Case No. 16/03-17/03-18/03
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
DECISION
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROVISION OF THE RULING OF
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
"ON THE COMPLIANCE OF ARTICLE 1 OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA LAW ON AMENDING ARTICLE 7 OF THE LAW ON LAND
REFORM AND ARTICLE 7 (WORDING OF 5 NOVEMBER 2002) OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON LAND REFORM WITH THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA" OF 12 MAY
2006
2 July 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,
pursuant to Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional
Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its public hearing on 1
July 2010, considered the petition of Irena Degutienė, the
Speaker of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, requesting to
construe whether the provision "under the Constitution, such
legal regulation, whereby a person, who was granted a certain
state award, also receives certain material benefit on the
grounds of the fact that he has been awarded, is impermissible"
of the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania "On the compliance of Article 1 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Amending Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform and
Article 7 (wording of 5 November 2002) of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Land Reform with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania" of 12 May 2006 means that the
administrative procedures which, before the promulgation of the
ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
were initiated in pursuance of the procedure established in the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Land Reform (wording of 1 September
1991-3 July 2002) and Resolution of the Government of the
Republic of Lithuania No. 627 "On the Approval of the Procedure
for Granting Gratis as Ownership Lots of State Land for
Individual Construction to the Citizens of the Republic of
Lithuania Who Were Decorated with the Order of the Cross of Vytis
and the Cross of Vytis" of 22 May 2003, when, due to
procrastination and other reasons, the terms, established in
Article 7 (wording of 5 November 2002) of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Land Reform and the said Resolution of the
Government of the Republic of Lithuania No. 627 of 22 May 2003,
for adopting decisions regarding the transfer of land lots as
ownership to the awarded persons were violated, are subject to
the legal consequences of the ruling of the Constitutional Court
of the Republic of Lithuania of 12 May 2006.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
1. On 12 May 2006, in constitutional justice case No. 16/03-
17/03-18/03, the Constitutional Court adopted the Ruling "On the
compliance of Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Amending Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform and Article 7
(wording of 5 November 2002) of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Land Reform with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania"
(Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2006, No. 54-1965;
hereinafter referred to as the Constitutional Court ruling of 12
May 2006).
2. In the Constitutional Court ruling of 12 May 2006 it was
recognised that:
- Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Amending
Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform (Official Gazette Valstybės
žinios, 2002, No. 68-2763) is not in conflict with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;
- the provision "Land shall be granted gratis as ownership,
under the procedure set by the Government, to the following
citizens of the Republic of Lithuania: <...> 1) one land lot of
the size set by the Government, which is intended for individual
construction, to those who were decorated with the Order of the
Cross of Vytis and the Cross of Vytis, spouses (in the absence of
such, parents (adoptive parents) or children (adoptees)) of such
natural persons who lost their lives (or who are deceased) if
their requests to receive gratis a land lot as ownership were
submitted before the entry into force (on 3 July 2002) of the Law
on Amending Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform" of Article 7
(wording of 5 November 2002; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios,
2002, No. 112-4974) of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Land
Reform is in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 23 and
Paragraph 2 of Article 128 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania as well as the constitutional principle of a state
under the rule of law.
3. The Speaker of the Seimas, the petitioner, requests to
construe whether the provision "under the Constitution, such
legal regulation, whereby a person, who was granted a certain
state award, also receives certain material benefit on the
grounds of the fact that he has been awarded, is impermissible"
of the Constitutional Court ruling of 12 May 2006 means that the
administrative procedures which, before the promulgation of the
Constitutional Court ruling, were initiated in pursuance of the
procedure established in the Law on Land Reform (wording of 1
September 1991-3 July 2002) and Government Resolution No. 627 "On
the Approval of the Procedure for Granting Gratis as Ownership
Lots of State Land for Individual Construction to the Citizens of
the Republic of Lithuania Who Were Decorated with the Order of
the Cross of Vytis and the Cross of Vytis" of 22 May 2003, when,
due to procrastination and other reasons, the terms, established
in Article 7 (wording of 5 November 2002) of the Law on Land
Reform and the said Government resolution No. 627 of 22 May 2003,
for adopting decisions regarding the transfer of land lots as
ownership to the awarded persons were violated, are subject to
the legal consequences of the Constitutional Court ruling of 12
May 2006.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. The powers of the Constitutional Court to officially
construe its own rulings are entrenched in the Law on the
Constitutional Court (Article 61). The Constitutional Court has
held in its acts more than once that it enjoys the powers to
construe its other final acts as well.
2. Paragraph 1 of Article 61 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court provides that a ruling of the Constitutional
Court may be officially construed by the Constitutional Court at
the request of the parties to the case, of other institutions or
persons to whom it was sent, or on its own initiative. Under
Paragraph 2 of Article 60 of the Law on the Constitutional Court,
the President of the Constitutional Court may order that a
Constitutional Court ruling be sent to other institutions,
officials, or citizens. Under Order of the President of the
Constitutional Court No. 4B-10 "On Sending Final Acts of the
Constitutional Court" of 29 March 2004, final acts of the
Constitutional Court are sent inter alia to the Speaker of the
Seimas. Thus, under Paragraph 1 of Article 61 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, the Speaker of the Seimas has the right to
apply to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting to
construe a Constitutional Court ruling.
3. A decision concerning construction of a Constitutional
Court ruling shall be adopted at a Constitutional Court sitting
as a separate document (Paragraph 2 of Article 61 of the Law on
the Constitutional Court).
4. In its acts the Constitutional Court has held more than
once that the purpose of the institute of construction of
Constitutional Court rulings and other final acts is to disclose
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.
5. The Constitutional Court has held more than once that a
ruling of the Constitutional Court is integral; the operative
(resolving) part of a ruling of the Constitutional Court is based
upon the arguments of the reasoning part; while construing its
ruling, the Constitutional Court is bound both by the content of
the part of resolution and that of reasoning of its ruling; the
decision adopted concerning construction of a Constitutional
Court ruling is inseparable from the Constitutional Court ruling.
6. Under Paragraph 3 of Article 61 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court must construe its
ruling without changing its content.
The Constitutional Court has held more than once that this
provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 61 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, among other things, means that, while
construing its ruling, the Constitutional Court cannot construe
its content so that the meaning of its provisions, inter alia the
notional entirety of the elements constituting the content of the
ruling, the arguments and reasons upon which that Constitutional
Court ruling is based, is changed, also that the Constitutional
Court may not construe what was not investigated in that
constitutional justice case, subsequent to which the construed
ruling was adopted, either. The Constitutional Court has held
more than once that the consideration of a petition requesting to
construe a Constitutional Court ruling or its other final act
does not imply a new constitutional justice case.
It has also been held in the jurisprudence of the
Constitutional Court more than once that the formula "shall be
final and not subject to appeal" of Paragraph 2 of Article 107 of
the Constitution, which provides that the decisions of the
Constitutional Court on issues ascribed to its competence by the
Constitution shall be final and not subject to appeal, also means
that the Constitutional Court rulings, conclusions and decisions
by which a constitutional justice case is finished, i.e. final
acts of the Constitutional Court, are obligatory to all state
institutions, courts, all enterprises, establishments and
organisations, as well as officials and citizens, including the
Constitutional Court itself: final acts of the Constitutional
Court are obligatory to the Constitutional Court itself, they
restrict the Constitutional Court in the aspect that it may not
change them or review them if there are no constitutional grounds
for that (Constitutional Court ruling of 28 March 2006 and
decisions of 21 November 2006, 6 December 2007, 1 February 2008,
18 December 2009 and 20 April 2010).
Therefore, in the official construction (subsequent to a
petition of the parties to the case, other institutions and
individuals, to whom the Constitutional Court ruling was sent,
also on the initiative of the Constitutional Court itself) of
rulings and other final acts of the Constitutional Court, the
official constitutional doctrine is not corrected. The correction
of the official constitutional doctrine (which, undoubtedly, must
always have a constitutional basis and be explicitly reasoned in
a respective act of the Constitutional Court) is to be related
with the consideration of new constitutional justice cases and
creation of new Constitutional Court precedents therein, but not
with the official construction of provisions of the
Constitutional Court rulings and other final acts (Constitutional
Court decisions of 6 December 2007, 1 February 2008, 4 July 2008,
15 January 2009, 15 May 2009, 28 October 2009, 6 November 2009
and 18 December 2009).
