THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
DECISION
ON ACCEPTING THE PETITION OF A GROUP OF MEMBERS OF THE
SEIMAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, THE PETITIONER,
REQUESTING TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER PROVISIONS OF THE
REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON SCIENCE AND STUDIES
(WORDING OF 30 APRIL 2009) ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
19 March 2010
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 procedural sitting of the Constitutional Court
considered a petition (No. 1B-3/2010) of a group of Members of
the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner,
requesting to investigate whether the provision "The Lithuanian
policy on science and studies guarantees <...> conditions for the
best of them to conduct their research" of the Preamble, Item 6
of Paragraph 2 of Article 3, the provision "A state school of
higher education shall be a public legal person functioning as a
public establishment, possessing the autonomy guaranteed by the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and the special status
defined by this and other laws" of Paragraph 4 of Article 6, Item
2 of Paragraph 3 of Article 7, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 8,
Paragraph 3 of Article 9, Item 4 of Paragraph 1 and Item 2 of
Paragraph 2 of Article 11, Paragraph 2 of Article 17, Paragraphs
1 and 6 and Items 1, 4, and 8 of Paragraph 12 of Article 18,
Articles 19, 20, 21, 22, and 39, Paragraph 2 of Article 48,
Paragraph 4 of Article 53, Paragraph 3 of Article 66, Paragraph 2
of Article 69, Paragraphs 2, 5, 7, and 11 of Article 70,
Paragraph 4 of Article 76, Item 3 of Paragraph 2 of Article 86,
Paragraph 4 of Article 90, Paragraph 3 of Article 91, Paragraphs
2, 4, 6, and 8 of Article 93, Article 94, Paragraph 5 of Article
95, and Article 96 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Science
and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) are not in conflict with
certain articles of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
1. The petition of a group of Members of the Seimas, the
petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision "The
Lithuanian policy on science and studies guarantees <...>
conditions for the best of them to conduct their research" of the
Preamble, Item 6 of Paragraph 2 of Article 3, the provision "A
state school of higher education shall be a public legal person
functioning as a public establishment, possessing the autonomy
guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and
the special status defined by this and other laws" of Paragraph 4
of Article 6, Item 2 of Paragraph 3 of Article 7, Paragraphs 1
and 3 of Article 8, Paragraph 3 of Article 9, Item 4 of Paragraph
1 and Item 2 of Paragraph 2 of Article 11, Paragraph 2 of Article
17, Paragraphs 1 and 6 and Items 1, 4, and 8 of Paragraph 12 of
Article 18, Articles 19, 20, 21, 22, and 39, Paragraph 2 of
Article 48, Paragraph 4 of Article 53, Paragraph 3 of Article 66,
Paragraph 2 of Article 69, Paragraphs 2, 5, 7, and 11 of Article
70, Paragraph 4 of Article 76, Item 3 of Paragraph 2 of Article
86, Paragraph 4 of Article 90, Paragraph 3 of Article 91,
Paragraphs 2, 4, 6, and 8 of Article 93, Article 94, Paragraph 5
of Article 95, and Article 96 of the Law on Science and Studies
(wording of 30 April 2009) (hereinafter also referred to as the
Law) are not in conflict with certain articles of the
Constitution, was received at the Constitutional Court.
2. The petition of the petitioner is grounded on the
provisions of the official constitutional doctrine which construe
the autonomy and funding of schools of higher education as well
as the criteria enabling to establish which persons are to be
regarded as being good at their studies. In the opinion of the
petitioner, the most important provisions of the constitutional
doctrine which substantiate its petition are the following:
- according to the Constitution, the legislator, while not
denying the principle of autonomy of schools of higher education,
may establish by means of laws the bases of organisational and
governance structure of schools of higher education;
- governance institutions of schools of higher education
that perform the functions of self-governance of the school of
higher education are formed by the schools of higher education
themselves; the ways and procedure of forming such institutions
are established, according to the bases that are entrenched in
laws, by the schools of higher education in their regulations or
statutes;
- as a rule, these institutions of schools of higher
education are formed from members of their academic community;
aautonomy of schools of higher education implies the right of
schools of higher education to provide that not only members of
academic community of the particular school of higher education
could become members of such institution.
