Lt

On refusing to consider an inquiry regarding a conclusion

 THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

 DECISION

ON THE INQUIRY SET FORTH IN THE 5 JUNE 2014 RESOLUTION (NO. XII-928) “ON AN INQUIRY TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA” OF THE SEIMAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, THE PETITIONER

 8 June 2014, No. KT21-S12/2014
Vilnius

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court: Elvyra Baltutytė, Vytautas Greičius, Danutė Jočienė, Pranas Kuconis, Gediminas Mesonis, Vytas Milius, Egidijus Šileikis, Algirdas Taminskas, and Dainius Žalimas

The court reporter—Daiva Pitrėnaitė

At its procedural sitting, the Constitutional Court considered an inquiry (No. 1B-41/2014), set forth in the 5 June 2014 Resolution (No. XII-928) “On an Inquiry to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania” of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, regarding a conclusion on:

1) “whether Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 89, and 90 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Elections to the Seimas were not violated when, through Item 3 of the 3 June 2014 Decision (No. Sp-176) ‘On Recognising the Powers of Seimas Member Viktor Uspaskich as Having Been Discontinued and Awarding a Mandate of a Member of the Seimas to Gintaras Tamošiūnas’ of the Central Electoral Commission of the Republic of Lithuania, it was recognised that, upon the availability of a vacant seat of a member of the Seimas, Gintaras Tamošiūnas became a member of the Seimas, as he was standing first as a candidate having not received a mandate of a member of the Seimas on the list of the candidates of the Labour Party, from which an outgoing member of the Seimas had been elected”;

2) “whether the genuine will of voters was not violated when, through the 14 November 2012 Resolution (No. XI-2420) ‘On the Establishment of the Final Results of the 14 October 2012 Election to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania in the Multi-Member Constituency’ of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, all the preferential votes received by Živilė Pinskuvienė, Jolanta Gaudutienė, Jonas Pinskus, and Vytautas Gricius were totally annulled, and the said candidates were removed from the order of candidates on the list of the candidates of the Labour Party”.

The Constitutional Court

has established:

  1. On 5 June 2014, the Seimas adopted the Resolution (No. XII-928) “On an Inquiry to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania” (hereinafter also referred to as the Seimas resolution of 5 June 2014), by means of which the Seimas applied to the Constitutional Court with its inquiry regarding a conclusion on:

1) “whether Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 89, and 90 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Elections to the Seimas were not violated when, through Item 3 of the 3 June 2014 Decision (No. Sp-176) ‘On Recognising the Powers of Seimas Member Viktor Uspaskich as Having Been Discontinued and Awarding a Mandate of a Member of the Seimas to Gintaras Tamošiūnas’ of the Central Electoral Commission of the Republic of Lithuania, it was recognised that, upon the availability of a vacant seat of a member of the Seimas, Gintaras Tamošiūnas became a member of the Seimas, as he was standing first as a candidate having not received a mandate of a member of the Seimas on the list of the candidates of the Labour Party, from which an outgoing member of the Seimas had been elected”;

2) “whether the genuine will of voters was not violated when, through the 14 November 2012 Resolution (No. XI-2420) ‘On the Establishment of the Final Results of the 14 October 2012 Election to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania in the Multi-Member Constituency’ of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, all the preferential votes received by Živilė Pinskuvienė, Jolanta Gaudutienė, Jonas Pinskus, and Vytautas Gricius were totally annulled, and the said candidates were removed from the order of candidates on the list of the candidates of the Labour Party”.

The aforesaid resolution of the Seimas was officially published in the Register of Legal Acts on 6 June 2014 (Register of Legal Acts, 06-06-2014, No. 2014-07219); the resolution was received at the Constitutional Court on 6 June 2014, at 3.30 p.m.

