Case No. 30/07
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
RULING
ON THE COMPLIANCE OF PARAGRAPH 1 (WORDING OF 28
JANUARY 2003) OF ARTICLE 18 OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA LAW ON LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT (WORDING OF 12
OCTOBER 2000) WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF
LITHUANIA
31 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,
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 25 March 2010 heard constitutional justice case No.
30/07 subsequent to the petition of the Vilnius Regional
Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting to investigate
whether Paragraph 1 (wording of 28 January 2003) of Article 18 of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on Local Self-government is not in
conflict with Paragraph 4 of Article 119 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner,
was investigating a civil case. By its ruling the court suspended
the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional
Court with a petition requesting to investigate as to whether
Paragraph 1 (wording of 28 January 2003) of Article 18 of the Law
on Local Self-government is not in conflict with Paragraph 4 of
Article 119 of the Constitution (petition No. 1B-39/07).
II
The petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court,
the petitioner, is substantiated by the following arguments.
Under Paragraph 4 of Article 119 of the Constitution, for
the direct implementation of the laws of the Republic of
Lithuania, the decisions of the Government and the municipal
council, the municipal council shall form executive bodies
accountable to it. Thus, the Constitution provides for two types
of municipal institutions which have authoritative empowerments:
municipal councils and the executive bodies formed by and
accountable to the municipal councils. The executive institution
has no right to adopt decisions which are not directly grounded
on laws, Government resolutions or decisions of municipal
councils, as well as decisions which are equal in their legal
power to decisions of municipal councils. Referring to the
Constitutional Court doctrine, the petitioner noted that the
powers of municipal councils to transfer the right to adopt
certain decisions to the executive bodies accountable to the
municipal councils must be established expressis verbis in the
law and the said powers may not be transferred to municipal
institutions that, under the law, are not executive bodies
accountable to the municipal councils. In the opinion of the
petitioner, the college of the municipal council, which is
provided for by Paragraph 1 of Article 18 of the Law on Local
Self-government, is not an executive body accountable to
municipal councils, since Paragraph 3 (wording of 28 January
2003) of Article 3 of the Law on Local Self-government provides
that the director of the municipal administration shall be the
executive institution of the municipality. Therefore, according
to the petitioner, there are grounds to believe that Paragraph 1
of Article 18 of the Law on Local Self-government could be in
conflict with Paragraph 4 of Article 119 of the Constitution.
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 Ona Buišienė, a senior specialist of the Legal Department of
the Office of the Seimas, and Valdemar Tomaševski, a Member of
the Seimas, wherein it is maintained that the disputed legal
regulation was not in conflict with the Constitution.
1. The position of the representative of the Seimas, the
party concerned, who was O. Buišienė, is grounded on the
following arguments.
1.1. The Constitution provides for two types of municipal
institutionsmunicipal councils and the executive bodies
accountable to them, the formation of which is a constitutional
duty of municipal councils. Interrelations of municipal councils
and their executive bodies are based on the constitutional
principle of accountability of executive bodies to the
representation as well as that of supremacy of municipal councils
in regard to the executive bodies which are accountable to them.
All decisions adopted by the executive bodies accountable to the
municipal councils on the issues assigned to the competence of
municipalities are subordinated to decisions of municipal
councils.
1.2. The organisation of self-government institutions and
procedure for activities thereof are established by the
legislator. The disputed norm of the law does not establish the
legal regulation, whereby, according to the representative of the
Seimas, legal preconditions would be created to interfere with
the exceptional competence of municipal councils in the adoption
of the decisions on the questions which are expressis verbis
indicated in the Constitution. Furthermore, the notion "the
college of the municipal council" denotes in what sense the
college of the municipal council differs from municipal
institutions and does not equate it to any constitutional type of
municipal institutionseither the representative or executive
one. The college of the municipal council is an internal
formation of the municipal council, to which the municipal
council entrusts its certain functions. The scope of the
functions assigned to the college of the municipal council shows
that the legislator did not interfere with the exceptional
competence of municipal councils which is provided for in the
Constitution.
1.3. The right of the municipal council to form the college
of the municipal council stems also from the constitutional
principles of independence and freedom of activity of
municipalities within the competence defined by the Constitution,
thus, the legislator, having entrenched the right of the
municipal council, as necessary, to form the college of the
municipal council and commission it to exercise powers defined by
the laws, was following the Constitution and observing the
entrenched form of the legal act of granting of powers (law) and
did not deny the possibility for municipal councils to realise
their competence which is directly entrenched in the
Constitution. Therefore, in the opinion of O. Buišienė, the
disputed norm of the law is not in conflict with Paragraph 4 of
Article 119 of the Constitution.
2. The representative of the Seimas, the party concerned,
who was V. Tomaševski, in his written explanations, assented to
the arguments set forth by O. Buišienė.
IV
In the course of the preparation of the case for the
Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations were received
from Petras Baguška, the Minister of Justice of the Republic of
Lithuania, Vytautas Kvietkauskas, the Director of the Association
of Local Authorities in Lithuania, Egidijus Vilkickas, the
Director of the Legal Affairs Department of the Administration of
the Vilnius City Municipality, and Jonas Jagminas, the Chairman
of the Seimas State and Administration Committee.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
I
1. On 7 July 1994, the Seimas adopted the Law on Local Self-
government. In accordance with Article 31 of this law, it came
into force on the first day following the election to the
municipal councils of the Republic of Lithuania, i.e. 26 March
1995.
While implementing the provisions of the Constitution, inter
alia Article 119 thereof, the said law entrenched the system of
local self-government and principles of self-government and
established the general procedure for the organisation and
activities of self-government institutions, the competence of
self-government institutions, and the bases of municipal economic
and financial activities.
The said law has been more than once amended and/or
supplemented.
2. On 12 October 2000, the Seimas adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Amendment of the Law on Local Self-
government by Article 1 whereof it set forth the Law on Local
Self-government (wording of 7 July 1994 with subsequent
amendments and supplements) in a new wording. This law came into
force on 27 October 2000.