- representatives of the institutions of the executive power
of the state may be appointed to the institutions of schools of
higher education which perform functions of control and
supervision and the purpose of which is to ensure responsibility
and accountability of the school of higher education before
society; the legislator, while not denying the principle of
autonomy of schools of higher education, may establish, by means
of laws, the ways and procedure of forming such institutions;
- 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 (fields), which is established
by the state, providing their learning corresponds to the
criteria of good learning established by law;
- the criteria enabling to establish which students are good
at their studies and which would, consequently, as prescribed by
the Constitution, have the right that their education in state
higher schools be financed by the state, must be established only
by law;
- higher education tuition of citizens who are good at their
studies cannot be imposed on these persons themselves in whatever
form;
- 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 (fields), 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 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 (fields), 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;
- 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 are
good at their studies shall be guaranteed education free of
charge in state higher schools should not deny the striving for a
just and harmonious society enshrined in the Constitution;
- upon assessing the needs of society and the state and the
financial capabilities of the state, in cases when specialists of
particular areas (fields) 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.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. The group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, has
requested to investigate whether the provision "The Lithuanian
policy on science and studies guarantees <...> conditions for the
best of them to conduct their research" of the Preamble, Item 6
of Paragraph 2 of Article 3, the provision "A state school of
higher education shall be a public legal person functioning as a
public establishment, possessing the autonomy guaranteed by the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and the special status
defined by this and other laws" of Paragraph 4 of Article 6, Item
2 of Paragraph 3 of Article 7, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 8,
Paragraph 3 of Article 9, Item 4 of Paragraph 1 and Item 2 of
Paragraph 2 of Article 11, Paragraph 2 of Article 17, Paragraphs
1 and 6 and Items 1, 4, and 8 of Paragraph 12 of Article 18,
Articles 19, 20, 21, 22, and 39, Paragraph 2 of Article 48,
Paragraph 4 of Article 53, Paragraph 3 of Article 66, Paragraph 2
of Article 69, Paragraphs 2, 5, 7, and 11 of Article 70,
Paragraph 4 of Article 76, Item 3 of Paragraph 2 of Article 86,
Paragraph 4 of Article 90, Paragraph 3 of Article 91, Paragraphs
2, 4, 6, and 8 of Article 93, Article 94, Paragraph 5 of Article
95, and Article 96 of the Law are not in conflict with certain
articles of the Constitution.
The petition was submitted by the group of Members of the
Seimas. Under Paragraph 1 of Article 106 of the Constitution and
Item 1 of Article 65 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of
the Republic of Lithuania, a group of Members of the Seimas has
the right to apply to the Constitutional Court with a petition
requesting to investigate whether laws of the Republic of
Lithuania are not in conflict with the Constitution. Under
Paragraph 1 of Article 102 and Paragraph 1 of Article 105 of the
Constitution and Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 63 of the Law
on the Constitutional Court, this petition falls within the
jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.
2. Under Item 8 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Law on
the Constitutional Court, a petition for the investigation of the
compliance of a legal act with the Constitution, whereby one
applies to the Constitutional Court, must contain the position of
the petitioner concerning the compliance of an appropriate act
with the Constitution and legal support of such position
containing reference to laws.
While construing the said item of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court has held more than
once that "the position of the petitioner concerning the
compliance of a legal act (part thereof) with the Constitution
according to the content of the norms and/or the scope of
regulation must be indicated clearly and unambiguously, the
petition must contain the arguments and reasoning grounding the
doubt of the petitioner that the legal act (part thereof) is in
conflict with the Constitution. Thus, the petition requesting to
investigate the compliance of a legal act (part thereof) with the
Constitution according to the content of norms and/or the scope
of regulation must clearly indicate concrete articles (parts
thereof), items of the legal act the compliance of which with the
Constitution is doubtful from the petitioner's viewpoint, also
concrete provisionsnorms and/or principlesof the Constitution,
to which, in the opinion of the petitioner, the concretely
indicated articles or items of the disputed legal act contradict.
The petition requesting to investigate the compliance of a legal
act (part thereof) with the Constitution according to the content
of norms and/or the scope of regulation must also clearly
indicate the legal arguments grounding the doubt of the
petitioner as regards every concretely indicated article (part
thereof) or item of the disputed legal act (part thereof), the
compliance of which with the concretely indicated provisions of
the Constitution is doubtful to the petitioner. Otherwise, the
request to investigate the compliance of a legal act (part
thereof) with the Constitution according to the content of norms
and/or the scope of regulation must be considered to be not in
line with the requirements of Article 66 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court".
It also needs to be noted that if, in the petition, one does
not indicate concrete articles (parts thereof), items of the
legal act, the compliance of which with the Constitution is
doubtful to the petitioner, nor concrete provisionsnorms and/or
principlesof the Constitution to which, in the opinion of the
petitioner, the concretely indicated articles (parts thereof) or
items of the disputed legal act contradict according to the
content of the norms and/or scope of regulation, nor the legal
arguments grounding the doubt of the petitioner concerning each
concretely indicated article (part thereof) or item of the
disputed legal act (part thereof), the compliance of which with
the concretely indicated provisions of the Constitution according
to the content of norms and/or scope of regulation is doubtful to
the petitioner, and in case such a request was accepted at the
Constitutional Court and a case was commenced subsequent to it,
one would also restrict the rights of the party concerned, the
state institution that has passed the disputed legal act, since
it would be more difficult for the person concerned to present
explanations concerning the arguments of the petitioner and to
prepare for the judicial consideration (Constitutional Court
ruling of 16 April 2004).
3. The petitioner requests to investigate whether Item 6 of
Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Law, wherein it is established
that studies shall be grounded on the principle of fair
competition of higher education institutions and students, is not
in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the Constitution
and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of
law. The petitioner quotes the provisions of the constitutional
doctrine regarding the autonomy of schools of higher education
and the guarantee of free-of-charge education in state schools of
higher education, however, he does not substantiate in what way
the said provisions are related with the disputed legal
regulation, which is established in Item 6 of Paragraph 2 of
Article 3 of the Law, and why they are in conflict with Paragraph
3 of Article 41 of the Constitution and the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law.
4. The petitioner has doubts as to whether the provisions
"1. The supervisor of academic ethics and procedures (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Supervisor') shall be a state officer who
examines complaints and initiates investigation regarding the
violation of academic ethics and procedures. <...> 12. Upon
having examined the complaint or completed the investigation, the
Supervisor shall take a decision: 1) to inform institutions of
science and studies and the Ministry of Education and Science
about the persons who have violated the academic ethics and
procedures; <...> 4) to recommend to an employee to refuse
participating in an ongoing project of research and experimental
(social, cultural) development; <...> 8) to make public the cases
about the violation of academic ethics and procedures; <...>" of
Paragraph 1 and Items 1, 4, and 8 of Paragraph 12 of Article 18
of the Law are not in conflict with Paragraph 3 ("Schools of
higher education shall be granted autonomy") of Article 40 of the
Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law. While disputing the compliance of the aforesaid
provisions with the Constitution, the petitioner provides the
quotation from the Constitutional Court rulings: "Traditionally,
the autonomy of a school of higher education is conceived as the
right to independently determine and establish in the regulations
or statute its organisational and governance structure, its
relations with other partners, the procedure of research and
studies, academic syllabi, the procedure of students' enrolment,
to resolve other related questions, as well as that there are
certain spheres of activities, independent from the control of
the executive power" (Constitutional Court rulings of 27 June
1994, 14 January 2002, 5 February 2002, and 20 February 2008).
However, the petitioner does not substantiate in what way his
quoted provisions of the Constitutional Court rulings are related
with the legal regulation (disputed by the petitioner), which is
established in Paragraph 1 and Items 1, 4, and 8 of Paragraph 12
of Article 18 of the Law, and does not provide any legal
reasoning why the legal regulation, established in this law,
according to the petitioner, is in conflict with Paragraph 3 of
Article 40 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle
of a state under the rule of law.
5. The petitioner doubts whether the provision "A person of
the good repute, having a scientific degree and experience in
management shall be appointed to the office of the Supervisor" of
Paragraph 6 of Article 18 of the Law is not in conflict with the
provision "Citizens shall have the right to participate in the
governance of their State both directly and through their
democratically elected representatives as well as the right to
enter on equal terms in the State service of the Republic of
Lithuania" of Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Constitution, the
provision "Each human being may freely choose a job or business"
of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof and the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law.
The petitioner maintains that grounded requirements must be
set for persons willing to hold any office and does not see any
"grounded legal reasoning requiring a scientific degree and
experience in management" of candidates who seek to be admitted
to the office of the supervisor of academic ethics and
procedures. The petition of the petitioner presents no arguments
why the legal regulation, established by the disputed provision
of Paragraph 6 of Article 18 of the Law, according to the
petitioner, is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 33 and
Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. The
petitioner also does not substantiate why the disputed provision
of Paragraph 6 of Article 18 of the Law limits the constitutional
right of persons to enter on equal terms in the state service of
the Republic of Lithuania.
6. The petitioner also has doubts whether the provisions
"The term of office of the rector (director) shall be five years.
The same person may be elected rector (director) of the same
school of higher education for not more than two terms of office
in succession and not earlier than after the lapse of five years
since the end of the last term of office, if the last term of
office was consecutively second" of Paragraph 8 of Article 22 of
the Law are not in conflict with certain articles of the
Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under
the rule of law. In the opinion of the petitioner, the law must
set out grounded requirements for persons willing to hold certain
office, however, the petitioner does not provide any legal
reasoning why the disputed provision of Paragraph 8 of Article 22
of the Law is in conflict with Paragraph 3 ("Schools of higher
education shall be granted autonomy") of Article 40 of the
Constitution, the provision "Each human being may freely choose a
job or business" of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.
7. It has been mentioned that the petition requesting to
investigate the compliance of a legal act (part thereof) with the
Constitution must clearly indicate the legal reasoning grounding
the doubt of the petitioner as regards every concretely indicated
article (part thereof) or item of the disputed legal act (part
thereof), the compliance of which with the concretely indicated
provisions of the Constitution is doubtful to the petitioner.
It needs to be held that the petition of the group of
Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, to the extent that it
requests to investigate the compliance of Item 6 of Paragraph 2
of Article 3, Paragraphs 1 and 6 and Items 1, 4, and 8 of
Paragraph 12 of Article 18, and Paragraph 8 of Article 22 of the
Law with certain articles of the Constitution, is not in line
with the requirements of Article 66 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court.
If a petition (part thereof) fails to comply with the
requirements set forth in Article 66 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, under Article 70 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, such petition shall be returned to the
petitioner. The return of a petition shall not take away the
right to apply to the Constitutional Court according to the
common procedure after removal of the deficiencies thereof.
8. The petition of the group of Members of the Seimas, the
petitioner, to the extent that it requests to investigate whether
the provision "The Lithuanian policy on science and studies
guarantees <...> conditions for the best of them to conduct their
research" of the Preamble, the provision "A state school of
higher education shall be a public legal person functioning as a
public establishment, possessing the autonomy guaranteed by the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and the special status
defined by this and other laws" of Paragraph 4 of Article 6, Item
2 of Paragraph 3 of Article 7, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 8,
Paragraph 3 of Article 9, Item 4 of Paragraph 1 and Item 2 of
Paragraph 2 of Article 11, Paragraph 2 of Article 17, Articles
19, 20, 21, 22 (except Paragraph 8 of Article 22), and 39,
Paragraph 2 of Article 48, Paragraph 4 of Article 53, Paragraph 3
of Article 66, Paragraph 2 of Article 69, Paragraphs 2, 5, 7, and
11 of Article 70, Paragraph 4 of Article 76, Item 3 of Paragraph
2 of Article 86, Paragraph 4 of Article 90, Paragraph 3 of
Article 91, Paragraphs 2, 4, 6, and 8 of Article 93, Article 94,
Paragraph 5 of Article 95, and Article 96 of the Law are not in
conflict with certain articles of the Constitution, is grounded
on legal reasoning and is also virtually in line with the
requirements established in the Law on the Constitutional Court,
therefore, to this extent, the petition is to be accepted for the
consideration at the Constitutional Court.
9. The decision of the Constitutional Court on accepting the
petition neither approves of nor denies the arguments upon which
the group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, grounds its
position; when adopting such decision, the fact of essential
significance is whether the petition of the petitioner is
grounded on legal reasoning (Constitutional Court decisions of 15
December 2006, 8 January 2008, 8 October 2008, 3 April 2009, and
14 May 2009).
Conforming to Paragraph 1 of Article 102 of the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania, Paragraph 3 of Article 22 and
Articles 25, 28, 66, and 70 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:
1. To accept the petition of the group of Members of the
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting
to investigate whether:
- the provision "The Lithuanian policy on science and
studies guarantees <...> conditions for the best of them to
conduct their research" of the Preamble of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009)
is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 25, Paragraph 1 of
Article 42, Paragraph 1 of Article 46, and Paragraph 1 of Article
48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the
constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- the provision "A state school of higher education shall be
a public legal person functioning as a public establishment,
possessing the autonomy guaranteed by the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania, and the special status defined by this and
other laws" of Paragraph 4 of Article 6, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of
Article 8, Paragraph 3 of Article 9, Articles 19, 20, 21, and 22
(except Paragraph 8 of Article 22), Paragraph 4 of Article 53,
Item 3 of Paragraph 2 of Article 86, Paragraph 4 of Article 90,
and Paragraph 3 of Article 91 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) are not in
conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 40 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law;
- Item 2 of Paragraph 3 of Article 7 and Item 2 of Paragraph
2 of Article 11 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Science and
Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) are not in conflict with
Paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principles of a
state under the rule of law and that one of equality of persons;
- Item 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009)
is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 42, Paragraph 1 of
Article 46, and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law;
- Paragraph 2 of Article 17 of the Republic of Lithuania Law
on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) is not in
conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 33, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of
Article 35, and Paragraph 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law;
- Article 39 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Science and
Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) is not in conflict with
Paragraph 3 of Article 40 and Paragraph 1 of Article 42 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law;
- Paragraph 2 of Article 48 of the Republic of Lithuania Law
on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) is not in
conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 40, Paragraph 1 of
Article 42, and Paragraphs 3 and 7 of Article 43 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law;
- Paragraph 3 of Article 66 of the Republic of Lithuania Law
on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) is not in
conflict with Article 18, Paragraph 1 of Article 25, Paragraphs
1, 2, and 3 of Article 26, and Paragraphs 3 and 7 of Article 43
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;
- Paragraph 2 of Article 69 and Paragraph 4 of Article 76 of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on Science and Studies (wording of
30 April 2009) are not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 41
and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of
law;
- Paragraphs 2, 5, 7, and 11 of Article 70 of the Republic
of Lithuania Law on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April
2009) are not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law;
- Paragraphs 2, 4, 6, and 8 of Article 93 ("Implementation
of the Law"), Article 94 ("Entry into force and application of
the provisions of Chapter VII of the Law"), and Article 96 (
"Restructuring of state schools of higher education from
budgetary establishments into public establishments") of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Science and Studies (wording of 30
April 2009) are not in conflict with the constitutional
principles of a state under the rule of law, legitimate
expectations, legal certainty, and legal security, as well as
whether Paragraph 4 of Article 96 of this law is not in conflict
with Paragraph 3 of Article 40 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania;
- Paragraph 5 of Article 94 of the Republic of Lithuania Law
on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) is not in
conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 40 and Paragraph 3 of
Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and
the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- Paragraph 5 of Article 95 of the Republic of Lithuania Law
on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) is not in
conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a
state under the rule of law.
2. To return the petition of the group of Members of the
Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting
to investigate whether:
- Item 6 of Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009)
is not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law;
- Paragraph 1 and Items 1, 4, and 8 of Paragraph 12 of
Article 18 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Science and
Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) are not in conflict with
Paragraph 3 of Article 40 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the
rule of law;
- Paragraph 6 of Article 18 of the Republic of Lithuania Law
on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) is not in
conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 33 and Paragraph 1 of
Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and
the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
- Paragraph 8 of Article 22 of the Republic of Lithuania Law
on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) is not in
conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 40 and Paragraph 1 of
Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and
the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of 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