  1. In the inquiry, set forth in the 5 June 2014 resolution of the Seimas, the petitioner, regarding a conclusion, it is maintained that, through the 14 November 2012 Resolution (No. XI-2420) “On the Establishment of the Final Results of the 14 October 2012 Election to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania in the Multi-Member Constituency” of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter referred to as the Seimas resolution of 14 November 2012), which was adopted, inter alia, on the basis of the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012, the preferential votes received by Živilė Pinskuvienė, Jolanta Gaudutienė, Jonas Pinskus, and Vytautas Gricius were totally annulled, and the said candidates were removed from the order of candidates on the list of the candidates of the Labour Party due to the actions they had not committed. According to the petitioner, following the adoption of the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012, new substantial circumstances were found, revealing that there was no evidence that Jonas Pinskus, Živilė Pinskuvienė, Jolanta Gaudutienė, and Vytautas Gricius had organised the bribery of voters or otherwise engaged in bribing voters. In the absence of such evidence, the 3 June 2014 Decision (No. Sp-176) “On Recognising the Powers of Seimas Member Viktor Uspaskich as Having Been Discontinued and Awarding a Mandate of a Member of the Seimas to Gintaras Tamošiūnas” of the Central Electoral Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Central Electoral Commission’s decision No. Sp-176 of 3 June 2014), insofar as it provides that Gintaras Tamošiūnas, who is standing first as a candidate having not received a mandate of a member of the Seimas on the list of the candidates of the Labour Party, becomes a member of the Seimas, according to the petitioner, possibly violates the provisions of the Law on Elections to the Seimas, since it denies the genuine will of voters, expressed by casting preferential votes for Živilė Pinskuvienė, Jolanta Gaudutienė, Jonas Pinskus, and Vytautas Gricius, which had been approved by the Central Electoral Commission through its 4 November 2012 Decision (No. Sp-321) “On the Final Election Results of the 14 October 2012 Election to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania” (hereinafter referred to as the Central Electoral Commission’s decision No. Sp-321 of 4 November 2012) and which had been annulled through the aforementioned Seimas resolution of 14 November 2012, adopted on the basis of the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

I

  1. The inquiry set forth in the 5 June 2014 resolution of the Seimas, the petitioner, requests, inter alia, a conclusion on whether Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 89, and 90 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas were not violated when, through Item 3 of the Central Electoral Commission’s decision No. Sp-176 of 3 June 2014, it was recognised that, upon the availability of a vacant seat of a member of the Seimas, Gintaras Tamošiūnas became a member of the Seimas, as he was standing first as a candidate having not received a mandate of a member of the Seimas on the list of the candidates of the Labour Party, from which an outgoing member of the Seimas had been elected.
  2. Under Item 1 of Paragraph 3 of Article 105 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court gives conclusions on whether election laws were not violated during the elections of the President of the Republic or elections of members of the Seimas. Paragraph 5 of Article 106 of the Constitution provides that the Seimas, as well as the President of the Republic, may request a conclusion from the Constitutional Court on whether the election law was not violated, inter alia, during the elections of members of the Seimas. Thus, the Seimas has the right to request a conclusion from the Constitutional Court on whether election laws were not violated during the elections of members of the Seimas.
  3. Under Paragraph 1 of Article 77 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, inquiries concerning possible violations of election laws during the elections of members of the Seimas must be referred to the Constitutional Court not later than within 3 days of the publication of the official election results.

Under Paragraph 1 of Article 95 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas, inquiries concerning possible violations of the Law on Elections to the Seimas may be referred to the Constitutional Court by the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as the President of the Republic, not later than within 3 days not only of the publication of the official election results, but also not later than within 3 days of the publication of a decision of the Central Electoral Commission on the availability or filling of a vacant seat of a member of the Seimas.

It should be noted that the constitutionality of Paragraph 1 of Article 95 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas is not a matter of investigation in deciding regarding the inquiry of the petitioner.

  1. The inquiry, set forth in the 5 June 2014 resolution of the Seimas, the petitioner, regarding a conclusion in the aforementioned aspect is, in substance, substantiated by the fact that the Central Electoral Commission’s decision No. Sp-176 of 3 June 2014, insofar as it provides that Gintaras Tamošiūnas, who is standing first as a candidate having not received a mandate of a member of the Seimas on the list of the candidates of the Labour Party, becomes a member of the Seimas, possibly violates the provisions of the Law on Elections to the Seimas, since it denies the genuine will of voters, expressed by casting preferential votes for Živilė Pinskuvienė, Jolanta Gaudutienė, Jonas Pinskus, and Vytautas Gricius, which were approved by the Central Electoral Commission through its decision No. Sp-321 of 4 November 2012 and which were annulled through the Seimas resolution of 14 November 2012, adopted on the basis of the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012.

Thus, the petitioner’s arguments make it clear that the petitioner, while requesting in its inquiry a conclusion on whether Item 3 of the Central Electoral Commission’s decision No. Sp-176 of 3 June 2014 does not violate the provisions of the Law on Elections to the Seimas, in substance, questions not the Central Electoral Commission’s decision on the appointment of the first ranking candidate, having not received a mandate of a member of the Seimas from the list of the candidates of the Labour Party, to an available vacant seat of a member of the Seimas, but rather the final order of candidates on the list of the candidates of the Labour Party for members of the Seimas, which was approved by the Seimas resolution of 14 November 2012.

  1. In this context, it should be noted that the Seimas resolution of 14 November 2012, through which the Seimas, inter alia, approved the final order of candidates on the list of the candidates of the Labour Party for members of the Seimas (i.e., by excluding Živilė Pinskuvienė, Jolanta Gaudutienė, Jonas Pinskus, Vytautas Gricius, and Viačeslav Ždanovič) and the final list of the members of the Seimas elected in the multi-member constituency (by establishing that Živilė Pinskuvienė, Jolanta Gaudutienė, and Jonas Pinskus were not elected as members of the Seimas in the multi-member constituency), was adopted by the Seimas on the basis of the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012, according to which the Law on Elections to the Seimas was violated during the 2012 election to the Seimas. In that Constitutional Court’s conclusion, inter alia, it was held that Item 2 of the Central Electoral Commission’s decision No. Sp-321 of 4 November 2012, insofar as it had been decided, when establishing the final order of candidates on the lists of candidates for members of the Seimas in the multi-member constituency, to include Živilė Pinskuvienė (No. 10), Jolanta Gaudutienė (No. 17), Jonas Pinskus (No. 22), Vytautas Gricius (No. 35), and Viačeslav Ždanovič (No. 48) in the final order of candidates on the list of the candidates of the Labour Party for members of the Seimas, violated Paragraph 1 of Article 51 and Article 90 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas.

In view of this fact, the inquiry of the Seimas, the petitioner, regarding a conclusion on whether the provisions of the Law on Elections to the Seimas were not violated through Item 3 of the Central Electoral Commission’s decision No. Sp-176 of 3 June 2014, insofar as this inquiry questions the final order of candidates on the list of the candidates of the Labour Party for members of the Seimas, which was approved through the Seimas resolution of 14 November 2012, should be treated as a request to review, inter alia, the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012.

  1. It should also be noted that the Seimas resolution of 14 November 2012 was altered through the 2 July 2013 Resolution (No. XII-488) “On Amending Articles 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania ‘On the Establishment of the Final Results of the 14 October 2012 Election to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania in the Multi-Member Constituency’” of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter also referred to as the Seimas resolution of 2 July 2013), which altered the final results of the 2012 election to the Seimas in the multi-member constituency, which had been established in the Seimas resolution of 14 November 2012: in the final order of candidates on the list of the candidates of the Labour Party, after the elected 22 members of the Seimas appearing on that list, the Seimas included Živilė Pinskuvienė, Jolanta Gaudutienė, Jonas Pinskus (respectively Nos. 23-25), and Vytautas Gricius (No. 35), who had been, by the Seimas resolution of 14 November 2012, excluded from the candidates for members of the Seimas, i.e., the Seimas included those persons whose inclusion in the final order of candidates on the list of the candidates of the Labour Party for members of the Seimas was judged in the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012 as a violation of Paragraph 1 (wording of 15 April 2008) of Article 51 and Article 90 (wording of 15 April 2008) of the Law on Elections to the Seimas.

It should also be noted that the compliance of the Seimas resolution of 2 July 2013 with the Constitution was investigated and assessed in the 27 May 2014 Constitutional Court’s Ruling (No. KT19-N8/2014) “On the Compliance of the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (No. XII-488) ‘On Amending Articles 1 and 2 of the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania “On the Establishment of the Final Results of the 14 October 2012 Election to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania in the Multi-Member Constituency”’ of 2 July 2013 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania” (hereinafter referred to as the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 27 May 2014), in which it was recognised that the Seimas resolution of 2 July 2013 was in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 107 of the Constitution and the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and responsible governance.

The Constitutional Court’s ruling of 27 May 2014 was officially published and came into force on 27 May 2014 (Register of Legal Acts 27-05-2014, No. 5709).

6.1. In the aforementioned ruling of 27 May 2014, the Constitutional Court, inter alia, noted that:

– the provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 107 of the Constitution, under which, on the basis of the conclusions of the Constitutional Court, the Seimas conclusively decides on the issues specified in Paragraph 3 of Article 105 of the Constitution, may not be construed in such a manner that, purportedly, the Seimas is allowed to decide anew the same issue regarding which the Constitutional Court has given its conclusion; the Seimas is not allowed to disregard the Constitutional Court’s conclusions that the election law was violated during elections to the Seimas;

– when the Seimas is making a final decision on the final election results, an essential significance derives from the fact that during the election certain gross violations of the principles of democratic, free, and fair elections were committed, and that those violations might have distorted the genuine will of voters; violations of the said electoral principles can be committed not necessarily by candidates for members of the Seimas themselves—these violations can be committed also by other persons seeking the election of certain candidates to the Seimas;

– while implementing its powers, provided for in Paragraph 3 of Article 107 of the Constitution, to take a final decision on the results of elections to the Seimas, the Seimas, inter alia, is not allowed to create any preconditions for awarding a mandate of a member of the Seimas to candidates whose election was sought by committing certain gross violations of the principles of democratic, free, and fair elections;

– the final results of elections to the Seimas that are established by the Seimas under Paragraph 3 of Article 107 of the Constitution may not be altered, unless there is a constitutional ground for doing so; such a constitutional ground is implied by Item 6 of Article 63 of the Constitution, under which the powers of a member of the Seimas cease where the election is recognised as invalid, or it is found that the election law is grossly violated;

– the final results established by the Seimas for an election to the Seimas may be altered upon the emergence of a constitutional ground only in the same manner in which they have been established, i.e., only on the basis of another conclusion of the Constitutional Court.

6.2. In the aforementioned ruling, the Constitutional Court held that, in the Seimas resolution of 2 July 2013, which altered the final results of the 2012 election to the Seimas that had been established in the Seimas resolution of 14 November 2012, the Seimas disregarded the requirements, which stem from Paragraph 3 of Article 107 of the Constitution and the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and responsible governance, that, when taking a final decision on the results of an election to the Seimas, the Seimas is obliged to base its decision on the respective Constitutional Court’s conclusion, also that the Seimas may not create any preconditions for awarding a mandate of a member of the Seimas to candidates whose election was sought by committing the gross violations of the principles of democratic, free, and fair elections, as well as that the Seimas may not alter the final results of an election to the Seimas without a constitutional ground and without another conclusion of the Constitutional Court.

In the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 27 May 2014, it was also held that the Seimas resolution of 2 July 2013, which was adopted in violation of the Constitution, could not be deemed as having changed the final results of the election to the Seimas, also that the said Seimas resolution provided no grounds for anyone to acquire the right to take up the available vacant seats of members of the Seimas (to acquire the powers of a member of the Seimas) once such vacancies occur, as well as that the final results of the 2012 election to the Seimas were established in the Seimas resolution of 14 November 2012.

6.3. Based on the final results of the 2012 election to the Seimas, as established in the Seimas resolution of 14 November 2012, Gintaras Tamošiūnas stands first as a candidate having not received a mandate of a member of the Seimas in the final order of candidates on the list of the candidates of the Labour Party. It should be noted that, through Item 3 of the Central Electoral Commission’s decision No. Sp-176 of 3 June 2014, regarding which a conclusion is requested by the petitioner, it has been recognised that, upon the availability of a vacant seat of a member of the Seimas, it is namely Gintaras Tamošiūnas who becomes a member of the Seimas. Thus, the Central Electoral Commission, while recognising Gintaras Tamošiūnas as a member of the Seimas, followed the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 27 May 2014 and the final results of the 2012 election to the Seimas, as established in the Seimas resolution of 14 November 2012.

Consequently, in its inquiry regarding a conclusion on whether the provisions of the Law on Elections to the Seimas were not violated through Item 3 of the Central Electoral Commission’s decision No. Sp-176 of 3 June 2014, the petitioner also questions the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 27 May 2014.

  1. Under Paragraph 2 of Article 107 of the Constitution, the decisions of the Constitutional Court on the issues assigned to its competence by the Constitution are final and not subject to appeal.

In the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence, it has been held on more than one occasion that the Constitutional Court’s rulings, conclusions, and decisions, by which a constitutional justice case is finished, i.e., the final acts of the Constitutional Court, are binding on all state institutions, courts, enterprises, establishments, and organisations, as well as officials and citizens, including the Constitutional Court itself: the final acts of the Constitutional Court are binding on the Constitutional Court itself.