7. It is also to be noted that the uniformity and continuity
of the official constitutional doctrine implies a necessity to
construe each provision of a Constitutional Court ruling or its
other final act that is being construed by taking account of the
entire official constitutional doctrinal context, also of other
provisions (explicit and implicit) of the Constitution, which are
related with the provision (provisions) of the Constitution in
the course of the construction of which in a Constitutional Court
ruling or its other final act the corresponding official
constitutional doctrine was formulated. As the Constitutional
Court has held more than once, no official constitutional
doctrinal provision of a Constitutional Court ruling or its other
final act may be construed in isolation, by ignoring its meaning
and systemic links with the other official constitutional
doctrinal provisions set forth in that Constitutional Court
ruling or its other final act, in other Constitutional Court
acts, as well as with other provisions (explicit and implicit) of
the Constitution (Constitutional Court decisions of 4 July 2008,
15 January 2009, 15 May 2009, 28 October 2009, 6 November 2009,
18 December 2009 and 20 April 2010).
II
1. The Constitutional Court ruling of 12 May 2006,
construction of the provision whereof is requested by the Speaker
of the Seimas, the petitioner, involved the investigation into:
- the compliance of Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania
Law on Amending Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform, whereby Item
1 (wording of 2 July 1997) of Article 7 of the Law on Land
Reform, under which one land lot of the size set by the
Government, which is intended for individual construction, was
granted gratis as ownership, under the procedure set by the
Government, to the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania who were
decorated with the Order of the Cross of Vytis and the Cross of
Vytis, spouses (in the absence of such, parents (adoptive
parents) or children (adoptees)) of such persons who lost their
lives (or who are deceased), upon their request, was recognised
as no longer valid, with the Constitution;
- the compliance of the provision "Land shall be granted
gratis as ownership, under the procedure set by the Government,
to the following citizens of the Republic of Lithuania: <...> 1)
one land lot of the size set by the Government, which is intended
for individual construction, to those who were decorated with the
Order of the Cross of Vytis and the Cross of Vytis, spouses (in
the absence of such, parents (adoptive parents) or children
(adoptees)) of such persons who lost their lives (or who are
deceased) if their requests to receive gratis a land lot as
ownership were submitted before the entry into force (on 3 July
2002) of the Law on Amending Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform"
of Item 1 (wording of 5 November 2002) of Article 7 of the Law on
Land Reform with the Constitution.
2. As it has been mentioned, the Speaker of the Seimas, the
petitioner, requests that the Constitutional Court construe
whether the provision "under the Constitution, such legal
regulation, whereby a person, who was granted a certain state
award, also receives certain material benefit on the grounds of
the fact that he has been awarded, is impermissible" of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 12 May 2006 means that the
administrative procedures which, before the promulgation of the
Constitutional Court ruling, were initiated in pursuance of the
procedure established in the Law on Land Reform (wording of 1
September 1991-3 July 2002) and Government Resolution No. 627 "On
the Approval of the Procedure for Granting Gratis as Ownership
Lots of State Land for Individual Construction to the Citizens of
the Republic of Lithuania Who Were Decorated with the Order of
the Cross of Vytis and the Cross of Vytis" of 22 May 2003, when,
due to procrastination and other reasons, the terms, established
in Article 7 (wording of 5 November 2002) of the Law on Land
Reform and the said Government resolution No. 627 of 22 May 2003,
for adopting decisions regarding the transfer of land lots as
ownership to the awarded persons were violated, are subject to
the legal consequences of the Constitutional Court ruling of 12
May 2006.
3. It needs to be emphasised that the Constitutional Court
ruling of 12 May 2006 did not involve investigation regarding
Government Resolution No. 627 "On the Approval of the Procedure
for Granting Gratis as Ownership Lots of State Land for
Individual Construction to the Citizens of the Republic of
Lithuania Who Were Decorated with the Order of the Cross of Vytis
and the Cross of Vytis" of 22 May 2003, indicated in the petition
of the Speaker of the Seimas, the petitioner, nor inter alia
regarding the terms for adopting decisions concerning the
transfer of land lots as ownership to the awarded persons or the
administrative procedures provided for in this resolution.
4. It has been mentioned that, while construing its ruling,
the Constitutional Court may not 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.
It has also been mentioned 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.
5. In the petition of the Speaker of the Seimas, the
petitioner, inter alia it is indicated that the provision "under
the Constitution, such legal regulation, whereby a person, who
was granted a certain state award, also receives certain material
benefit on the grounds of the fact that he has been awarded, is
impermissible" of the Constitutional Court ruling of 12 May 2006
is being requested to be construed "by assessing the reasonable
and legitimate expectations of the persons decorated with the
Order of the Cross of Vytis or the Cross of Vytis, who, before 3
July 2002, submitted their requests regarding the implementation
of the right established in Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 7
(wording of 1 September 1991-3 July 2002) of the Law on Land
Reform, that the state will carry out the undertaken obligations
".
6. Thus, the request of the Speaker of the Seimas, the
petitioner, is to be treated as the request to construe whether
the provision "under the Constitution, such legal regulation,
whereby a person, who was granted a certain state award, also
receives certain material benefit on the grounds of the fact that
he has been awarded, is impermissible" of the Constitutional
Court Ruling "On the compliance of Article 1 of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Amending Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform and
Article 7 (wording of 5 November 2002) of the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Land Reform with the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania" of 12 May 2006 means that the persons
decorated with the Order of the Cross of Vytis and the Cross of
Vytis, spouses (in the absence of such, parents (adoptive
parents) or children (adoptees)) of such natural persons who lost
their lives (or who are deceased), who, before 3 July 2002,
submitted their requests regarding the implementation of the
right to receive gratis one land lot for individual construction,
which is entrenched in Article 7 (wording 5 November 2002) of the
Law on Land Reform, after the entry into force of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 12 May 2006, have a legitimate
expectation that the said right, which due to certain reasons had
not been implemented under the established procedure until the
aforesaid Constitutional Court ruling went into force, still may
be implemented by granting gratis one land lot for individual
construction.
III
1. While construing the aforementioned provision of the
Constitutional Court ruling of 12 May 2006, the following other
doctrinal provisions formulated in this ruling are to be noted:
- a state award is a sign of state estimation towards a
person, therefore, it should not be related to provision of
material, financial or other benefits of any kind (with an
exception, of course, of the order, medal, etc. itself), let
alone provision of privileges to the awarded person. The
Constitution does not imply that a person who was granted a state
award of any kind could expect, let alone demand, any additional
material, financial or other benefits, privileges, etc. only
because he has been granted the award;
- the constitutional institute of state awards is not
identical to other constitutional institutes, inter alia, those
related to provision of support, care, maintenance, material,
financial or other benefits provided for in the Constitution
(thus, grounded constitutionally and not regarded as privileges)
to various persons;
- if a person meets the requirements set by the law and
there are grounds provided for by the law, the material and
financial support, the provision of other material and financial
benefits by the state to the person can be related to the same
acts (activity) which earned the person a certain state award.
However, it should be stressed that in itself the sole fact that
the person was granted a state award should not serve as grounds
to allocate him state material and financial support, other
material and financial benefits, etc. If such legal regulation
were established, it would be assessed as one deviating from
Paragraph 2 of Article 32 of the Constitution, according to which
the rights of ownership (national and municipal included) are
protected by law, and if Paragraph 2 of Article 23 of the
Constitution is construed in connection with the provision of
Paragraph 2 of Article 128 of the Constitution that the procedure
for the possession, use and disposal of state property is
established by law, it would also be assessed as one deviating
from Paragraph 2 of Article 128 of the Constitution, as well as
from the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of
law and the constitutional concept of state awards.
