Lt

On certain articles of the Law on Tax Administration

Case No. 16/96

 

 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF

THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

 

R U L I N G

 

On the compliance of Item 1 of Paragraph 2 of Article 55, Items 1 and 2 of Paragraph 4 of Article 56, and Paragraph 3 of Article 58 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Tax Administration with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania

 

Vilnius, 10 July 1997

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

Leonora Žukienė, Head of the Legal Division of the State Tax Inspectorate at the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Lithuania, 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 the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its public hearing, on 24 June 1997, considered case No. 16/96 subsequent to the petition submitted to the Court by the College of the Civil Cases Division of the Klaipėda Regional Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Item 1 of Paragraph 2 of Article 55, Items 1 and 2 of Paragraph 3 of Article 56, and Paragraph 3 of Article 58 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Tax Administration were in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

The Constitutional Court

has established:

I

On 17 October 1996, the College of the Civil Cases Division of the Klaipėda Regional Court, the petitioner, was investigating a civil case pursuant to the procedure of appeal subsequent to an appeal of the stock company “Vakarų Bankas” against the 23 August 1996 decision of the Klaipėda City Local Court. By its ruling, the College of the Civil Cases Division of the Klaipėda Regional Court suspended the investigation of the said case and applied to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting an investigation into whether Item 1 of Paragraph 2 of Article 55, Items 1 and 2 of Paragraph 3 of Article 56, and Paragraph 3 of Article 58 of the Law on Tax Administration of the Republic of Lithuania (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1995, No. 61-1525; 1996, Nos. 57-1342, 59-1404, 66-1574), i.e. those which establish the unconditional, non-prolonged time period of 20 days during which a taxpayer may lodge a complaint against a tax administrator or his officials, with Articles 23 and 29 of the Constitution.

II

The petitioner grounds his request on the following arguments.

Under Article 54 of the Law on Tax Administration, the local tax administrator, the central tax administrator and the court shall investigate tax disputes. Item 1 of Paragraph 2 of Article 55 of the same law indicates that a taxpayer’s complaint shall be accepted by the local tax administrator solely in such an instant when it is filed in writing within 20 days from the receipt of a written decision from the tax administrator’s official. An analogous time period of 20 days is established when a complaint is lodged against the decision of local tax administrator regarding complaint investigation results, as well as against a decision of the central tax administrator (his officials) (Items 1 and 2 of Paragraph 3 of Article 56 of the said law). The taxpayer who does not agree with a decision passed by the central tax administrator must file the complaint to the court no later than 20 days from the receipt of the decision, and in the absence of decision approval, within 20 days from the other day on which the central tax administrator was to have approved the decision (Paragraph 3 of Article 58 of the said law). The Law on Tax Administration does not provide for the possibility of renewing the time period missed for valid reasons. Meanwhile, time limitation is not applied for payment of computed tax, added fines and penalties, as well as their exaction (Paragraph 3 of Article 29 of the said law).

The petitioner is of the opinion that Article 23 of the Constitution provides that property shall be inviolable, the rights of ownership shall be protected by law. Property may only be seized for the needs of society according to the procedure established by law and must be adequately compensated for. This article does not make exceptions for either different types of property (private and public) or individual subjects of property law (natural and legal persons, the state and self-governments). Meanwhile, subjects of property law (the state and taxpayers) are evidently treated unequally by Paragraph 3 of Article 29, Item 1 of Paragraph 2 of Article 55, Items 1 and 2 of Paragraph 3 of Article 56, and Paragraph 3 of Article 58 of the Law on Tax Administration: interests of the state are protected without setting down any limits regarding the time period, while a time limitation is established for taxpayers (natural and legal persons) and no possibility of prolonging it in the case of missing it for valid reasons is provided for. The petitioner maintains that thereby the court is prevented from the possibility of considering the issue of the renewal of the missed time period, while in other cases, for instance, by Article 90 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania, such an opportunity is granted to the court, while Articles 88 and 89 of the said code provide for the suspension or dismissal of the course of limitation of action. The court may not conform to the aforementioned provisions, since, according to Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Civil Code, the norms of the Civil Code shall not be applied for tax relations.

The petitioner points out that under Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution all persons shall be equal before the law, the court, and other state institutions and officials. This equality is regulated by norms (which are not applicable in this instance) of the Civil Code (Chapter VI of the Civil Code), while this equality is not guaranteed by the Law on Tax Administration as the interests of the state as regards application of limitation of action are placed higher than those of taxpayers (Paragraph 3 of Article 29, Item 1 of Paragraph 2 of Article 55, Items 1 and 2 of Paragraph 3 of Article 56, and Paragraph 3 of Article 58 of the Law on Tax Administration).

III

On 13 February 1997 the Seimas passed the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending Articles 25, 39, 49, 50, 52, 54, 55, 56 of the Law on Tax Administration and Supplementing the Law with Article 391 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1997, No. 17-362).

In his explanation of 9 June 1997 to the Constitutional Court, the petitioner deems the supplementing and amending of the Law on Tax Administration to be a partial elimination of the non-compliance of the impugned norms with Articles 23 and 29 of the Constitution, as at present the law already provides for the possibility of renewing the time period of filing the complaint missed for valid reasons. However, in the opinion of the petitioner, the problem which occurred when it was investigating the said civil case, has not been solved entirely, as the norms of the Law on Tax Administration contain the permission only for the tax administrator to renew the time period of filing the complaint which has been missed, while the court is not granted such a right by neither the said law nor Section 241 of the Code of Civil Proceedings by the norms whereof disputes of payments of taxes are investigated by established legal procedure.

The petitioner contends that the categorical provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 58 of the Law on Tax Administration regarding limited time period to appeal to the court without granting the right to the court to renew the time period which has been missed for valid reasons impedes not only the rights of the taxpayer but also those of the court which it has in the course of the consideration of cases emerging from civil and administrative legal relations.

IV

In the course of preparation of the case for the court hearing, the representative of the party concerned in her explanation for the Constitutional Court explicated that tax laws are assigned to public law as Article 1 of the Civil Code indicates that the rules of this code shall not be applied for tax and budget relations. The Law on Tax Administration provides that “tax denotes monetary obligation owed by the taxpayer to the state established within the tax law in order that funds may be obtained to fulfil state (self-government) functions. This obligation is performed under procedure established by law”. Therefore, fines are calculated on and penalties are imposed for taxes unduly paid into the state budget or remitted overdue. Fines and penalties are a way of the ensuring of payment of taxes to the state (budget).

The representative of the party concerned maintains that tax laws as a sphere of public law are of an administrative character. Therefore, economic sanctions are administrative coercion of the state which is necessary to ensure state finance and budget relations. Administrative coercion plays an important role in strengthening the spheres of trade, finance, commercial-economic activity, in resisting transgressors, in collecting the state budget etc. Meanwhile, under the Civil Code, forfeit (fines and penalties) is understood as a way of the ensuring of the obligation of one party to another which are equal between each other (i.e. they are not linked by ties of subordination). Under this code fines and penalties may be established as a particular amount or as an interest of the amount of ensured obligation by the agreement of the parties.

The representative of the party concerned is of the opinion that another important principle of tax laws is the fact that the state establishes the same size of fines and penalties which is mandatory for all payers of respective taxes. When tax laws are applied, all taxpayers are equal under the conditions established by these laws. When the laws are changed, sometimes the sizes of fines or penalties are either lowered or increased, however sanctions for the same transgression are applied for all subjects—respective payers of the tax.

In assessing the norms of the Law on Tax Administration which establish the procedure and time period of filing a complaint of a taxpayer against the tax administrator or his officials, the representative of the party concerned contended that in the case when a taxpayer missed the time period of filing a complaint, the complaint shall not be considered. Another important provision contained by the Law on Tax Administration is that providing a taxpayer missed the time period of filing a complaint for reasons which are deemed by the tax administrator to be valid this time period may be renewed by the decision of the tax administrator. The application regarding renewal of the missed time period is filed before such a tax administrator under competence of whom depends adoption of the decision concerning the complaint, and it is considered under the same procedure as the complaint.

Under the Law on Tax Administration, before investigating a complaint in the court, a prior non-judicial investigation of the dispute at the state tax inspectorate shall be obligatory, i.e. actions of a tax administrator shall be appealed against by 3 stages: first, the complaint shall be filed with the local tax administrator, later—with the central tax administrator, i.e. the State Tax Inspectorate at the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Lithuania, and in case one does not agree with the decision of this administrator, the complaint shall be filed to the court.

In view of civil proceedings the legal situation of institutions responsible for tax administration and that of taxpayers is the same, the parties are equal, and during the consideration of tax disputes in a court they take advantage of all procedural rights.

Procedures of appealing against computed taxes and imposed sanctions by the tax administrator are rather different in various states. In some states actions of the tax administrator may be appealed against either through the tax administrator or directly to the court, whereas in other states there exist special tax courts which investigate tax disputes exclusively.

During the process of the judicial investigation the representative of the party concerned L. Žukienė reiterated her statements.

V

In the course of preparation of the case for the Constitutional Court hearing, explanations of E. Kunevičienė, Chairperson of the Budget and Finance Committee of the Seimas, N. Pitrėnienė, Head of the State Tax Inspectorate at the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as G. Švedas, a vice-minister of the Ministry of Justice, were received.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

1. On 28 June 1995, at the time of appeal of the petitioner to the Constitutional Court, the following procedure of filing a complaint of the taxpayer against the actions of the tax administrator or his officials was established by the Law on Tax Administration (wording of 2 July 1996):

(1) a taxpayer’s complaint had to be accepted by the local tax administrator solely in instances when it was “filed in writing within 20 days from receipt of a written decision from the tax administrator’s official” (Item 1 of Paragraph 2 of Article 55);

(2) a taxpayer’s “complaint filed before the central tax administrator shall be investigated only if: (1) submitted in writing within 20 days following receipt of local tax administrator’s decision regarding complaint investigation results or because the time period during which such a decision should have been adopted, has expired; (2) submitted in writing for decision by tax administrator (his officials) within 20 days following the day of receipt of decision subject to complaint” (Items 1 and 2 of Paragraph 3 of Article 56).

(3) a taxpayer’s complaint had to be filed no later than within 20 days from the receipt of the decision of the central tax administrator, and in the absence of decision approval, within 20 days from the other day on which the central tax administrator was to have approved the decision (Paragraph 3 of Article 58).

Thus, at the pre-trial stage of the investigation, the unconditional time period of 20 days was established for the taxpayer to file a complaint against respective actions performed by officials of the state tax inspectorate and no right was granted to either the tax administrator or the court to prolong or renew the said time period.

On 13 February 1997, the Seimas adopted the Law on Amending Articles 25, 39, 49, 50, 52, 54, 55, 56 of the Law on Tax Administration and Supplementing the Law with Article 391. At present Paragraphs 7 and 9 of Article 54 of the Law on Tax Administration provide:

7. Providing a taxpayer missed the time period of filing a complaint for reasons which are recognised by the tax administrator as valid this time period may be renewed by the decision of the tax administrator. The application regarding renewal of the missed time period is filed before such a tax administrator under competence of whom depends adoption of the decision concerning the complaint, and it is considered under the same procedure as the complaint. <...>

9. Along with filing an application regarding renewal of the time period, the complaint the time period of filing whereof has been missed must be filed. The decision of the tax administrator by which the application regarding renewal of the term is rejected may be appealed against under general procedure as established by the present law.”