7.1. It has been mentioned that the inquiry of the Seimas, the petitioner, regarding a conclusion on whether the provisions of the Law on Elections to the Seimas were not violated through Item 3 of the Central Electoral Commission’s decision No. Sp-176 of 3 June 2014, insofar as this inquiry questions the final order of candidates on the list of the candidates of the Labour Party for members of the Seimas, which was approved through the Seimas resolution of 14 November 2012, should be treated as a request to review the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012.

It should be noted that, under Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 80 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court refuses to examine an inquiry concerning the giving of a conclusion in the cases where the issue raised in the inquiry, with the exception of the cases provided for in Item 2 of Article 73 of this law (i.e., whether the state of health of the President of the Republic allows the President of the Republic to continue to hold the office), has already been investigated in the Constitutional Court and the conclusion adopted by the Constitutional Court concerning this issue is still in force.

Consequently, in view of the fact that the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012 is still in force, on the basis of Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 80 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, there is a ground to refuse to consider the petitioner’s inquiry regarding a conclusion on whether the provisions of the Law on Elections to the Seimas were not violated through Item 3 of the Central Electoral Commission’s decision No. Sp-176 of 3 June 2014.

7.2. It has also been mentioned that, from the petitioner’s inquiry regarding a conclusion on whether the provisions of the Law on Elections to the Seimas were not violated through Item 3 of the Central Electoral Commission’s decision No. Sp-176 of 3 June 2014, it is clear that the petitioner also questions the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 27 May 2014.

It should be noted that, under Item 1 of Paragraph 3 of Article 105 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court gives conclusions on whether election laws were not violated during the elections of the President of the Republic or elections of members of the Seimas. Thus, the aim of the said conclusions is to establish whether election laws were not violated rather than to review the rulings of the Constitutional Court. Therefore, the petitioner’s inquiry regarding a conclusion on whether, through Item 3 of the Central Electoral Commission’s decision No. Sp-176 of 3 June 2014, the provisions of the Law on Elections to the Seimas were not violated, which questions, inter alia, the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 27 May 2014, should be judged as not within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.

Under Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 80 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court refuses to consider an inquiry concerning the giving of a conclusion in the cases where the consideration of such an inquiry does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.

  1. In the light of the foregoing arguments, it should be refused to consider the inquiry, set forth in the 5 June 2014 resolution No. XII-928 of the Seimas, the petitioner, regarding a conclusion on “whether Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 89, and 90 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas were not violated when, through Item 3 of the 3 June 2014 Decision (No. Sp-176) ‘On Recognising the Powers of Seimas Member Viktor Uspaskich as Having Been Discontinued and Awarding a Mandate of a Member of the Seimas to Gintaras Tamošiūnas’ of the Central Electoral Commission, it was recognised that, upon the availability of a vacant seat of a member of the Seimas, Gintaras Tamošiūnas became a member of the Seimas, as he was standing first as a candidate having not received a mandate of a member of the Seimas on the list of the candidates of the Labour Party, from which an outgoing member of the Seimas had been elected”.
  2. It has been mentioned that, in the opinion of the petitioner, following the adoption of the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012, new substantial circumstances were found, revealing that there was no evidence that Jonas Pinskus, Živilė Pinskuvienė, Jolanta Gaudutienė, and Vytautas Gricius had organised the bribery of voters or otherwise engaged in bribing voters.

In this context, it should be mentioned that, following the publication of the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012, there were not any new substantial circumstances that had not been assessed by the Constitutional Court in deciding whether the Law on Elections to the Seimas had not been violated during the 2012 election to the Seimas. It should not be considered that the aforementioned new substantial circumstances include the circumstances, indicated by the petitioner, that, in the course of conducting the pre-trial investigation in relation to the crime provided for in Article 172 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, certain persons, who had stood as candidates for members of the Seimas, were questioned only as witnesses. As mentioned before, in its ruling of 27 May 2014, the Constitutional Court noted that an essential significance derives from the fact that during the election certain gross violations of the principles of democratic, free, and fair elections were committed, and that those violations might have distorted the genuine will of voters. The Constitutional Court also pointed out that the said violations of electoral principles can be committed not necessarily by candidates for members of the Seimas themselves—these violations can be committed also by other persons seeking the election of certain candidates to the Seimas.

