Lt

On impeachment proceedings

Case No. 26/98

 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF

THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

 

R U L I N G

 

On the compliance of the 6 October 1998 decision of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania to reject the draft resolution of the Seimas “On Forming a Special Investigation Commission” and the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania “On the Proposal of a Group of Seimas Members ‘On the Initiation of the Impeachment Proceedings Against Seimas Member Audrius Butkevičius’ of 28 September 1998” of 6 October 1998 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Paragraph 1 of Article 24, Article 238, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 239 and Articles 241 and 243 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania

 

Vilnius, 30 March 2000

 

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court: Egidijus Jarašiūnas, Egidijus Kūris, Zigmas Levickis, Augustinas Normantas, Vladas Pavilonis, Jonas Prapiestis, Vytautas Sinkevičius, Stasys Stačiokas, and Teodora Staugaitienė

The court reporter—Daiva Pitrėnaitė

Seimas member Juozas Bernatonis, acting as the representative of a group of Seimas members, the petitioner

Audronė Ožiūnienė, a consultant to the Law Department of the Office of the Seimas, acting as the representative of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, 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, on 16 March 2000, in its public hearing, considered case No. 26/98 subsequent to the petition submitted to the Constitutional Court by a group of members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether the 6 October 1998 Seimas decision to reject the draft resolution of the Seimas “On Forming a Special Investigation Commission” and the Seimas Resolution “On the Initiation of the Impeachment Proceedings Against Seimas Member Audrius Butkevičius” of 6 October 1998 were in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Part VIII of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania.

The Constitutional Court

has established:

I

On 6 October 1998, the Seimas adopted a decision to reject the draft resolution of the Seimas “On Forming a Special Investigation Commission” (protocol No. 11(237) of the 6 October 1998 Seimas morning plenary meeting; hereinafter also referred to as the Seimas decision).

On 6 October 1998, the Seimas adopted the Resolution “On the Proposal of a Group of Seimas Members ‘On the Initiation of the Impeachment Proceedings Against Seimas Member Audrius Butkevičius’ of 28 September 1998” (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1998, No. 89-2450; hereinafter also referred to as the Seimas Resolution) wherein it is provided:

Taking account of the fact that

in cases when a Seimas member is suspected of the commission of a crime, the Seimas must, conforming to Article 24 of the Statute of the Seimas, choose only one of the following decisions: to begin the preparatory actions for impeachment proceedings under the procedure established in Part VIII of the Statute of the Seimas, or to give its consent to bring the Seimas member to criminal liability;

having passed the Resolution “On the Consent to Bring Seimas Member Audrius Butkevičius to Criminal Liability” of 19 August 1997, the Seimas opted for one of the procedures pointed out in the Statute of the Seimas, i.e. it consented that the question of culpability of Seimas member Audrius Butkevičius be decided in court;

at present the criminal case of the Seimas member is under investigation in court and that the impeachment proceedings, in case of their institution, would mean that two state institutions (i.e. the court and the Seimas) would be deciding the question of culpability of Seimas member Audrius Butkevičius concerning the same accusation;

the question of the mandate of Seimas member Audrius Butkevičius may be decided under impeachment proceedings only after the court has investigated this criminal case and adopted a decision,

the Seimas has decided:

Article 1.

Not to consider the proposal of a group of Seimas members of “On the Initiation of the Impeachment Proceedings Against Seimas Member Audrius Butkevičius” of 28 September 1998 wherein the said group of Seimas members did not charge Audrius Butkevičius with anything.

Article 2.

This resolution shall go into effect as of its adoption.”

The petitioner requests an investigation into whether the decision and the Resolution of the Seimas are in compliance with the Constitution and Part VIII of the Statute of the Seimas.

II

The petition of the petitioner is based on these arguments.

On 28 September 1998, 44 Seimas members submitted the proposal to the Seimas “On the Initiation of the Impeachment Proceedings Against Seimas Member Audrius Butkevičius”. Under Article 242 of the Statute of the Seimas, the Speaker or Deputy Speaker of the Seimas shall immediately present such a proposal to Seimas members and shall, no later than within one week during the session, submit a proposal to the Seimas to consider the issue.

Under Article 243 of the Statute of the Seimas, upon hearing a proposal made by the initiators or their representative concerning the initiation of impeachment proceedings against a concrete individual, the Seimas shall form a commission to investigate the validity and seriousness of the submitted charges and to prepare the finding concerning the proposal to initiate the impeachment proceedings. In the opinion of the petitioner, in such a case the Seimas may not decide independently or choose an alternative but must form such a commission.

Article 74 of the Constitution provides that impeachment proceedings shall be established by the Statute of the Seimas, while Article 76 of the Constitution stipulates that the structure and procedure of activities of the Seimas shall be determined by the Statute of the Seimas which shall have the power of law. The petitioner is of the opinion that the 6 October 1998 Seimas decision to reject the draft resolution of the Seimas “On Forming a Special Investigation Commission” conflicts with Articles 74 and 76 of the Constitution and Part VIII of the Statute of the Seimas.

On 6 October 1998, the Seimas adopted the Resolution “On the Proposal of a Group of Seimas Members ‘On the Initiation of the Impeachment Proceedings Against Seimas Member Audrius Butkevičius’ of 28 September 1998” which, according to the petitioner, is also in conflict with Articles 74 and 76 of the Constitution.

The petitioner notes that in the impugned legal act the Seimas was conforming to the provision that under Article 24 of the Statute of the Seimas, the Seimas has to choose only between one of the following decisions in cases when a Seimas member is suspected of the commission of a crime: to begin preliminary actions of impeachment proceedings, or to give its consent to bring the Seimas members to criminal liability. However, Article 24 of the Statute of the Seimas provides for the procedure for deprivation of the inviolability of the person of a Seimas member under Article 62 of the Constitution, while the procedure for impeachment proceedings under Article 74 of the Constitution is regulated by Part VIII Impeachment Proceedings of the Statute of the Seimas. The analogous legal norms to Article 24 of the Statute of the Seimas are repeated in its Article 239, however, Paragraph 2 of Article 238 thereof provides that the proposal to the Seimas to initiate the impeachment proceedings against a concrete person shall not be related to the norms of Article 239 of this Statute.

In the opinion of the petitioner, the argument of the decision of the Seimas that the Seimas already opted for one of the possible procedures, i.e. it consented to bring Seimas member Audrius Butkevičius to criminal liability and, therefore, it might not consider the issue of the initiation of impeachment proceedings, conflicts with Articles 74 and 76 of the Constitution and those articles of the Statute of the Seimas which provide for the procedure for impeachment proceedings.

III

In the course of the preparation of the case for the Constitutional Court hearing, a written explanation of the representative of the Seimas A. Ožiūnienė, a consultant to the Law Department of the Office of the Seimas, was received. It is maintained therein that Article 74 of the Constitution provides that the procedure for impeachment proceedings shall be established by the Statute of the Seimas. Article 237 of the Statute of the Seimas stipulates that there shall be grounds for initiating impeachment proceedings in the event that an individual specified in Article 236 of this Statute has: 1) grossly violated the Constitution; 2) breached the oath; or 3) is suspected of the commission of a crime.

The representative of the party concerned maintained that in cases when a Seimas member is suspected of the commission of a crime, Paragraph 1 of Article 24 and Paragraph 3 of Article 239 of the Statute of the Seimas provide that after the Seimas has heard the report of the Prosecutor General concerning the crime committed by a Seimas member, it shall decide whether to form an investigation commission for the consent to take criminal action against a Seimas member, or to initiate preliminary actions of the impeachment proceedings according to the procedure established in Part VIII of this Statute. Thus, in case there is a report of the Prosecutor General concerning the crime committed by a Seimas member, the Seimas is obligated to choose between one of these procedures: to begin preliminary actions for impeachment proceedings under the procedure established in Part VIII of the Statute of the Seimas, or to give its consent to bring the Seimas member to criminal liability.

On 19 August 1997, conforming to Paragraph 2 of Article 62 of the Constitution, taking account of the 14 August 1997 proposal of the Prosecutor General concerning the consent of the Seimas to bring Seimas member Audrius Butkevičius to criminal liability and the 18 August 1997 reference of the Seimas Provisional Investigation Commission, the Seimas adopted the Resolution “On the Consent to Bring Seimas Member Audrius Butkevičius to Criminal Liability”, i.e. it opted for one of the alternative procedures provided for in the Statute of the Seimas: it decided that the question whether Seimas member Audrius Butkevičius has committed a crime would be investigated by investigation bodies and the court.

The representative of the party concerned noted that the Statute of the Seimas does not provide that after the Seimas has adopted a decision to allow bringing a Seimas member to criminal liability (especially as the criminal case has already been investigated in court), at the same time preparatory actions for impeachment proceedings might be performed or the impeachment proceedings be conducted in the Seimas. In the opinion of the representative of the party concerned, the provisions of the Statute of the Seimas are worded in accordance with the principle that two state institutions, i.e. the Seimas and bodies of law and order (courts) may not investigate the actions performed by a Seimas member simultaneously, as this would be incompatible with the Code of Criminal Proceedings, the Law on Courts and other laws, and this would also impede the investigation.

According to the representative of the party concerned, the statement of the petitioner that the reasoning presented in the operative part of the Seimas decision by which the group of Seimas members did not charge Seimas member Audrius Butkevičius with anything is in conflict with Article 74 of the Constitution and the Statute of the Seimas is legally unreasoned. Article 74 of the Constitution names various subjects that may be removed from office or the Seimas member mandate of whom be revoked under the procedure for impeachment proceedings, and also provides as to what majority of votes is required in order to perform this (by three-fifths majority vote of all the Seimas members). Article 74 of the Constitution does not provide for any particular procedure for impeachment proceedings, therefore, this article says nothing about presenting accusations against a Seimas member, either. Article 74 of the Constitution provides that the procedure for impeachment proceedings shall be established by the Statute of the Seimas. Thus, the comparison of the provisions of the Seimas decision with Article 74 of the Constitution by the petitioner is legally groundless.

The representative of the party concerned noted that under Article 241 of the Statute of the Seimas, the initiators’ proposal to initiate the impeachment proceedings must indicate the concrete person, the charge formulated against the said person, arguments, major facts, and evidence or sources thereof. An analysis of Articles 235, 237, 239 and 240 permits asserting that a group of Seimas members initiating impeachment proceedings must charge the Seimas member with commission of one of the actions at the presence of which there occurs the basis for impeachment proceedings. The group of Seimas members must also formulate the charge. The references alone that the Seimas member was charged by institutions of law and order are not sufficient. The specific character of impeachment proceedings as a special procedure is determined by the fact that no one else but Seimas members assess the actions of the Seimas member, qualify them as grossly violating the Constitution, breaching the oath or as permitting asserting that there are suspicions that he has committed a crime, and charge the Seimas member with commission of the said concrete actions (it goes without saying, the formulation of the charges presented by the group of Seimas members may or may not coincide with those presented by institutions of law and order).

In the opinion of the representative of the party concerned, the 6 October 1998 Seimas decision to reject the draft resolution of the Seimas “On Forming a Special Investigation Commission” and the Seimas Resolution “On the Initiation of the Impeachment Proceedings Against Seimas Member Audrius Butkevičius” of 6 October 1998 are in compliance with the Constitution and Part VIII of the Statute of the Seimas.

IV

In the Constitutional Court hearing the representative of the petitioner virtually reiterated the arguments set down in the petition of the petitioner.

In the Constitutional Court hearing the representative of the party concerned virtually reiterated the arguments set down in her written explanations.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

1. The petitioner—a group of Seimas members—requests an investigation into whether the 6 October 1998 Seimas decision to reject the draft resolution of the Seimas “On Forming a Special Investigation Commission” and the Seimas Resolution “On the Initiation of the Impeachment Proceedings Against Seimas Member Audrius Butkevičius” of 6 October 1998 are in compliance with the Constitution and Part VIII of the Statute of the Seimas.

