Lt

On refusing to interpret the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012

Case No. 15/2012-16/2012

 THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

 DECISION

ON THE PETITIONS OF THE MEMBER OF THE SEIMAS GINTARAS SONGAILA REQUESTING TO CONSTRUE THE CONCLUSION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA OF 10 NOVEMBER 2012

 29 November 2012

Vilnius

 

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court Egidijus Bieliūnas, Toma Birmontienė, Pranas Kuconis, Gediminas Mesonis, Ramutė Ruškytė, Egidijus Šileikis, Algirdas Taminskas, Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis, and Dainius Žalimas,

with the secretary—Daiva Pitrėnaitė,

in the procedural sitting of the Constitutional Court considered:

  1. the petition No. 1B-31/2012 (received at the Constitutional Court on 13 November 2012) of the Member of the Seimas G. Songaila, the petitioner, requesting to construe the following provisions of the Conclusion of the Constitutional Court “On the inquiries of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania and the President of the Republic of Lithuania whether the Republic of Lithuania Law on Elections to the Seimas was not violated during the 2012 elections to the Seimas” of 10 November 2012:

1) “whether the provisions of Item 1 of the conclusions that, in the multi-member constituency ‘Paragraph 1 of Article 5(1) and Article 90 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Elections to the Seimas were violated’ and whether the provisions of Item 2 of the conclusions that ‘Paragraph 1 of Article 5(1) and Article 90 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Elections to the Seimas were violated’ mean that, in case new and grounded data regarding gross and systemic violations of the Law on Elections to the Seimas become available after the announcement of the conclusion of the Constitutional Court, the Seimas has the right and/or duty, before approving the final results of elections, to take into consideration the newly transpired circumstances that were not considered at the time of the legal proceedings when the Constitutional Court was preparing to present its conclusion?”;

2) “whether the provisions of Item 1 of the conclusions that, ‘Paragraph 1 of Article 5(1) and Article 90 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Elections to the Seimas were violated’ and whether the provisions of Item 2 of the conclusions that ‘Paragraph 1 of Article 5(1) and Article 90 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Elections to the Seimas were violated’ mean that, in case it transpires later that at the time of the legal proceedings when the Constitutional Court was preparing to present its conclusion the state institution (the Central Electoral Commission) which was obliged to submit all the material and evidence necessary for investigating the case to the Constitutional Court and knowingly did submit them, the Seimas has the right and/or duty, before approving the final results of elections, to take into consideration the newly transpired circumstances that were not considered at the time of the legal proceedings when the Constitutional Court was preparing to present its conclusion?”;

3) “whether the provisions of Items 1 and 2 that ‘Paragraph 1 of Article 5(1) and Article 90 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Elections to the Seimas were violated’ mean that the number of priority votes received by Živilė Pinskuvienė, Jolanta Gaudutienė, Jonas Pinskus, Vytautas Gricius, Viačeslav Ždanovič who were inscribed in the final sequence of the list of the candidates of the Labour Party for Members of the Seimas should also be not recognised as votes cast for the list of the Labour Party in the multi-member constituency?”;

4) “whether the provisions of Item 3 of the conclusion that in Biržai–Kupiškis single-member constituency No. 48 there were violations of ‘Paragraph 1 of Article 88 (wording of 15 April 2008) and Item 1 of Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 of Article 91 (wording of 15 April 2008) of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Elections to the Seimas’ mean that after the annulment of the election results in the Biržai–Kupiškis single-member constituency the results in the multi-member constituency received in the Biržai–Kupiškis single-member constituency are also annulled?”;

5) “whether the arguments presented in the whole document of the conclusions mean that the results of elections to the Seimas in the multi-member constituency were established and whether the submitted facts of gross violations allowed the Central Electoral Commission to establish the essential election results in the multi-member constituency at the exactness of only more than one mandate, the determination of which was requested in the resolution (No. XI-2378) of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania of 6 November?”;

6) “whether the third and the fourth paragraphs of Item 8.4 of Chapter IV of the reasoning part of the conclusions in which it is respectively asserted that ‘Upon distributing the mandates according to the quota, the list of the Labour Party, which is the last that got a mandate by the remainder, received the division remainder of 11,712 votes of voters, which is bigger by 3,672 votes of voters than the division remainder of 8,040 votes of voters received by the list of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party, which was next in the queue of distribution of mandates according to remainders’ and ‘Consequently, the scale of violations of the Law on Elections to the Seimas, which was stated by the Central Electoral Commission (even if it was established that the will of up to 3,594 voters might have been influenced), is the one that reaches neither the aforesaid established quota of voters’ votes, nor the division remainder of votes of voters received by the list of the Labour Party. Nor does it reach the aforementioned difference of the division remainders of votes of voters, which might have determined the fact that the list of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party, but not that of the Labour Party, might have received an additional mandate’ mean that that the minimal margin of the doubt regarding more than one mandate in those elections of the Seimas comprised 3,672 votes?”;

  1. the petition No. 1B-35/2012 (received at the Constitutional Court on 15 November 2012) of the Member of the Seimas G. Songaila, the petitioner, requesting to construe the following provisions of the Conclusion of the Constitutional Court “On the inquiries of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania and the President of the Republic of Lithuania whether the Republic of Lithuania Law on Elections to the Seimas was not violated during the 2012 elections to the Seimas” of 10 November 2012:

1) “whether the sentence of the last paragraph of Chapter III of the reasoning part ‘In this context it needs to be noted that Item 1 of Paragraph 3 of Article 105 of the Constitution establishes the powers of the Constitutional Court inter alia to present a conclusion whether there were violations of the election law during elections of Members of the Seimas; under Paragraph 5 of Article 106 of the Constitution, the Seimas and the President of the Republic may request a conclusion from the Constitutional Court in cases concerning elections to the Seimas; Paragraph 3 of Article 107 of the Constitution inter alia provides that, on the basis of the conclusion of the Constitutional Court, the Seimas takes a final decision on the issues set forth in Paragraph 3 of Article 105 of the Constitution’ means that the Seimas, while referring to the 10 November conclusion of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, should have adopted a final decision on establishment of results of the election to the Seimas or recognition thereof as invalid, as established by Article 95 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Elections to the Seimas, not only as regards Biržai–Kupiškis single-member constituency No. 48 and the multi-member constituency, but also as regards the single-member constituencies of Šilutė–Pagėgiai (No. 32), Širvintos–Vilnius (No. 55), Vilnius–Trakai (No. 57), Kaišiadorys–Elektrėnai (No. 59), Jurbarkas (No. 62), regarding which the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania submitted an inquiry by its resolution  No. XI-2378 of 6 November to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania?”;

2) “whether the sentence of the last paragraph of Chapter III of the reasoning part ‘In this context it needs to be noted that Item 1 of Paragraph 3 of Article 105 of the Constitution establishes the powers of the Constitutional Court inter alia to present a conclusion whether there were violations of the election law during elections of Members of the Seimas; under Paragraph 5 of Article 106 of the Constitution, the Seimas and the President of the Republic may request a conclusion from the Constitutional Court in cases concerning elections to the Seimas; Paragraph 3 of Article 107 of the Constitution inter alia provides that, on the basis of the conclusion of the Constitutional Court, the Seimas takes a final decision on the issues set forth in Paragraph 3 of Article 105 of the Constitution’ means that in case the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, while referring to the conclusion of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, did not take a final decision (did not establish the essential election results in the constituencies of Šilutė–Pagėgiai (No. 32), Širvintos–Vilnius (No. 55), Vilnius–Trakai (No. 57), Kaišiadorys–Elektrėnai (No. 59), Jurbarkas (No. 62) or did not recognise the elections in those constituencies as invalid) the final election results in those single-member constituencies remained non-established?”;

3) “whether the sentence of the last paragraph of Chapter III of the reasoning part ‘In this context it needs to be noted that Item 1 of Paragraph 3 of Article 105 of the Constitution establishes the powers of the Constitutional Court inter alia to present a conclusion whether there were violations of the election law during elections of Members of the Seimas; under Paragraph 5 of Article 106 of the Constitution, the Seimas and the President of the Republic may request a conclusion from the Constitutional Court in cases concerning elections to the Seimas; Paragraph 3 of Article 107 of the Constitution inter alia provides that, on the basis of the conclusion of the Constitutional Court, the Seimas takes a final decision on the issues set forth in Paragraph 3 of Article 105 of the Constitution’ means that, in the absence of a final decision of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania regarding the essential election results in the constituencies of Šilutė–Pagėgiai (No. 32), Širvintos–Vilnius (No. 55), Vilnius–Trakai (No. 57), Kaišiadorys–Elektrėnai (No. 59), Jurbarkas (No. 62) or regarding the recognition of the elections in those constituencies as invalid, the candidates for Members of the Seimas of the Republic in those constituencies (Artūras Skardžius, Rita Tamašunienė, Jaroslav Narkevič, Bronius Bradauskas, Bronius Pauža), whose election as Members of the Seimas in those single-member constituencies was approved by the Decision (No. Sp-321) of the Central Electoral Commission ‘On the Final Results of the 14 October 2012 Elections to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania’ of 4 November, may receive the mandate of a Member of the Seimas and take an oath?”

 

The Constitutional Court

has established:

  1. On 10 November 2012, in constitutional justice case No. 15/2012-16/2012 the Constitutional Court presented the Conclusion “On the inquiries of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania and the President of the Republic of Lithuania whether the Republic of Lithuania Law on Elections to the Seimas was not violated during the 2012 elections to the Seimas” (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2012, No. 131-6607; hereinafter also referred to as the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012).
  2. The Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November recognised that:

1) Item 2 of the Decision (No. Sp-321) of the Central Electoral Commission “On the Final Results of the 14 October 2012 Elections to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania” of 4 November 2012, (hereinafter referred to as the Central Electoral Commission’s decision (No. Sp-321) of 4 November 2012) insofar as it was decided, in the course of establishing the final sequence of the lists of candidates for Members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania in the multi-member constituency, to inscribe Živilė Pinskuvienė (No. 10), Jolanta Gaudutienė (No. 17), Jonas Pinskus (No. 22), Vytautas Gricius (No. 35), Viačeslav Ždanovič (No. 48) in the final sequence of candidates for Members of the Seimas in the list of the Labour Party in the multi-member constituency, violated 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;

2) Item 3 of the Central Electoral Commission’s decision (No. Sp-321) of 4 November 2012, insofar as it established that Jolanta Gaudutienė, Jonas Pinskus, Živilė Pinskuvienė had been elected to the Seimas in the multi-member constituency according to the list of candidates of the Labour Party, violated 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;

3) Items 1, 3 of the Central Electoral Commission’s decision (No. Sp-321) of 4 November 2012 insofar as it established the final results in the 28 October 2012 run-off voting in the elections to the Seimas Biržai–Kupiškis single-member constituency No. 48 and, according to the election results, established the person who had been elected to the Seimas, violated Paragraph 1 of Article 88 (wording of 15 April 2008) and Item 1 of Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 of Article 91 (wording of 15 April 2008) of the Law on Elections to the Seimas;

4) neither Items 1, 3 of the Central Electoral Commission’s decision (No. Sp-321) of 4 November 2012 insofar as they established the final results in the 28 October 2012 run-off voting in the elections to the Seimas in the single member constituencies—Pajūris (No. 22), Šilutė–Pagėgiai (No. 32), Širvintos–Vilnius (No. 55), Vilnius–Trakai (No. 57), Kaišiadorys–Elektrėnai (No. 59), Jurbarkas (No. 62)—and, according to the election results, established the persons who had been elected to the Seimas, nor the Decision (No. Sp-324) of the Central Electoral Commission “On Approving the Final Results of Voting in Šilutė–Pagėgiai Single-member Constituency No. 32” of 4 November 2012 (hereinafter also referred to as the Central Electoral Commission’s decision (No. Sp-324) of 4 November 2012) violated the Law on Elections to the Seimas.

  1. The Member of the Seimas G. Songaila, the petitioner, requests construction of the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

I

  1. The powers of the Constitutional Court to officially construe its own rulings are entrenched in Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania; under Paragraph 1 of the same article, a ruling of the Constitutional Court may officially be construed only by the Constitutional Court itself at the request of the parties to the case, of other institutions or persons to whom it was sent, or on its own initiative.

The Constitutional Court has held that a Constitutional Court conclusion, as well as a Constitutional Court ruling, is a final act of the Constitutional Court, therefore, it is evident that, if the Constitutional Court enjoys powers to construe its rulings, then it also enjoys powers to construe it conclusions at the request of the parties to the case, of other institutions or persons to whom it was sent, or on its own initiative (the Constitutional Court’s decision of 6 April 2004).

  1. The petitions requesting construction of the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012 were filed by the Member of the Seimas G. Songaila.
  2. Songaila was the representative of the Seimas, a petitioner, in the constitutional justice case in which the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012 was presented. Thus, under Paragraph 1 of Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, he has the right to apply to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting to construe the said Constitutional Court’s conclusion.

II

  1. The Constitutional Court has held that, even though the powers of the Constitutional Court to construe its rulings and other final acts are not expressis verbis consolidated in the Constitution, they doubtlessly arise from the Constitution—the entirety of the constitutional legal regulation (inter alia the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law), such Constitutional Court powers are implied by the constitutional mission of the Constitutional Court itself to administer constitutional justice, guarantee the supremacy of the Constitution in the legal system and constitutional legality (the Constitutional Court’s decision of 14 March 2006).
  2. In its acts the Constitutional Court has held more than once that the purpose of the institute of construction of its rulings and its other final acts is to disclose the contents and meaning of corresponding provisions of a Constitutional Court ruling or its other final act more broadly and in more detail, if it is necessary, in order to ensure proper execution of that Constitutional Court ruling or other final act so that this Constitutional Court ruling or other final act would be followed (inter alia the Constitutional Court’s decisions of 22 December 2010, 23 February 2011 and 5 September 2011).

In this context it needs to be emphasised that the purpose of construction of the Constitutional Court’s rulings and other final acts is to explain more comprehensively those provisions and formulations of the Constitutional Court’s ruling or other final act due to the meaning of which there are some uncertainties, but not how to implement the said ruling or other final act in a concrete situation, inter alia in the sphere of application of law.

It needs to be noted that construction of a ruling of other final act of the Constitutional Court might be significant while seeking not only to ensure the proper implementation of the decision consolidated in the operative part of that act, but also the fact that in the law-making process one would properly take account of the official constitutional doctrine formed by the Constitutional Court.

  1. It needs to be emphasised that one is not allowed to seek, by means of a petition requesting for construction of an implemented ruling or other final act of the Constitutional Court, for an assessment of the compliance of the legal act, whereby the said Constitutional Court’s act was implemented, with legal acts of higher power, inter alia (and first of all) with the Constitution; it would imply the matter for investigation in a new constitutional justice case.
  2. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it needs to be noted that, under Paragraph 3 of Article 107 of the Constitution, on the basis of the conclusions of the Constitutional Court, the Seimas takes a final decision on the corresponding issues. Thus, having received a conclusion of the Constitutional Court that during the elections of Members of the Seimas the Law on Elections to the Seimas was violated, the Seimas must adopt a final decision.

In cases where, on the grounds of the Constitutional Court’s conclusion, a final decision of the Seimas was adopted, the Constitutional Court enjoys the powers to assess and decide whether the construction of that conclusion would be senseless and to refuse to construe it. The Constitutional Court’s conclusion, on the grounds of which a final decision of the Seimas was adopted, might be construed inter alia for the purpose that in the law-making process one would properly take account of the official constitutional doctrine formed by the Constitutional Court.

  1. It needs to be noted that a petition requesting construction of a conclusion of the Constitutional Court that during the elections of Members of the Seimas the law on elections was violated may not question the compliance of the act of the Seimas adopted on the grounds of the said conclusion with legal acts of higher power, inter alia (and, first of all) with the Constitution. It can be done by initiating a new constitutional justice case, when the subjects provided for in the Constitution apply to the Constitutional Court with a corresponding petition.
  2. The Constitutional Court has emphasised more than once that the consideration of a petition requesting to construe a Constitutional Court ruling or its other final act does not imply a new constitutional justice case.

In this context it needs to be noted that, under Paragraph 3 of Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court must construe its ruling without changing its content. The Constitutional Court has held more than once that this provision, among other things, means that, while construing its ruling, the Constitutional Court may not construe its content so that the meaning of its provisions, inter alia the notional entirety of the elements constituting the content of the ruling, the arguments and reasons upon which that Constitutional Court ruling is based, is changed. A ruling of the Constitutional Court is integral, its all constituent parts are interrelated; the operative (resolving) part of a ruling is based upon the arguments of the reasoning part; while construing its ruling, the Constitutional Court is bound by the content of both the operative and reasoning parts of its ruling. While construing Paragraph 3 of Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, in the Constitutional Court’s acts it has also been stated more than once that the Constitutional Court may not construe what it did not investigate in the constitutional justice case in which the ruling, the construction of which is requested, was adopted; this would imply a matter of special investigation.

The Constitutional Court has also held that the Constitutional Court powers, which arise from the Constitution and which are established in the Law on the Constitutional Court, to officially construe its rulings, may not be interpreted that, purportedly, they also include the duty of the Constitutional Court to construe the arguments or reasons of the consolidation and formulation of its rulings or separate provisions thereof that are not specified in the Constitutional Court ruling itself (the Constitutional Court’s decision of 14 March 2006).

These provisions are applicable mutatis mutandis when the Constitutional Court construes also its other final acts, inter alia conclusions presented under Paragraph 3 of Article 105 of the Constitution.

  1. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it also needs to be noted that in cases when the Constitutional Court is requested to provide construction of the provisions of the operative part of a ruling or other final act of the Constitutional Court, while ignoring their link with the provisions of the official constitutional doctrine set forth in the reasoning part and with the other arguments, the Constitutional Court, while taking account of the fact that the provisions of the operative part of the ruling or other final act may not be construed in isolation of the provisions of the official constitutional doctrine set forth in the reasoning part and in isolation of other arguments, enjoys the powers to refuse to construe its ruling or other legal act subsequent to the petition of a petitioner.

III

  1. It has been mentioned that the petitioner requests construction of the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012.
  2. On 14 November 2012, the Seimas, while referring to the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012, adopted the Resolution (No. XI-2417) “On Recognition of the 14 October 2012 elections to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania in Biržai–Kupiškis Single-member Constituency No. 48 as Invalid” (hereinafter referred to as the Seimas resolution (No. XI-2417) of 14 November 2012), whereby it recognised the results of the 14 October 2012 elections to the Seimas in Biržai–Kupiškis single-member constituency No. 48 as invalid and recognised that during the 14 October 2012 elections to the Seimas a Member of the Seimas had not been elected in the said constituency.

Thus, this resolution of the Seimas was adopted while referring to Item 3 of the operative part of the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012 wherein it had been recognised that the Central Electoral Commission’s decision (No. Sp-321) of 4 November 2012 insofar as it established the final results in the 28 October 2012 run-off voting in the elections to the Seimas in Biržai–Kupiškis single-member constituency No. 48 and, according to the election results, established the person who had been elected to the Seimas, violated the Law on Elections to the Seimas.