2.1. Paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the Law on Local Self-
government (wording of 12 October 2000) prescribed:
"'Municipal institutions' means the municipal councilthe
representative institutionand the municipal board (hereinafter
referred to as 'the board') and the municipal mayor (hereinafter
referred to as 'the mayor')the executive institutionshaving the
rights and duties related to local government and public
administration. Municipal institutions are responsible for the
implementation of the right to self-governance and their
functions for community interests."
2.2. Paragraph 4 of Article 3 of the Law on Local Self-
government (wording of 12 October 2000) prescribed: "'Municipal
control institution' means a municipal controller who controls
the use of a municipal budget and performs the functions of
internal audit of a municipality."
2.3. Article 12 of the Law on Local Self-government (wording
of 12 October 2000) inter alia prescribed:
"1. The municipal council shall consist of the
representatives of the community of a municipality which are
democratically elected in the manner prescribed by the law. <...>
4. 4. The municipal mayor must be elected and the board must
be formed within two months from the convocation day of the first
sitting of a newly elected municipal council.
<...>"
2.4. Article 15 of the Law on Local Self-government (wording
of 12 October 2000) inter alia prescribed:
"1. Municipal council committees shall be formed to
preliminary consider issues submitted to the municipal council
and to present conclusions and proposals, to control the
observance of laws and implementation of decisions of the
municipal council, mayor and the board.
2. Committees shall be formed from the members of the
council by decision of the municipal council. <...>
<...>
5. Committees shall within their competence adopt
recommendatory decisions. <...>"
2.5. Article 17 of the Law on Local Self-government (wording
of 12 October 2000) inter alia prescribed:
"The municipal council shall:
<...>
5) form the board of a municipality;
<...>"
2.6. Article 18 of the Law on Local Self-government (wording
of 12 October 2000) inter alia prescribed:
"1. The municipal council shall, for the term of the powers
thereof, form the board from among the members of the municipal
council and establish the number of its members.
2. The mayor and deputy mayor(s) shall be ex officio members
of the board. The mayor shall present to the municipal council
for approval the candidatures of other board members (not on
permanent staff) from among the members of the municipal council.
Chairman of the control committee, his deputy and members of the
control committee may not be members of the board. The municipal
council's activity regulations shall establish a procedure of
approval of board members and loss of the status of a board
member.
<...>"
2.7. Article 19 of the Law on Local Self-government (wording
of 12 October 2000) inter alia prescribed:
"1. The board shall:
<...>
2) adopt decisions on the analysis of the development of the
territory of a municipality, preparation of drafts of general
long-term social, cultural, economic, investment, demographic,
crime control and prevention, ecological, health and other
programmes;
<...>
15) on the proposal of the mayor and taking into
consideration the list approved by the law, resolve the issue of
the establishment of positions of state servants of political
(personal) confidence, set their number;
<...>"
3. Summing up the discussed legal regulation, it needs to be
held that, in the Law on Local Self-government (wording of 12
October 2000), while defining the notion "municipal institutions
", it was indicated that: 1) a representative municipal
institution shall be the municipal council, whereas executive
institutions shall be the municipal board and the municipal
mayor; 2) the municipal institutions shall assume a direct and
personal responsibility for the implementation of the laws as
well as the decisions of the Government and the municipal council
in the territory of a municipality. The law also established the
composition of municipal institutions: the municipal council
shall be composed of the democratically elected representatives
of the community of a municipality, while the boardof the
members of the municipal council; the law determined the
functions of the municipal council and executive institutions.
When defining the notion "municipal control institution", it was
indicated that: 1) the municipal control institution shall be the
municipal controller; 2) the municipal control institution shall
be commissioned to control the use of the municipal budget and
shall perform the functions of internal audit of a municipality.
The law prescribed that the municipal council may form its
internal structural sub-unitsthe municipal council committees,
which shall be formed from among the members of the municipal
council; the purpose of the municipal council committees is to
preliminary consider issues submitted to the municipal council,
present conclusions and proposals to the municipal council, and
adopt recommendatory decisions within their competence.
In this context it needs to be noted that, by its ruling of
24 December 2002, the Constitutional Court inter alia recognised
that Paragraph 1 (wording of 12 October 2000) of Article 18 of
the Law on Local Self-governance, to the extent that it
established that the municipal board shall be formed from among
the members of the municipal council, was in conflict with
Paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 119 of the Constitution.
In its ruling, the Constitutional Court inter alia held
that, under the Constitution, the executive bodies accountable to
the municipal councils may not be formed from among members of
the municipal councils which establish them; the said executive
bodies are not internal structural units (sub-units) of municipal
councils, which have to ensure the work of the municipal council
itself. The fact that, under Paragraph 1 (wording of 12 October
2000) of Article 18 of the Law on Local Self-governance, the
municipal council forms the board from among the members of the
municipal council means that one disregarded the constitutional
principles of accountability of the executive bodies, formed by
the municipal councils, to the municipal councils and that of
supremacy of the municipal councils over the executive bodies
accountable to them, and erased the essential difference
entrenched in the Constitution between the municipal councils, as
representative institutions through which the right of self-
government is implemented, and executive bodies, which are formed
by and are accountable to the councils (Constitutional Court
ruling of 24 December 2002).
4. On 28 January 2003, the Seimas adopted the Republic of
Lithuania Law on the Amendment of Articles 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 14,
15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 49, and 50 of the Law
on Local Self-governance and Recognition of Article 19 Thereof as
No Longer Valid, which, under Paragraph 1 of Article 21 thereof,
came into force on 25 February 2003.
4.1. Paragraph 3 (wording of 28 January 2003) of Article 3
of the Law on Local Self-government (wording of 12 October 2000)
prescribed:
"Municipal institutions are the municipal councilthe
representative institutionand the director of the municipal
administrationthe executive institutionwhich have the rights
and duties related to local government and public administration.
Municipal institutions are responsible for the implementation of
the right to self-governance and their functions for community
interests."
Having compared the legal regulation established in
Paragraph 3 (wording of 28 January 2003) of Article 3 of the Law
on Local Self-government (wording of 12 October 2000) with the
one established in Paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the Law on Local
Self-government (wording of 12 October 2000), one may notice that
the definition of the municipal executive institution changed in
the aspect that it was established that the municipal executive
institution shall be the director of the municipal
administration; the provision that the municipal executive
institution shall be the municipal board and the municipal mayor
ceased to exist; a representative municipal institution has
remained the samethe municipal council.
4.2. Paragraph 4 of Article 3 of the Law on Local Self-
government (wording of 12 October 2000) was not changed.
4.3. Paragraph 4 (wording of 28 January 2003) of Article 12
of the Law on Local Self-government (wording of 12 October 2000)
prescribed:
"4. The municipal mayor must be elected, the deputy
(deputies) of the mayor and the director of the municipal
administration must be appointed, and the college of the
municipal council must be formed, if it has been decided to be
formed, within two months from the convocation day of the first
sitting of a newly elected municipal council."
Other paragraphs of Article 12 of the Law on Local Self-
government (wording of 12 October 2000) have not been amended
and/or supplemented.
While comparing the legal regulation established in
Paragraph 4 (wording of 28 January 2003) of Article 12 of the
Law on Local Self-government (wording of 12 October 2000) with
the legal regulation established in Paragraph 4 of Article 12 of
the Law on Local Self-government (wording of 12 October 2000),
one may notice that it changed so that the aforesaid provision
entrenched that the deputy (deputies) of the mayor and the
director of the municipal administration must be appointed and
the college of the municipal council must be formed, if it has
been decided to be formed, whereas the provision that the board
must be formed ceased to exist.
4.4. The provisions of Article 15 of the Law on Local Self-
government (wording of 12 October 2000), which are related with
the constitutional justice case at issue, have not been amended
and/or supplemented.
4.5. Article 17 (wording of 28 January 2003) of the Law on
Local Self-government (wording of 12 October 2000) inter alia
prescribed:
"The municipal council shall:
<...>
5) adopt the decision to form the college of the municipal
council and shall form the college upon the presentation of the
mayor;
<...>
9) adopt the decision on the admission of the director
(deputy director) of the municipal administration to office
<...>;
<...>
15) adopt decisions on the analysis of the development of
the territory of a municipality, preparation of drafts of general
long-term social, cultural, economic, investment, demographic,
crime control and prevention, ecological, health and other
programmes;
<...>
19) on the proposal of the mayor, decide regarding the
establishment of positions of state servants of the secretariat
of the municipal council, set their number;
20) each year establish training priorities for municipal
employees;
<
>"
While comparing the legal regulation established in
Paragraphs 5 and 9 (wording of 28 January 2003) of Article 17 of
the Law on Local Self-government (wording of 12 October 2000)
with the legal regulation established in Paragraph 5 of Article
17 of the Law on Local Self-government (wording of 12 October
2000), one can find that it was established therein that the
municipal council shall adopt the decisions regarding the
admission of the director of the administration of a municipality
to office as well as the formation of the college of the
municipal council, if it has been decided to be formed, whereas
the provision that the municipal council shall form the board
ceased to exist.
Having compared the legal regulation established in Article
17 (wording of 28 January 2003) of the Law on Local Self-
government (wording of 12 October 2000) with the one established
in Articles 17 and 19 of the Law on Local Self-government
(wording of 12 October 2000), it is clear that the competence of
the municipal council was expanded: the municipal council was
additionally assigned most of the functions which, under the
legal regulation consolidated in Article 19 of the Law on Local
Self-government (wording of 12 October 2000), had been attributed
to the board.
4.6. Article 18 (wording of 28 January 2003) of the Law on
Local Self-government (wording of 12 October 2000) prescribed:
"1. The municipal council may, for the term of the powers
thereof, form the college of the municipal council (hereinafter
referred to as the college) from among the members of the
municipal council and establish the number of its members. The
municipal council may commission the college to discharge the
powers of the municipal council prescribed in Items 15, 19, and
20 of Article 17 of this law.
2. The mayor and deputy mayor(s) shall be ex officio members
of the college. The mayor shall present the candidatures of other
college members (not on permanent staff) to the municipal council
for approval. Only citizens of the Republic of Lithuania may be
members of the college, Chairman of the Control Committee, his
deputy and members of the Control Committee may not be members of
the college. The municipal council's activity regulations shall
establish the work procedure of the college, procedure of the
organisation of college sittings, and the procedure of approval
of college members and loss of the status of a college member. At
least once a year or when necessary, the college shall account to
the municipal council for its activities.
3. The powers of the college shall expire when newly elected
members of the municipal council gather for the first sitting.
Until the formation of a new college, its powers shall be
temporarily exercised by the mayor."
Having compared the legal regulation established in Article
18 (wording of 28 January 2003) of the Law on Local Self-
government (wording of 2000 October 12), the provision of
Paragraph 1 whereof is disputed in the constitutional justice
case at issue, with the legal regulation established in Article
18 of the Law on Local Self-government (wording of 12 October
2000), it is clear that it was changed in essence: Article 18
(wording of 28 January 2003) prescribed that the municipal
council may, for the term of the powers thereof, form the college
of the municipal council from among the members of the municipal
council, and it also entrenched the powers of the college,
procedure of the formation of the college and expiry of its
powers. Paragraph 1 (wording of 28 January 2003) of Article 18 of
the Law on Local Self-government (wording of 12 October 2000)
inter alia prescribed that the municipal council may commission
the college, formed from among the members of the municipal
council, to discharge certain powers attributed to the competence
of the municipal council.
4.7. Summing up the discussed amendments of the Law on Local
Self-government (wording of 12 October 2000), it needs to be held
that the definition of the municipal executive institution was
changed in essence: it was established that the executive
institution of the municipal council shall be the director of the
municipal administration; the provisions, which entrenched that
the executive institution of the municipal council shall be the
board of a municipality, which the municipal council shall form
from among its members, and the mayor, ceased to exist. The
procedure of the formation of the municipal institutions was also
changed: it was established that the municipal council shall
adopt the decision regarding the admission of the director of the
municipal administrationthe municipal executive institutionto
office. The provision, which entrenched the functions of the
municipal board, was recognised as no longer valid, and most of
the functions that under the Law on Local Self-government
(wording of 12 October 2000) had been assigned to the municipal
board were attributed to the municipal council. The provision,
which entrenched the definition of the notion "municipal control
institution", as well as the provision, which entrenched that the
municipal council may, from among the members thereof, form the
municipal council committees that adopt recommendatory decisions,
was not changed. The law also consolidated the provision that the
municipal council may, for the term of the powers thereof, form
the college of the municipal council from among the members of
the municipal council and may commission the college to discharge
certain powers of the municipal council.
While construing the disputed legal regulation entrenched in
Paragraph 1 (wording of 28 January 2003) of Article 18 of the Law
on Local Self-government (wording of 12 October 2000), under
which the municipal council could, for the term of the powers
thereof, form the college of the municipal council from among the
members of the municipal council and could commission the college
to discharge certain powers attributed to the competence of the
municipal council, together with the legal regulation entrenched
in Article 17 (wording of 28 January 2003) of the Law on Local
Self-government (wording of 12 October 2000), it needs to be
noted that the formation of the college of the municipal council
is a right of the municipal council, but not its duty, therefore,
the municipal council could also decide not to form such college.
The powers which the municipal council was allowed to commission
to the college of the municipal council, in the case of having
not formed such college, were further discharged by the municipal
council. The college of the municipal council could be
commissioned to do the following: to adopt decisions on the
analysis of the development of the territory of a municipality,
preparation of drafts of general long-term social, cultural,
economic, investment, demographic, crime control and prevention,
ecological, health and other programmes; on the proposal of the
mayor, to decide regarding the establishment of positions of
state servants of the secretariat of the municipal council and
set their number; each year, to establish training priorities for
municipal employees. Decisions adopted by the college of the
municipal council regarding the said issues were final.
5. Until 15 September 2008 the Law on Local Self-government
(wording of 12 October 2000 with amendments of 28 January 2003)
was more than once amended and/or supplemented, however, the
provision, which is disputed by the petitioner, was not changed.
6. On 15 September 2008, the Seimas adopted the Law on the
Amendment of the Law on Local Self-government by Article 1
whereof the Law on Local Self-government (wording of 12 October
2000 with subsequent amendments and supplements) was amended and
set forth in a new wording. This law came into force on 1 October
2008 (with certain exceptions).
Having set forth the Law on Local Self-government in the new
wording, the numeration of inter alia some articles was changed:
Article 12 became Article 11, Article 15Article 14, Article 17
Article 16, and Article 18, the provision whereof is disputed by
the petitionerArticle 17.
6.1. Article 16 of the Law on Local Self-government (wording
of 15 September 2008) inter alia prescribed:
"1. The competence of the municipal council may be
exceptional and ordinary.
2. The exceptional competence of the municipal council shall
be:
<...>
11) adoption of decisions regarding the establishment of
positions of state servants of political (personal) confidence of
the mayor and number thereof, and formation of the secretariat of
the municipal council on the proposal of the mayor;
<...>
20) submission of proposals to state institutions regarding
the improvement of activities of their subdivisions located in
the territory of a municipality and, when necessary, hearing of
the heads of such subdivisions in the manner prescribed by the
municipal council's activity regulations; <...>
41) adoption of decisions regarding the analysis of the
development of the territory of a municipality and preparation of
drafts of general long-term social, cultural, economic,
investment, demographic, crime control and prevention,
ecological, health and other programmes;
<...>
6. The municipal council may not transfer the powers
attributed to its exceptional competence to any other municipal
institution or establishment.
<...>"
Having compared the legal regulation established in Article
16 of the Law on Local Self-government (wording of 15 September
2008) with the one established in Article 17 (wording of 28
January 2003) of the Law on Local Self-government (wording of 12
October 2000), one can notice that it was changed to the extent
that the law distinguished between the exceptional and ordinary
competence of the municipal council; it was established that the
municipal council may not transfer the powers attributed to its
exceptional competence to any other municipal institution or
establishment.
It needs to be noted that the adoption of decisions
regarding the analysis of the development of the territory of a
municipality and preparation of drafts of general long-term
social, cultural, economic, investment, demographic, crime
control and prevention, ecological, health and other programmes
as well as decisions regarding the establishment of positions of
state servants of political (personal) confidence of the mayor
and number thereof and formation of the secretariat of the
municipal council on the proposal of the mayor, i.e. two out of
three functions, which, according to the legal regulation
entrenched in Paragraph 1 (wording of 28 January 2003) of Article
18 of the Law on Local Self-government (wording of 12 October
2000), could be transferred to the college of the municipal
council, under Article 16 of the Law on Local Self-government
(wording of 15 September 2008) are attributed not to the
ordinary, but exceptional competence of the municipal council:
the municipal council may not transfer them to any other
municipal institution or establishment.
6.2. Article 17 of the Law on Local Self-government (wording
of 15 September 2008) prescribes:
"1. The municipal council may, for the term of the powers
thereof, form the college of the municipal council (hereinafter
referred to as the college) from among the members of the
council.
2. The number of the members of the college, work procedure
of the college and procedure of the organisation of college
sittings shall be established by the regulations.
3. The college shall be an advisory body of the municipal
council.
4. As a rule, the college shall consider the following
issues:
1) analyse activities of subdivisions of state institutions
located in the territory of a municipality, submit proposals to
the municipal council regarding the improvement of activities of
these subdivisions and hearing of the heads thereof;
2) consider and submit proposals regarding the analysis of
the development of the territory of a municipality and the
organisation of preparation of drafts of general long-term
social, cultural, economic, investment, demographic, crime
control and prevention, ecological, health and other programmes;
3) plan training priorities for members of the municipal
council (each year);
4) consider questions regarding the formation of the
secretariat of the municipal council or establishment of
positions of state servants of political (personal) confidence of
the mayor (in the case of not establishing the secretariat) and
number thereof;
While comparing the legal regulation established in Article
17 of the Law on Local Self-government (wording of 15 September
2008) with the one established in Article 18 (wording of 28
January 2003) of the Law on Local Self-government (wording of 12
October 2000), it is clear that it changed in essence: it was
explicitly established that the college of the municipal council,
formed from among the members of the municipal council, is an
advisory institution of the municipal council, which considers
issues delegated to it, but adopts no final decisions; the Law on
Local Self-government (wording of 15 September 2008) no longer
contains the provision wherein it was entrenched that the
municipal council may commission the college of the municipal
council to discharge certain powers attributed to the competence
of the municipal council.
6.3. In summary, it needs to be held that the Law on Local
Self-government (wording of 15 September 2008) explicitly
established the status of the college of the municipal council:
it entrenched that the college of the municipal council, formed
from among the members of the municipal council, is an advisory
institution of the municipal council, which considers issues
attributed to its competence, but adopts no final decisions.
Decisions on the issues, which are considered and analysed by the
college of the municipal council, are adopted by the municipal
council in accordance with the competence attributed to it by
Article 16 of the Law on Local Self-government (wording of 15
September 2008).
Thus, the legal regulation disputed by the petitioner was
changed in essence, and the provision whereby it was entrenched
that the municipal council may commission the college of the
municipal council to discharge certain powers attributed to the
competence of the municipal council ceased to exist.
7. Under Paragraph 4 of Article 69 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, the annulment of the disputed legal act
shall be grounds to adopt a decision to dismiss the instituted
legal proceedings. The Constitutional Court has held that the
same can also be said as regards the cases when the disputed
legal act (part thereof) was not repealed, however, the legal
regulation established therein was changed (Constitutional Court
ruling of 4 March 2003, decision of 14 March 2006, rulings of 30
March 2006, 14 April 2006, and 21 September 2006, decision of 28
May 2007, as well as ruling of 22 June 2009).
However, as it has been held by the Constitutional Court
more than once, when a court investigating a case applies to the
Constitutional Court after it has doubts concerning the
compliance of a law or other legal act applicable in the case
with the Constitution (other legal act of higher power), the
Constitutional Court has a duty to investigate the request of the
court regardless of the fact whether the disputed law or other
legal act is valid or not.
II
1. It has been mentioned that the Vilnius Regional
Administrative Court, the petitioner, requests to investigate
whether Paragraph 1 (wording of 28 January 2003) of Article 18 of
the Law on Local Self-government was not in conflict with
Paragraph 4 of Article 119 of the Constitution.
2. Article 119 of the Constitution prescribes:
"The right to self-government shall be guaranteed to
administrative units of the territory of the State, which are
provided for by law. It shall be implemented through
corresponding municipal councils.
The members of municipal councils shall be elected for a
four-year term, as provided for by law, from among citizens of
the Republic of Lithuania and other permanent residents of the
administrative unit by the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania
and other permanent residents of the administrative unit, on the
basis of universal, equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot.
The procedure for the organisation and activities of self-
government institutions shall be established by law.
For the direct implementation of the laws of the Republic of
Lithuania, the decisions of the Government and the municipal
council, the municipal council shall form executive bodies
accountable to it."
3. In its acts, adopted in previous constitutional justice
cases, inter alia in its ruling of 24 December 2002 and decision
of 11 February 2004, the Constitutional Court, while construing
the provisions of the Constitution related to local self-
government, has formulated a broad official constitutional
doctrine of local self-government.
4. The Constitutional Court has held that local self-
government is self-regulation and self-action of the communities
of the administrative units of state territory, in accordance
with the competence defined by the Constitution and laws, which
are provided for by law, i.e. territorial, or local, communities,
which are composed of permanent residents of these units
(citizens of the Republic of Lithuania and other permanent
residents) (Constitutional Court rulings of 24 December 2002, 13
December 2004, 9 February 2007, and 8 June 2009). The said
territorial communities are an entity of self-government law and
are referred to in the Constitution as municipalities (or local
municipalities) (Constitutional Court ruling of 24 December
2002).
5. The right of self-government is inseparable from the
institutions through which the said right is implemented and/or
from the organisation and activities of the institutions which
are accountable to them; the notion "self-government
institutions" expresses the constitutional purpose of
corresponding institutions of territorial communities of
administrative units: they are institutions through which the
right of self-government of respective communities is implemented
(Constitutional Court rulings of 24 December 2002 and 13 December
2004). Therefore, it is not coincidence that the Constitution
employs the notion of municipality not only in the sense of the
territorial community of an administrative unit but also in the
sense of local self-government institutions and/or the
institutions which are accountable to them (Constitutional Court
rulings of 24 December 2002 and 13 December 2004).
6. The implementation of the right of self-government is
impossible without democratic representation. Municipal councils,
as self-government institutions, are representative institutions;
they are directly provided for in the Constitution; no other
self-government institutions, save the municipal councils, are
specified in the Constitution (Constitutional Court rulings of 24
December 2002 and 13 December 2004). The municipal councils are
institutions through which the right of self-government of
corresponding communities is implemented, while the members of
the municipal council are representatives of a corresponding
territorial community (Constitutional Court ruling of 30 May
2003).
7. Under Paragraph 4 of Article 119 of the Constitution,
decisions adopted by municipal councils are inseparable from the
execution of these decisions; decisions of municipal councils are
directly implemented by the executive bodies which are
accountable to the municipal councils, and which are inseparable
part of the self-government mechanism; the establishment of the
said executive bodies is a constitutional duty of municipal
councils (Constitutional Court rulings of 24 December 2002 and 13
December 2004 as well as decision of 11 February 2004).
7.1. The Constitution does not establish any types of
executive bodies (collegial, single-person bodies), which are
accountable to municipal councils, nor the procedure of their
formation, their names, and interrelations; their functions and
competence are established only in general terms. The
establishment, by law, of the functions and competence of the
executive bodies accountable to municipal councils is left to be
carried out by the Seimas. When regulating the formation,
functions and competence of the executive bodies accountable to
municipal councils by laws, one must pay heed to the principles
of local self-government, which are entrenched in the
Constitution: the representative democracy, accountability of
executive bodies to the representation, the supremacy of
municipal councils in respect to the executive bodies which are
accountable to them, etc. (Constitutional Court rulings of 24
December 2002 and 13 December 2004).
The formula "the municipal council shall establish executive
bodies", which is employed in Paragraph 4 of Article 119 of the
Constitution, also implies that the legislator enjoys the
discretion to establish by law as to the procedure, whether by
election or in other fashion, the said executive bodies are
formed, also, which of the said bodies are collegial and which
are single-person, also, the type of their interrelations. The
legislator also enjoys the discretion to establish by law the
structure of collegial executive bodies and the number of their
members, or to leave it, by law, to be done by municipal councils
(Constitutional Court rulings of 24 December 2002 and 13 December
2004).
7.2. The Constitutional Court has noted that the executive
bodies indicated in Paragraph 4 of Article 119 of the
Constitution are the institutions which are established for the
direct implementation of the laws, the decisions of the
Government and the municipal council. The said executive bodies
are not internal structural units (sub-units) of municipal
councils, which have to ensure the work of the municipal council
itself; under the Constitution, the executive bodies accountable
to municipal councils may not be formed from among members of the
municipal councils which establish them (Constitutional Court
rulings of 24 December 2002 and 13 December 2004).
7.3. The Constitutional Court has noted that the executive
bodies which are accountable to municipal councils may not be
treated as ones through which the right of self-government is
implemented by territorial communities. The municipal councils
have the constitutional competence to control the said executive
bodies, therefore, the said executive bodies may not replace
municipal councils, or bring municipal councils under their
control, or dictate them. The powers of the executive bodies may
not be dominant in respect to the powers of municipal councils.
It is not permitted to establish the legal regulation whereby the
executive bodies accountable to municipal councils would be
equated to the municipal councils which have established them,
let alone the legal regulation whereby the powers of the
executive bodies established by and accountable to municipal
councils would restrict the powers of the latter, or under which
municipal councils would lose an opportunity to control the
executive bodies established by and accountable to them
(Constitutional Court ruling of 24 December 2002).
8. The legislator has both the right and the duty to define,
while taking account of the exceptional competence of
municipalities, which is directly entrenched in the Constitution,
the competence of municipal councils and executive bodies
accountable to them; while defining the competence of municipal
councils and executive bodies accountable to them, the legislator
can also establish the procedure of realisation of this
competence (Constitutional Court decision of 11 February 2004).
8.1. The Constitutional Court has held that certain
competence of municipal councils is expressis verbis established
in the Constitution itself. The decisions on the issues of self-
government indicated inter alia in Paragraph 1 of Article 40,
Paragraph 2 of Article 41, Paragraph 2 of Article 47, Paragraph 4
of Article 119, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 121, and Article
122 of the Constitution may only be adopted by municipal
councils. This is the exceptional constitutional competence of
municipal councils.
Under the Constitution, the legislator may not establish
that decisions on the issues that belong to the exceptional
constitutional competence of municipal councils are adopted not
by municipal councils, but the executive bodies formed by and
accountable to them or other municipal institutions; municipal
councils by themselves may transfer the right to adopt such
decisions neither to the executive bodies accountable to the
municipal councils, nor to any other municipal institutions,
while the legislator is not allowed to establish any such legal
regulation under which municipal councils would be permitted to
transfer the right to adopt such decisions to the executive
bodies accountable to the municipal councils or other municipal
institutions (Constitutional Court decision of 11 February 2004).
Under the Constitution, it is also not permitted to
establish the legal regulation which would create legal
preconditions for the executive bodies accountable to municipal
councils to interfere with the exceptional constitutional
competence of municipal councils in the adoption of decisions on
the issues indicated in Paragraph 1 of Article 40, Paragraph 2 of
Article 41, Paragraph 2 of Article 47, Paragraph 4 of Article
119, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 121, and Article 122 of the
Constitution (Constitutional Court ruling of 24 December 2002 and
decision of 11 February 2004).
8.2. As regards the issues whereby the competence of
municipal councils is not expressis verbis established in the
Constitution itself (is not exceptional constitutional competence
of municipal councils), the legislator, under the Constitution,
enjoys powers to establish as to the adoption of which decisions
is attributable to the competence of municipal councils, and of
whichto the competence of the executive bodies accountable to
municipal councils or other municipal institutions. In cases when
the laws prescribe that certain decisions are adopted by
municipal councils, the municipal councils may transfer this
right to adopt such decisions neither to the executive bodies
accountable to the municipal councils, nor other municipal
institutions. However, the legislator, under the Constitution,
may also establish, by means of the law, such legal regulation
under which certain decisions are adopted by municipal councils,
but that they may transfer the right to adopt such decisions to
the executive bodies accountable to the municipal councils;
however, in such cases the following conditions are to be met: 1)
the powers of municipal councils to transfer the right to adopt
certain decisions to the executive bodies accountable to the
municipal councils must be established expressis verbis in the
law; 2) the said powers may not be transferred to municipal
institutions that, according to the law, are not the executive
bodies accountable to the municipal councils. Still, in other
cases the legislator may, by means of the law, directly establish
as regards the issues the decisions on which are adopted by the
executive bodies accountable to the municipal councils
(Constitutional Court decision of 11 February 2004).
Thus, it needs to be held that the Constitutional Court,
while formulating the official concept of local self-government,
has noted that municipal councils may transfer, to the executive
bodies accountable to the municipal councils, the right to adopt
certain decisions on the issues which are not attributed to the
exceptional constitutional competence of municipal councils,
provided that such powers of municipal councils are expressis
verbis established in the law. The right to adopt decisions on
the issues which, according to the law, may be transferred to the
executive bodies accountable to the municipal councils may not be
transferred to municipal institutions that, under the law, are
not the executive bodies accountable to the municipal councils.
9. The Constitutional Court has held that municipal
councils, implementing the right of self-government guaranteed by
the Constitution, may also establish other municipal institutions
and other municipal establishments which have authoritative
empowerments. Municipal institutions are established so that the
interests of the municipality would be realised, the laws and
decisions of the Government and the municipal council would be
directly implemented. Thus, municipal councils, as well as the
executive bodies accountable to them, and other institutions
established by municipal councils, are to be regarded as
"municipal institutions". The notion "municipal institutions"
expresses the subordination of respective institutions to a
respective municipality (Constitutional Court rulings of 24
December 2002 and 13 December 2004).
In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue,
it needs to be noted that neither the executive bodies
accountable to the municipal council nor other municipal
institutions which have authoritative empowerments may be
established from among the members of the municipal council.
10. In the context of the constitutional justice case at
issue, it also needs to be noted that the legislator, under the
Constitution, may also establish, by means of the law, such legal
regulation under which municipal councils are allowed to transfer
the right to adopt decisions on certain issues attributed to the
competence of municipal councils (save the exceptional
constitutional competence of municipal councils) to other
municipal institutions which have authoritative empowerments,
provided that such powers of municipal councils are established
expressis verbis in the law and the law does not establish that
the right to adopt the said decisions may be transferred to the
executive bodies accountable to the municipal councils.
