THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
DECISION
ON THE PETITION OF A GROUP OF MEMBERS OF THE SEIMAS OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, THE PETITIONER, REQUESTING
TO CONSTRUE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE RULING OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA OF 8
JUNE 2009
3 May 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, 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 of a group of Members of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting to construe
whether:
- the provision "<...> the guilt of the legal person is to
be linked to the guilt of the natural person who acts for the
benefit or in the interests of the legal person" of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 8 June 2009 means that in order to
establish the guilt of the legal person of the commission of a
criminal deed it is necessary and sufficient only to state the
guilt of the natural person who meets the features entrenched in
Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of
Lithuania or it is also necessary to additionally establish the
feature that the legal person received benefit from the criminal
deed committed by the natural person and recognised that benefit,
or the legal person was interested in the criminal deed of the
natural person and the consequences created by it;
- the provisions set forth in the Constitutional Court
ruling of 8 June 2009 are also applied to legal persons of
unlimited liability.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
1. In constitutional justice case No. 34/2008-36/2008-40/
2008-1/2009-4/2009-5/2009-6/2009-7/2009-9/2009-12/2009-13/2009-
14/2009-17/2009-18/2009-19/2009-20/2009-22/2009 of 8 June 2009,
the Constitutional Court adopted the Ruling "On the compliance of
Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 (wording of 26 September 2000) of Article
20, Paragraph 5 (wording of 5 July 2004) of Article 20, and
Paragraph 4 (wording of 26 September 2000) of Article 43 of the
Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania with the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania" (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios,
2009, No. 69-2798; hereinafter also referred to as the
Constitutional Court ruling of 8 June 2009).
2. By the Constitutional Court ruling of 8 June 2009 it was
recognised that Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 (wording of 26 September
2000) of Article 20, Paragraph 5 (wording of 5 July 2004) of
Article 20, and Paragraph 4 of Article 43 (wording of 26
September 2000) of the Criminal Code were not in conflict with
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
3. The group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner,
requests the Constitutional Court to construe whether:
- the provision "<...> the guilt of the legal person is to
be linked to the guilt of the natural person who acts for the
benefit or in the interests of the legal person" of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 8 June 2009 means that in order to
establish the guilt of the legal person of the commission of a
criminal deed it is necessary and sufficient only to state the
guilt of the natural person who meets the features entrenched in
Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the Criminal Code or it is also
necessary to additionally establish the feature that the legal
person received benefit from the criminal deed committed by the
natural person and recognised that benefit, or the legal person
was interested in the criminal deed of the natural person and the
consequences created by it;
- the provisions set forth in the Constitutional Court
ruling of 8 June 2009 are also applied to legal persons of
unlimited liability.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. The Constitutional Court has held more than once that,
under the Constitution, only the Constitutional Court enjoys the
powers to officially construe the Constitution; it is the
Constitutional Court that formulates the official constitutional
doctrine: the provisions of the Constitutionits norms and
principlesare construed in the acts of the Constitutional Court;
the official constitutional doctrine inter alia reveals the
content of various constitutional provisions, their
interrelations, the balance between the constitutional values,
and the essence of the constitutional legal regulation as a
single whole.
While deciding constitutional justice cases under
corresponding petitions of petitioners, the Constitutional Court
has the constitutional powers to annul the legal power of the
corresponding legal acts (parts thereof) if they are in conflict
with legal acts of higher power, inter alia (and, first of all)
with the Constitution. In order to be able to establish and adopt
a decision whether the investigated legal acts (parts thereof)
are not in conflict with legal acts of higher power, the
Constitutional Court has the constitutional powers to officially
construe the investigated legal acts and the said legal acts of
higher power; a different construction of the powers of the
Constitutional Court would deny the constitutional purpose of the
Constitutional Court itself (ruling of 6 June 2006).
2. The powers of the Constitutional Court to officially
construe its own rulings are entrenched in the Law on the
Constitutional Court (Article 61). The Constitutional Court has
held in its acts more than once that it enjoys powers to construe
its other final acts as well.
3. Paragraph 1 of Article 61 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court provides that a ruling of the Constitutional
Court may be officially construed by the Constitutional Court at
the request of the parties to the case, of other institutions or
persons to whom it was sent, or on its own initiative.
4. Under Article 31 of the Law on the Constitutional Court,
the following persons shall be considered parties to the case:
- the petitionerthe State institution, the group of Members
of the Seimas who are granted by law the right to apply to the
Constitutional Court with a petition to investigate the
compliance of a legal act with the Constitution or laws or to
present a conclusion, and their representatives;
- the party concernedthe State institution which has
adopted the legal act whose compliance with the Constitution and
laws is under investigation and its representative; the Member of
the Seimas or other state official, the compliance of whose
actions with the Constitution must be investigated due to
impeachment proceedings which have been instituted against them
in the Seimas, and his representative; the President of the
Republic, when a conclusion is presented concerning his state of
health, and his representative.
5. The petition to construe certain provisions of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 8 June 2009 was submitted by the
group of Members of the Seimas. It needs to be noted that the
composition of this group of the Members of the Seimas differs
from the composition of the group of Members of the Seimas that
was the petitioner of the constitutional justice case wherein the
Constitutional Court ruling of 8 June 2009 was adopted. In both
groups only 6 Members of the Seimas (Valentinas Bukauskas,
Kęstutis Daukšys, Loreta Graužinienė, Vydas Gedvilas, Saulius
Bucevičius, and Valentinas Mazuronis) coincide.
It needs to be noted that the representative of the group of
the Members of the Seimas which applied to the Constitutional
Court regarding the construction of certain provisions of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 8 June 2009 is the Member of the
Seimas V. Gedvilas who was one of the representatives of the
group of the Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, in the
constitutional justice case wherein the Constitutional Court
ruling of 8 June 2009 was adopted.
Taking account of the fact that the composition of the group
of the Members of the Seimas which applied to the Constitutional
Court regarding the construction of certain provisions of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 8 June 2009 and that of the group
of the Members of the Seimas that was the petitioner in the
constitutional justice case wherein the Constitutional Court
ruling of 8 June 2009 was adopted, do not coincide and, because
of this, the group of the Members of the Seimas which applied
regarding the construction of the provisions of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 8 June 2009 is not a party to the
case, the petition submitted to the Constitutional Court by this
group of the Members of the Seimas is to be treated as the
petition of the Member of the Seimas V. Gedvilas requesting to
construe certain provisions of the Constitutional Court ruling of
8 June 2009.
6. In its acts the Constitutional Court has held more than
once that the purpose of the institute of construction of
Constitutional Court rulings and other final acts is to reveal
the contents and meaning of corresponding provisions of a
Constitutional Court ruling or other final act more broadly and
in more detail, if it is necessary, in order to ensure proper
execution of that Constitutional Court ruling or other final act
so that this Constitutional Court ruling or other final act would
be followed.
7. The powers of the entities indicated in Article 61 of the
Law on the Constitutional Court to apply to the Constitutional
Court with a petition requesting to construe a Constitutional
Court ruling mean that the Constitutional Court must be requested
to construe the precisely indicated provisions of the
corresponding Constitutional Court ruling (Constitutional Court
decision of 14 March 2006).
8. Under Paragraph 3 of Article 61 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court must construe its
ruling without changing its content. The Constitutional Court has
held more than once that this provision of Paragraph 3 of Article
61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, among other things,
means that, while construing its ruling, the Constitutional Court
cannot construe its content so that the meaning of its
provisions, inter alia the notional entirety of the elements
constituting the content of the ruling, the arguments and reasons
upon which that Constitutional Court ruling is based, is changed,
also that the Constitutional Court may not construe what was not
investigated in that constitutional justice case subsequent to
which the construed ruling was adopted, either. The
Constitutional Court has held more than once that the
consideration of a petition requesting to construe a
Constitutional Court ruling or its other final act does not imply
a new constitutional justice case.