II

  1. The inquiry set forth in the 5 June 2014 resolution of the Seimas, the petitioner, requests, inter alia, a conclusion on whether “the genuine will of voters was not violated when, through the 14 November 2012 Resolution (No. XI-2420) ‘On the Establishment of the Final Results of the 14 October 2012 Election to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania in the Multi-Member Constituency’ of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, all the preferential votes received by Živilė Pinskuvienė, Jolanta Gaudutienė, Jonas Pinskus, and Vytautas Gricius were totally annulled, and the said candidates were removed from the order of candidates on the list of the candidates of the Labour Party”.
  2. Item 1 of Paragraph 3 of Article 105 of the Constitution prescribes that the Constitutional Court gives conclusions on whether election laws were not violated during the elections of the President of the Republic or elections of members of the Seimas.

Paragraph 2 of Article 102 of the Constitution stipulates that the status of the Constitutional Court and the procedure for the execution of its powers are established by the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania.

  1. Paragraph 2 of Article 77 of the Law on the Constitutional Court prescribes that the Constitutional Court examines and assesses only the decisions adopted by the Central Electoral Commission, or its refusals to examine complaints concerning the violation of election laws, in the cases where such decisions were adopted, or other deeds were carried out, by the said commission after the voting had been completed in the elections of members of the Seimas or the President of the Republic.

Thus, an inquiry regarding a conclusion on whether there were any violations of election laws during the elections of the President of the Republic or elections of members of the Seimas may be referred to the Constitutional Court by the Seimas only in relation to the decisions of the Central Electoral Commission or its refusals to examine complaints. The Constitutional Court has no powers to give conclusions on whether election laws were not violated during the elections of the President of the Republic or members of the Seimas through other legal acts, inter alia, resolutions of the Seimas.

  1. Under Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 80 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court refuses to consider an inquiry concerning the giving of a conclusion in the cases where the consideration of such an inquiry does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.
  2. In the light of the foregoing arguments, it should be refused to accept the inquiry, set forth in the 5 June 2014 resolution of the Seimas, the petitioner, regarding a conclusion on whether “the genuine will of voters was not violated when, through the 14 November 2012 Resolution (No. XI-2420) ‘On the Establishment of the Final Results of the 14 October 2012 Election to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania in the Multi-Member Constituency’ of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, all the preferential votes received by Živilė Pinskuvienė, Jolanta Gaudutienė, Jonas Pinskus, and Vytautas Gricius were totally annulled, and the said candidates were removed from the order of candidates on the list of the candidates of the Labour Party”.

Conforming to Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 22, Articles 25 and 28, and Items 3 and 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 80 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania gives the following

decision:

To refuse to consider the inquiry, set forth in the 5 June 2014 resolution No. XII-928 of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, regarding a conclusion on:

1) “whether Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 89, and 90 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas were not violated when, through Item 3 of the 3 June 2014 Decision (No. Sp-176) ‘On Recognising the Powers of Seimas Member Viktor Uspaskich as Having Been Discontinued and Awarding a Mandate of a Member of the Seimas to Gintaras Tamošiūnas’ of the Central Electoral Commission, it was recognised that, upon the availability of a vacant seat of a member of the Seimas, Gintaras Tamošiūnas became a member of the Seimas, as he was standing first as a candidate having not received a mandate of a member of the Seimas on the list of the candidates of the Labour Party, from which an outgoing member of the Seimas had been elected”;

2) “whether the genuine will of voters was not violated when, through the 14 November 2012 Resolution (No. XI-2420) ‘On the Establishment of the Final Results of the 14 October 2012 Election to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania in the Multi-Member Constituency’ of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, all the preferential votes received by Živilė Pinskuvienė, Jolanta Gaudutienė, Jonas Pinskus, and Vytautas Gricius were totally annulled, and the said candidates were removed from the order of candidates on the list of the candidates of the Labour Party”.

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

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

Justices of the Constitutional Court:                                    Elvyra Baltutytė
                                                                                                        Vytautas Greičius
                                                                                                        Danutė Jočienė
                                                                                                        Pranas Kuconis
                                                                                                        Gediminas Mesonis
                                                                                                        Vytas Milius
                                                                                                        Egidijus Šileikis
                                                                                                        Algirdas Taminskas
                                                                                                        Dainius Žalimas