11. It needs to be noted that under the Constitution, inter
alia Paragraph 1 and 4 of Article 119 thereof, municipal
councils, while implementing the right of self-government
guaranteed by the Constitution, may form internal structural sub-
units thereof.
In this context it needs to be noted that, under the
Constitution, internal structural sub-units of municipal councils
may not be treated as ones through which the right of self-
government is implemented by territorial communities, therefore,
the legislator, while regulating relations of local self-
government, is not allowed to establish any such legal regulation
under which internal structural sub-units of municipal councils
or individual municipal officials would be equated to municipal
councils or would replace municipal councils, inter alia in the
aspect that they would take over the execution of certain powers
attributed to the competence of municipal councils as
representations of residents of corresponding territories.
Internal structural sub-units of municipal councils must help to
ensure the work of municipal councils by presenting
recommendations to municipal councils on the issues attributed to
the competence of municipal councils, etc., however, they may not
adopt final decisions on the issues attributed to the competence
of municipal councils.
In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue
it needs to be noted that, under the Constitution, internal
structural sub-units of municipal councils may not be treated as
the executive bodies accountable to the municipal councils or as
other municipal institutions which are established by municipal
councils and which have authoritative empowerments, either.
III
On the compliance of Paragraph 1 (wording of 28 January
2003) of Article 18 of the Law on Local Self-government (wording
of 12 October 2000) with Paragraph 4 of Article 119 of the
Constitution.
1. Paragraph 1 (wording of 28 January 2003) of Article 18 of
the Law on Local Self-government (wording of 12 October 2000)
prescribed:
"The municipal council may, for the term of the powers
thereof, form the college of the municipal council (hereinafter
referred to as the college) from among the members of the
municipal council, and establish the number of its members. The
municipal council may commission the college to discharge the
powers of the municipal council prescribed in Items 15, 19, and
20 of Article 17 of this law."
2. Although the petitioner requests the Constitutional Court
to investigate the compliance of Paragraph 1 (wording of 28
January 2003) of Article 18 of the Law on Local Self-government
(wording of 12 October 2000) with Paragraph 4 of Article 119 of
the Constitution, it is clear from the arguments set forth in the
petition of the petitioner that he had doubts whether Paragraph 1
(wording of 28 January 2003) of Article 18 of the Law on Local
Self-government (wording of 12 October 2000) was not in conflict
with the Constitution to the extent that it established that the
municipal council may commission the college of the municipal
council, formed from among the members of the municipal council,
to discharge the powers of the municipal council prescribed in
Items 15, 19, and 20 of Article 17 of this law.
3. While construing the disputed legal regulation entrenched
in Paragraph 1 (wording of 28 January 2003) of Article 18 of the
Law on Local Self-government (wording of 12 October 2000)
together with the legal regulation entrenched in Article 17
(wording of 28 January 2003) of the Law on Local Self-government
(wording of 12 October 2000), it has been mentioned in this
ruling that the college of the municipal council, formed from
among the members of the municipal council, could be commissioned
to discharge certain powers attributed to the competence of the
municipal council, which, in the case of having not established
such college, are further discharged by the municipal council;
the college of the municipal council could be commissioned to do
the following: to adopt decisions on the analysis of the
development of the territory of a municipality, preparation of
drafts of general long-term social, cultural, economic,
investment, demographic, crime control and prevention,
ecological, health and other programmes; on the proposal of the
mayor, to decide regarding the establishment of positions of
state servants of the secretariat of the municipal council, set
their number; and, each year, to establish training priorities
for municipal employees.
4. While deciding whether Paragraph 1 (wording of 28 January
2003) of Article 18 of the Law on Local Self-government (wording
of 12 October 2000), to the extent that it established that the
municipal council may commission the college of the municipal
council, formed from among the members of the municipal council,
to discharge the powers of the municipal council prescribed in
Items 15, 19, and 20 of Article 17 of this law, was not in
conflict with the Constitution, it is important to elucidate the
status and legal nature of the college of the municipal council.
It has been mentioned that the Constitutional Court, while
formulating the official constitutional notion of local self-
government, has noted that municipal councils may transfer, to
the executive bodies accountable to the municipal councils, the
right to adopt certain decisions on the issues which are not
attributed to the exceptional constitutional competence of
municipal councils, provided that such powers of municipal
councils are expressis verbis established in the law. It has also
been mentioned that municipal councils may also transfer the
right to adopt decisions on certain issues attributed to the
competence of municipal councils (save the exceptional
constitutional competence of municipal councils) to other
municipal institutions which have authoritative empowerments,
provided that such powers of municipal councils are established
expressis verbis in the law and the law does not establish that
the right to adopt the said decisions may be transferred to the
executive bodies accountable to the municipal councils.
5. It has been mentioned that Paragraph 3 (wording of 28
January 2003) of Article 3 of the Law on Local Self-government
(wording of 12 October 2000), while defining the municipal
executive institution, inter alia prescribed: 1) the municipal
executive institution shall be the director of the municipal
administration; 2) the executive institution shall assume a
direct and personal responsibility for the implementation of the
laws as well as the decisions of the Government and the municipal
council in the territory of a municipality. In this context it
needs to be noted that neither this nor other provisions of the
Law on Local Self-government (wording of 12 October 2000 with
amendments of 28 January 2003) indicate any other institution as
an executive body accountable to the municipal council. It has
been also mentioned that, under Paragraph 1 (wording of 28
January 2003) of Article 18 of the Law on Local Self-government
(wording of 12 October 2000), the college of the municipal
council shall be formed from among the members of the municipal
council.
Thus, under the legal regulation entrenched in the
provisions of Paragraph 3 (wording of 28 January 2003) of Article
3 of the Law on Local Self-government (wording of 12 October
2000) as well as other provisions of the Law on Local Self-
government (wording of 12 October 2000 with amendments of 28
January 2003), the college of the municipal council, formed from
among the members of the municipal council, may not be treated as
an executive body accountable to the municipal council.
It has also been mentioned that, under the Constitution, the
executive bodies accountable to the municipal councils may not be
formed from among the members of the municipal councils which
establish them.