  1. On 14 November 2012, while referring to the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012, the Seimas also adopted the Resolution (No. XI-2420) “On the Establishment of the Final Results of the 14 October 2012 Elections to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania in the Multi-member Constituency” (hereinafter referred to as the Seimas resolution (No. XI-2420) of 14 November 2012), which inter alia decided the following:

– to establish that, in the course of approving the final sequences of lists of candidates in the multi-member constituency during the elections to the Seimas, Živilė Pinskuvienė (No. 10), Jolanta Gaudutienė (No. 17), Jonas Pinskus (No. 22), Vytautas Gricius (No. 35), Viačeslav Ždanovič (No. 48) were inscribed into the final sequence of the list of the candidates of the Labour Party for Members of the Seimas by violating Paragraph 1 of Article 51 and Article 90 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas;

– to cross out Živilė Pinskuvienė (No. 10), Jolanta Gaudutienė (No. 17), Jonas Pinskus (No. 22), Vytautas Gricius (No. 35), Viačeslav Ždanovič (No. 48) from the list of candidates of the Labour Party;

– to establish that Živilė Pinskuvienė, Jolanta Gaudutienė and Jonas Pinskus are not elected Members of the Seimas;

– to establish the final results of the 14 October 2012 elections to the Seimas in the multi-member constituency and to approve the final list of the Members of the Seimas elected in the multi-member constituency.

Thus, this resolution of the Seimas was adopted while referring to Items 1 and 2 of the operative part of the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012 wherein it had been recognised that the Central Electoral Commission’s decision (No. Sp-321) of 4 November 2012 insofar as it was decided, in the course of establishing the final sequence of the lists of candidates for Members of the Seimas in the multi-member constituency, to inscribe Živilė Pinskuvienė (No. 10), Jolanta Gaudutienė (No. 17), Jonas Pinskus (No. 22), Vytautas Gricius (No. 35), Viačeslav Ždanovič (No. 48) in the final sequence of candidates for Members of the Seimas in the list of the Labour Party in the multi-member constituency, also insofar as it was decided that Jolanta Gaudutienė, Jonas Pinskus and Živilė Pinskuvienė had been elected to the Seimas in the multi-member constituency according to the list of candidates of the Labour Party, violated the Law on Elections to the Seimas.

  1. It has been mentioned that Item 4 of the operative part of the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012 recognised that neither the Central Electoral Commission’s decision (No. Sp-321) of 4 November 2012 insofar as established the final results in the 28 October 2012 run-off voting in the elections to the Seimas in the single member constituencies—Pajūris (No. 22), Šilutė–Pagėgiai (No. 32), Širvintos–Vilnius (No. 55), Vilnius–Trakai (No. 57), Kaišiadorys–Elektrėnai (No. 59), Jurbarkas (No. 62)—and, according to the election results, established the persons who had been elected to the Seimas, nor the Central Electoral Commission’s decision (No. Sp-324) of 4 November 2012 violated the Law on Elections to the Seimas.
  2. Thus, it needs to be held that, while referring to the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012, the Seimas adopted corresponding final decisions.
  3. While assessing the petition (No. 1B-31/2012) of the petitioner requesting to construe the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012, it needs to be noted that this petition does not meet the requirements for such a petition, which were formulated by the Constitutional Court.

6.1. A part of the petition is formulated by the petitioner as a petition requesting to construe the Constitutional Court’s decisions consolidated in Items 1–3 of the operative part of the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012 that during the 2012 elections to the Seimas the Law on Elections to the Seimas was violated, without taking account of their relation to the arguments set forth in the reasoning part (questions 1–4 of the petition of the petitioner).

It has been mentioned that in cases when the Constitutional Court is requested to provide construction of the provisions of the operative part of a ruling or other final act of the Constitutional Court, while ignoring their link with the provisions of the official constitutional doctrine set forth in the reasoning part and with the other arguments, the Constitutional Court, while taking account of the fact that the provisions of the operative part of the ruling or other final act may not be construed in isolation of the provisions of the official constitutional doctrine set forth in the reasoning part and in isolation of other arguments, enjoys the powers to refuse to construe its ruling or other legal act subsequent to the petition of a petitioner.