The petitioner in its explanation of 9 June 1997 for the Constitutional Court treats this amendment and supplementation of the Law on Tax Administration as a partial solution of the doubts which have emerged to it, however, it has not eliminated the non-compliance of the impugned articles with Article 23 and 29 of the Constitution. The Law on Tax Administration provides for a possibility of renewing the time period of 20 days, which has been missed for valid reasons, of filing a complaint before a local or central tax administrator, however, in the opinion of the petitioner, to do so only the tax administrator is permitted. Paragraph 3 of Article 58 of the Law on Tax Administration establishes the right of a taxpayer to appeal to the court with his complaint during a limited time period, though the court is not granted the right to renew the time period of filing the complaint which has been missed for valid reasons. The petitioner contends that this impedes not only the rights of the taxpayer but also those of the court.

In assessing the legal situation which occurred in the case under investigation after the said law of 13 February 1997 had been adopted, the Constitutional Court holds that the content of Item 1 of Paragraph 2 of Article 55, that of Items 1 and 2 of Paragraph 4 of Article 56, and that of Paragraph 3 of Article 58 had basically been extended. Complementary rules of implementation of the impugned norms were established by new norms (Paragraphs 7 and 9 of Article 54), and at present the time period of filing the complaint which has been missed may be renewed while the decision of the tax administrator by which the application for renewal of the time period is rejected may be appealed against. The impugned paragraphs of the articles of the Law on Tax Administration have not formally been changed, meanwhile due to the performed amendments merely the numbering of paragraphs of Article 56 of the said law was changed—Paragraph 3 became Paragraph 4 and a technical supplement to Item 2 of Paragraph 4 of the aforesaid article was performed.

Therefore, investigating the request of the petitioner, the Constitutional Court will, first of all, assess the impugned norms in a systemic manner, i.e. by taking account of the wording of the Law on Tax Administration which was in force at the time of the application of the petitioner and the investigation of the case at the Constitutional Court.

2. When one assesses the arguments of the petitioner, the provisions consolidated in Article 127 of the Constitution as well as their analysis are of crucial importance.

Paragraph 1 of Article 127 of the Constitution provides that “the budgetary system of the Republic of Lithuania shall consist of the independent State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania and the independent municipal budgets”. The part of the national income accumulated in the budget of the Republic of Lithuania creates necessary conditions for the implementation of programmes of state education, culture, science, health care, social maintenance and social assistance, protection of environment, as well as for development of economy, maintenance of state government and state administration institutions and strengthening the defence of the country.

Paragraph 2 of Article 127 of the Constitution provides that “State Budget revenues shall be accrued from taxes, compulsory payments, dues, receipts from State property, and other income”. Thus, one of the most important sources of the state budget is taxes. Basing oneself on Item 15 of Article 67 of the Constitution, one may assert that taxes are obligatory, gratuitous and timely payments of a respective size paid by legal and natural persons as established by law to the state (municipal) budget (or, in some cases, to non-budgetary targeted funds). It is evident that the main purpose of taxes is fiscal, they are used to accrue the state treasury designated for satisfying public needs of the state and society. Besides, with the help of taxes social and economic processes taking place in the state are regulated, useful economic efforts are supported, capital and investments are attracted, or, conversely, undesirable trends of socio-economic development are intermitted.

Along with consolidation of the budgetary system of the Republic of Lithuania and indication of the sources of accrual of the state budget, the provisions of Article 127 of the Constitution consolidate the constitutional duty to pay taxes. This monetary obligation provided for the taxpayer is accomplished under the procedure established by law.

One should also note that provided taxes are not paid or paid overdue the state budget does not receive revenue, the budget deficit increases, possibilities for the state to implement its tasks and accomplish its functions which are vitally important for its citizens, the nation and the state are limited or even deprived of. Furthermore, at the time when a part of subjects of economic activity do not pay taxes, the other subjects—honest taxpayers—find themselves at a disadvantage, and thereby the essential principles of free market based on fair competition are violated.

The state budget must be replenished constantly. Therefore, the rights and duties of subjects of tax relations in the sphere of payment of taxes must be accomplished not only completely but also within established time limits while any emerged tax disputes must be settled as soon as possible. Tax relations are a matter of regulation by public law, therefore, the method of administrative legal regulation is applied for their realisation first of all.

Subordination, elements of command dominate in the norms of tax laws establishing the means ensuring the accomplishment of tax obligation, in defining the status of subjects of legal tax relations, in solving the issues of taxpayers’ responsibility, the procedure of an investigation into tax disputes and other questions. Such an imperative, obligating method of regulation ensures priority of interests of the general public, as well as those of the state, in tax relations. When the method of administrative legal regulation is applied, legal relations of a commanding character arise between the taxpayer and institutions of the executive power of the state—tax administrators. Instructions given by the latter, as well as their adopted decisions, are mandatory for taxpayers. One does not negotiate taxes, the rights and duties of the taxpayer are directly pointed out in the norms of tax laws. Not only financial but also administrative and criminal responsibility is established and applied for violation of tax laws.

Alongside, one should note that the relations between taxpayers and the officials administering taxes must be based not only on effective implementation of commanding instructions but also on a real opportunity of the taxpayer to defend his legitimate interests.

3.1. The petitioner contends that Article 23 of the Constitution does not provide for any exception for either specific types of property or individual subjects of property. Meanwhile the Law on Tax Administration evidently places the subjects of the right to property (taxpayers, the state) at a disadvantage: Paragraph 3 of Article 29 of this law provides that the time limitation term is not applied for payment of computed tax, added fines and penalties, as well as their exaction when the limited time period of 20 days is established for filing complaints. Only the tax administrator is entitled to renew the said time period provided it has been missed for valid reasons.

Therefore, the petitioner argues that when tax disputes are settled the interests of the state are placed higher than those of taxpayers. The provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 58 of the Law on Tax Administration which does not grant the court a possibility of renewing the time period for filing the complaint missed for valid reasons impedes not only the rights of taxpayers but also those of the court and thereby violates Article 29 of the Constitution.

3.2. Article 29 of the Constitution consolidates the principle of the equality of all persons before the law, the court, and other state institutions and officials. The Constitutional Court has already noted that this principle “must be observed when passing and applying laws, as well as administering justice. This principle obligates one to apply a uniform legal assessment to homogeneous facts and prohibits against any arbitrary assessment of essentially homogeneous facts” (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 24 January 1996).

The legal equality of taxpayers before the law is established by Article 3 of the Law on Tax Administration which stipulates that “in applying tax laws, all taxpayers shall be held equal on the basis of the conditions established by these laws”. Thus, tax laws, as well as the Law on Tax Administration, are universal with respect to taxable subjects.

As it was mentioned, the method of administrative legal regulation prevails in the sphere of tax relations. Therefore, in their legal position, taxpayers may not be made equal to the tax administrators who, by representing state interests and administering the accomplishment of the tax duty, base themselves on commanding authorisation. The taxpayer and the tax administrator have different rights and duties due to the character of the same tax as an obligation of the state. However, every taxpayer is entitled to dispute and appeal against every decision of the tax administrator or his official under time period and procedure established by law.

By the administrative method of the regulation of tax relations and the procedure of the pre-trial investigation one attempts to ensure that the taxes were paid promptly and timely. Therefore, it is necessary that the subjects of tax relations accomplish their duties during the shortest possible time period as established by law. This is also induced by the special and comparatively short time period of filing the complaint. On the other hand, provided a taxpayer believes that he was unsuccessful in defending his rights during the pre-trial stages of the investigation into tax disputes, he is entitled to appeal to the court.

Alongside, one should take account of the fact that, as it was mentioned, after the 13 February 1997 Law on Tax Administration had been amended and supplemented, a possibility emerged to renew the time period of filling the complaint which has been missed for valid reasons (Paragraph 7 of Article 54 of the Law on Tax Administration).

The conclusion should be made on the basis of Paragraphs 1, 7 and 9 of Article 54 of the aforesaid law and of the content of the impugned norms that the taxpayer, who does not agree with the refusal of the tax administrator to renew the time period of filing the complaint which has been missed for valid reasons or providing the tax administrator does not adopt any decisions regarding this question, then the taxpayer is entitled to appeal to the court against such an action or absence of action of the tax administrator (his officials), as well as due to the consequences which have emerged because of this.

The Constitutional Court emphasises that it is such an interpretation of the Law on Tax Administration which is in compliance with the provision of Article 30 of the Constitution by which any person whose constitutional rights or freedoms are violated shall have the right to appeal to court.

After the process of the solution of tax disputes has ceased and the complaint has been lodged against the decision of the tax administrator (his official) to the court, the procedural legal situation of the institutions (their officials) which are responsible for tax administration and that of taxpayers become equal. These subjects of tax relations become parties of a civil proceedings and the court investigates the case conforming to the adversarial principle and the principle of the equality of parties.

Thus, the impugned norms of the Law on Tax Administration are in compliance with Article 29 of the Constitution.

3.3. Article 23 of the Constitution stipulates:

Property shall be inviolable.

The rights of ownership shall be protected by law.

Property may only be seized for the needs of society according to the procedure established by law and must be adequately compensated for.”

In view of property, the norms of Article 23 of the Constitution, all together forming an intact unity, disclose the essence of the protection of the right to property and emphasise the constitutional protection of property.

The Constitutional Court has noted that the inviolability of property must not be deemed to be absolute: “<...> neither the Constitution, nor the valid system of other laws, nor universally recognised norms of international law deny the opportunity, under conditions and procedure prescribed by law, to alienate the property or limit its possession, use or disposal” (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 December 1993).

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms stipulates that “every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties”.

Thus, international law does not deny the right of states to establish by law broad opportunities of tax collection, ways of control, a choice of means in ensuring the effective functioning of the state’s tax and budget systems.

One should note that along with the promulgation of the general principle of the inviolability of property in Article 23 of the Constitution, the right of the Seimas to establish taxes by law is consolidated in Paragraph 2 of Article 127, Item 15 of Article 67 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the norms of the Constitution, by granting the right to the Seimas to impose taxes, also imply the obligation for the state to create necessary, sufficient and effective legal means of the implementation of the rights and duties of tax relations subjects.

In the sphere of accrual of the budget, as well as in the sphere of taxes, the object of state activities in imposing taxes is, first of all, property, received returns, income, accumulated financial resources etc. Thus, the constitutional duty occurs to the owner to pay taxes to the state. Alongside, the owner is a subject of tax law—a tax payer—and through taxes he finances the implementation of both internal and external functions of the state.

The nature and purpose of state taxes, the administrative-legal method of the regulation of tax relations, the rights and duties of the subjects of these relations and the guarantees of their implementation, the procedure of the pre-trial investigation into tax disputes, the time period of filing complaints against actions of the tax administrator (his officials) by taxpayers, as well as the procedure of the renewal of this time period, allow asserting that the principle of the inviolability of property is not violated in tax relations Thus, the impugned norms of the Law on Tax Administration are in compliance with the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution.

Taking account of the arguments set forth, the conclusion should be made that Item 1 of Paragraph 2 of Article 55, Items 1 and 2 of Paragraph 4 of Article 56, and Paragraph 3 of Article 58 of the Law on Tax Administration are in compliance with 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 Item 1 of Paragraph 2 of Article 55, Items 1 and 2 of Paragraph 4 of Article 56, and Paragraph 3 of Article 58 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Tax Administration are in compliance with 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