In the argumentative part of the petition, the petitioner points out that, in his opinion, the Seimas decision and the Seimas Resolution conflict with Articles 74 and 76 of the Constitution, Paragraph 1 of Article 24, Article 238, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 239 and Articles 241 and 243 of the Statute of the Seimas which regulate the preparatory actions for impeachment proceedings.

It needs to be noted that the Seimas amended the Statute of the Seimas by the 22 December 1998 Statute of the Seimas “On Amendment of the Statute” and set it forth in a new wording. Taking account of the reasoning set down in the petition of the petitioner, the Constitutional Court will investigate whether the Seimas decision and Seimas Resolution are in compliance with Articles 74 and 76 of the Constitution and Paragraph 1 of Article 24, Article 238, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 239 and Articles 241 and 243 of the Statute of the Seimas which were in effect at the moment of the adoption of the said decision and resolution.

2. The constitutional bases for impeachment proceedings are established in Article 74 of the Constitution. It is established in this article that “for gross violation of the Constitution, a breach of the oath, or upon the disclosure of the commission of a crime, the Seimas may, by three-fifths majority vote of all the Seimas members, remove from office the President of the Republic, the President and justices of the Constitutional Court, the President and justices of the Supreme Court, the President and judges of the Court of Appeal, as well as Seimas members, or may revoke their mandate of a Seimas member. Such actions shall be carried out in accordance with the procedure for impeachment proceedings which shall be established by the Statute of the Seimas”.

The provision of Article 74 of the Constitution “the procedure for impeachment proceedings which shall be established by the Statute of the Seimas” establishes the discretion of the Seimas in this area. Article 74 of the Constitution provides for several bases for impeachment. In its 11 May 1999 ruling, interpreting the said article of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court noted that the Statute of the Seimas may establish such a procedure for impeachment so that it would take into consideration the differences of the constitutional bases for impeachment.

3. Deciding whether the Seimas decision or the Seimas Resolution was in conformity with the Statute of the Seimas, it is important to determine the content of Articles 24, 238 and 239 of the Statute of the Seimas and the interrelation of the contents of these articles. It is possible to do so by applying various methods of construction of legal norms, and, first of all, the systematic method.

Paragraph 1 of Article 24 of the Statute of the Seimas then provided that “after the Seimas has heard the report of the Prosecutor General concerning the crime committed by a Seimas member, it shall decide whether to form an investigation commission for the consent to take criminal action against a Seimas member, or to initiate preliminary actions of the impeachment proceedings according to the procedure established in Part VIII of this Statute”.

Under the then in effect Paragraph 1 of Article 238 of the Statute of the Seimas, the right to request the initiation of impeachment proceedings against a concrete individual was granted to a group of Seimas members consisting of at least 1/4 of all of the Seimas members, the President of the Republic, and, if the case concerned the President or justices of the Constitutional Court and the President or judges of the Court of Appeal, this right was granted to the Court of Honour of Judges.

Paragraph 2 of Article 238 of the Statute of the Seimas then contained the provision that “the proposal to the Seimas to initiate the impeachment proceedings against a concrete person shall not be related to the norms of Article 239 of this Statute”.

Paragraph 1 of Article 239 of the Statute of the Seimas then contained the provision that “upon establishing that persons referred to in Article 236 of this Statute are suspected of having committed a crime, the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Lithuania shall immediately inform the Seimas thereon and submit appropriate material thereto”. Paragraph 3 of Article 239 of the Statute of the Seimas then contained the provision that “upon hearing the Prosecutor General’s report on a crime committed by other persons, the Seimas shall decide whether to give its approval to institute legal action against the concrete person (according to the procedure provided for in this Statute) or to initiate preliminary actions for impeachment proceedings”.

Thus, Article 239 of the Statute provided as to what actions the Prosecutor General had to perform when he established that the persons referred to in Article 236 of this Statute were suspected of having committed a crime: he had to immediately inform the Seimas thereon and submit appropriate material thereto. In addition, Article 239 established as to what decisions the Seimas had to adopt, upon hearing the Prosecutor General’s report, i.e. the Seimas had to choose between two possibilities: either to give its consent to bring the concrete person to criminal liability or to begin the preparatory actions for impeachment proceedings.

4. In the context of the case at issue it is important to determine the content of the wording “shall not be related to the norms of Article 239 of this Statute” set down in the then in effect Paragraph 2 of Article 238 of the Statute of the Seimas.

Article 239 of the Statute of the Seimas regulated such a legal situation where the Prosecutor General would inform the Seimas about a crime committed by a Seimas member. In such a case the Seimas had to decide whether to give its consent to bring the Seimas member to criminal liability or to begin the preparatory actions for impeachment proceedings.

The wording “shall not be related to the norms of Article 239 of this Statute” then employed in Paragraph 2 of Article 238 of the Statute of the Seimas should be interpreted as establishing at that time the right of the indicated subjects to initiate the impeachment proceedings against the Seimas member who was suspected of having committed a crime in case of the absence of the Prosecutor General’s report on a crime committed by the Seimas member.

5. On 6 October 1998 the Seimas adopted a decision to reject the draft resolution of the Seimas “On Forming a Special Investigation Commission”.

In accordance with the then in effect Paragraph 1 of Article 24 and Paragraph 3 of Article 239 of the Statute of the Seimas, upon hearing the Prosecutor General’s report on a crime committed by a Seimas member, the Seimas had to adopt one of these decisions: either to give its consent to bring the Seimas member to criminal liability or to begin preliminary actions for impeachment proceedings. The then in effect Article 243 of the Statute of the Seimas provided that a special investigation commission was to be formed only in case the Seimas decides to begin the preparatory actions for impeachment proceedings.

When it is decided whether the Seimas decision was in conformity with the Statute of the Seimas, the fact is of essential importance that the Seimas, adopting its Resolution “On the Consent to Bring Seimas Member Audrius Butkevičius to Criminal Liability” of 19 August 1997, opted for one of the procedures pointed out in the Statute of the Seimas, i.e. it gave its consent to bring Seimas member Audrius Butkevičius to criminal liability. Alongside, the Seimas decided that the actual circumstances of the commission of a crime would be investigated by law institutions—the investigation bodies and the court—but not a special commission formed by the Seimas.

As mentioned before, the provisions of the then in effect Paragraph 1 of Article 24 and Paragraph 3 of Article 239 of the Statute of the Seimas pre-supposed the fact that in case the Seimas adopts a decision to allow bringing a Seimas member to criminal liability because of the commission of a crime, then the impeachment proceedings against the said person were not to be instituted until the question of his criminal liability was decided, i.e. after the court has adopted a judgment of acquittal, or an effective judgment of conviction or when has dismissed the case.

It is evident that in case it was impossible to begin impeachment proceedings under the Statute of the Seimas, then it was impossible to form a special investigation commission, as under the then in effect Article 243 of the Statute of the Seimas such a commission might be formed only in case the Seimas decided to begin the preparatory actions for impeachment proceedings.

Taking account of the aforesaid reasoning, it should be concluded that the 6 October 1998 Seimas decision to reject the draft resolution of the Seimas “On Forming a Special Investigation Commission” was in compliance with Paragraph 1 of Article 24 and Paragraph 3 of Article 239 of the Statute of the Seimas.

Under Article 74 of the Constitution, the procedure for impeachment proceedings shall be established by the Statute of the Seimas. The Seimas decision to reject the draft resolution of the Seimas “On Forming a Special Investigation Commission” was in compliance with the Statute of the Seimas which was then in effect. When these circumstances are taken account of, there are not any grounds to assert that the Seimas decision is in conflict with Article 74 of the Constitution.

6. On 6 October 1998, the Seimas adopted the Resolution “On the Initiation of the Impeachment Proceedings Against Seimas Member Audrius Butkevičius”.

As mentioned before, in accordance with the then in effect Paragraph 1 of Article 24 and Paragraph 3 of Article 239 of the Statute of the Seimas, upon hearing the Prosecutor General’s report on a crime committed by a Seimas member, the Seimas had to adopt one of these decisions: either to give its consent to bring the Seimas member to criminal liability or to begin preliminary actions for impeachment proceedings. Such legal regulation pre-supposed the fact that the Seimas could not begin the preparatory actions for impeachment proceedings until the question of his criminal liability was decided, i.e. after the court has adopted a judgment of acquittal, or an effective judgment of conviction or when has dismissed the case. On 19 August 1997, the Seimas adopted the Resolution “On the Consent to Bring Seimas Member Audrius Butkevičius to Criminal Liability”. Thus, having adopted the resolution permitting bringing the Seimas member to criminal liability, the Seimas could not begin the preparatory actions for impeachment proceedings until the question of his criminal liability was decided by law institutions—investigation bodies and the court. Therefore, the Seimas Resolution “On the Proposal of a Group of Seimas Members ‘On the Initiation of the Impeachment Proceedings Against Seimas Member Audrius Butkevičius’ of 28 September 1998” of 6 October 1998 was in compliance with the then in effect Paragraph 1 of Article 24, Article 238 and Paragraph 3 of Article 239 of the Statute of the Seimas.

Under Article 74 of the Constitution, the procedure for impeachment proceedings shall be established by the Statute of the Seimas. The Seimas Resolution “On the Proposal of a Group of Seimas Members ‘On the Initiation of the Impeachment Proceedings Against Seimas Member Audrius Butkevičius’ of 28 September 1998” of 6 October 1998 was in compliance with the Statute of the Seimas which was then in effect. When the aforesaid circumstances are taken into consideration, there is not any ground to assert that the said Seimas resolution conflicts with Article 74 of the Constitution.

7. It is maintained in the petition of Seimas members that the 6 October 1998 Seimas decision to reject the draft resolution of the Seimas “On Forming a Special Investigation Commission” and the Seimas Resolution “On the Proposal of a Group of Seimas Members ‘On the Initiation of the Impeachment Proceedings Against Seimas Member Audrius Butkevičius’ of 28 September 1998” of 6 October 1998 are in conflict with Article 76 of the Constitution.

Article 76 of the Constitution provides that “the structure and procedure of activities of the Seimas shall be determined by the Statute of the Seimas. The Statute of the Seimas shall have the power of law”.

A blanket norm is set down in this article of the Constitution which permits the Seimas to establish its structure, procedure of its activities, procedures for presentation of draft laws and other draft legal acts, their deliberation and adoption, the competence of other structural sub-units of the Seimas and to regulate the other issues of the functioning of the Seimas. Under Article 76 of the Constitution, this must be established in the Statute of the Seimas which shall have the power of law.

Taking account of the fact that Article 76 of the Constitution does not provide for the procedure for initiation of impeachment, it should be concluded that the 6 October 1998 Seimas decision to reject the draft resolution of the Seimas “On Forming a Special Investigation Commission” and the Seimas Resolution “On the Proposal of a Group of Seimas Members ‘On the Initiation of the Impeachment Proceedings Against Seimas Member Audrius Butkevičius’ of 28 September 1998” of 6 October 1998 are in compliance with Article 76 of the Constitution.

Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 53, 54, 55 and 56 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania gives the following

ruling:

To recognise that the 6 October 1998 decision of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania to reject the draft resolution of the Seimas “On Forming a Special Investigation Commission” and the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania “On the Proposal of a Group of Seimas Members ‘On the Initiation of the Impeachment Proceedings Against Seimas Member Audrius Butkevičius’ of 28 September 1998” of 6 October 1998 are in compliance with Paragraph 1 of Article 24, Article 238, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 239 and Articles 241 and 243 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania which were in effect at the time of the adoption of the said decision and resolution, as well as in conformity 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      Egidijus Kūris      Zigmas Levickis

 

Augustinas Normantas      Vladas Pavilonis      Jonas Prapiestis

 

Vytautas Sinkevičius      Stasys Stačiokas      Teodora Staugaitienė