6.2. In addition, it is clear from the petitioner’s petition that he doubts whether the arguments presented in the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012 are sufficient in order to substantiate the decisions consolidated in the operative part of the said conclusion (questions 5–6 of the petition of the petitioner).

It has been mentioned that the powers of the Constitutional Court to officially construe its conclusions may not be interpreted as the ones that, purportedly, include also the duty of the Constitutional Court to construe the arguments or reasoning of consolidation and formulation of the conclusions or separate provisions thereof, which are not pointed out in the Constitutional Court’s conclusion itself.

  1. It needs to be noted that the petition (No. 1B-35/2012) of the petitioner requesting to construe the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012 does not meet the requirements, formulated by the Constitutional Court, for a petition requesting to construe a final act of the Constitutional Court, either.

Actually, by this petition the petitioner requests construction of not the provisions of the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012, but construction of the provisions of the  Constitution, namely, those of Item 1 of Paragraph 3 of Article 105, Paragraph 5 of Article 106, Paragraph 3 of Article 107 thereof, which in the aspect pointed out by the petitioner (i.e. which decisions should be adopted by the Seimas while referring to a conclusion of the Constitutional Court regarding an inquiry whether during the elections of Members of the Seimas the Law on Elections to the Seimas was not violated) were not construed by the Constitutional Court in the said conclusion.

The Constitutional Court has held that, under the Constitution, it enjoys the powers to officially construe the Constitution; the Constitutional Court does so by deciding whether the laws are not in conflict with the Constitution, whether other acts of the Seimas are not in conflict with the laws and the Constitution, whether acts of the President of the Republic and the Government are not in conflict with the laws and the Constitution (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 30 May 2003). While investigating the compliance of laws and other legal acts with the Constitution, the Constitutional Court develops the concept of the provisions of the Constitution which were presented in its previous rulings and other acts, it discloses new aspects of the legal regulation established in the Constitution, which are necessary for investigation of a concrete case (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 13 December 2004, 14 March 2006, 28 March 2006, and the decision of 8 August 2006).

  1. It needs to be noted that both petitions of the petitioner essentially ask what concrete decisions should be adopted by the Seimas on the grounds of the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012.

As mentioned before, the purpose of construction of the Constitutional Court’s final acts is to explain more comprehensively those provisions and formulations of the Constitutional Court’s ruling or other final act due to the meaning of which there are some uncertainties, but not how to implement the said ruling or other final act in a concrete situation, inter alia in the sphere of application of law. It has also been mentioned that in cases where, on the grounds of the Constitutional Court’s conclusion, a final decision of the Seimas was adopted, the Constitutional Court enjoys the powers to assess and decide whether the construction of that conclusion would be senseless and to refuse to construe it.

  1. Having assessed the circumstances set forth, also the fact that, while referring to the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012, the Seimas has adopted final decisions, one is to hold that it would not be sensible to construe this conclusion subsequent to the petitioner’s petitions and that such construction would be an end in itself.
  2. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one is to refuse to construe the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012 subsequent to the petitions of the Member of the Seimas G. Songaila, the petitioner.

Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 1, 28 and 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has passed the following

decision:

To refuse, subsequent to the petitions of Gintaras Songaila, a Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, to construe the Conclusion of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania “On the inquiries of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania and the President of the Republic of Lithuania whether the Republic of Lithuania Law on Elections to the Seimas was not violated during the 2012 elections to the Seimas” of 10 November 2012.

 

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

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

Justices of the Constitutional Court:                                    Egidijus Bieliūnas

                                                                                                        Toma Birmontienė

                                                                                                        Pranas Kuconis

                                                                                                        Gediminas Mesonis

                                                                                                        Ramutė Ruškytė

                                                                                                        Egidijus Šileikis

                                                                                                        Algirdas Taminskas

                                                                                                        Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis

                                                                                                        Dainius Žalimas