2. It also needs to be noted that in its ruling of 12 May
2006, while investigating the provision "Land shall be granted
gratis as ownership, under the procedure set by the Government,
to the following citizens of the Republic of Lithuania: <...> 1)
one land lot of the size set by the Government, which is intended
for individual construction, to those who were decorated with the
Order of the Cross of Vytis and the Cross of Vytis, spouses (in
the absence of such, parents (adoptive parents) or children
(adoptees)) of such natural persons who lost their lives (or who
are deceased) if their requests to receive gratis a land lot as
ownership were submitted before the entry into force (on 3 July
2002) of the Law on Amending Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform"
of Article 7 (wording of 5 November 2002) of the Law on Land
Reform, the Constitutional Court held that:
- this provision was established by the law already after
the Law on Amending Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform had come
into force, by Article 1 whereof the unconstitutional legal
regulation established in Article 7 (Item 1 thereof) (wording of
2 July 1997) of the Law on Land Reform, whereby landone land lot
of the size set by the Government, which is intended for
individual constructionunder the procedure set by the
Government, must be granted gratis as ownership to the citizens
of the Republic of Lithuania who were decorated with the Order of
the Cross of Vytis and the Cross of Vytis, spouses (in the
absence of such, parents (adoptive parents) or children
(adoptees)) of such persons who lost their lives (or who are
deceased), upon their request, had been recognised as no longer
valid;
- by this provision the legal regulation, whereby landone
land lot of the size set by the Government, which is intended for
individual constructionunder the procedure set by the
Government, must be granted gratis as ownership to the citizens
of the Republic of Lithuania who were decorated with the Order of
the Cross of Vytis and the Cross of Vytis, spouses (in the
absence of such, parents (adoptive parents) or children
(adoptees)) of such natural persons who lost their lives (or who
are deceased), was reintroduced (in a certain narrower scope)
into the legal system, by establishing the condition that
requests of the said persons had to be submitted prior to 3 July
2002, i.e. before the Law on Amending Article 7 of the Law on
Land Reform came into force;
- the legislator re-established such legal regulation where
during a certain period of time certain persons (their spouses,
parents (adoptive parents), children (adoptees)) had to be
granted gratis land lots precisely because they had been
decorated with the Order of the Cross of Vytis and the Cross of
Vytis.
3. It needs to be noted that the Constitutional Court, by
invoking inter alia the doctrinal provision (the construction of
which is being requested) that, under the Constitution, such
legal regulation, whereby a person, who was granted a certain
state award, also receives certain material benefit on the
grounds of the fact that he has been awarded, is impermissible,
held that Item 1 (wording of 2 July 1997) of Article 7 of the Law
on Land Reform, under which landone land lot of the size set by
the Government, which is intended for individual construction
under the procedure set by the Government, was granted gratis as
ownership to the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania who were
decorated with the Order of the Cross of Vytis and the Cross of
Vytis, spouses (in the absence of such, parents (adoptive
parents) or children (adoptees)) of such persons who lost their
lives (or who are deceased), upon their request, was not in line
with the constitutional concept of state awards entrenched in the
Constitution, the imperative of social harmony and the provisions
of Paragraph 2 of Article 23 and Paragraph 2 of Article 128 of
the Constitution.
4. It has been mentioned that provisions of a Constitutional
Court ruling must be construed by taking account of the entire
official constitutional doctrinal context, also of other
provisions (explicit and implicit) of the Constitution, which are
related with the provision (provisions) of the Constitution in
the course of construction of which in a Constitutional Court
ruling or its other final act the corresponding official
constitutional doctrine was formulated; no official
constitutional doctrinal provision of a Constitutional Court
ruling may be construed in isolation, by ignoring its meaning and
systemic links with the other official constitutional doctrinal
provisions, as well as with other provisions of the Constitution.
5. The Constitutional Court has held more than once that an
inseparable element of the principle of a state under the rule of
law inter alia is the protection of legitimate expectations.
The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
implies a duty of the state as well as institutions implementing
state power and other state institutions to observe the
obligations undertaken by the state. This principle also means
the protection of acquired rights (Constitutional Court rulings
of inter alia 24 December 2008, 2 September 2009 and 3 February
2010).