6. It has been mentioned that, while defining the notion
"municipal control institution", Paragraph 4 of Article 3 of the
Law on Local Self-government (wording of 12 October 2000)
prescribed: 1) the municipal control institution shall be the
municipal controller; 2) the municipal control institution shall
be commissioned to control the use of the municipal budget and
perform the functions of internal audit of a municipality.
Consequently, under the legal regulation entrenched in
Paragraph 4 (wording of 28 January 2003) of Article 3 of the Law
on Local Self-government (wording of 12 October 2000), the
college of the municipal council is not and may not be regarded
as a municipal control institution.
7. It has also been mentioned in this ruling that the
Constitutional Court, while formulating the official
constitutional notion of local self-government, has noted that
municipal councils, while implementing the right of self-
government guaranteed by the Constitution, may also establish
other municipal institutions which have authoritative
empowerments.
It has been mentioned that other municipal institutions
which have authoritative empowerments participate in the
implementation of the laws, decisions of the Government and the
municipal council in the territory of a municipality or implement
them themselves. It has also been mentioned that other municipal
institutions which have authoritative empowerments may not be
formed from among the members of the municipal council.
Thus, the college of the municipal council, which is
specified in Paragraph 1 (wording of 28 January 2003) of Article
18 of the Law on Local Self-government (wording of 12 October
2000) and is formed from among the members of the municipal
council, may not be treated as one of other municipal
institutions which have authoritative empowerments.
8. It needs to be held that, under the legal regulation
established in the Law on Local Self-government (wording of 12
October 2000 with amendments of 28 January 2003), the college of
the municipal council is neither the municipal executive
institution, nor the municipal control institution, nor other
municipal institution which has authoritative empowerments.
9. It has been mentioned that, under the legal regulation
established in the Law on Local Self-government (wording of 12
October 2000 with amendments of 28 January 2003), municipal
councils may establish their structural sub-units. Internal
structural sub-units of municipal councils inter alia are
municipal council committees. The municipal council committees
are formed from among the members of the municipal council and
the purpose of the municipal council committees is to preliminary
consider issues submitted to the municipal council, to present
conclusions and proposals to the municipal council, and to adopt
recommendatory decisions within their competence.
10. With regard to the procedure of formation, the college
of the municipal council is similar to municipal council
committees, as both the college of the municipal council and
municipal council committees are formed from among the members of
the municipal council. In this respect, both the college of the
municipal council and municipal council committees are to be
treated as internal structural sub-units of the municipal
council. However, they differ in the nature of powers and content
thereof: according to their functions, municipal council
committees are advisory bodies of the municipal council, whereas
the college of the municipal council is granted the right to
independently discharge certain functions of the municipal
council, which are entrenched in Article 17 (wording of 28
January 2003) of the Law on Local Self-government (wording of 12
October 2000).
11. It has been mentioned that the Constitutional Court,
when construing inter alia Paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 119 of
the Constitution, has noted that municipal councils, while
implementing the right of self-government guaranteed by the
Constitution, may form their internal structural sub-units.
It has also been mentioned that, under the Constitution,
internal structural sub-units of municipal councils may not be
treated as ones through which the right of self-government is
implemented by territorial communities, therefore, the
legislator, while regulating relations of local self-government,
is not allowed to establish any such legal regulation under which
internal structural sub-units of municipal councils or individual
municipal officials would be equated to municipal councils or
would replace municipal councils, inter alia in the aspect that
they would take over the discharge of certain powers attributed
to the competence of municipal councils as representations of
residents of corresponding territories. Internal structural sub-
units of municipal councils must help to ensure the work of
municipal councils by presenting recommendations to municipal
councils on the issues attributed to the competence of municipal
councils, etc.; however, they may not adopt final decisions on
the issues attributed to the competence of municipal councils.
It has been also mentioned that, under the Constitution,
internal structural sub-units of municipal councils may be
treated neither as executive bodies accountable to municipal
councils nor as other municipal institutions which are
established by municipal councils and which have authoritative
empowerments.
12. It has been mentioned that Paragraph 1 (wording of 28
January 2003) of Article 18 of the Law on Local Self-government
(wording of 12 October 2000) prescribed that the municipal
council may form the college of the municipal council from among
the members of the municipal council and commission it to
discharge the powers of the municipal council prescribed in Items
15, 19, and 20 of Article 17 (wording of 28 January 2003) of the
Law on Local Self-government (wording of 12 October 2000). Such
legal regulation created legal preconditions to transfer, to a
certain extent, the implementation of the right of self-
government to the college of the municipal council. Consequently,
under the legal regulation established in Paragraph 1 (wording of
28 January 2003) of Article 18 of the said law, the college of
the municipal council, upon implementing the powers assigned to
it by the municipal council, could, in certain issues, be equated
to the municipal council or could replace it, inter alia in the
aspect that it could take over the discharge of certain powers
which are attributed to the competence of the municipal council
as a representation of residents of corresponding territories.
13. It needs to be held that the legal regulation
established in Paragraph 1 (wording of 28 January 2003) of
Article 18 of the Law on Local Self-government (wording of 12
October 2000), to the extent that it prescribed the right of the
municipal council to commission the college of the municipal
council, formed from among the members of the municipal council,
to discharge certain powers attributed to the competence of the
municipal council, deviated from the notion of local self-
government entrenched in the Constitution, inter alia Paragraphs
1 and 4 of Article 119 thereof.
14. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to
draw a conclusion that Paragraph 1 (wording of 28 January 2003)
of Article 18 of the Law on Local Self-government (wording of 12
October 2000), to the extent that it established that the
municipal council may commission the college of the municipal
council, formed from among the members of the municipal council,
to discharge the powers of the municipal council prescribed in
Items 15, 19, and 20 of Article 17 of this law, was in conflict
with Paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 119 of the Constitution.
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:
To recognise that Paragraph 1 (wording of 28 January 2003;
Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2003, No. 17-704) of Article
18 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Local Self-government
(wording of 12 October 2000), to the extent that it established
that the municipal council may commission the college of the
municipal council, formed from among the members of the municipal
council, to discharge the powers of the municipal council
prescribed in Items 15, 19, and 20 of Article 17 of this law, was
in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 119 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
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
Ramutė Ruškytė
Egidijus Šileikis
Algirdas Taminskas
Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis