Lt

On refusing to consider part of a petition and on accepting part of the petition

 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

DECISION

ON THE PETITION OF A GROUP OF MEMBERS OF THE SEIMAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, THE PETITIONER, REQUESTING TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON ELECTRICITY IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

25 August 2011
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—Sigutė Brusovienė,

in a procedural sitting of the Constitutional Court considered the petition (No. 1B-36/2011) of a group of Members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the Republic of Lithuania Law on Electricity is not in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

The Constitutional Court

has established:

A group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, has requested investigation into the compliance of the Law on Electricity with the Constitution, namely, “whether:

1. the regulation established in Paragraph 41 of Article 2 of the Law whereby the Government or an institution authorised by it, while following the public interests in the electricity sector, shall establish the list of services which are compatible with the public interests, the providers of such services and the procedure of provision thereof, in view of the fact that one has not determined, by means of a law, any clear and consistent criteria defining the public interests in the electricity sector and the notions conforming the public interests, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law and Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Constitution;

2. the alleged legal gap in the Law, where, in view of the fact that one has not determined, by means of a law, any clear and consistent criteria defining the public interests in the electricity sector, and having established, at the same time, that the market participants shall include the expenditures for the services compatible with the public interests into the activity expenditures—the price of these services is included into the price for electricity paid by the consumer—is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, with Article 23 of the Constitution and Paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of Article 46 of the Constitution;

3. the alleged legal gap in the Law, where, in view of the fact that one has not determined, by means of a law, any clear and consistent criteria defining the notion of the service compatible with the public interests, and having established, at the same time, that the market participants shall include the expenditures for the services compatible with the public interests into the activity expenditures—the price of these services is included into the price for electricity paid by the consumer—is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, with Article 23 of the Constitution and Paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of Article 46 of the Constitution;

4. the alleged legal gap in the Law, where, in view of the fact that one has not determined, by means of a law, any clear and consistent criteria defining the public interests in the electricity sector, and having established, at the same time, additional property and non-property obligations (related with the public interests in the electricity sector) for the subjects of the electricity sector (the persons engaged in the licensed activity of an operator of the electricity market, that of transmission of electricity, that of distribution of electricity, that of public supply of electricity and that of independent supply of electricity), is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, with Article 23 of the Constitution and Paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of Article 46 of the Constitution;

5. the alleged legal gap in the Law, where, in view of the fact that one has not determined, by means of a law, any clear and consistent criteria defining the notion of the service compatible with the public interests, and having established, at the same time, additional property and non-property obligations (related with the public interests in the electricity sector) for the subjects of the electricity sector (the persons engaged in the licensed activity of an operator of the electricity market, that of transmission of electricity, that of distribution of electricity, that of public supply of electricity and that of independent supply of electricity), is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, with Article 23 of the Constitution and Paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of Article 46 of the Constitution”.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

I

1. The group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, inter alia requests investigation into whether the regulation established in Paragraph 41 of Article 2 of the Law on Electricity “whereby the Government or an institution authorised by it, while following the public interests in the electricity sector, shall establish the list of services which are compatible with the public interests, the providers of such services and the procedure of provision thereof, in view of the fact that one has not determined, by means of a law, any clear and consistent criteria defining the public interests in the electricity sector and the notions conforming the public interests, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law and Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Constitution”.

2. It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner that it requests investigation into whether Paragraph 41 of Article 2 of the Law on Electricity, insofar as it establishes that the Government or an institution authorised by it, while following the public interests in the electricity sector, shall establish the list of services which are compatible with the public interests, the providers of such services and the procedure of provision thereof, in view of the fact that one has not determined in this law any clear and consistent criteria defining the public interests in the electricity sector and the notions conforming the public interests, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law and Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Constitution.

It is clear from the quoted Paragraph 41 of Article 2 of the Law on Electricity and from the copies of the official gazette “Valstybės žinios” attached to the petition that the petitioner is disputing (to a certain extent) Paragraph 2 of Article 41 of the Law on Electricity which is set forth in the 22 December 2009 wording which provides: “‘Services compatible with the public interests’ mean services provided by electricity enterprises the list, suppliers and supply procedure whereof shall be established by the Government or an institution authorised by it with account of public interests in the electricity sector.”

3. The petition of the petitioner requesting investigation into whether Paragraph 41 (wording of 22 December 2009) of Article 2 of the Law on Electricity is not in conflict (to the extent specified by the petitioner) with the Constitution, is substantiated inter alia by provisions of the official constitutional doctrine that the constitutional values upon which the economy of this country is grounded, are tightly related to other constitutional values, inter alia to the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (Constitutional Court rulings of 4 December 2008 and 2 March 2009), also, that the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law is related with the constitutional principle of separation of powers, inter alia entrenched in Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Constitution, therefore, the Seimas does not have the right to commission the Government or any other institution to implement the constitutional competence of the Seimas (Constitutional Court rulings of 14 January 2002 and 2 March 2009).

4. It needs to be held that the petition of the group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner requesting investigation into whether Paragraph 41 (wording of 22 December 2009) of Article 2 of the Law on Electricity, insofar as it establishes that the Government or an institution authorised by it, while following the public interests in the electricity sector, shall establish the list of services which are compatible with the public interests, the providers of such services and the procedure of provision thereof, in view of the fact that one has not determined in this law any clear and consistent criteria defining the public interests in the electricity sector and the notions conforming the public interests, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law and Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Constitution, is substantiated by legal arguments, therefore, the petition to this extent is acceptable for consideration at the Constitutional Court.

II

1. The group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, requests investigation into whether inter alia the alleged legal gap in the Law on Electricity “where, in view of the fact that one has not determined, by means of a law, any clear and consistent criteria defining the public interests in the electricity sector, and having established, at the same time, that the market participants shall include the expenditures for the services compatible with the public interests into the activity expenditures—the price of these services is included into the price for electricity paid by the consumer—is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, with Article 23 of the Constitution and Paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of Article 46 of the Constitution”.

2. According to the petitioner, clear and consistent criteria defining the public interests in the electricity sector have not been established in other laws regulating relations related to electricity—the Republic of Lithuania Law on Energy and the Republic of Lithuania Law on Energy from Renewable Resources—either. In the opinion of the petitioner, this should be done by namely the Law on Electricity, and, due to this, it thinks that there might be legislative omission in the said law, i.e. the legal gap prohibited by the Constitution.

It needs to be noted that the petitioner pointed out in its petition that Paragraph 40 of Article 2 of the Law on Electricity defines the notion of public interests in the electricity sector and it quoted the said paragraph: “‘Public interest in the electricity sector’ means any act or inaction in the electricity sector, directly or indirectly related to the public security, environmental protection, and to electricity generation from renewable energy sources at combined heat and power generation plants” (Paragraph 40 (wording of 22 December 2009) of Article 2). According to the petitioner, the notion of public interests in the electricity sector has not been disclosed in a broader manner in the Law on Electricity.

Thus, it is clear from the entirety of the petition of the petitioner that, on the one hand, it is maintaining that in the Law on Electricity there is a legal gap prohibited by the Constitution—the petitioner requests that the Constitutional Court investigate precisely that matter, but, on the other hand, the petitioner has pointed out that to a certain extent these relations are regulated in Paragraph 40 (wording of 22 December 2009) of Article 2 of the Law on Electricity, however, in the opinion of the petitioner, the regulation thereof is not sufficient enough—no clear and consistent criteria defining the public interests in the electricity sector have been established.

3. The Constitutional Court has held that a legal gap, inter alia legislative omission, always means that the legal regulation of corresponding social relations is established neither explicitly, nor implicitly, neither in a certain legal act (part thereof), nor any other legal acts at all, even though there exists a need for legal regulation of these social relations, while the said legal regulation, in case of legislative omission, must be established precisely in that legal act (precisely in that part thereof), since this is required by a certain legal act of higher power, inter alia the Constitution itself (inter alia Constitutional Court decisions of 8 August 2006, 5 November 2008, rulings of 2 March 2009, 22 June 2009, 29 November 2010 and 21 June 2011).

4. It has been mentioned that Paragraph 40 (wording of 22 December 2009) of Article 2 of the Law on Electricity, which was quoted by the petitioner, contains corresponding criteria defining the notion of the public interests in the electricity sector, however, these criteria, in the opinion of the petitioner, are not clear and consistent. Consequently, contrary to what the petitioner is maintaining, the relations which, according to the petitioner, have not been regulated in the Law on Electricity and whose non-regulation, according to the petitioner, is a legal gap prohibited by the Constitution (the petitioner requests that the Constitutional Court investigate precisely that matter), have actually been regulated to a certain extent in said Paragraph 40 (wording of 22 December 2009) of Article 2 of the Law on Electricity.

5. While taking account of the fact that the said legal regulation has been established to a certain extent in Paragraph 40 (wording of 22 December 2009) of Article 2 of the Law on Electricity, it needs to be held that in the Law on Electricity there is no legislative omission presumed by the petitioner, whereas, as mentioned, legislative omission always means that the legal regulation of corresponding social relations is established neither explicitly, nor implicitly, neither in a certain legal act (part thereof), nor any other legal acts at all. Thus, in the petition of the petitioner the matter of investigation is absent.

6. The absence of the matter of investigation in the petition of the petitioner means that the petition is not within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court (Constitutional Court decisions of 6 May 2003 and 13 May 2003, ruling of 13 May 2004, decision of 8 August 2006, rulings of 20 December 2007 and 20 March 2008, decision of 5 November 2008, ruling of 29 June 2010 and decision of 2 July 2010).

7. Under Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, by its decision, the Constitutional Court shall refuse to consider petitions to investigate the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution, if the consideration of the petition does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.

8. Taking account of the arguments set forth it needs to be held that there are grounds to refuse to consider the petition of the group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the alleged legal gap in the Law on Electricity “where, in view of the fact that one has not determined, by means of a law, any clear and consistent criteria defining the public interests in the electricity sector, and having established, at the same time, that the market participants shall include the expenditures for the services compatible with the public interests into the activity expenditures—the price of these services is included into the price for electricity paid by the consumer—is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, with Article 23 of the Constitution and Paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of Article 46 of the Constitution”.

9. It has been mentioned that the petitioner requests investigation into inter alia whether the alleged legal gap in the Law on Electricity “where, in view of the fact that one has not determined, by means of a law, any clear and consistent criteria defining the public interests in the electricity sector, and having established, at the same time, additional property and non-property obligations (related with the public interests in the electricity sector) for the subjects of the electricity sector (the persons engaged in the licensed activity of an operator of the electricity market, that of transmission of electricity, that of distribution of electricity, that of public supply of electricity and that of independent supply of electricity), is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, with Article 23 of the Constitution and Paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of Article 46 of the Constitution”.

10. According to the petitioner, the legal regulation not established in the Law on Electricity is, however, to a certain extent established in Paragraph 40 (wording of 22 December 2009) of Article 2 of the Law on Electricity: “‘Public interest in the electricity sector’ means any act or inaction in the electricity sector, directly or indirectly related to the public security, environmental protection, and to electricity generation from renewable energy sources at combined heat and power generation plants.”

Consequently, contrary to what the petitioner is maintaining, the relations which, according to the petitioner, have not been regulated in the Law on Electricity and whose non-regulation, according to the petitioner, is a legal gap prohibited by the Constitution (the petitioner requests that the Constitutional Court investigate precisely that matter), have actually been regulated to a certain extent in said Paragraph 40 (wording of 22 December 2009) of Article 2 of the Law on Electricity.

11. While taking account of the fact that the said legal regulation has been established to a certain extent in Paragraph 40 (wording of 22 December 2009) of Article 2 of the Law on Electricity, it needs to be held that in the Law on Electricity there is no legislative omission presumed by the petitioner, whereas, as mentioned, legislative omission always means that the legal regulation of corresponding social relations is established neither explicitly, nor implicitly, neither in a certain legal act (part thereof), nor any other legal acts at all. Thus, in the petition of the petitioner the matter of investigation is absent.

12. The absence of the matter of investigation in the petition of the petitioner means that the petition is not within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. Under Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, by its decision, the Constitutional Court shall refuse to consider petitions to investigate the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution, if the consideration of the petition does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.

13. Taking account of the arguments set forth it needs to be held that there are grounds to refuse to consider also the petition of the group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the alleged legal gap in the Law on Electricity “where, in view of the fact that one has not determined, by means of a law, any clear and consistent criteria defining the public interests in the electricity sector, and having established, at the same time, additional property and non-property obligations (related with the public interests in the electricity sector) for the subjects of the electricity sector (the persons engaged in the licensed activity of an operator of the electricity market, that of transmission of electricity, that of distribution of electricity, that of public supply of electricity and that of independent supply of electricity), is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, with Article 23 of the Constitution and Paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of Article 46 of the Constitution”.

III

1. The group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, requests investigation into whether inter alia the alleged legal gap in the Law on Electricity “where, in view of the fact that one has not determined, by means of a law, any clear and consistent criteria defining the notion of the service compatible with the public interests, and having established, at the same time, that the market participants shall include the expenditures for the services compatible with the public interests into the activity expenditures—the price of these services is included into the price for electricity paid by the consumer—is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, with Article 23 of the Constitution and Paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of Article 46 of the Constitution”.

2. According to the petitioner, clear and consistent criteria defining the notion of the service compatible with the public interests have not been established in other laws regulating relations related to electricity—the Law on Energy and the Law on Energy from Renewable Resources—either. In the opinion of the petitioner, this should be done by namely the Law on Electricity, and, due to this, it thinks that there might be legislative omission in the said law, i.e. the legal gap prohibited by the Constitution.

It needs to be noted that the petitioner pointed out in its petition that Paragraph 41 of Article 2 of the Law on Electricity defines the notion of the service compatible with the public interests and it quoted the said paragraph: “‘Services compatible with the public interests’ mean services provided by electricity enterprises the list, suppliers and supply procedure whereof shall be established by the Government or an institution authorised by it with account of public interests in the electricity sector” (Paragraph 41 (wording of 22 December 2009) of Article 2). According to the petitioner, the notion of the service compatible with the public interests has not been disclosed in a broader manner in the Law on Electricity.

Thus, it is clear from the entirety of the petition of the petitioner that, on the one hand, it is maintaining that in the Law on Electricity there is a legal gap prohibited by the Constitution—the petitioner requests that the Constitutional Court investigate precisely that matter, but, on the other hand, the petitioner has pointed out that to a certain extent these relations are regulated in Paragraph 41 (wording of 22 December 2009) of Article 2 of the Law on Electricity, however, in the opinion of the petitioner, the regulation thereof is not sufficient enough—no clear and consistent criteria defining the services compatible with the public interests have been established.

3. The Constitutional Court has held that a legal gap, inter alia legislative omission, always means that the legal regulation of corresponding social relations is established neither explicitly, nor implicitly, neither in a certain legal act (part thereof), nor any other legal acts at all, even though there exists a need for legal regulation of these social relations, while the said legal regulation, in case of legislative omission, must be established precisely in that legal act (precisely in that part thereof), since this is required by a certain legal act of higher power, inter alia the Constitution itself (inter alia Constitutional Court decisions of 8 August 2006, 5 November 2008, rulings of 2 March 2009, 22 June 2009, 29 November 2010 and 21 June 2011).

4. It has been mentioned that Paragraph 41 (wording of 22 December 2009) of Article 2 of the Law on Electricity, which was quoted by the petitioner, defines the notion of the services compatible with the public interests, however, in the opinion of the petitioner, clear and consistent criteria defining this notion have not been established. Consequently, contrary to what the petitioner is maintaining, the relations which, according to the petitioner, have not been regulated in the Law on Electricity and whose non-regulation, according to the petitioner, is a legal gap prohibited by the Constitution (the petitioner requests that the Constitutional Court investigate precisely that matter), have actually been regulated to a certain extent in said Paragraph 41 (wording of 22 December 2009) of Article 2 of the Law on Electricity.

5. While taking account of the fact that the said legal regulation has been established to a certain extent in Paragraph 41 (wording of 22 December 2009) of Article 2 of the Law on Electricity, it needs to be held that in the Law on Electricity there is no legislative omission presumed by the petitioner, whereas, as mentioned, legislative omission always means that the legal regulation of corresponding social relations is established neither explicitly, nor implicitly, neither in a certain legal act (part thereof), nor any other legal acts at all. Thus, in the petition of the petitioner the matter of investigation is absent.

6. The absence of the matter of investigation in the petition of the petitioner means that the petition is not within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court (Constitutional Court decisions of 6 May 2003 and 13 May 2003, ruling of 13 May 2004, decision of 8 August 2006, rulings of 20 December 2007 and 20 March 2008, decision of 5 November 2008, ruling of 29 June 2010 and decision of 2 July 2010).

7. Under Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, by its decision, the Constitutional Court shall refuse to consider petitions to investigate the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution, if the consideration of the petition does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.

8. Taking account of the arguments set forth it needs to be held that there are grounds to refuse to consider the petition of the group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the alleged legal gap in the Law on Electricity “where, in view of the fact that one has not determined, by means of a law, any clear and consistent criteria defining the notion of the service compatible with the public interests, and having established, at the same time, that the market participants shall include the expenditures for the services compatible with the public interests into the activity expenditures—the price of these services is included into the price for electricity paid by the consumer—is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, with Article 23 of the Constitution and Paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of Article 46 of the Constitution.”

9. It has been mentioned that group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, requests investigation into whether inter alia the alleged legal gap in the Law on Electricity “where, in view of the fact that one has not determined, by means of a law, any clear and consistent criteria defining the notion of the service compatible with the public interests, and having established, at the same time, additional property and non-property obligations (related with the public interests in the electricity sector) for the subjects of the electricity sector (the persons engaged in the licensed activity of an operator of the electricity market, that of transmission of electricity, that of distribution of electricity, that of public supply of electricity and that of independent supply of electricity), is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, with Article 23 of the Constitution and Paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of Article 46 of the Constitution”.

10. According to the petitioner, the legal regulation not established in the Law on Electricity is, however, to a certain extent established in Paragraph 41 (wording of 22 December 2009) of Article 2 of the Law on Electricity: “‘Services compatible with the public interests’ mean services provided by electricity enterprises the list, suppliers and supply procedure whereof shall be established by the Government or an institution authorised by it with account of public interests in the electricity sector.”

Consequently, contrary to what the petitioner is maintaining, the relations which, according to the petitioner, have not been regulated in the Law on Electricity and whose non-regulation, according to the petitioner, is a legal gap prohibited by the Constitution (the petitioner requests that the Constitutional Court investigate precisely that matter), have actually been regulated to a certain extent in said Paragraph 41 (wording of 22 December 2009) of Article 2 of the Law on Electricity.

11. While taking account of the fact that the said legal regulation has been established to a certain extent in Paragraph 41 (wording of 22 December 2009) of Article 2 of the Law on Electricity, it needs to be held that in the Law on Electricity there is no legislative omission presumed by the petitioner, whereas, as mentioned, legislative omission always means that the legal regulation of corresponding social relations is established neither explicitly, nor implicitly, neither in a certain legal act (part thereof), nor any other legal acts at all. Thus, in the petition of the petitioner the matter of investigation is absent.

12. The absence of the matter of investigation in the petition of the petitioner means that the petition is not within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. Under Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, by its decision, the Constitutional Court shall refuse to consider petitions to investigate the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution, if the consideration of the petition does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.

13. Taking account of the arguments set forth it needs to be held that that there are grounds to refuse to consider the petition of the group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the alleged legal gap in the Law on Electricity “where, in view of the fact that one has not determined, by means of a law, any clear and consistent criteria defining the notion of the service compatible with the public interests, and having established, at the same time, additional property and non-property obligations (related with the public interests in the electricity sector) for the subjects of the electricity sector (the persons engaged in the licensed activity of an operator of the electricity market, that of transmission of electricity, that of distribution of electricity, that of public supply of electricity and that of independent supply of electricity), is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, with Article 23 of the Constitution and Paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of Article 46 of the Constitution”.

Conforming to Paragraph 1 of Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 22, Article 28, Item 3 of Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 of Article 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:

1. To accept for consideration the petition of the group of Members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting investigation into whether Paragraph 41 (wording of 22 December 2009) of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Electricity, insofar as it establishes that the Government or an institution authorised by it, while following the public interests in the electricity sector, shall establish the list of services which are compatible with the public interests, the providers of such services and the procedure of provision thereof, in view of the fact that one has not determined in this law any clear and consistent criteria defining the public interests in the electricity sector and the notions conforming the public interests, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law and Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

2. To refuse the consideration the petition of the group of Members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether:

the alleged legal gap in the Republic of Lithuania Law on Electricity “where, in view of the fact that one has not determined, by means of a law, any clear and consistent criteria defining the public interests in the electricity sector, and having established, at the same time, that the market participants shall include the expenditures for the services compatible with the public interests into the activity expenditures—the price of these services is included into the price for electricity paid by the consumer—is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, with Article 23 of the Constitution and Paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of Article 46 of the Constitution”;

the alleged legal gap in the Republic of Lithuania Law on Electricity “where, in view of the fact that one has not determined, by means of a law, any clear and consistent criteria defining the public interests in the electricity sector, and having established, at the same time, additional property and non-property obligations (related with the public interests in the electricity sector) for the subjects of the electricity sector (the persons engaged in the licensed activity of an operator of the electricity market, that of transmission of electricity, that of distribution of electricity, that of public supply of electricity and that of independent supply of electricity), is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, with Article 23 of the Constitution and Paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of Article 46 of the Constitution”;

the alleged legal gap in the Republic of Lithuania Law on Electricity “where, in view of the fact that one has not determined, by means of a law, any clear and consistent criteria defining the notion of the service compatible with the public interests, and having established, at the same time, that the market participants shall include the expenditures for the services compatible with the public interests into the activity expenditures—the price of these services is included into the price for electricity paid by the consumer—is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, with Article 23 of the Constitution and Paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of Article 46 of the Constitution”;

the alleged legal gap in the Republic of Lithuania Law on Electricity “where, in view of the fact that one has not determined, by means of a law, any clear and consistent criteria defining the notion of the service compatible with the public interests, and having established, at the same time, additional property and non-property obligations (related with the public interests in the electricity sector) for the subjects of the electricity sector (the persons engaged in the licensed activity of an operator of the electricity market, that of transmission of electricity, that of distribution of electricity, that of public supply of electricity and that of independent supply of electricity), is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, with Article 23 of the Constitution and Paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of Article 46 of the Constitution”.

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