5.1. Thus, under the official constitutional doctrine, one
of the elements of the principle of the protection of legitimate
expectations is the protection of rights which are acquired under
laws and other legal acts.
On the one hand, under the Constitution, those expectations
of the person in relationships with the state are protected and
defended, which arise from the Constitution itself or from the
laws and other legal acts that are not in conflict with the
Constitution.
On the other hand, as the Constitutional Court has held more
than once, the imperative of the balance of constitutional
values, the constitutional requirements of legal certainty and
legal security, the protection of acquired rights, which is
enshrined in the Constitution, and the presumption of
constitutionality and legitimacy of legal acts pre-determines
inter alia the fact that the Constitution generally does not
prevent from protecting and defending in certain special cases
also such acquired rights of the person arising from the legal
acts recognised later as being in conflict with the Constitution
(substatutory legal actsas being in conflict with the
Constitution and/or the laws), which, if not defended or
protected, would result in greater harm to the person, other
persons, society or the state, than the harm inflicted in case of
total or partial defence or protection of the said rights
(Constitutional Court rulings of inter alia 13 December 2004, 20
February 2008, 24 December 2008 and 2 September 2009).
5.2. The Constitutional Court has also held that there may
be such factual situations where the person who meets the
conditions established in legal acts, under the said legal acts,
acquires particular rights and, therefore, gains expectations
which can be considered by this person to be reasonably
legitimate during the period of the validity of the said legal
acts, therefore, he can reasonably expect that, if he obeys law
and fulfils the requirements of the laws, his expectations will
be held legitimate by the state and will be defended and
protected; even the legal acts which, on the basis and under the
procedure established in the Constitution and the laws, are later
recognised as being in conflict with the Constitution
(substatutory legal actsas being in conflict with the
Constitution and/or the laws) may give rise to such expectations;
there may also be factual situations where the person has already
fulfilled his rights and obligations arising from the legal act
which is later recognised as being in conflict with the
Constitution (substatutory legal actsas being in conflict with
the Constitution and/or the laws) in regard to other persons and
after that, due to this, the aforementioned other persons gain
particular expectations, the defence and protection of which by
the state they can reasonably expect, as well; in certain cases
quite a long period of time may pass from the moment of
appearance of such expectations and recognition of respective
legal acts as being in conflict with the Constitution
(substatutory legal actsas being in conflict with the
Constitution and/or the laws) (Constitutional Court rulings of 13
December 2004, 13 May 2005 and 20 February 2008).
5.3. The Constitutional Court has noted that, when deciding
whether the acquired rights gained by the person during the
period of the validity of the legal act which is later recognised
as being in conflict with the Constitution (substatutory legal
actsas being in conflict with the Constitution and/or the laws)
are to be protected and defended or not (and if so, to what
extent), in each case it is necessary to find out whether, in
case of failure to protect and defend such acquired rights, other
values protected by the Constitution would not be violated and
whether the balance of values entrenched in and protected and
defended by the Constitution would not be disturbed
(Constitutional Court rulings of 13 December 2004, 5 July 2007,
20 February 2008, 24 December 2008 and 2 September 2009).
6. In the context of the petition of the Speaker of the
Seimas, the petitioner, it needs to be noted that the
Constitution does not protect and defend the acquired rights of
persons which are privileges by their content; the protection and
defence of privileges would mean that the constitutional
principle of equal rights of persons and the constitutional
principle of justice, the imperative of a harmonious society
enshrined in the Constitution, and, therefore, the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law, are violated
(Constitutional Court rulings of 13 December 2004 and 5 July
2007).
In this context it needs to be noted that, as it has been
mentioned, in its ruling of 12 May 2006, the Constitutional Court
recognised that the provision "Land shall be granted gratis as
ownership, under the procedure set by the Government, to the
following citizens of the Republic of Lithuania: <...> 1) one
land lot of the size set by the Government, which is intended for
individual construction, to those who were decorated with the
Order of the Cross of Vytis and the Cross of Vytis, spouses (in
the absence of such, parents (adoptive parents) or children
(adoptees)) of such natural persons who lost their lives (or who
are deceased) if their requests to receive gratis a land lot as
ownership were submitted before the entry into force (on 3 July
2002) of the Law on Amending Article 7 of the Law on Land Reform"
of Article 7 (wording of 5 November 2002; Official Gazette
Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 112-4974) of the Law on Land Reform
is in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 23 and Paragraph 2 of
Article 128 of the Constitution as well as the constitutional
principle of a state under the rule of law.
7. Consequently, in the context of the whole official
constitutional doctrine the provision "under the Constitution,
such legal regulation, whereby a person, who was granted a
certain state award, also receives certain material benefit on
the grounds of the fact that he has been awarded, is
impermissible" of the Constitutional Court ruling of 12 May 2006,
the construction of which is being requested, implies that, after
the entry into force of the Constitutional Court ruling of 12 May
2006, the Constitution does not protect and defend the
implementation of the right of the persons who were decorated
with the Order of the Cross of Vytis and the Cross of Vytis,
spouses (in the absence of such, parents (adoptive parents) or
children (adoptees)) of such natural persons who lost their lives
(or who are deceased) to receive gratis one land lot for
individual construction, which is entrenched in Article 7
(wording of 5 November 2002) of the Law on Land Reform, but which
due to some reasons was not finished until the entry into force
of the Constitutional Court ruling of 12 May 2006.
8. In this context it is also to be noted that Article 72
"Consequences of the Recognition of a Legal Act as Being in
Conflict with the Constitution" of the Law on the Constitutional
Court inter alia prescribes that "A law (or part thereof) of the
Republic of Lithuania or other act (or part thereof) of the
Seimas, act of the President of the Republic, act (or part
thereof) of the Government may not be applied from the day of
official promulgation of the ruling of the Constitutional Court
that the act in question (or part thereof) is in conflict with
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania." (Paragraph 1);
"Decisions based on legal acts which have been recognised as
being in conflict with the Constitution <...> must not be
executed if they had not been executed prior to the appropriate
Constitutional Court ruling went into force" (Paragraph 4).
9. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to draw
a conclusion that the provision "under the Constitution, such
legal regulation, whereby a person, who was granted a certain
state award, also receives certain material benefit on the
grounds of the fact that he has been awarded, is impermissible"
of the Constitutional Court ruling of 12 May 2006 also means that
the persons decorated with the Order of the Cross of Vytis and
the Cross of Vytis, spouses (in the absence of such, parents
(adoptive parents) or children (adoptees)) of such natural
persons who lost their lives (or who are deceased), who, before 3
July 2002, submitted their requests regarding the implementation
of the right to receive gratis one land lot for individual
construction, which is entrenched in Article 7 (wording 5
November 2002) of the Law on Land Reform, after the entry into
force of the Constitutional Court ruling of 12 May 2006, have no
legitimate expectation that the said right, which due to certain
reasons had not been implemented under the established procedure
until the aforementioned Constitutional Court ruling came into
force, still may be implemented by granting gratis one land lot
for individual construction.
Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and Articles 1 and 61 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has passed the
following
decision:
To construe that the provision "under the Constitution, such
legal regulation, whereby a person, who was granted a certain
state award, also receives certain material benefit on the
grounds of the fact that he has been awarded, is impermissible"
of the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania of 12 May 2006 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios,
2006, No. 54-1965) inter alia means that the persons decorated
with the Order of the Cross of Vytis and the Cross of Vytis,
spouses (in the absence of such, parents (adoptive parents) or
children (adoptees)) of such natural persons who lost their lives
(or who are deceased), who, before 3 July 2002, submitted their
requests regarding the implementation of the right to receive
gratis one land lot for individual construction, which is
entrenched in Article 7 (wording 5 November 2002) of the Republic
of Lithuania Law on Land Reform, after the entry into force of
the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania of 12 May 2006, have no legitimate expectation that the
said right, which due to certain reasons had not been implemented
under the established procedure until the aforementioned ruling
of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania came
into force, still may be implemented by granting gratis one land
lot for individual construction.
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