after paying the
imposed fine or serving the time of the administrative arrest,
was in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the
Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law, one is to hold that the provision "It is
permitted to retrieve the towed-away vehicle (save the cases when
the vehicle is confiscated) only after paying the imposed fine or
serving the time of the administrative arrest" of Paragraph 7
(wording of 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL, to the
extent that it provided that it is permitted to retrieve a towed-
away vehicle only after paying the imposed fine or serving the
time of the administrative arrest, is in conflict with Paragraphs
1 and 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution and the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law.
15. Having held that the provision "It is permitted to
retrieve the towed-away vehicle (save the cases when the vehicle
is confiscated) only after paying the imposed fine or serving the
time of the administrative arrest" of Paragraph 7 (wording of 3
July 2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL, to the extent that it
provided that it is permitted to retrieve a towed-away vehicle
only after paying the imposed fine or serving the time of the
administrative arrest, is in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of
Article 23 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle
of a state under the rule of law, the Constitutional Court will
not further investigate whether the disputed provision of
Paragraph 7 (wording of 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL
is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of the
Constitution.
16. In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue, it also needs to be noted that, under the legal regulation
entrenched in Paragraph 7 (wordings of 13 December 2007 and 3
July 2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL, the vehicle may be towed
away also in the case when the administrative violations of law
are committed, the sanctions whereof provide confiscation of the
vehicle as one of the penalties (Article 127 (wording of 13
December 2007), Paragraph 1 (wording of 3 July 2008) of Article
130, and Article 130-2 (wording of 13 December 2007) of the
CAVL).
In this ruling it has been held that in the situations when
by means of towing away of the vehicle one seeks to avoid the
obstruction of the vehicle and pedestrian traffic, to remove the
negative consequences caused by the violation of law and to
prevent the appearance of such consequences (inter alia to avoid
the damage or loss of property), such measuretowing away of the
vehicleis to be assessed as proportionate and adequate to the
objectives sought.
It has also been held in this Constitutional Court ruling
that the provision "It is permitted to retrieve the towed-away
vehicle (save the cases when the vehicle is confiscated) only
after paying the imposed fine or serving the time of the
administrative arrest" of Paragraph 7 (wordings of 13 December
2007 and 3 July 2008) of Article 269 of the CAVL, to the extent
that it provided that it is permitted to retrieve a towed-away
vehicle only after paying the imposed fine or serving the time of
the administrative arrest, was/is in conflict with Paragraphs 1
and 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution and the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law.
It needs to be noted that after the legislator establishes
the administrative penaltyconfiscation of the vehiclefor
commission of corresponding administrative violations of law, one
must, while heeding the norms and principles of the Constitution,
consolidate the measures securing a possible confiscation of the
vehicle. For instance, the legislator can also establish the
legal regulation whereby upon commission of an administrative
violation of law for which confiscation of the vehicle can be
imposed, the towed-away vehicle may be not returned temporarily
until the consideration of the case of the administrative
violation of law is over.
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:
1. To recognise that the provision "It is permitted to
retrieve the towed-away vehicle (save the cases when the vehicle
is confiscated) only after paying the imposed fine or serving the
time of the administrative arrest" of Paragraph 7 (wording of 13
December 2007) (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2007, No. 138-
5641, correction in Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2008, No.
9) of Article 269 of the Code of Administrative Violations of Law
of the Republic of Lithuania, to the extent that it provided that
it is permitted to retrieve a towed-away vehicle only after
paying the imposed fine or serving the time of the administrative
arrest, was in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
2. To recognise that the provision "It is permitted to
retrieve the towed-away vehicle (save the cases when the vehicle
is confiscated) only after paying the imposed fine or serving the
time of the administrative arrest" of Paragraph 7 (wording of 3
July 2008) (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2008, No. 81-3181)
of Article 269 of the Code of Administrative Violations of Law of
the Republic of Lithuania, to the extent that it provided that it
is permitted to retrieve a towed-away vehicle only after paying
the imposed fine or serving the time of the administrative
arrest, is in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
This ruling of the Constitutional Court is final and not
subject to appeal.
The ruling is promulgated in the name of the Republic of
Lithuania.
Justices of the Constitutional Court: Armanas Abramavičius
Toma Birmontienė
Pranas Kuconis
Kęstutis Lapinskas
Egidijus Šileikis
Algirdas Taminskas
Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis