Lt

On the restoration of the ownership rights of citizens to residential houses

Case No. 8/96

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

R U L I N G

On the compliance of the norms of Paragraph 5 of Article 8 and of Paragraph 1 of Article 19 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property” with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania

12 November 1996, Vilnius

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court: Egidijus Jarašiūnas, Kęstutis Lapinskas, Zigmas Levickis, Augustinas Normantas, Vladas Pavilonis, Jonas Prapiestis, Pranas Vytautas Rasimavičius, Teodora Staugaitienė, and Juozas Žilys

The court reporter—Daiva Pitrėnaitė

Seimas members Andrius Kubilius and Vidmantas Žiemelis, acting as the representatives of a group of members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner

Alfonsas Vileita, the adviser of the Seimas Committee of State and Law, acting as the representative of the Seimas, the party concerned

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Law on Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its public hearing, on 23 October 1995, considered case No. 8/96 subsequent to the petition submitted to the Court by a group of members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether the norm of Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law “On Amending and Supplementing Articles 8, 19, 20, 21 of the Law ‘On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property’ as well as Supplementing This Law with Article 211” of 2 April 1996 by which Article 8 of the 18 June 1991 Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property” has been supplemented with new Paragraph 5 and whether the norm of Article 2 by which Paragraph 1 of Article 19 of the aforementioned law has been amended and supplemented are in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

The Constitutional Court

has established:

I

By means of the Law “On Amending and Supplementing Articles 8, 19, 20, 21 of the Law ‘On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property’ as well as Supplementing This Law with Article 211” of 2 April 1996 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1996, No. 37-929), the Seimas supplemented Article 8 of the Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property” (hereinafter in the ruling referred to as the Law) with the following norm: “Providing a citizen wishes to restore his right of ownership to a dwelling-house (portion thereof or apartment) in kind, and providing the said dwelling-house (portion thereof or apartment) may not be returned in kind in pursuance of Paragraph 2 of this article, the mayor (board) or the State institution shall inform the citizen in writing and propose him to choose the manner of purchasing which is indicated in Paragraph 4 of this article. Providing the citizen did not choose the manner of the purchasing of the dwelling-house (portion thereof or apartment) within 3 months from the day of reception of the proposal, the mayor (board) shall adopt the decision to purchase the dwelling-house, portion thereof (apartment) for money and securities.” Paragraph 1 of Article 19 was amended and supplemented with this norm: “The institutions which are indicated in Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Article 18 of this Law must investigate the requests of citizens and adopt decisions regarding restoration of the right of ownership (with the exception of the restoration of the right of ownership to land and forest) within 3 months from the day of submission of the documents proving the right to ownership.”

II

A group of members of the Seimas, the petitioner, requests an investigation into whether the aforesaid norms to the extent that the conditions and procedure of restoration in kind of the rights of ownership to dwelling-houses are altered are in compliance with the Constitution.

In its petition, the petitioner points out that the impugned provision of Article 8 makes it actually impossible to recover the dwelling-houses in kind which at present are occupied by tenants as Item 4 of Paragraph 2 of Article 8 establishes that “dwelling-houses (or portions thereof), apartments shall be returned in kind in the case that: <...> 4) the tenants who occupy houses (or portions thereof), apartments subject to being returned are provided with a dwelling place conforming to the requirements of Article 358 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania”.

According to the provision “institutions must investigate the requests of citizens and adopt decisions regarding restoration of the right of ownership (with the exception of the restoration of the right of ownership to land and forest) within 3 months from the day of submission of the documents proving the right to ownership” of the impugned Article 19, while adopting decision regarding restoration of the right of ownership to a dwelling-house, the decision must be adopted whether it is possible to return the house in kind or, providing there is not such a possibility, it is necessary to compensate the former owner for his property which he used to possess. If the house subject to being returned is occupied by the tenants, the institutions which are to pass the decision, must, in addition, adopt the decision whether they may provide the tenants with other dwelling places within said 3 months.

The petitioner alleges that the unconditional duty of the mayor (board) or any other state institution which is set forth by the impugned provisions of Article 8 of the Law means that the dwelling-houses occupied by the tenants will not be returned to the owners as no institution that adopts decisions regarding the restoration of the rights of ownership is not capable of providing the tenants with a dwelling place within 3 months.

The petitioner is of the opinion that such a provision contradicts Paragraph 5 of Article 21 of the Law which was supplemented by the impugned law, too, which prescribes that “persons who reside in a dwelling-house, portion thereof, or apartment which is being returned to the owner shall be provided with a dwelling place by the municipality of a respective town or district pursuant to the programme prepared and carried out by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania. The funds for the implementation of such programmes shall be provided for annually from the State Budget”. Such programmes are implemented during long period of time and cannot be implemented within 3 months. According to the impugned provisions of the law, however, the mayors (boards) of municipalities or state institutions must adopt decisions regarding restoration of the rights to ownership to dwelling-houses when taking no account of the implementation of the said programmes. Thus, the returning of property in kind becomes dependent on arbitrary factors: the time when the documents proving the right to ownership were submitted, how many unoccupied dwelling places that may be proposed to the tenants who live in the houses subject to being returned are left at the command of a particular municipality, etc., but not on the objective circumstances (the economic capacity of the state). Hence the state loses its opportunity to implement its major duty—to co-ordinate different interests of social groups (owners and tenants).

The petitioner alleges that the legislature by actually abolishing the opportunity to implement state long-term programmes designed to provide the tenants who now reside in the dwelling houses which are being returned with an appropriate dwelling place, at the same time deprived the persons who wish to restore their rights of ownership to the dwelling-house where the tenants reside of the opportunity to recover the property in kind. This contradicts the principle of the protection of the rights of ownership which is set forth in Article 23 of the Constitution and which was interpreted by the Constitutional Court many a time. In the opinion of the petitioner, in this case the public need is to co-ordinate the interests of the owners and tenants, this must be done with the power of the state during the time limits known for both parties and not by immediately and unconditionally satisfying the interests of one party.

The petitioner indicates that the Constitutional Court set forth an analogous view in its ruling of 22 December 1995: “When restoring the ownership rights to residential houses (or portions thereof), or apartments, there exist a variety of possible manners to co-ordinate the protection of the rights of former owners and the rights of tenants. <…> The allotment of some other dwelling place to tenants is the problem of law enforcement, the economic capacity of the state and that of the possibilities of the owners. In order to solve this problem, as well as that of relations between former owners and tenants who occupy the houses of the former, the Government must prepare corresponding programmes (Paragraph 5 of Article 21 of the Law, Article 14 of the Law ‘On Enabling the Population of the Republic of Lithuania in Providing Themselves with Dwelling Places’). The implementation of programmes is an economic problem. This problem finds its solution in the course of discussing, adopting and executing the budget.”

The petitioner also notes that the Constitutional Court also held in the same ruling that “if a former owner requests the restoration of a house (or a portion thereof), or an apartment in kind, the legal condition of the tenant shall remain intact, however, the tenant is not entitled to privatise the aforesaid dwelling place”. The petitioner is of the opinion that the interests of the tenant may not be violated as they are protected by the same law. The tenant is provided with an opportunity to privatise the dwelling place which will subsequently be allotted to him. Meanwhile, the interest of the former owner to restore the building in kind is violated because its implementation becomes dependent upon the conditions that are impossible to fulfil: Can the Government find enough funds so that all the tenants who now reside in the houses which are subject to being returned could actually within 3 months at once in whole Lithuania be provided with another dwelling place?

The petitioner concludes that the law-maker should establish the duty for municipalities that they during certain time limits by carrying out the Government programme must provide the tenants who reside in a house which is subject to being returned with another dwelling place but never should the law-maker establish the duty for municipalities or other institutions that they immediately recognised that the house where the tenants reside is not subject to being returned nor the duty for the former owner to immediately opt for a manner of compensation.

In the process of judicial investigation the representatives of the petitioner emphasised that, while restoring ownership rights to real property, the main provision is justice. Justice is understood as a balance of interests, and in this particular case it is the co-ordination of interests of the former owners and the tenants who now reside in the houses which are subject to being returned. The main interest of the owner is the recovery of the real property in kind whereas that of the tenant is to get and privatise another dwelling place which corresponds to that returned to the owner. The co-ordination of these interests objectively depends on the economic capacity of the state. Therefore, it is immoral and illegal to require that the issue of property restoration or that of compensation allotment were decided within 3 months while, in addition, one should consider the fact that the compensation is paid within 10 years whereas the budget is accrued for one year but not for 3 months.

The representatives of the petitioner did not contest the right of the tenant residing in the house subject to being returned to another dwelling place which conforms to the requirements of law. However, as the Law provides that the issue of the property restoration in kind or compensation of the value of the property must be decided within 3 months and while it is impossible to restore ownership rights in kind during such a short period of time, thus, if the compensation was allotted to the former owner, the principle of co-ordination of interests would not be followed. The representatives of the petitioner also deem that this procedure provided for in the Law contradicts Article 29 of the Constitution. The equality of rights of persons is violated as implementation of the rights is dependent on the economic capacity of a particular municipality and on the fact how many unoccupied dwelling places are at its disposal at the given moment.

In the opinion of the representatives of the petitioner, when solving this issue, a roll of the queue of the tenants who reside in the houses which are subject to being returned to the owners and who must be provided with a dwelling place must have been formed. They must be provided with another dwelling place within 10 years and from state funds, the dwelling place rented by them may not be privatised while the municipality or another state institution shall adopt the decision to return the property to former owners in kind. The interests of the tenants are protected by the guarantees for the tenants as provided in the Law. The allotment of dwelling places to the tenants should be the priority direction of the budget.

III

While replying to the Constitutional Court paper for the party concerned, Pranciškus Vitkevičius, Chairman of the Seimas Committee of State and Law, when the case was being prepared for the court hearing, explained in writing that the members of the Seimas do not insistently point out in their petition as to what provisions (what articles) of the Constitution are challenged by the impugned norms. The petition contains an indication to Article 23 of the Constitution, however, the Constitutional Court has held that persons whose ownership rights are not restored and who claim to restore the rights shall not be the owners. Therefore, it is impossible to assert that the impugned norms contradict Article 23 of the Constitution. The Chairman of the Committee points out that the initial wording of the Law was not perfect. It was necessary to amend and improve the Law while taking account of the actual economic and social conditions and the interests of particular groups of people of Lithuania. The impugned amendments were passed on the grounds of the following reasons:

1) The former norms of the law were vague and the solution of the ownership restoration issue was not limited by any time limit whereas such a vagueness corresponded the interests of neither the former owners nor the tenants. The Seimas had to resolve this issue then.

2) When resolving the issue of restoration of the ownership rights to existing houses, it was necessary to consider the economic situation of the state. At the given moment, the Republic of Lithuania is not capable of providing all the tenants, who reside in houses the right to property to which must be restored, with dwelling places in pursuance of Article 357 of the Civil Code . In addition, there exist no funds for paying at once the former owners all the price of the houses (apartments) which formerly belonged to them.

The Chairman of the Committee deems that the provisions of the impugned law are in compliance with the Constitution.

The representative of the party concerned explained during the process of judicial investigation that, in his opinion, this amendment of the Law was defective from its adoption as it did not establish the procedure of investigation of prior submitted requests to restore the ownership rights. A great many of the requests had to be investigated at once only after this amendment had been adopted. The representative of the party concerned also emphasised that until the ownership rights are not restored to the former owners they are not the owners as yet. Thus, their rights may not be protected on the basis of Article 23 of the Constitution, therefore, the impugned provisions of the Law may not contradict Article 23 of the Constitution.

In the opinion of the representative of the party concerned, the impugned norms of the Law do not violate the principle of the equality of rights of persons as established in Article 29 of the Constitution either because in this case the equality of rights can be violated provided the law is implemented and as to who and how implements the norms provided for by law. The same should be mentioned as regards the equality of rights of persons when adopting the norms of the law. The law shall be amended when taking account of changing socio-economic circumstances as well as those which were not considered when the law was being adopted.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

I

The restitution of the constitutional institute of the right of private ownership should be linked with the Republic of Lithuania’s Law “On the Reinstatement of the 12 May 1938 Constitution of Lithuania” of 11 March 1990. By adopting the Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property”, the legislature invoked the concept that the constitutional institute of the right of private ownership had already been restored and that it had to be actually implemented. Alongside, the principal provision was consolidated that the protection of the ownership rights which had been violated during the period of occupation means that the ownership rights shall be restored to existing real property by, first of all, returning it in kind. And only providing it is impossible to return the property in kind because of the conditions enumerated in the Law it shall be compensated in other manner at the option of the former owner as it is established in the Law.

When restoring the ownership rights to dwelling-houses, portions thereof, apartments, the Law does not ignore the legitimate interests of the tenants. In this case the regulation role of law manifests itself in that the rights of former owners and the legitimate interests of tenants are co-ordinated. When the house is returned to the former owner, the interests of tenants are protected by providing them with other dwelling places. While assessing the impugned supplements to the Law concerning the restoration of the ownership rights to dwelling-houses, it is necessary, first of all, to take account of the legal aspects of co-ordination of these interests.

II

The Seimas by its Law “On Amending and Supplementing Articles 8, 19, 20, 21 of the Law ‘On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property’ as well as Supplementing This Law with Article 211” of 2 April 1996 supplemented Article 8 of the Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property” with the following norm: “Providing a citizen wishes to restore his right of ownership to a dwelling-house (portion thereof or apartment) in kind, and providing the said dwelling-house (portion thereof or apartment) may not be returned in kind in pursuance of Paragraph 2 of this article, the mayor (board) or the State institution shall inform the citizen in writing and propose him to choose the manner of purchase which is indicated in Paragraph 4 of this article. Providing the citizen did not choose the manner of purchase of the dwelling-house (portion thereof or apartment) within 3 months from the day of reception of the proposal, the mayor (board) shall adopt the decision to purchase the dwelling-house, portion thereof (apartment) for money and securities.” Paragraph 1 of Article 19 was supplemented with this norm: “The institutions which are indicated in Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Article 18 of this Law must investigate the requests of citizens and adopt decisions regarding restoration of the right of ownership (with the exception of the restoration of the right of ownership to land and forest) within 3 months from the day of submission of the documents proving the right to ownership.”

The impugned supplements must be interpreted along with other norms of the Law. Paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Law prescribes the cases under which the dwelling-houses, portions thereof, apartments shall be returned in kind. Paragraph 4 of Article 8 of the Law establishes that “in all other cases, not specified in Paragraph 2 of this Article, the ownership right to dwelling-houses (or portions thereof, apartments) shall not be returned in kind and the ownership right shall be restored by purchasing them from the persons indicated in Article 2 of this law at their option in the following manner: <...>”. Upon the association of the impugned supplements of the Law with these norms, it is possible to understand that the aforementioned supplements may be applied to some cases regarding the returning of dwelling-houses, portions thereof, apartments in kind and which are enumerated in Paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Law.

In the process of the judicial investigation, the petitioner, as well as his representatives, in his petition interpreted the defectiveness of the impugned supplements by associating them with the norm of Item 4 of Paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Law which stipulates that providing a citizen wishes to recover the dwelling-house in kind in the case that it is occupied by the tenants he shall be proposed to restore his ownership rights by purchasing the said house by the state in the manner provided for by the Law. Provided the former owner does not wish that his ownership rights were restored by the manner of purchase or he does not choose the manner of purchase within the period of 3 months and wishes to recover the house in kind then the institution which investigates the request of the citizen to restore the ownership rights must adopt the decision to purchase this property against the will of the former owner. Such a period of time is not a realistic one as it is impossible to provide all the tenants with other dwelling places during a very short period of time, neither is it possible to pay the former owners compensations for the dwelling-houses which are not returned. The petitioner and his representatives are of the opinion that the impugned supplements of the Law deny the possibility to restore the ownership rights to dwelling-houses in kind.

Thus, the Constitutional Court will assess the impugned supplements of the Law to the extent that the said supplements are related to Item 4 of Paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Law, i.e., with the opportunity to recover dwelling-houses, portions thereof, apartments in kind in the case the tenants reside therein.

III

The legal norm by which the state undertakes respective responsibilities, in this case—to provide the tenants who reside in the houses, portions thereof, apartments which are subject to being returned to the former owners with corresponding dwelling places—must be grounded on material and financial resources. Otherwise this legal norm becomes ineffective, it is impossible to make use of it (ius nudum).

Paragraph 5 of Article 21 of the Law establishes that persons who reside in a dwelling-house, portion thereof, or apartment which is being returned to the owner shall be provided with a dwelling place by the municipality of a respective town or district pursuant to the programme prepared and carried out by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania while the funds for the implementation of such programmes shall be provided for annually from the State Budget. While implementing the Law, the Government adopted its Resolution (No. 805) “On the Programmes to Provide Tenants Who Live in Houses Subject to Being Returned to the Former Owners with Apartments” of 27 October 1992. It provides for material and financial measures aimed at providing the tenants with other dwelling places until the year 2000 and afterward.

Along with these guarantees, the right to state support is provided for the tenants (Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 9, and Article 14 of the Law “On Enabling the Population of the Republic of Lithuania in Providing Themselves with Dwelling Places”), as well as the right to other appropriately furnished dwelling places (Item 4 of Paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Law, Paragraph 1 of Article 356 of the Civil Code), as well as the right to purchase the allotted other dwelling places making use of the deposited state extraordinary disbursements (vouchers) and other targeted compensations (Article 211 of the Law, Article 2 of the Law “On the Utilisation of State Extraordinary Disbursements and Other Targeted Compensations”, as well as other guarantees (Paragraphs 6–8 of Article 21 of the Law).

The Constitutional Court has also held that, while restoring the ownership rights, it is necessary to co-ordinate the interests of former owners with public interests (the rulings of 27 May 1994 and 8 March 1995) as well as to bring into accord the lawful interests of former and present owners of the same property as well as those of the tenants, occupying the houses subject to being restored (the rulings of 15 June 1994 and 22 December 1995).

According to the impugned supplements of Articles 8 and 19 of the Law, the former owners are deprived of the right to recover the dwelling-houses, portions thereof, apartments in kind. Thus, the new legal norm does not co-ordinate the interests of certain social groups—the former owners and the tenants who reside in the houses, portions thereof, apartments of the former owners. On the contrary, in the case that the former owner wishes to recover the property in kind, the priority of the tenant’s interests protection is established which is not in conformity with the constitutional protection of the right to property.

IV

In the theory of law, as well as in the practice of application of legal acts, the principle is followed that the material legal norms have the priority in regard of procedural legal norms. As a rule, the latter are of an official character, i.e., they are aimed at implementation of material legal norms. Article 8 of the Law contains legal norms of two types: the material legal norms establishing conditions under which the ownership right are restored (the dwelling-house, portion thereof, or apartment is returned in kind or purchased) and the procedural legal norms establishing the procedure by which the ownership rights are restored providing there exist the conditions established by the material norms of the Law.

The impugned provisions of Paragraph 5 of Article 8 should essentially be judged to be procedural norms. However, when conforming to these norms and the supplement of Article 19 of the Law, the mayor (board) of the municipality of a town (district) or the state institution (Paragraph 2 of Article 18 of the Law) must adopt the decision that the dwelling-house portion thereof, apartment of the former owner shall be purchased in the case that it is occupied by the tenants. Thus, on the grounds of the procedural norm, the former owner is deprived of the opportunity to restore his ownership rights by recovering the property in kind.

The Constitutional Court already investigated the compliance of the norm of Item 4 stipulating that the dwelling-houses (or portions thereof), apartments shall be returned in kind in the case that “the tenants who occupy houses, portions thereof, or apartments subject to being returned are provided with a dwelling place conforming to the requirements of Article 358 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania” with the Constitution. The Constitutional Court held in its ruling of 22 December 1995 that the lease with the tenant may be forfeited and he may be evicted in the case that the condition of Item 4 of Paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Law is met, i.e. he is allotted a corresponding dwelling place. Only then may the former owner recover the dwelling-house, portion thereof, apartment in kind when this condition is fulfilled.

As mentioned, the guarantees established by law as well as the programme of providing the tenants with other dwelling places virtually condition the time period of carrying out the restoration of the ownership rights in kind. However, the norm of Paragraph 5 of Article 8 of the Law imperatively establishes the concrete time period of 3 months from the day of the proposal to choose the manner of purchase the house, portion thereof, apartment. Provided the citizen who wishes to recover the dwelling-house, portion thereof, or apartment in kind does not choose the manner of purchase in the case that there exists the condition provided for by Item 4 of Paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Law, then the institutions which investigate citizens’ requests to restore their ownership rights must adopt decisions pursuant to administrative procedure (Paragraph 1 of Article 19 of the Law) to restore the ownership rights but only by purchase of the dwelling-houses, portions thereof, or apartments from the former owners. This norm altered the principal provision of the Law that while restoring ownership rights priority shall be given to restoration of the property in kind. The fact that by the aforesaid groundlessly short time periods the process of the restoration of the ownership rights by recovering the dwelling-houses, portions thereof, or apartments in kind is actually ceased contradicts the constitutional provisions of the protection of property rights.

V

It should be noted that the persons whose ownership rights to dwelling-houses, portions thereof, or apartments are restored in case they are occupied by the tenants had an opportunity to recover them in kind until the adoption of the impugned amendments of the Law and when the implementation of these rights was not bound by concrete time limits. Under such conditions, part of the former owners have already recovered dwelling-houses, portions thereof, apartments in kind. Meanwhile, the impugned supplements of Articles 8 and 19 of the Law obligate the institutions of state governing to resolve the issue of the restoration of ownership rights during a very short time period. Thereby the process of the restoration of the ownership rights by the main manner provided for by the Law, i.e., to return the dwelling-houses, portions thereof, or apartments in kind, is actually ceased. The former owners who have not recovered the dwelling-houses, portions thereof, or apartments, in essence, loose the opportunity to recover them under the impugned supplements of the Law. This should be treated as a violation of the principle of the equality of rights of persons which is consolidated in Article 29 of the Constitution.

On the grounds of the arguments set forth, the Constitutional Court makes the conclusion that the impugned supplements of Articles 8 and 19 of the Law contradict Articles 23 and 29 of the Constitution.

Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 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 gives the following

ruling:

To recognise that the norms of Paragraph 5 of Article 8 and of Paragraph 1 of Article 19 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property” to the extent that the possibility of the former owners to recover dwelling-houses, portions thereof, or apartments in kind when they are occupied by the tenants is denied as established in Item 4 of Paragraph 2 of Article 8 of this law contradict Articles 23 and 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

This ruling of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal.

The ruling is pronounced in the name of the Republic of Lithuania.

Justices of the Constitutional Court:

 Egidijus Jarašiūnas                           Kęstutis Lapinskas                           Zigmas Levickis

 Augustinas Normantas                    Vladas Pavilonis                              Jonas Prapiestis

 Pranas Vytautas Rasimavičius         Teodora Staugaitienė                       Juozas Žilys