II
1. The Member of the Seimas V. Gedvilas, the petitioner,
inter alia requests to construe whether the provision "<...> the
guilt of the legal person is to be linked to the guilt of the
natural person who acts for the benefit or in the interests of
the legal person" of the Constitutional Court ruling of 8 June
2009 means that in order to establish the guilt of the legal
person of the commission of a criminal deed it is necessary and
sufficient only to state the guilt of the natural person who
meets the features entrenched in Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the
Criminal Code or it is also necessary to additionally establish
the feature that the legal person received benefit from the
criminal deed committed by the natural person and recognised that
benefit, or the legal person was interested in the criminal deed
of the natural person and the consequences created by it.
2. The provision of the Constitutional Court ruling of 8
June 2009, the construction of which is requested by the
petitioner, is part of the text of Item 6 of Chapter V of the
reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 8 June 2009,
wherein it is held:
"As it has already been held, the necessary condition of
criminal liability of the legal person according to Paragraphs 2
and 3 of Article 20 of the CC is the fact that the natural person
commits a criminal deed for the benefit or in the interests of
the legal person. It has also been held that this feature helps
to establish when a criminal deed committed by a natural person
may be assessed as a criminal deed of a legal person, i.e. when
from this deed the legal person has a specific benefit and when
he recognises that benefit or when the legal person is interested
in such deed and the consequences created by it.
The specificity of the legal person as the subject of a
criminal deed, i.e. the fact that he is an independent subject of
legal relations having legal capacity and capability, independent
name, and organisational integrity, that his property is
separated from the property of his participants, however, that he
is a participant of legal relations through the natural persons
who act on his behalf, also implies specificity of his guilt. The
guilt of the legal person is to be linked to the guilt of the
natural person who acts for the benefit or in the interests of
the legal person. Thus, by the legal regulation established in
Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 20 of the CC, one does not
create preconditions for the legal person's liability without
guilt."
3. The Member of the Seimas V. Gedvilas, the petitioner,
while requesting the Constitutional Court to construe the
provision "<...> the guilt of the legal person is to be linked to
the guilt of the natural person who acts for the benefit or in
the interests of the legal person" of Item 6 of Chapter V of the
reasoning part of the Constitutional Court ruling of 8 June 2009,
maintains that: "it remains not clear from the ruling as to when
the legal person is to be regarded guilty of the commission of a
criminal deed, (I) when the deed for the benefit or in the
interests of the legal person is committed by the corresponding
natural person who is recognised guilty of the commission of the
criminal deed, (II) or when the legal person has a specific
benefit from the criminal deed of the natural person and when the
legal person recognises that benefit, or when the legal person is
interested in such a deed and the consequences created by it,
(III) or when both aforesaid conditions exist."
4. It needs to be noted that the provision "<...> the guilt
of the legal person is to be linked to the guilt of the natural
person who acts for the benefit or in the interests of the legal
person" of Item 6 of Chapter V of the reasoning part of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 8 June 2009, the construction of
which is requested by the petitioner, was formulated while
deciding whether the legal regulation established in Paragraphs
1, 2 and 3 of Article 20 of the CC is not in conflict with
Paragraph 1 of Article 31 of the Constitution wherein it is
established that a person shall be presumed innocent until proved
guilty according to the procedure established by law and declared
guilty by an effective court judgement. The aforementioned
provision is derived from the construction of the legal
regulation which is established in Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of
Article 20 of the CC and is one of the arguments that
substantiate the conclusion that the legal regulation established
in Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 20 of the CC does not create
preconditions for the legal person's liability without guilt.
5. It has been mentioned that the Member of the Seimas V.
Gedvilas requests to construe the provision "<...> the guilt of
the legal person is to be linked to the guilt of the natural
person who acts for the benefit or in the interests of the legal
person" of the Constitutional Court ruling of 8 June 2009.
Although the petitioner requests to construe the provision of the
Constitutional Court ruling, however, it is clear from the
content of the petition that he requests to construe the legal
regulation established in Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the CC in
the aspect that was not investigated by the Constitutional Court
in its ruling, i.e. whether, while stating the guilt of the legal
person of the commission of a criminal deed, it is also necessary
to establish that the legal person received benefit from the
criminal deed committed by the natural person and recognised that
benefit, or the legal person was interested in the criminal deed
of the natural person and the consequences created by it. Such a
request virtually means that one requests to construe the
question of the application of the legal regulation established
in Article 20 of the CC.
It has also been mentioned that the Constitutional Court has
the constitutional powers to officially construe not only the
Constitution, but also the legal acts under investigation. It
needs to be noted that the Constitutional Court construes the
legal acts under investigation inasmuch as it is necessary to
establish and adopt a decision whether these acts (parts thereof)
are not in conflict with legal acts of higher power, inter alia
(and, first of all) the Constitution. Questions of application of
law are decided by a court which is considering a concrete case.
In the context of the decision at issue it needs to be mentioned
that the powers to construe and apply the provisions of the CC
that regulate criminal liability of the legal person belong to
courts of general jurisdiction when they consider concrete cases.
6. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the
Constitutional Court will not construe whether the provision
"<...> the guilt of the legal person is to be linked to the guilt
of the natural person who acts for the benefit or in the
interests of the legal person" of the Constitutional Court ruling
of 8 June 2009 means that in order to establish the guilt of the
legal person of the commission of a criminal deed it is necessary
and sufficient only to state the guilt of the natural person who
meets the features entrenched in Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the
Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania or it is also
necessary to additionally establish the feature that the legal
person received benefit from the criminal deed committed by the
natural person and recognised that benefit, or the legal person
was interested in the criminal deed of the natural person and the
consequences created by it.
7. In addition, in the petition of the Member of the Seimas
V. Gedvilas, the petitioner, it is requested to construe whether
the provisions of the Constitutional Court ruling of 8 June 2009
are also applied to legal persons of unlimited liability. It
needs to be noted that in this case the petitioner does not
indicate which concrete provisions of the said ruling he requests
to construe. Therefore, such a request of the petitioner is to be
treated as the request to construe the entire ruling in the
aspect as to whether it is also applied to legal persons of
unlimited liability.
8. As it has been mentioned, the powers of the entities
indicated in Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court to
apply to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting to
construe a Constitutional Court ruling mean that the
Constitutional Court must be requested to construe the precisely
indicated provisions of the corresponding Constitutional Court
ruling. The petitioner, while seeking to elucidate whether the
Constitutional Court ruling of 8 June 2009 is also applied to
legal persons of unlimited liability, did not indicate any
concrete provisions of the said ruling. On the other hand, as it
is noted by the petitioner himself, in the said ruling, the
Constitutional Court, "while analysing the questions of
application of criminal liability of legal persons, did not
discuss the compliance of Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the
Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania with Paragraph 5 of
Article 31 of the Constitution in the case of one of such forms
of personslegal persons of unlimited liability".
9. It has been mentioned that the Constitutional Court may
not construe what was not investigated in that constitutional
justice case subsequent to which the construed ruling was
adopted.
10. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the
Constitutional Court will not construe whether the provisions set
forth in the Constitutional Court ruling of 8 June 2009 are also
applied to legal persons of unlimited liability.
Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and Article 1 and 61 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has passed the
following
decision:
1. To refuse to construe whether the provision "<...> the
guilt of the legal person is to be linked to the guilt of the
natural person who acts for the benefit or in the interests of
the legal person" of the ruling of the Constitutional Court of
the Republic of Lithuania of 8 June 2009 means that in order to
establish the guilt of the legal person of the commission of a
criminal deed it is necessary and sufficient only to state the
guilt of the natural person who meets the features entrenched in
Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of
Lithuania or it is also necessary to additionally establish the
feature that the legal person received benefit from the criminal
deed committed by the natural person and recognised that benefit,
or the legal person was interested in the criminal deed of the
natural person and the consequences created by it.
2. To refuse to construe whether the provisions set forth in
the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania of 8 June 2009 are also applied to legal persons of
unlimited liability.
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
Ramutė Ruškytė
Egidijus Šileikis
Algirdas Taminskas
Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis