Lt

On the actions of Linas Karalius and Aleksandr Sacharuk, Members of the Seimas

Case No. 32/2010-33/2010

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
CONCLUSION

ON THE COMPLIANCE OF ACTIONS OF LINAS KARALIUS, A MEMBER OF THE SEIMAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, AGAINST WHOM AN IMPEACHMENT CASE HAS BEEN INSTITUTED, AND ALEKSANDR SACHARUK, A MEMBER OF THE SEIMAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, AGAINST WHOM AN IMPEACHMENT CASE HAS BEEN INSTITUTED, WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

27 October 2010
Vilnius

 

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court Armanas Abramavičius, Toma Birmontienė, Pranas Kuconis, Kęstutis Lapinskas, Zenonas Namavičius, Ramutė Ruškytė, Egidijus Šileikis, Algirdas Taminskas, and Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis,

with the secretary—Daiva Pitrėnaitė,

in the presence of the representatives of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, who were Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis, a Member of the Seimas, and Edvinas Mušinskis and Pranas Žukauskas, senior advisors of the Public Law Unit of the Law Department of the Office of the Seimas,

Linas Karalius and Aleksandr Sacharuk, Members of the Seimas, the parties concerned,

the representative of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, a party concerned, who was Saulius Žentelis, an advocate,

the representative of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, a party concerned, who was Vygantas Barkauskas, an advocate,

pursuant to Paragraph 3 of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, on 6–7 October 2010, in its public hearing heard Case No. 32/2010-33/2010 subsequent to the inquiry set forth in the 25 May 2010 Resolution No. XI-837 “On the Institution of Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas Aleksandr Sacharuk and Application to the Constitutional Court” of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, whether concrete actions of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, which were indicated in the Conclusion of the Seimas Special Investigation Commission for the Investigation into the Reasonableness of the Proposals Submitted by Members of the Seimas to Institute Impeachment Proceedings Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk and for Drawing up a Conclusion Regarding Grounds to Institute the Impeachment Proceedings, are in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and the inquiry set forth in the 25 May 2010 Resolution No. XI-838 “On the Institution of Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and Application to the Constitutional Court” of the Seimas whether concrete actions of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, which were indicated in the Conclusion of the Seimas Special Investigation Commission for the Investigation into the Reasonableness of the Proposals Submitted by Members of the Seimas to Institute Impeachment Proceedings Against Linas Karalius and for Drawing up a Conclusion Regarding Grounds to Institute the Impeachment Proceedings, are in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

By the Constitutional Court Decision “On Joining Inquiries into One Case” of 7 September 2010, the 9 June 2010 inquiries No. 1B-41/2010 (case No. 32/2010) and No. 1B-42/2010 (case No. 33/2010) of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, were joined into one case and it was given reference number 32/2010-33/2010.

The Constitutional Court

has established:

I

1. On 25 May 2010, the Seimas, the petitioner, adopted Resolution No. XI-838 “On the Institution of Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas Linas Karalius and Application to the Constitutional Court” (hereinafter also referred to as Seimas resolution No. XI-838 of 25 May 2010), which came into force on 9 June 2010. By means of this resolution the Seimas instituted impeachment proceedings against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius (Article 1) and applied to the Constitutional Court for a conclusion on whether concrete actions of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, which were indicated in the Conclusion of the Seimas Special Investigation Commission for the Investigation into the Reasonableness of the Proposals Submitted by Members of the Seimas to Institute Impeachment Proceedings Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and for Drawing up a Conclusion Regarding Grounds to Institute the Impeachment Proceedings (hereinafter referred to as the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius), are in conflict with the Constitution (Article 2).

The inquiry of the Seimas, the petitioner, was received at the Constitutional Court on 9 June 2010.

On 20 May 2010, the Seimas adopted Resolution No. XI-829 “On the Assent to the Conclusion of the Seimas Special Investigation Commission for the Investigation into the Reasonableness of the Proposals Submitted by Members of the Seimas to Institute Impeachment Proceedings Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and for Drawing up a Conclusion Regarding Grounds to Institute the Impeachment Proceedings” (hereinafter also referred to as Seimas resolution No. XI-829 of 20 May 2010), which came into force on 30 May 2010. By Article 1 of this resolution, the Seimas assented to the Conclusion “On the Grounds to Institute Impeachment Proceedings Against the Member of the Seimas Linas Karalius” of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius (hereinafter referred to as the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius), which was annexed to the resolution, and by Article 2 of the same resolution, the Seimas recognised that the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius had finished its work.

The Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius established that:

Pursuant to Article 74 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Paragraph 3 of Article 236 of the Statute of the Seimas, the Commission

draws a conclusion:

1. The collected, examined and assessed evidence, as well as the established factual circumstances, confirms the reasonableness of the charge against the Member of the Seimas Linas Karalius, which was indicated in the proposal of a group of Members of the Seimas, relating to his failure, due to his going on a foreign tour, without a justifying reason, to attend the plenary sittings of the Seimas, which took place on 13, 14, 19, 20 and 21 January 2010, and the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, which took place on 15 and 20 January 2010, thereby committing a possible breach of the oath of the Seimas Member and a possible gross violation of the Constitution.

2. The collected, examined and assessed evidence, as well as the established factual circumstances, confirms the reasonableness of the charge against the Member of the Seimas Linas Karalius, which was indicated in the proposal of a group of Members of the Seimas, relating to deliberate and intentional lying by Linas Karalius to the Seimas, by covering up his non-attendance at the plenary sittings of the Seimas and the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs with the facts invented and not corresponding to reality, thereby committing a possible breach of the oath of the Seimas Member and a possible gross violation of the Constitution.

3. Evaluating the collected, examined and assessed evidence, as well as the established factual circumstances related with the charge against the Member of the Seimas Linas Karalius, which was indicated in the proposal of a group of Members of the Seimas, regarding the deliberate leaving, by Linas Karalius, of his certificate of a Member of the Seimas to another Member of the Seimas, who was Aleksandr Sacharuk, thereby creating an opportunity for the latter to use the right of vote of Linas Karalius, and regarding a possible arrangement made in advance between these Members of the Seimas in order to cover up the non-attendance of the Member of the Seimas Linas Karalius at the sittings of the Seimas and, thus, to unlawfully appropriate the allocations of the State Budget, the Commission resolved to pass a separate opinion as to the charges indicated in the proposal of the group of Members of the Seimas and a separate one as to other factual circumstances, established by the Commission, in relation to this charge:

3.1. The collected, examined and assessed evidence, as well as the established factual circumstances, does not confirm the reasonableness of the charge against the Member of the Seimas Linas Karalius, which was indicated in the proposal of a group of Members of the Seimas, regarding the deliberate leaving, by Linas Karalius, of his certificate of a Member of the Seimas to another Member of the Seimas, who was Aleksandr Sacharuk, thereby creating an opportunity for the latter to use the right of vote of Linas Karalius, and regarding a possible arrangement made in advance between these Members of the Seimas in order to cover up the non-attendance of the Member of the Seimas Linas Karalius at the sittings of the Seimas and, thus, to unlawfully appropriate the allocations of the State Budget;

3.2. The examined and assessed evidence, as well as the established factual circumstances, confirms the seriousness of the violation committed by the actions of the Member of the Seimas Linas Karalius, which were established by the Commission, by leaving behind his certificate of a Member of the Seimas and making no effort to find the left certificate (the facts due to which conditions were created for the use of this certificate by another person), as well as the reasonableness of the charge regarding a possible breach of the oath and a possible gross violation of the Constitution. The examined and assessed evidence and the established factual circumstances allow the Commission to draw a conclusion that the actions of the Member of the Seimas Linas Karalius bear the subjective features of a criminal deed. The Member of the Seimas Linas Karalius was aware of the requirements of the Constitution and laws, deliberately did not obey them in a due manner and, although, he did not mean the aforementioned consequences (voting of the Member of the Seimas Aleksandr Sacharuk instead of him in the hall of Seimas plenary sittings), he deliberately allowed these consequences to occur, and such a deed may be considered as the one committed as the result of indirect intention.

4. The collected, examined and assessed evidence, as well as the established factual circumstances, confirms the reasonableness of the charge against the Member of the Seimas Linas Karalius, which was indicated in the proposal of a group of Members of the Seimas, regarding his unreasonable use, during his private tour abroad, of the diplomatic passport issued to him, thereby possibly discrediting the authority of the State and the Seimas and possibly committing a breach of the oath of the Member of the Seimas and a gross violation of the Constitution.

Taking account of the aforementioned facts, the Commission draws a conclusion that part of the charges brought in the proposal of a group of Members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania to institute impeachment proceedings against the Member of the Seimas Linas Karalius are grounded and serious, therefore, there are grounds to institute the impeachment proceedings against the Member of the Seimas Linas Karalius in the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania.”

2. On 25 May 2010, the Seimas, the petitioner, adopted Resolution No. XI-837 “On the Institution of Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas Aleksandr Sacharuk and Application to the Constitutional Court” (hereinafter also referred to as Seimas resolution No. XI-837 of 25 May 2010), which came into force on 9 June 2010. By means of this resolution the Seimas initiated impeachment proceedings against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk (Article 1) and applied to the Constitutional Court for a conclusion on whether concrete actions of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, which were indicated in the Conclusion of the Seimas Special Investigation Commission for the Investigation into the Reasonableness of the Proposals Submitted by Members of the Seimas to Institute Impeachment Proceedings Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk and for Drawing up a Conclusion Regarding Grounds to Institute the Impeachment Proceedings (hereinafter referred to as the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk), are in conflict with the Constitution (Article 2).

The inquiry of the Seimas, the petitioner, was received at the Constitutional Court on 9 June 2010.

On 20 May 2010, the Seimas adopted Resolution No. XI-828 “On the Assent to the Conclusion of the Seimas Special Investigation Commission for the Investigation into the Reasonableness of the Proposals Submitted by Members of the Seimas to Institute Impeachment Proceedings Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk and for Drawing up a Conclusion Regarding Grounds to Institute the Impeachment Proceedings” (hereinafter also referred to as Seimas resolution No. XI-828 of 20 May 2010), which came into force on 30 May 2010. By Article 1 of this resolution, the Seimas assented to the Conclusion “On the Grounds to Institute Impeachment Proceedings Against the Member of the Seimas Aleksandr Sacharuk” of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk (hereinafter referred to as the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk), which was annexed to the resolution, and by Article 2 of the same resolution, the Seimas recognised that the Seimas Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk had finished its work.

The Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk established that:

Pursuant to Article 74 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 236 of the Statute of the Seimas, the Commission

draws a conclusion:

1. The collected, examined and assessed evidence, as well as the established factual circumstances, confirms the reasonableness of the charge indicated in the proposal that the Member of the Seimas Aleksandr Sacharuk, by using, during the plenary sittings of the Seimas, the certificate of the Seimas Member Linas Karalius and deliberately voting instead of the latter 11 times, committed a possible breach of the oath of the Seimas Member and a possible gross violation of the Constitution.

2. Evaluating the collected, examined and assessed evidence, as well as the established factual circumstances related with the charge indicated in the proposal of a group of Members of the Seimas against the Member of the Seimas Linas Karalius regarding the deliberate leaving, by Linas Karalius, of his certificate of a Member of the Seimas to another Member of the Seimas, who was Aleksandr Sacharuk, thereby creating an opportunity for the latter to use the right of vote of Linas Karalius, and regarding a possible arrangement made in advance between these Members of the Seimas in order to cover up the non-attendance of the Member of the Seimas Linas Karalius at the sittings of the Seimas and, thus, to unlawfully appropriate the allocations of the State Budget, the Commission resolved to pass a separate opinion as to the charges indicated in the proposal of the group of Members of the Seimas and a separate one as to other factual circumstances, established by the Commission, in relation to this charge:

2.1. The collected, examined and assessed evidence, as well as the established factual circumstances, does not confirm the reasonableness of the charge indicated in the proposal that the Members of the Seimas Aleksandr Sacharuk and Linas Karalius had a prior arrangement as regards voting in order to cover up the non-attendance of the Member of the Seimas Linas Karalius at the sittings of the Seimas and, thus, to unlawfully appropriate the allocations of the State Budget, and, thereby, committed a possible breach of the oath of the Seimas Member and a possible gross violation of the Constitution.

2.2. The collected, examined and assessed evidence, as well as the established factual circumstances, allows to draw a conclusion that the actions of the Member of the Seimas Aleksandr Sacharuk bear the subjective features of possible criminal deeds, as the Member of the Seimas Aleksandr Sacharuk was aware of the requirements of the Constitution and laws, deliberately did not obey them in a due manner, deliberately cast votes with the certificate of the Seimas Member Linas Karalius, and had consciously anticipated the consequences, sought by him, of registering the Member of the Seimas Linas Karalius at a sitting of the Seimas and appropriating the expression of the will of the Member of the Seimas Linas Karalius during voting.

3. The collected and assessed evidence, and the established factual circumstances confirm the reasonableness of the charge indicated in the proposal that the Member of the Seimas Aleksandr Sacharuk, by providing, in the form of statements made in public space, the circumstances of his voting instead of the Member of the Seimas Linas Karalius that do not correspond to reality, committed a possible breach of the oath of the Seimas Member and a possible gross violation of the Constitution.

4. The collected and assessed evidence, and the established factual circumstances constitute grounds to apply to the Office of the Prosecutor General and to refer thereto the material collected by the Commission relating to the investigation into the actions of the Member of the Seimas Aleksandr Sacharuk, which were indicated in the proposal of Members of the Seimas.

Taking account of the aforementioned facts, the Commission draws a conclusion that part of the charges brought in the proposal of a group of Members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania to institute impeachment proceedings against the Member of the Seimas Aleksandr Sacharuk are grounded and serious, therefore, there are grounds to institute the impeachment proceedings in the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania.”

II

1. In the course of the preparation of the case for the Constitutional Court hearing, on 30 July 2010, written explanations were received from the representative of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, a party concerned, who was S. Žentelis, an advocate, and the representative of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, a party concerned, who was V. Barkauskas, an advocate.

2. In the explanations of S. Žentelis the following arguments are provided.

2.1. The Member of the Seimas L. Karalius does not dispute that, having not co-ordinated with the Board of the Seimas, on 29 December 2009, he went on a foreign tour and did not attend, without a justifying reason, the plenary sittings of the Seimas, which took place on 13, 14, 19, 20 and 21 January 2010, and the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, which took place on 15 and 20 January 2010, however, he notes that such his actions in themselves should not be considered as a breach of the oath of the Seimas Member, nor at the same time a gross violation of the Constitution. According to S. Žentelis, one must establish other significant circumstances, whereas special attention must be given to gravity and danger of a violation, circumstances of its commitment, and the consequences created.

The sanction prescribed in Paragraph 1 of Article 151 of the Statute of the Seimas (i.e. for a Member of the Seimas who failed to attend, without an important justifying reason, more than half of the Seimas sittings in which voting on the adoption of legal acts was scheduled in advance and took place at the scheduled time, his remuneration of that month shall be reduced by one third) means that the violation committed by the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius is a disciplinary (procedural) one, it is not considered as dangerous or grave, and the commitment of such a violation does not incur strict liability. The Seimas Commission on Ethics and Procedures, which applies the said sanction, also does not view the aforementioned violation as grave, since in the course of the entire history of the Seimas the said sanction was imposed upon no Member of the Seimas.

The Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius did not indicate any comprehensive and grounded arguments as to why the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius has to lose his mandate of the Seimas Member; no penalties were imposed on other Members of the Seimas for analogous violations. Such different behaviour towards the Members of the Seimas who committed analogous violations, according to S. Žentelis, is in conflict with the constitutional principle of equality of persons entrenched in Article 29 of the Constitution.

The fact that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius committed the violation because of his carelessness and irresponsibility, rather than in pursuit of some selfish objectives incompatible with duties of the Member of the Seimas, is proved by the following circumstances: he had planned the date of his tour of Asian countries before it became known to him that the autumn session of the Seimas would be prolonged; having learned about this, he applied to the travel agency “BPC Travel” in order to change the date of the flight Bangkok–Vilnius to 12 January 2010, however, there was no possibility to satisfy his request; he made a decision to go on the tour and informed about this neither the Board of the Seimas, nor his secretary-assistant V. Vaičiulienė because of the fact that he had found out about the impossibility to change the date of his return just before the departure.

The Member of the Seimas L. Karalius acknowledged that he had committed a violation, that he had not sought any negative consequences and had not supposed that such a violation was serious and that it might cause negative consequences. In addition, he refused his remuneration for January on a voluntary basis. While committing the said violation, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius was not aware and could not be aware (as it is nowhere defined, there is no court practice, etc.) of the fact that the impeachment proceedings might be instituted against him and that he might face the removal from office and revocation of the mandate of a Member of the Seimas for a violation which, under the Statute of the Seimas, is considered to be procedural and for which one incurs a penalty of reduction of the remuneration for one month by one third.

2.2. The Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius establishing that “The collected and assessed evidence, as well as the established factual circumstances confirm the reasonableness of the second charge against the party concerned regarding the lying to the Seimas about his non-attendance of the sittings of the Seimas and the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, by covering up it with the facts invented and not corresponding to reality” is substantiated not by objective facts and data, but by speculations and assumptions, as neither the explanations of the Seimas Member L. Karalius and his assistant-secretary Viktorija Vaičiulienė, nor the detailed list of conversations on the service telephone of January 2010 confirms the said fact. In the opinion of S. Žentelis, there are no grounds to investigate the compliance of the said actions with the Constitution, and the Constitutional Court should dismiss the case in this part.

2.3. The Member of the Seimas L. Karalius left his certificate of a Member of the Seimas on the premises of the political group “The Lithuania United” unintentionally. In these actions of L. Karalius one may not establish the presence or absence of indirect intentional actions, i.e. a feature of a criminal deed, since the action of leaving the certificate of a Member of the Seimas and making no effort to find it do not incur criminal liability. In the opinion of S. Žentelis, the Constitutional Court should dismiss the case in this part.

According to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the deliberateness of leaving the certificate of a Member of the Seimas is confirmed by the circumstance that, when giving an interview to the magazine “Žmonės”, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius stated: “On important issues the party votes unanimously. Therefore, before leaving I had entrusted my right of vote to the party.” However, the fact that the party concerned was acquainted with the text of the interview and that he did not dispute it by no means proves that, during the interview, he had said, namely, such a phrase and that it had been printed in the edition of the magazine verbatim, nor does it deny the explanations of the Seimas Member L. Karalius that the phrase published in the magazine “Žmonės” is a mere interpretation by the journalist L. Radzevičienė.

2.4. By using his diplomatic passport during a personal tour, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius did not breach the oath of the Seimas Member and did not commit a gross violation of the Constitution, since, as it is established in the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, by using his diplomatic passport during a personal tour, he violated no legal acts. In the opinion of S. Žentelis, the request to investigate whether by his lawful and nowhere prohibited actions the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius has grossly violated the Constitution is to be assessed critically.

According to S. Žentelis, the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius that, by his actions, i.e. the use of a diplomatic passport during a personal tour, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius has discredited the authority of the state and compromised the diplomatic service and state institutions is substantiated by assumptions rather than established factual circumstances, which would confirm that the actions of this Member of the Seimas have indeed given rise to negative consequences for the prestige and reputation of this country and state institutions.

3. In the explanations of V. Barkauskas the following arguments are provided:

3.1. The charge brought against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk that, at the plenary sittings of the Seimas, he used the certificate of a Member of the Seimas of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and 11 times deliberately cast a vote instead of the latter, thereby (grossly) violating the Constitution and breaching the oath of a Member of the Seimas, is inaccurate and even contradictory. V. Barkauskas drew attention to the fact that the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, differently than it is indicated in the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, voted not 11, but 10 times.

The Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk does not dispute the factual circumstance that, on 14 and 19 January 2010, using the certificate of a Member of the Seimas of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, he voted instead of the latter, however, the said deed does not have the body of a gross violation of the Constitution and/or breach of the oath of the Seimas Member.

V. Barkauskas pointed out that, in its conclusion of 31 March 2004, the Constitutional Court indicated that not every violation of the Constitution is, in itself, a gross violation of the Constitution, also that, while deciding whether the actions of the President of the Republic grossly violated the Constitution, one must assess in each case the content of concrete actions as well as the circumstances of their performance. According to the representative of a party concerned, the said constitutional doctrine is also applicable mutatis mutandis to impeachment proceedings against a Member of the Seimas.

Assessing the gravity of the violation committed by A. Sacharuk, one needs to take account of the circumstances of the committed violation, distinctness of the violation, consequences of the violation, as well as of other significant circumstances.

The violation committed by the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk is not the first such a violation. The Seimas Commission on Ethics and Procedures has more than once considered the cases when votes were cast instead of the absent Members of the Seimas, however, impeachment has been initiated in none of these cases. The said commission considered the aforementioned behaviour of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk and, on 21 January 2010, adopted Decision No. 101-1-4 “On a One-Person Voting Violation”, wherein it held that A. Sacharuk had violated Paragraph 4 of Article 111 of the Statute of the Seimas and the provisions of Items 3 and 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Code of Conduct for State Politicians of the Republic of Lithuania, and imposed a warning on him. V. Barkauskas does not agree with the statement of the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk that the decision of the Seimas Commission on Ethics and Procedures of 21 January 2010 and the practice of its activity have no influence on assessment of the reasonableness of the charges brought against the Seimas Member A. Sacharuk, since this does not correspond to the constitutional principle of equality of Members of the Seimas.

The Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk established not only that there had been cases at the Seimas when Members of the Seimas, using the certificate of a Member of the Seimas of other Members of the Seimas, voted instead of the latter at the sittings of the Seimas, but also that the violations of the individual mandate of the Seimas Member and those of one-person voting had been known to both the governing body of the Seimas and the Seimas Commission on Ethics and Procedures, which is a structural unit of the Seimas competent to respectively react and submit recommendations to the Seimas in order to prevent commission of such violations in the future (Item 4 of Chapter II of the reasoning part of the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk). Thus, not only this practice has found its way at the Seimas when Members of the Seimas continually cast votes instead of the Members of the Seimas who are absent during the sittings of the Seimas, more often than not, instead of even more than one member, but also a certain reaction of the Seimas had been established towards such cases. Meanwhile, the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk provides neither reasoning, nor arguments as to why the violation by the said Member of the Seimas is an exceptional one. By differently assessing actions of individual Members of the Seimas, one would offend against the principle of equality of persons before the law, the court and other state institutions, as well as the principle of justice, as one would decide about the danger of a violation not by the violation itself and its danger, but “by personality”.

The voting instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, by using his certificate of a Member of the Seimas, did not have any influence upon the voting results, as the decisions of the Seimas were passed by a great plurality of votes, therefore, this did not lead to any significant, let alone severe consequences.

3.2. According to V. Barkauskas, in Item 3 of the resolving part of the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk as well as in the reasoning part thereof, the formulations of the charge do not fully coincide and are faulty. Provision of circumstances that do not correspond to reality and false statements about circumstances that do not correspond to reality, regardless of certain similarities, constitute different deeds, therefore, cumulation of these circumstances is impossible. In the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, “the possible commission of a violation of the Constitution” is indicated as grounds for impeachment proceedings, although, under Article 74 of the Constitution, not any, but only a gross violation of the Constitution shall be grounds for impeachment proceedings of a Member of the Seimas.

The resolution of the Seimas whereby it was assented to the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk and the conclusion itself need to be assessed systemically, as one document. The descriptive, reasoning and resolving part of the said conclusion should correspond to one another; however, the resolving part of the conclusion does not correspond to the reasoning part thereof. By bringing such a contradictory charge, the right to defence of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk is being unreasonably limited, since the right to know what one is accused of is undoubtedly one of the fundamental rights of a person to whom an impeachment procedure is applied, which implies a duty of the subject initiating impeachment proceedings to lay a concrete charge. According to V. Barkauskas, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk is facing not only an inconcrete charge, but also, on the whole, no action or decision, the compliance of which with the Constitution needs to be verified, is indicated.

V. Barkauskas did not agree with the charges set forth in Item 3.3 of the descriptive part of the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, as even prior to the confusion which arose during the sitting of the Seimas regarding the voting from one’s own or not one’s own seat of work, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk had talked to an employee of the Office of the Seimas, who had answered that one could not vote with his certificate of a Member of the Seimas from the seat of work of another Member of the Seimas, and points out that this is confirmed by the explanations of that employee, i.e. Arūnas Glavickas, a senior specialist of the Secretariat of Seimas Sittings.

V. Barkauskas maintained that, differently from what it is indicated in the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk did not tell the representatives of the mass media that he had approached the representatives of the Office of the Seimas precisely on 14 January 2010. In an interview shown on the television programme “Žinios” [“The News”] on the Channel TV3 on 20 January 2010, A. Sacharuk said: “Yesterday I was assured that there is such order at the Seimas that a Member of the Seimas cannot vote from the seat of another person, therefore, I tried to vote from the seat of another person and asked the Office to remove the defects.” He also talked in a virtually analogous manner on the television programme “Žinios” on the Channel LNK on 20 January 2010. Thus, a conclusion is to be drawn that the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk did not, in public space, disseminate information which did not correspond to reality and/or was false. In assessing the said charge, it means that there are no actions of the Seimas Member A. Sacharuk, a party concerned, the compliance of which with the Constitution needs to be verified.

In the opinion of V. Barkauskas, the Constitutional Court should dismiss the case in this part or hold that the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk has not violated the Constitution and has not breached the oath of the Seimas Member, since he has not disseminated information regarding the circumstances of the voting instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, which does not correspond to reality, or let alone any false information.

III

1. Along with Seimas resolutions No. XI-837 and No. XI-838 of 25 May 2010, the Seimas submitted to the Constitutional Court the following:

the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, which was assented to by the Seimas by means of its resolution No. XI-828 of 20 May 2010, as well as documents concerning preparation of the sittings of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, documents of correspondence on the issues of organisational activities of the commission, and audio recordings of the sittings of the commission (hereinafter referred to as the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk);

the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, which was assented to by the Seimas by means of its resolution No. XI-829 of 20 May 2010, as well as documents concerning preparation of the sittings of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, documents of correspondence on the issues of organisational activities of the commission, and audio recordings of the sittings of the commission (hereinafter referred to as the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius).

2. In the course of the preparation of the case for the Constitutional Court hearing the following was received: the 17 August 2010 Letter No. 42603-2040 “On the Provision of Information” of Vidmantas Venskūnas, Head of the Administration Unit of the JSC “Omnitel”; the 19 August 2010 Letter No. 01-2-254 “On the Provision of Information” of Tadas Vyšniauskas, Acting Director of the Risks Management Unit of TEO LT, AB; the 24 August 2010 Letter No. 1-2520 “An Answer to 2010-08-17 Inquiry No. 14B-497(2.4)” of Aleksandras Sukovas, Director of the JSC “TEZ TOUR”; the Letter “On the Provision of Information” of Daina Lingienė (Žemaitytė), Chief Editor of the magazine “Žmonės” of the JSC “Žurnalų leidybos grupė” (received at the Constitutional Court on 24 August 2010); the 24 August 2010 Letter No. 10/282S of Zita Sarakienė, Director General of the JSC “Laisvas ir nepriklausomas kanalas”, along with which a compact disk with a recording of the LNK television programme “Žinios” of 20 January 2010 was submitted; the 25 August 2010 letter of Darius Ratautas, Acting Senior Editor for TV3 news of the JSC “Tele-3”, along with which a compact disk with a recording of the TV3 television programme “Žinios” of 20 January 2010 was submitted; the 30 August 2010 Letter No. S-2010-7928 “On the Provision of Information” of Jurgis Bridžius, Director of the Department of Information Technologies and Telecommunications of the Office of the Seimas; the 30 August 2010 Letter No. 001 “An Answer to the Inquiry Regarding the Provision of Information” of Irena Ozerdam, Director of the JSC “Irmusta”; the 7 September 2010 Letter No. S-2010-8226 “On Explanations” of Jonas Milerius, Secretary General of the Seimas; the 7 September 2010 Letter No. S-2010-8227 “On the Provision of Information” of Jonas Milerius, Secretary General of the Seimas; the 5 October 2010 Letter No. S-2010-9099 “On the Provision of Information” of Jonas Milerius, Secretary General of the Seimas; and the 5 October 2010 Letter No. S-2010-9092 “On the Provision of Information” of Algimantas Salamakinas, Chairman of the Seimas Commission on Ethics and Procedures.

IV

1. At the Constitutional Court hearing, the representatives of the Seimas, the petitioner, who were V. P. Andriukaitis, a Member of the Seimas, E. Mušinskis and P. Žukauskas, senior advisors at the Public Law Unit of the Legal Department of the Office of the Seimas, grounded their explanations on the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, and supported the charges formulated therein. The Member of the Seimas V. P. Andriukaitis answered to the questions asked.

2. At the Constitutional Court hearing, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, a party concerned, and his representative S. Žentelis, an advocate, as well as the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, a party concerned, and his representative V. Barkauskas, an advocate, virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in their 30 July 2010 written explanations to the Constitutional Court, also presented additional explanations and documents, and answered to the questions asked.

3. At the Constitutional Court hearing, the following witnesses were questioned: Algimantas Salamakinas, a Member of the Seimas, Jurgis Bridžius, Director of the Department of Information Technologies and Telecommunications of the Office of the Seimas, Arūnas Glavickas, a senior specialist at the Sitting Preparation Division of the Secretariat of Plenary Sittings of the Office of the Seimas, Irena Ozerdam, Director of the JSC “Irmusta”, Aleksandras Sukovas, Director of the JSC “Tez Tour”, Gvidas Aukštuolis, Director of the JSC “BPC Travel”, Daina Lingienė (Žemaitytė), Chief Editor of the magazine “Žmonės”, Laisvė Radzevičienė, a journalist for the magazine “Žmonės”, Aurelijus Griškevičius, a journalist for the LNK television programme “Žinios”, and Artūras Anužis, a journalist for the TV3 television programme “Žinios”.

The witness V. Vaičiulienė, an assistant-secretary of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, was also invited to the Constitutional Court hearing. She informed that she was not able to participate at the Constitutional Court hearing and submitted a document issued by a medical establishment (form No. 113/a).

4. At the Constitutional Court hearing, the following specialists were questioned: Zenonas Vaigauskas, Chairman of the Central Electoral Commission, Jonas Milerius, Secretary General of the Seimas, and Vytautas Pinkus, Director of the Consular Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

I

1. On 2 November 2008, the Central Electoral Commission of the Republic of Lithuania adopted Decision No. 191 “On the Final Election Results of the 12 October 2008 Elections to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania” (hereinafter referred to as decision of the Central Electoral Commission No. 191 of 2 November 2008), which was officially announced on the Internet website on 2 November 2008, and in the official gazette “Valstybės žinios”—on 6 November 2008. By Item 3 of this decision, inter alia it was decided to establish, according to the results of the elections in multi-member and single-member constituencies, the persons who had been elected to the Seimas. A list of such persons is provided in Annex 3 “The Persons Elected to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania” of decision of the Central Electoral Commission No. 191 of 2 November 2008, wherein it is provided that inter alia L. Karalius was elected a Member of the Seimas.

On 18 November 2008, the Central Electoral Commission adopted Decision No. 208 “On the Supplement and Amendment of Decision No. 191 ‘On the Final Election Results of the 12 October 2008 Elections to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania’ of 2 November 2008” (hereinafter referred to as decision of the Central Electoral Commission No. 208 of 18 November 2008), which was officially announced on the Internet website on 18 November 2008, and in the official gazette “Valstybės žinios”—on 20 November 2008. By Item 3 of this decision, it was inter alia decided: “To recognise, as from 18 November 2008, Aleksandr Sacharuk as a Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, elected in a multi-member constituency according to the list of candidates of the National Revival Party.”

At the Seimas sitting of 17 November 2008, the elected Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and, at the Seimas sitting of 20 November 2008, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk swore to be faithful to the Republic of Lithuania; swore to respect and execute its Constitution and laws and to protect the integrity of its lands; swore to strengthen, to the best of their ability, the independence of Lithuania, and to conscientiously serve their Homeland, democracy, and the welfare of the people of Lithuania.

2. On 16 March 2010, 54 Members of the Seimas submitted to the Seimas the proposal “To Institute Impeachment Proceedings Against the Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Linas Karalius” and, on the same day, 50 Members of the Seimas submitted to the Seimas the proposal “To Institute Impeachment Proceedings Against the Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Aleksandr Sacharuk”.

3. By Article 1 of Resolution No. XI-696 “On the Formation of the Seimas Special Investigation Commission for the Investigation into the Reasonableness of the Proposals Submitted by Members of the Seimas to Institute Impeachment Proceedings Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and for Drawing up a Conclusion Regarding Grounds to Institute the Impeachment Proceedings” of 18 March 2010 (hereinafter also referred to as Seimas resolution No. XI-696 of 18 March 2010), the Seimas formed the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius.

Seimas resolution No. XI-696 of 18 March 2010 was amended by Seimas Resolution No. XI-764 “On the Amendment of the Seimas Resolution ‘On the Formation of the Seimas Special Investigation Commission for the Investigation into the Reasonableness of the Proposals Submitted by Members of the Seimas to Institute Impeachment Proceedings Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and for Drawing up a Conclusion Regarding Grounds to Institute the Impeachment Proceedings’” of 15 April 2010, whereby one member of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius was changed, as well as by Seimas Resolution No. XI-799 “On the Amendment of Article 3 of the Seimas Resolution ‘On the Formation of the Seimas Special Investigation Commission for the Investigation into the Reasonableness of the Proposals Submitted by Members of the Seimas to Institute Impeachment Proceedings Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and for Drawing up a Conclusion Regarding Grounds to the Institute Impeachment Proceedings’” of 29 April 2010, whereby the said commission was commissioned to carry out the investigation and to prepare a conclusion till 15 May 2010.

4. By Article 1 of Resolution No. XI-695 “On the Formation of the Seimas Special Investigation Commission for the Investigation into the Reasonableness of the Proposals Submitted by Members of the Seimas to Institute Impeachment Proceedings Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk and for Drawing up a Conclusion Regarding Grounds to Institute the Impeachment Proceedings” of 18 March 2010 (hereinafter also referred to as Seimas resolution No. XI-695 of 18 March 2010), the Seimas formed the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk.

Seimas resolution No. XI-695 of 18 March 2010 was amended by Seimas Resolution No. XI-765 “On the Amendment of the Seimas Resolution ‘On the Formation of the Seimas Special Investigation Commission for the Investigation into the Reasonableness of the Proposals Submitted by Members of the Seimas to Institute Impeachment Proceedings Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk and for Drawing up a Conclusion Regarding Grounds to Institute the Impeachment Proceedings’” of 15 April 2010, whereby one member of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk was changed, as well as by Seimas Resolution No. XI-798 “On the Amendment of Article 3 of the Seimas Resolution ‘On the Formation of the Seimas Special Investigation Commission for the Investigation into the Reasonableness of the Proposals Submitted by Members of the Seimas to Institute Impeachment Proceedings Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk and for Drawing up a Conclusion Regarding Grounds to Institute the Impeachment Proceedings’” of 29 April 2010, whereby the said commission was commissioned to carry out the investigation and to prepare a conclusion till 15 May 2010.

5. On 12 May 2010, the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk adopted conclusions that part of the charges brought in the proposals of the groups of Members of the Seimas to institute impeachment proceedings against the Members of the Seimas L. Karalius and A. Sacharuk are reasonable and serious, therefore, there were grounds to institute the impeachment proceedings against the Members of the Seimas L. Karalius and A. Sacharuk at the Seimas.

6. It has been mentioned that by Article 1 of Seimas resolution No. XI-829 of 20 May 2010 and by Article 1 of Seimas resolution No. XI-828 of 20 May 2010, the Seimas assented to the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, respectively.

7. It has also been mentioned that:

by Article 1 of Seimas resolution No. XI-838 of 25 May 2010, it was resolved to institute the impeachment proceedings against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius at the Seimas, whereas by Article 2 thereof it was resolved to apply to the Constitutional Court for a conclusion on whether the concrete actions of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, which had been indicated in the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, were in conflict with the Constitution;

by Article 1 of Seimas resolution No. XI-837 of 25 May 2010, it was resolved to institute the impeachment proceedings against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk at the Seimas, whereas by Article 2 thereof it was resolved to apply to the Constitutional Court for a conclusion on whether the concrete actions of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, which had been indicated in the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, were in conflict with the Constitution.

8. From the content of Seimas resolution No. XI-838 of 25 May 2010 and the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, wherein the inquiry to the Constitutional Court is set forth, it is clear that the Seimas requests to present a conclusion on whether the following is in conflict with the Constitution:

1) the actions of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius—his going on a foreign tour and, due to this, his failure to attend, without a justifying reason, the plenary sittings of the Seimas, which took place on 13, 14, 19, 20 and 21 January 2010, as well as the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, which took place on 15 and 20 January 2010;

2) the actions of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, by which he, while covering up, with the facts invented and not corresponding to reality, his non-attendance at the plenary sittings of the Seimas and the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, intentionally lied to the Seimas;

3) the actions of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius—leaving behind his certificate of a Member of the Seimas and making no efforts to find it, due to which conditions were created for the use of this certificate of a Member of the Seimas by another person;

4) the action of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius—the use, during a personal foreign tour, of the diplomatic passport issued to him.

9. From the content of Seimas resolution No. XI-837 of 25 May 2010 and the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, wherein the inquiry to the Constitutional Court is set forth, it is clear that the Seimas requests to present a conclusion on whether the following is in conflict with the Constitution:

1) the actions of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk—the use of the certificate of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius at the plenary sittings of the Seimas and deliberate voting instead of the latter 11 times;

2) the actions of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk—making, in public space, statements which do not correspond to reality, whereby the circumstances of the voting instead of the Seimas Member L. Karalius were provided.

10. The Constitutional Court will investigate the unconstitutionality of only the specified actions and will present to the Seimas the conclusion on only aforesaid actions.

11. It has been mentioned that, by means of Article 2 of its resolution No. XI-838 of 25 May 2010, the Seimas applied to the Constitutional Court for a conclusion on whether the concrete actions of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, which had been indicated in the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, were in conflict with the Constitution; by means of Article 2 of its resolution No. XI-837 of 25 May 2010, the Seimas applied to the Constitutional Court for a conclusion on whether the concrete actions of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, which had been indicated in the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, were in conflict with the Constitution. It needs to be mentioned that the conclusions of the Seimas Special Investigation Commissions indicate not only the actions of the Members of the Seimas L. Karalius and A. Sacharuk, as to verification of the compliance of which with the Constitution it was applied to the Constitutional Court, but also other actions of the Members of the Seimas, inter alia such, which were not confirmed by the Seimas Special Investigation Commissions, or such, with regard to which the Seimas Special Investigation Commission drew a conclusion that there are grounds to apply to the Office of the Prosecutor General.

In this context it needs to be noted that, under Item 4 of Paragraph 3 of Article 105 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court submits conclusions on whether concrete actions of Members of the Seimas and state officials against whom an impeachment case has been instituted are in conflict with the Constitution. Under Article 76 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the inquiry to the Constitutional Court for the conclusion must specify the actions whose compliance with the Constitution is proposed to be verified and the circumstances of their execution (Item 4 of Paragraph 1); an inquiry of the Seimas may be set forth in a resolution; in other cases, a Seimas resolution on the approval of the inquiry must be attached (Paragraph 2).

While construing the aforementioned provisions of the Law on the Constitutional Court, it needs to be noted that concrete actions, whose compliance with the Constitution is proposed to be verified, of Members of the Seimas and state officials against whom an impeachment case has been instituted must be specified either in a Seimas resolution, or in a separately prepared inquiry approved by a Seimas resolution. It also needs to be noted that an inquiry for a conclusion on whether concrete actions of Members of the Seimas and state officials against whom an impeachment case has been instituted are in conflict with the Constitution, inter alia must specify only those actions the compliance of which with the Constitution is requested to be investigated; it must specify the circumstances of the execution of these actions, inter alia the place and time of their execution, the consequences which followed, etc., also it must specify the provisions of the Constitution, which, in the opinion of the petitioner, the specified concrete actions are in conflict with, as well as the arguments of the petitioner, which substantiate the unconstitutionality of concrete actions of a corresponding official.

II

1. It has been mentioned that, by means of Article 2 of its resolution No. XI-838 of 25 May 2010, the Seimas, the petitioner, applied to the Constitutional Court for a conclusion on whether the concrete actions of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, which had been indicated in the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, were in conflict with the Constitution, and by means of Article 2 of its resolution No. XI-837 of 25 May 2010, the Seimas applied to the Constitutional Court for a conclusion on whether the concrete actions of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, which had been indicated in the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, were in conflict with the Constitution.

2. The Constitution is the supreme law which limits state power. The Constitution consolidates the principle of responsible governing (Constitutional Court ruling of 1 July 2004). In a democratic state under the rule of law all state institutions and officials must follow the Constitution and law. The responsibility of state power for the public is inseparable from the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law; it is constitutionally entrenched having established that state institutions serve the people and that the scope of power is limited by the Constitution (Constitutional Court conclusion of 31 March 2004 and ruling of 13 May 2010).

State officials must enjoy the confidence of the citizens, i.e. the state community (Constitutional Court rulings of 25 May 2004 and 13 May 2010). However, in order that the citizens—the state community—could reasonably trust the state officials, that it would be possible to ascertain that all the state institutions and all the state officials follow the Constitution as well as law and obey them, while those who do not obey the Constitution and law would not hold the office for which the confidence of the citizens—the state community—is needed, a public democratic control over the activity of the state officials and their accountability to the society is needed (Constitutional Court rulings of 25 May 2004, 1 July 2004, 13 December 2004 and 13 May 2010).

3. Under Article 74 of the Constitution, 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 the Members of the Seimas who have grossly violated the Constitution or breached their oath, or if it transpires that a crime has been committed, may, by a 3/5 majority vote of all the Members of the Seimas, be removed from office, or the mandate of a Member of the Seimas may be revoked. This shall be performed according to the procedure for impeachment proceedings which shall be established by the Statute of the Seimas.

The institute of impeachment is also related with other articles of the Constitution: Item 5 of Article 63, Paragraph 2 of Article 86, Item 5 of Article 88, Paragraph 1 of Article 89, Item 4 of Paragraph 3 of Article 105, Item 5 of Article 108, and Article 116. In the constitutional system of Lithuania, the institute of impeachment is also to be linked with the striving for an open, just, and harmonious civil society and a state under the rule of law, which is proclaimed in the Preamble of the Constitution, as well as with the constitutional principles of protection of the rights and freedoms of the person.

4. The Constitutional Court has held that the constitutional institute of impeachment is one of the forms of public democratic control (Constitutional Court ruling of 25 May 2004). Various aspects of the constitutional concept of impeachment have been disclosed in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, inter alia Constitutional Court ruling of 11 May 1999, conclusion of 31 March 2004, rulings of 15 April 2004 and 25 May 2004:

application of the constitutional sanction of removal from office of the institute of impeachment, a special parliamentary procedure, which is entrenched in the Constitution, inter alia Article 74 thereof, is one of the measures of self-protection of the state community, i.e. the civil Nation; state officials who violate the Constitution and laws, who raise personal or group interests above the interests of society, by their actions discredit state power, may be removed from office under procedure established in laws;

the content of the constitutional sanctions (constitutional liability) applied under the procedure for impeachment proceedings is composed both of removal of a person, who has grossly violated the Constitution and breached the oath, from office, and also of the prohibition stemming therefrom for such a person to hold any office provided for in the Constitution, which can be taken only after the person takes the oath provided for in the Constitution.

It needs to be noted that application of the institute of impeachment, a special parliamentary procedure, does not mean that for the actions which constitute grounds for impeachment a person may not be brought to legal liability of other types. It also needs to be noted that the fact that a person has been brought to legal liability of other types may not be an obstacle to apply impeachment to such a person. The Constitutional Court has held that the constitutional principle non bis in idem does not mean that different types of legal liability may not, on the whole, be applied to the person for a violation of law (Constitutional Court rulings of 7 May 2001, 10 November 2005, 21 January 2008 and 8 June 2009). Thus, the circumstance that certain legal (civil, disciplinary, administrative, penal, etc.) liability has been applied to the person for a violation of law and that, for the same violation of law, constitutional liability is applied to this person does not mean that one violates the constitutional principle non bis in idem.

5. As mentioned, for a gross violation of the Constitution or breach of the oath, or if it transpires that a crime has been committed, one may, under the procedure for impeachment proceedings, be imposed inter alia the revocation of the mandate of the Seimas Member.

6. Under Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Constitution, in Lithuania, state power is executed inter alia by the Seimas. The Constitutional Court has held more than once that: the constitutional nature of the Seimas, as the representation of the Nation, determines its special place within the system of institutions of state power, its functions and powers necessary in order to discharge these functions; while implementing its constitutional powers, the Seimas implements classical functions of the parliament of a democratic state under the rule of law: it passes laws (the legislative function), carries out parliamentary control over the executive and other state institutions (save courts) (the control function), establishes state institutions, appoints and dismisses their heads and other state officials (the founding function), approves the state budget and supervises its execution (the budgetary function), etc. (Constitutional Court rulings of 13 May 2004, 1 July 2004, 4 April 2006 and decision of 15 January 2009).

7. Under Article 4 of the Constitution, “the Nation shall execute its supreme sovereign power either directly or through its democratically elected representatives”. The Seimas consists of representatives of the Nation—141 Members of the Seimas who are elected for a four-year term on the basis of universal, equal, and direct suffrage by secret ballot (Paragraph 1 of Article 55 of the Constitution).

8. Paragraph 2 of Article 59 of the Constitution provides that the elected Member of the Seimas acquires all the rights of a representative of the Nation only after taking at the Seimas an oath to be faithful to the Republic of Lithuania.

8.1. Article 5 of the Republic of Lithuania Law “On the Procedure for Entry into Force of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania”, which is a constituent part of the Constitution, provides:

The following text of the oath for the Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania shall be established:

I, (name, surname),

swear to be faithful to the Republic of Lithuania;

swear to respect and execute its Constitution and laws and to protect the integrity of its lands;

swear to strengthen, to the best of my ability, the independence of Lithuania, and to conscientiously serve my Homeland, democracy, and the welfare of the people of Lithuania.

So help me God.’

The oath may also be taken omitting the last sentence.”

8.2. The Constitution unreservedly requires that the Member of the Seimas take an oath to be loyal to the State of Lithuania only, that he pledge to respect and observe the Constitution and laws (Constitutional Court ruling of 11 November 1998 and decision of 15 May 2009). The Constitution also unreservedly requires that the Member of the Seimas pledge to conscientiously serve his Homeland, democracy, and the welfare of the people of Lithuania.

8.3. By taking the oath, the Member of the Seimas unreservedly assumes an obligation to observe all the values referred to in the oath. Thus, the act of the oath of the Member of the Seimas is constitutionally legally important: when taking the oath, the elected Member of the Seimas publicly and solemnly accepts an obligation to act in line with the obligations of the oath and to breach the oath under no circumstances (Constitutional Court rulings of 25 May 2004, 1 July 2004 and decision of 15 May 2009).

8.4. In its ruling of 25 May 2004, the Constitutional Court held the following: faithfulness to the State of Lithuania is also inseparable from faithfulness to the Constitution; upon the breach of the oath to be faithful to the Republic of Lithuania, one also grossly violates the Constitution.

In this context it needs to be noted that in the conclusion of 31 March 2004 the Constitutional Court held the following: not every violation of the Constitution is in itself a gross violation of the Constitution; while deciding whether the actions of the President of the Republic grossly violated the Constitution, one must assess in each case the content of concrete actions of the President of the Republic as well as the circumstances of their performance; breach of the oath of the President of the Republic is, alongside, a gross violation of the Constitution, while a gross violation of the Constitution is, alongside, breach of the oath; by the actions of the President of the Republic the Constitution would be grossly violated in cases when the President of the Republic held its office in bad faith, acted not in the interests of the Nation and the state but his personal interests, those of individual persons or their groups, acted with purposes and in the interests that are incompatible with the Constitution and laws, with public interests, or knowingly failed to discharge the duties established for the President of the Republic in the Constitution and laws.

The said provisions of the constitutional doctrine are also applicable mutatis mutandis to the legal situations where it is decided whether the actions of a Member of the Seimas, whereby the Constitution has been violated, constitute a gross violation of the Constitution.

9. In its acts adopted in previous constitutional justice cases, inter alia rulings of 25 May 2004, 1 July 2004, 4 April 2006 and decision of 15 May 2009, the Constitutional Court formulated a broad official doctrine of the constitutional status of the Member of the Seimas:

the constitutional status of the Member of the Seimas integrates the duties, rights and guarantees of activity of the Member of the Seimas as a representative of the Nation and it is based upon the constitutional principle of the free mandate of the Seimas Member; the essence of the free mandate of the Seimas Member is that a representative of the Nation is free to implement the rights and duties vested in him without restricting this freedom by mandates of the electorate, political requirements of parties or organisations which have promoted him, also not recognising the imperative mandate and the right of pre-term recall of the Seimas Member; the free mandate of the Member of the Seimas is one of the guarantees of independency of activities and equality of Members of the Seimas; the free mandate of the Seimas Member is not a privilege of a representative of the Nation, it is rather one of the legal measures ensuring that the Nation will be properly represented in its democratically elected representation, the Seimas, and that the representation of the Nation, the Seimas, will act only in the interests of the Nation and the State of Lithuania; it may not be used in the interests other than those of the Nation and the State of Lithuania; the free mandate of the Member of the Seimas must be used in such a way, so that the Seimas could effectively act in the interests of the Nation and the State of Lithuania, that it would properly perform its constitutional obligation; the duty of the Member of the Seimas to act in the manner obligated by the oath taken by the Member of the Seimas, while heeding the requirements arising from the Constitution and the laws which are not in conflict with it, may not be interpreted as meaning the restriction of the constitutional principle of the free mandate of the Member of the Seimas;

while in office, and implementing their rights, Members of the Seimas are guided by the Constitution, state interests, and their own consciences; under the Constitution, the Member of the Seimas not only acquires corresponding rights, but also must discharge certain duties arising from the Constitution and laws which are not in conflict with it; the Constitution implies the notion of discretion and conscience of the Member of the Seimas, according to which no gap should exist between the discretion of the Member of the Seimas and the conscience of the Member of the Seimas on the one hand, and the requirements of the Constitution, as well as values entrenched in and protected by the Constitution on the other hand: according to the Constitution, the discretion of the Member of the Seimas and his conscience should be oriented towards the Constitution, and the interests of the Nation and the State of Lithuania;

from the principle of the free mandate of the Seimas Member, which is entrenched in the Constitution, inter alia Paragraph 4 of Article 59 thereof, there stems the right of the Member of the Seimas to vote at his own discretion in the course of adoption of any decision of the Seimas, i.e. on each issue to vote according to his conscience. The political will of the majority of Members of the Seimas is reflected in Seimas resolutions. Under the Constitution, the will of the Seimas regarding adoption of corresponding resolutions may not be expressed otherwise than by voting by Members of the Seimas at a Seimas sitting and adopting a corresponding legal act.

10. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it needs to be held that, under the Constitution, the mandate of the Seimas Member is individual, i.e. it is conferred only on the person who, under the procedure established by the Constitution and laws, is elected as a Member of the Seimas. Under the Constitution, the Member of the Seimas has the right and duty to implement the mandate conferred on him by the electorate only by himself in person. The constitutional status of the Member of the Seimas, which integrates the duties, rights, and guarantees of activity, as well as responsibility of the Member of the Seimas, implies that the Member of the Seimas is obliged to implement the rights and duties of the Member of the Seimas, a representative of the Nation, which arise from the Constitution and laws not in conflict with the Constitution, only by himself in person, as well as that he may not, in any form, transfer to another person, inter alia a Member of the Seimas, the discharge of his, as a Member of the Seimas, rights and constitutional duties. The individuality of the mandate of the Seimas Member also implies that no person, inter alia a Member of the Seimas, may take over the rights and duties of another Member of the Seimas, a representative of the Nation, inter alia the right to vote.

The right of the Member of the Seimas to vote at his own discretion in the course of adoption of any decision of the Seimas, which stems from the principle of the free mandate of the Seimas Member, inter alia the requirement of the individuality of the mandate of the Seimas Member, which is entrenched in the Constitution, may be realised only by the expression of the will of the Member of the Seimas in person in the course of voting at a sitting of the Seimas. In cases where the requirement of voting by the Member of the Seimas in person at a sitting of the Seimas is not observed, inter alia where in the course of voting one Member of the Seimas votes instead of another Member of the Seimas and thereby expresses the will of not that Member of the Seimas instead of whom a vote is cast, but his own, one disregards the requirements for the procedure of adoption of laws, which stem from the Constitution, inter alia Article 69 thereof, distorts the results of the voting, as well as creates preconditions for violation of the principle of the free mandate of the Seimas Member, entrenched in the Constitution. It also needs to be noted that those cases where one Member of the Seimas votes instead of another Member of the Seimas and thereby expresses the will of that Member of the Seimas also do not conform to the requirement of the individuality of the mandate of the Seimas Member and should be treated as disregard of the requirements for the procedure of adoption of laws, which stem from the Constitution, inter alia Article 69 thereof.

11. Under the Constitution, the legislator has a duty to establish, by means of legal acts, such legal regulation so that Members of the Seimas who take part in implementation of functions of the Seimas, as the representation of the Nation, could properly discharge their powers, that no legal preconditions would be created for Members of the Seimas to act not in the interests of the Nation and the State of Lithuania, but in their personal interests, by raising these personal interests above the public interests, that no legal preconditions would be created for Members of the Seimas to act in bad faith and abuse their powers, that it would be possible to effectively control how Members of the Seimas observe these requirements, and that Members of the Seimas, in cases when they disregard the aforementioned requirements, would be held liable in accordance with the Constitution and laws.

12. Alongside, it needs to be noted that, in its ruling of 1 July 2004 and decision of 10 February 2005, wherein the said ruling was construed, the Constitutional Court, while interpreting the provision of the ruling that the activity of the Member of the Seimas is continuous, inter alia held that:

under the Constitution, the Member of the Seimas is a professional politician, i.e. such a representative of the Nation whose work at the Seimas is his professional activity; the continuity of the activity of the Seimas implies the continuity of the activity of the Member of the Seimas;

the constitutional status of the Member of the Seimas as a representative of the Nation, implies the constitutional duty of the Member of the Seimas to represent the Nation, thus, also his duty to participate at the sittings of the Seimas;

the constitutional duty of the Member of the Seimas to participate in the work of the Seimas comprises inter alia his duty to participate in the work of the structural sub-units of the Seimas a member of which this Member of the Seimas is and to discharge all the other powers of the Member of the Seimas established in the Constitution, laws and the Statute of the Seimas; the discharge of powers of the Member of the Seimas, thus also the work of the Member of the Seimas determined in Paragraph 3 of Article 60 of the Constitution, is also the activity of the Member of the Seimas when he performs assignments and other tasks of the Seimas, its committees and other structural sub-units, when he represents groups of Members of the Seimas, etc., in cases established by law;

situations may occur where, due to especially important personal and other justifiable reasons, for a certain period of time, a Member of the Seimas cannot participate at the sittings of the Seimas, the committees of the Seimas, other structural sub-units, a member of which he is, and/or, for a certain period of time, he cannot perform other duties of the Member of the Seimas; in the aforesaid cases, such a Member of the Seimas should apply to the institution indicated in the law (the Statute of the Seimas) for a permission not to participate at the sittings of the Seimas, the committees of the Seimas, other structural sub-units, a member of which he is, for the said period of time, and not to perform other duties of the Member of the Seimas for the said period of time; if the reasons indicated by the Member of the Seimas are especially important and justifiable, the aforementioned permission is granted; if such a permission is not granted, the absence of the Member of the Seimas from the sittings of the Seimas, the committees of the Seimas, other structural sub-units, a member of which this Member of the Seimas is, or non-performance of other duties of the Member of the Seimas would be unjustifiable;

situations are also possible where the Member of the Seimas is not capable of notifying the institution indicated in the law (the Statute of the Seimas) about his non-attendance at the corresponding sitting before the commencement of the sitting; the legislator has a duty to establish under what procedure the institution indicated in the law (the Statute of the Seimas) would be able to decide if the reasons of the absence of the Member of the Seimas from a sitting were especially important and justifiable;

under the Constitution such a legal situation where, after the holidays of Members of the Seimas are over, the committees, other structural sub-units of the Seimas do not function and the time remaining till the beginning of the next session of the Seimas is treated as that equal to the holiday of Members of the Seimas, or their other leisure time, is impermissible.

In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it needs to be noted that, under the Constitution, after the elected Member of the Seimas takes the oath and gains all the rights of a representative of the Nation, a constitutional duty arises to that Member of the Seimas to unreservedly be faithful to the Republic of Lithuania, respect and obey the Constitution and laws. In discharging their functions and implementing state power, Members of the Seimas must follow the Constitution and law and obey them, also they must act in the interests of the Nation and the State of Lithuania, not in their personal or group interests, and not make use of their status in order to gain private profit either for themselves, persons close to them, or other persons. Breach of the oath and gross violation of the Constitution may incur the revocation of the mandate of the Seimas Member.

It needs to be noted that from the oath of the Member of the Seimas and the constitutional status of the Member of the Seimas there arises the requirement that the Member of the Seimas act conscientiously, while communicating with the electorate and representatives of the public, give true facts regarding the discharge of his duties, and avoid the behaviour which would degrade the reputation and authority of the Seimas, the representation of the Nation.

It also needs to be noted that not every violation of the Constitution is in itself a gross violation of the Constitution (Constitutional Court conclusion of 31 March 2004). When deciding whether a Member of the Seimas, by his actions, has grossly violated the Constitution, in each case it is necessary to assess the nature of the actions, their content, circumstances of their performance, the time and place, systemicity, repeatedness, duration, the behaviour of the person, who carried out the said actions, after the commission of these actions, and other significant circumstances.

13. It needs to be noted that, in its ruling of 1 July 2004, the Constitutional Court held that “from Paragraph 1 of Article 49 of the Constitution, which provides that each working human being has the right to rest and leisure, as well as to have his annual paid holidays, and from Paragraph 4 of Article 60 of the Constitution, which provides that the duties, rights and guarantees of the activity of the Member of the Seimas are established by law, a duty stems for the legislator to establish, by means of a law, the duration of annual paid holidays of the Member of the Seimas and other conditions. <...> Establishment of holidays of the Member of the Seimas by law would also ensure the absence of preconditions to constitutionally unreasonably treat the time between sessions of the Seimas as the time equal to holidays or other time for rest of Members of the Seimas”.

14. It also needs to be noted that, in its Decision “On the construction of the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania ‘On the compliance of Paragraph 4 of Article 15 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 22 December 1998) with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania’ of 1 July 2004” of 10 February 2005, the Constitutional Court elucidated the content of the duty of the legislator to establish the duration and other conditions of annual paid holidays of the Member of the Seimas by law, and inter alia noted:

– “the provision of the ruling that the legislator has a duty to establish the duration and other conditions of annual paid holidays of the Member of the Seimas by law inter alia means that holidays of Members of the Seimas must be established not by any legal act issued by the Seimas, but namely by means of a law, also that such a law should determine the duration of annual paid holidays of the Member of the Seimas, the amount of the remuneration for the holidays, and other essential conditions of the holidays.

The aforementioned provision does not mean that the law should determine a fixed time, the same each year for annual paid holidays of Members of the Seimas (concrete dates of their beginning and end). The Seimas, taking into consideration its agenda, the issues being considered, and other circumstances, can establish the time for annual paid holidays of Members of the Seimas each year separately by a substatutory act—a resolution of the Seimas; this resolution must be adopted following the law establishing inter alia the duration of the annual paid leave of Members of the Seimas”;

– “the legislator, while regulating the relations linked with annual paid holidays of the Member of the Seimas, may and must determine the time when the sittings of the Seimas as well as the sittings of the committees of the Seimas and other structural sub-units do not take place, and when no other activity of the Seimas, the committees of the Seimas or its other structural sub-divisions, which is provided for in the Constitution, the Statute of the Seimas and in laws, is performed. The annual paid holidays of Members of the Seimas may be determined for that particular time by a resolution of the Seimas”;

– “if a decision is made to prolong the regular session or an extraordinary session is convened, Members of the Seimas must convene to it, even though they are at their annual paid holidays at that time. In such cases, the Seimas <...> may and must determine other time <...> so that Members of the Seimas could make use of their constitutional right to annual paid holidays instead of the time that was used by Members of the Seimas for the prolonged regular session of the Seimas or for the extraordinary session of the Seimas”.

15. It needs to be noted that, under the Constitution, there may be no such legal situation where the entire time between sessions of the Seimas, let alone the time during the session of the Seimas (inter alia the prolonged session of the Seimas), when even though the sittings of the Seimas or its structural sub-units, a member of which the Member of the Seimas is, do not take place, would be treated as the time equal to holidays of Members of the Seimas.

16. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it needs to be held that the aforementioned as well as other doctrinal provisions formulated by the Constitutional Court regarding the annual paid holidays of the Member of the Seimas have not been implemented so far.

It needs to be noted that the fact that the annual paid holidays of the Member of the Seimas are not established by means of a law does not mean that the Member of the Seimas may, at his own discretion, without assent of a structural sub-unit established in the Statute of the Seimas, choose the time of his holidays, inter alia during the session of the Seimas, and, because of this, not perform the duties established for the Member of the Seimas in the Constitution and laws.

III

1. Under Item 4 of Paragraph 3 of Article 105 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court shall submit a conclusion, whether concrete actions of Members of the Seimas and state officials against whom an impeachment case has been instituted are in conflict with the Constitution. It has been mentioned that, under Article 74 of the Constitution, according to the procedure for impeachment proceedings, the Seimas may revoke the mandate of a Member of the Seimas by a 3/5 majority vote of all the Members of the Seimas.

Paragraph 3 of Article 107 of the Constitution provides that, on the basis of the conclusions of the Constitutional Court, the Seimas takes a final decision on the issues set forth in Paragraph 3 of Article 105 of the Constitution.

2. It needs to be noted that, while construing Item 4 of Paragraph 3 of Article 105 and Paragraph 3 of Article 107 of the Constitution, in its rulings of 15 April 2004 and 25 May 2004, the Constitutional Court held that:

under the Constitution, two institutions of state power enjoy powers in impeachment proceedings, i.e. the Seimas and the Constitutional Court. Each of these institutions of state power, under the Constitution, are assigned the powers that are in line with their functions during impeachment procedure: an impeachment case may be instituted only upon proposal (initiative) of Members of the Seimas; a conclusion as to whether concrete actions of the person against whom an impeachment case has been instituted are in conflict with the Constitution is presented by the Constitutional Court; in case the Constitutional Court concludes that the person against whom an impeachment case has been instituted has grossly violated the Constitution, the Seimas may remove such a person from office or may revoke his mandate of the Seimas Member by not less than 3/5 majority vote of all the Members of the Seimas;

under the Constitution, only the Constitutional Court has the powers to decide whether the persons indicated in Article 74 of the Constitution, against whom an impeachment case has been initiated, have grossly violated the Constitution (taking account of the fact that a gross violation of the Constitution is also a breach of the oath—to decide whether such persons breached the oath). The conclusion of the Constitution Court that a person has grossly violated the Constitution (and thus has breached the oath) is final. No state institution, no state official, no other subject may change or revoke such a conclusion of the Constitutional Court;

if the Seimas, while following the Constitution, according to the procedure for impeachment proceedings, has removed a state official specified in Article 74 of the Constitution from office or revoked his mandate of the Seimas Member, then such a decision of the Seimas is final.

3. Under the Constitution, only the Constitutional Court has the powers to decide whether concrete actions of a Member of the Seimas against whom an impeachment case has been initiated are in conflict with the Constitution, or whether a Member of the Seimas has grossly violated the Constitution. Thus, a constitutional duty is established for the Constitutional Court to investigate whether a Member of the Seimas has carried out the concrete actions specified in the inquiry to the Constitutional Court and assess whether these actions are in conflict with the Constitution, or whether the Constitution has been grossly violated. While investigating whether the concrete actions of a Member of the Seimas, which are specified in the inquiry of the Seimas, are in conflict with the Constitution, or whether the Constitution has been grossly violated, the Constitutional Court investigates and assesses both the evidence provided to the Constitutional Court along with the inquiry to the Constitutional Court as well as all the other evidence obtained in the course of the consideration of the case at the Constitutional Court, which confirms or denies that the Member of the Seimas has performed the concrete actions specified in the inquiry, or which confirms or denies that the said actions are in conflict with the Constitution and that the Constitution has been grossly violated.

IV

On the inquiry, which was set forth in Seimas Resolution No. XI-837 “On the Institution of Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas Aleksandr Sacharuk and Application to the Constitutional Court” of 25 May 2010, regarding presentation of a conclusion on whether the actions of the Member of the Seimas Aleksandr Sacharuk—the use of the certificate of a Member of the Seimas of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius at the plenary sittings of the Seimas and deliberate voting instead of the latter 11 times—are in conflict with the Constitution.

1. In its inquiry set forth in Seimas resolution No. XI-837 of 25 May 2010, the Seimas requests inter alia to present a conclusion as to whether the actions of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk—the use of the certificate of a Member of the Seimas of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius at the plenary sittings of the Seimas and deliberate voting instead of the latter 11 times—are in conflict with the Constitution.

2. In the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, it is inter alia indicated that, at the plenary sittings of the Seimas of 14 and 19 January 2010, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, using the certificate of a Member of the Seimas of the Seimas Member L. Karalius, deliberately voted instead of the latter 11 times. At the 7 April 2010 hearing of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk confessed that, using the certificate of a Member of the Seimas of the Seimas Member L. Karalius, he had deliberately cast a vote instead of the latter 8 times.

3. In the explanations of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, it is indicated that he voted instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius 11 times: 3 times he cast a vote instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius by mistake and in the belief that he was using his own certificate of a Member of the Seimas, then 8 times he cast a vote both for himself and for the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius. According to the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, he violated the Statute of the Seimas, i.e. committed a procedural violation, which was conditioned by a bad tradition of Members of the Seimas to vote instead of their colleagues and for the commission of which he was imposed a penalty—a warning—by the Seimas Commission on Ethics and Procedures. According to the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, while voting instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, he did not have any clear goals (selfish incentives, influence on the results of the voting, expression of the will of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius), but only wished to try whether it was possible to vote from one seat of work by using two certificates of different Members of Seimas (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, letter of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk No. SN-001 of 6 April 2010, Constitutional Court case No. 32/2010-33/2010 (hereinafter referred to as CCc), vol. III, p. 140; the shorthand records of the questioning of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk of 7 and 16 April 2010, vol. III, pp. 141–173; vol. IV, pp. 107–119).

According to the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, for the violation of the Statute of the Seimas which was committed by him, Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the same statute provides for the only sanction, i.e. a warning to a Member of the Seimas who has committed the said violation. Neither the Statute of the Seimas, nor other laws provide for other penalties for dishonest voting at the Seimas, therefore, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk assesses the institution of the impeachment proceedings against him as application of a penalty that is not provided for by law, the fact which should be construed as a violation of Paragraph 4 of Article 31 of the Constitution (“Punishment may be imposed or applied only on the grounds established by law”) (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, the letter of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk of 12 May 2010, CCc, vol. V, pp. 92–94).

4. In the 30 July 2010 written explanations to the Constitutional Court by the advocate V. Barkauskas, the representative of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, it is noted that the charge brought against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, a party concerned, is inaccurate and even contradictory, since the resolving part of the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk and other places thereof indicate different figures for the cases of voting by the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, i.e. 11 or 10 times. V. Barkauskas states that the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, a party concerned, does not dispute the factual circumstance that, on 14 and 19 January 2010, he cast votes instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius using the certificate of a Member of the Seimas of the latter, however, he believes that the indicated deed of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, a party concerned, does not have the body of a gross violation of the Constitution and/or a breach of the oath of the Seimas Member.

According to the representative of the party concerned, assessing the gravity of the violation committed by the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, one needs to take account of the circumstances of the committed violation, distinctness of the violation, consequences of the violation, as well as of other significant circumstances. According to V. Barkauskas, the violation committed by the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, a party concerned, is not the first such a violation in the history of the Lithuanian parliamentarism of the modern times. The Seimas Commission on Ethics and Procedures has more than once considered the cases of voting instead of the absent Members of the Seimas, however, impeachment proceedings have been initiated in none of these cases. Therefore, V. Barkauskas holds that a decision regarding the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, a party concerned, should be made by following the constitutional principle of the equality of Members of the Seimas, as well as the principle of justice, since otherwise a decision regarding the danger of the violation would be made by taking into account not the violation itself and its danger, but the fact as to what person (“personality”) has committed the said violation.

Assessing the gravity of the violation committed by the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, V. Barkauskas maintained that the voting instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius by using his certificate of a Member of the Seimas had not had any influence upon the results of the voting, since the decisions of the Seimas had been passed by a large plurality of votes. Therefore, this had had no significant, let alone severe consequences. In addition, he pointed out that a practice had found its way at the Seimas where Members of the Seimas continually voted instead of other Members of the Seimas who were not participating in a sitting, also that neither the governing body of the Seimas, nor the Seimas Commission on Ethics and Procedures had taken any actions to prevent such violations in the future. Meanwhile, the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk provides neither reasoning, nor arguments as to why the violation by the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk is an exceptional one.

5. At the Constitutional Court hearing, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk confessed that he had voted instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and explained that he had acted in that way as a result of the practice of voting instead of other Members of the Seimas, which is prevailing at the Seimas, as Members of the Seimas cast votes every day instead of the Members of the Seimas absent from plenary sittings of the Seimas, as well as a result of the responsibility being applied, because dishonest voting by violating the principle of one-person voting incurs the utmost penalty of only a warning. The Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk assessed the impeachment proceedings instituted against him as his political lynching by his opponents.

The Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk explained that, when voting instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius for the first two times, he had not noticed a warning message, which had appeared on the information screen, that one had been connecting to the system not from one’s own seat of work, since the message had been difficult to notice and had been soundless. A. Sacharuk accounted for his actions—voting instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius after he had already notified about that the Office of the Seimas—by the fact that he had wished to show other Members of the Seimas the possibility of voting in that way.

6. At the Constitutional Court hearing, the advocate V. Barkauskas, the representative of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in his 30 July 2010 written explanations to the Constitutional Court and presented the following additional explanations.

The charges laid from the standpoint of the legal technique and Articles 73 and 76 of the Law on the Constitutional Court ought to be concrete and they must be formulated by the petitioner itself. The contradictions between Item 1 of the resolving part of the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, wherein the charge against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk regarding his voting 11 times instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius is formulated, and the descriptive part of the same conclusion, wherein only 10 such concrete cases are indicated, were left not removed. The case when, on 14 January 2010, at 11.29 o’clock, a vote was cast from the seat of work of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius for the Draft Law on the Amendment and Recognition as no Longer Valid of Individual Articles of the Law on the Seimas Ombudsmen may not be included into the aforementioned list of 10 cases, which was provided in the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, as the petitioner did not include this concrete case into the charge brought against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk and did not provide any evidence that this had been performed namely by the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk.

The sanctions provided for in Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the Statute of the Seimas, inter alia for dishonest voting, on the basis of the analogy, are equated to the disciplinary responsibility of Members of the Seimas. From Draft Statute of the Seimas “On the Amendment and Supplement of Articles 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 16, 161, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 291, 293, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41 and 42 of the Statute of the Seimas and the Supplement of the Statute of the Seimas with Articles 111, 157 and 294” No. XIP-2383 it is clear that it is proposed to supplement Article 151 of the Statute of the Seimas with Paragraph 5, which provides for an economic sanction, i.e. a pecuniary penalty, for dishonest voting. Thus, the legislator or a work group formed by the legislator for the preparation of the said draft law has already assessed the violation in question.

7. In the case the following was established:

7.1. From 29 December 2009 till 4 February 2010, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, while following his personal aims, toured the Asian countries, i.e. the Kingdom of Thailand, the Kingdom of Cambodia, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Republic of Singapore. Due to this, in January 2010, he missed all the plenary sittings of the Seimas: the solemn sitting of 13 January 2010 dedicated to the commemoration of the Day of Defenders of Freedom, the morning and evening plenary sittings taking place on 14, 19 and 21 January 2010, as well as the non-prescheduled plenary sitting of 20 January 2010 (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the conclusion of the Seimas Commission on Ethics and Procedures of 19 February 2010, CCc, vol. X, pp. 18 and 19; conclusion of the Seimas Commission on Ethics and Procedures No. 101-1-7 of 2 March 2010, CCc, vol. X, pp. 30–33; letter of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs No. V-2010-1931 of 1 April 2010, CCc, vol. X, p. 87; a copy of diplomatic passport of the Republic of Lithuania No. 00001792 issued to the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, CCc, vol. VII, pp. 180–187).

7.2. Before leaving for a personal tour of Asian countries, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius left his certificate of a Member of the Seimas on the premises of the then political group “The Lithuania United” (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the shorthand records of the questioning of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius of 2 April 2010, CCc, vol. VII, pp. 195, 199 and 201).

7.3. After installation of a new equipment of electronic voting in the hall of Seimas sittings, since 2007 the certificate issued to Members of the Seimas has at the same time also been their electronic voting card (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, the shorthand records of the questioning of the Chairman of the Central Electoral Commission Z. Vaigauskas of 14 April 2010, CCc, vol. IV, p. 91; letter of Z. Vaigauskas, Chairman of the Central Electoral Commission, No. 2-140(1.5.) of 26 March 2010, CCc, vol. IV, p. 98; Decision of the Central Electoral Commission No. 292 “On New Type Certificates of Members of the Seimas” of 23 August 2007, CCc, vol. IV, p. 99; the minutes of the Constitutional Court hearing, the explanations of the specialist Z. Vaigauskas, Chairman of the Central Electoral Commission (CCc, vol. XII, pp. 90 and 91)). Under Paragraph 2 of the Statute of the Seimas, laws and resolutions of the Seimas are adopted through voting by means of the electronic vote calculation system; voting also takes place on individual provisions of an issue under consideration, individual articles or assertions of a law, decisions of the minutes, the session work programme, sitting agenda and other issues.

7.4. In the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, it is indicated that at the 14 January 2010 morning and evening plenary sittings of the Seimas, from the seat of voting that belongs to the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, votes were cast instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius regarding:

1) the proposal of a Member of the Seimas for the Draft Law on the Amendment of the Law on Budgetary Establishments (new wording) (No. XIP-1518(2));

2) the assent, following the consideration, to the Draft Law on the Amendment and Supplement of Articles 32, 36, 51, 54, 60, 61, 66, 67, 70, 72, 76, 85, 96, 99, 100, 105, 112, 114, 118, 120, 121, 142, 143, 146, 154, 155, 165, 183 and Annex 1 of the Code of Execution of Punishments and the Recognition of Article 149 Thereof as no Longer Valid (No. XIP-812(2));

3) the adoption of the Draft Law on the Amendment of the Law on Plant Seed Growing (new wording) (No. XIP-1180(2));

4) the proposal of the main committee to refer back to the initiators for improvement the Draft Law on the Amendment of the Law on Veterinary Medicine (new wording) (No. XIP-1570);

5) the assent to the Draft Law on the Amendment of the Law on Excises (new wording) (No. XIP-1570), following the submission of this draft law;

6) the approval of the revised agendas of sittings.

7.5. In the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, it is indicated that at the morning and evening plenary sittings of the Seimas of 19 January 2010, from the seat of voting that belongs to the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, votes were cast instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius regarding:

1) the proposal of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party Political Group to cross out, from the agenda, the Draft Law on the Amendment of the Law on Provision of Information to the Public (No. XIP-1561ES) and to charge the Seimas Committee on Legal Affairs with submission of a concrete conclusion as to whether the said draft law is in compliance with the Constitution;

2) the Seimas Draft Resolution “On the Conclusion of the Parliamentary Investigation, Carried out by the Republic of Lithuania Seimas Committee on National Security and Defence, into the Possible Transporting of Persons Detained by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America and Imprisonment of These Persons on the Territory of the Republic of Lithuania” and the conclusion thereon (No. XIP-1604);

3) the amendment proposed by a Member of the Seimas concerning Article 1 of the Draft Law on the Amendment of the Law on Registration, Confession and Entering into Record of the Persons Who Engaged Themselves in Secret Collaboration with the Former USSR Special Services and Protection of Those Who Confessed It (new wording) (No. XIP-571(2));

4) the assent to the Draft Law on the Amendment and Supplement of Articles 2 and 39 of the Law on Provision of Information to the Public (No. XIP-1638), following the submission of this draft law.

7.6. From his seat of work, using the certificate of a Member of the Seimas of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk voted instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, the material on voting by Members of the Seimas from the seat of another Member of the Seimas presented by the Department of Information Technologies and Telecommunications of the Seimas, CCc, vol. IV, pp. 65-67; letter of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk No. SN-001 of 6 April 2010, CCc, vol. III, p. 140; the shorthand records of the questioning of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk of 7 April 2010, CCc, vol. III, p. 147; the minutes of the Constitutional Court hearing, explanations of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, CCc, vol. XII, p. 67).

7.7. At the morning and evening plenary sittings of the Seimas of 14 January 2010, from the seat of voting that belongs to the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, a vote was cast instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius regarding the Draft Law on the Amendment of Articles 7, 25 and 28 of the Law on the Seimas Ombudsmen and Recognition of Articles 26 and 27 Thereof as No Longer Valid (No. XIP-1444(2)), following the consideration of this draft law (letter of the Secretary General of the Seimas J. Milerius No. S-2010-8226 of 7 September 2010, CCc, vol. I, pp. 76 and 78).

7.8. The Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk asserted that the certificate of a Member of the Seimas of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius had come to his hand by accident. According to him, on the evening before the New Year in 2009 (he did not remember the exact date), he was sitting on the premises of the political group “The Lithuania United” and browsing through the draft laws and, having found, among them, on the table, the certificate of a Member of the Seimas of the Seimas Member L. Karalius, he put it into the pocket of his jacket so that he would return it to the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, letter of the Elder of the Christian Party Political Group A. Sacharuk No. V-2010-1806 of 26 March 2010, CCc, vol. VI, p. 6; the shorthand records of the questioning of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk of 7 April 2010, CCc, vol. III, p. 145).

The Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk claimed that he had voted 3 times instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius by mistake and in the belief that he had been using his own certificate of a Member of the Seimas, then 8 times he had deliberately cast a vote both for himself and instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius. He maintained that he had voted instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius 8 times by succumbing to the bad tradition of Members of the Seimas to vote instead of their colleagues, that he had not pursued any selfish goals, nor had he intended to influence the results, and noted that he had really had no agreement with the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius to vote instead of the latter, and that he had simply wished to try whether it was possible to vote from one seat of work with two electronic voting cards. The Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk acknowledged that in order to try out the equipment it would have sufficed to try it out once or maybe twice at most. As regards the other cases of his voting instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, he had acted irresponsibly as a person working at the Seimas for the first term of office (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, letter of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk No. SN-001 of 6 April 2010, CCc, vol. III, p. 141; the shorthand records of the questioning of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk of 7 April 2010, CCc, vol. III, pp. 142–145, 147 and 149; the minutes of the Constitutional Court hearing, explanations of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, vol. XII, pp. 67, 68, 73, 75 and 78).

At the Constitutional Court hearing, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk explained that, on 14 January 2010, he did not vote with the certificate of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius from the seat of work of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius (the minutes of the Constitutional Court hearing, explanations of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, CCc, vol. XII, pp. 125 and 126).

7.9. The Member of the Seimas L. Karalius asserted that he had really had no agreement with the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk regarding voting by the latter instead of him. The Member of the Seimas L. Karalius claimed that he had certainly not known and could not have known that the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk had intended to vote instead of him at a plenary sitting of the Seimas (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the shorthand records of the questioning of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius of 2 April 2010, CCc, vol. VII, pp. 195, 199 and 201).

7.10. The Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk maintained that after he had voted instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius with the certificate of a Member of the Seimas of the latter, he had informed about that the Office of the Seimas and had explicitly stated that he had voted instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, that it had turned out that way for him, and that it was not good that the system allows voting with two certificates of the Seimas Member from the same seat of work. As it was claimed by the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, he had approached the Office of the Seimas earlier than it had transpired that he had voted instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, the shorthand records of the questioning of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk of 7 April 2010, CCc, vol. III, p. 145). At the plenary evening sitting of the Seimas of 19 January, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk verbally informed A. Glavickas, a senior specialist of the Secretariat of Seimas Sittings, about that. After the sitting, employees of the Department of Information Technologies and Telecommunications of the Office of the Seimas were informed about the said situation (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, the written explanation of the senior specialist of the Secretariat of Seimas Sittings A. Glavickas of 31 March 2010, CCc, vol. VI, p. 69; the shorthand records of the questioning of A. Glavickas of 9 April 2010, CCc, vol. IV, p. 74; the minutes of the Constitutional Court hearing, the testimony of the witness A. Glavickas, CCc, vol. XII, pp. 103–105).

7.11. Since the beginning of the autumn session, i.e. from September 29th till the end of the session, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk voted with his electronic card from seats of work of other Members of the Seimas 55 times (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, the material on voting by Members of the Seimas from the seat of another Member of the Seimas presented by the Department of Information Technologies and Telecommunications of the Seimas, CCc, vol. IV, pp. 39–70).

7.12. A. Salamakinas, Chairman of the Seimas Commission on Ethics and Procedures, confirmed that during a plenary sitting of the Seimas it is enough to vote once or to simply activate one’s certificate of a Member of the Seimas so that it would be recorded on the electronic voting system and, when producing the data on attendance of sittings to the Seimas Commission on Ethics and Procedures, it would be shown that a Member of the Seimas participated at the plenary sitting (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, the shorthand records of the questioning of the Chairman of the Seimas Commission on Ethics and Procedures A. Salamakinas of 9 April 2010, CCc, vol. IV, p. 15).

7.13. At the time when the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk was voting from his seat of work instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the said technical possibility was available. In case of voting by a Member of the Seimas not from his own seat of work, but from that of another Member of the Seimas, on the screen next to the voting console, a notice would be displayed that one was voting not from his seat of work and the seat from which one had to vote would be indicated, however, in several seconds, such a notice would disappear and one would be able to successfully vote further (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, the shorthand records of the questioning of the Secretary General of the Seimas J. Milerius of 9 April 2010, CCc, vol. IV, p. 30).

7.14. At its sitting of 21 January 2010, the Seimas Commission on Ethics and Procedures held that, on 14 and 19 January 2010, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, by deliberately voting many a time instead of another Member of the Seimas, had violated the requirements of Paragraph 4 of Article 111 of the Statute of the Seimas, by deliberately voting dishonestly many a time, had violated the provisions of Items 3 and 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Code of Conduct for State Politicians and undermined the authority and reputation of the Seimas, and, pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the Statute of the Seimas, proposed to record in the minutes of the sitting a warning to the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, the conclusion of the Seimas Commission on Ethics and Procedures No. 101-I-4 of 21 January 2010, CCc, vol. VI, pp. 41–43).

7.15. The Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk drew a conclusion that A. Sacharuk, by using the certificate of a Member of the Seimas of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and 11 times deliberately voting instead of the latter at the plenary sittings of the Seimas, might have breached the oath of the Seimas Member and might have grossly violated the Constitution.

8. Although, in the resolving part of the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, it is indicated that the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk used the certificate of a Member of the Seimas of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and deliberately voted at the plenary sittings of the Seimas instead of the latter 11 times, in the fact-establishing part of the said conclusion, it is indicated and substantiated that, on 14 and 19 January 2010, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk 10 times voted from his seat of work instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius. In the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, it is not indicated that, at the plenary sitting of the Seimas of 14 January 2010, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk voted instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius with the certificate of a Member of the Seimas of the latter and from the seat of work of the latter regarding the assent to the Draft Law on the Amendment of Articles 7, 25 and 28 of the Law on the Seimas Ombudsmen and Recognition of Articles 26 and 27 Thereof as No Longer Valid (No. XIP-1444(2)), following the consideration of this draft law.

Thus, the data of the case do not prove that, on 14 January 2010, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk voted from his seat of work instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius regarding the assent to the Draft Law on the Amendment of Articles 7, 25 and 28 of the Law on the Seimas Ombudsmen and Recognition of Articles 26 and 27 Thereof as No Longer Valid (No. XIP-1444(2)), following the consideration of this draft law.

From the information table for the voting by the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius at the plenary sitting of the Seimas of 14 January 2010, which was presented by the Department of Information Technologies and Telecommunications of the Office of the Seimas (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, CCc, vol. X, p. 60) it is clear that, on 14 January 2010, from the seat of work of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, votes were cast instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius regarding the proposal of a Member of the Seimas for the Draft Law on the Amendment of the Law on Budgetary Establishments (new wording) (No. XIP-1518(2)) and regarding the assent, following the consideration, to the Draft Law on the Amendment and Supplement of Articles 32, 36, 51, 54, 60, 61, 66, 67, 70, 72, 76, 85, 96, 99, 100, 105, 112, 114, 118, 120, 121, 142, 143, 146, 154, 155, 165, 183 and Annex 1 of the Code of Execution of Punishments and the Recognition of Article 149 Thereof as no Longer Valid (No. XIP-812(2)), whereas the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk did not vote regarding the said draft laws. Thus, one may not rule out the possibility that the testimony, which was given by the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk about the voting regarding the aforesaid two draft laws and its circumstances, is true and that the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk was voting with the certificate of a Member of the Seimas of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius in the belief that he was using his own certificate of a Member of the Seimas.

While taking account of this, a conclusion is to be drawn that the data of the case does not prove that, on 14 January 2010, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk deliberately voted instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius regarding the proposal of a Member of the Seimas for the Draft Law on the Amendment of the Law on Budgetary Establishments (new wording) (No. XIP-1518(2)) and regarding the assent, following the consideration, to the Draft Law on the Amendment and Supplement of Articles 32, 36, 51, 54, 60, 61, 66, 67, 70, 72, 76, 85, 96, 99, 100, 105, 112, 114, 118, 120, 121, 142, 143, 146, 154, 155, 165, 183 and Annex 1 of the Code of Execution of Punishments and the Recognition of Article 149 Thereof as no Longer Valid (No. XIP-812(2)).

Thus, at the plenary sittings of the Seimas, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, using the certificate of a Member of the Seimas of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, deliberately voted instead of the latter 8 times:

at the morning and evening plenary sittings of the Seimas of 14 January 2010 regarding:

1) the adoption of the Draft Law on the Amendment of the Law on Plant Seed Growing (new wording) (No. XIP-1180(2));

2) the proposal of the main committee to refer back to the initiators for improvement the Draft Law on the Amendment of the Law on Veterinary Medicine (new wording) (No. XIP-1570);

3) the assent to the Draft Law on the Amendment of the Law on Excises (new wording) (No. XIP-1570), following the submission of this draft law;

4) the approval of the revised agendas of plenary sittings;

at the morning and evening plenary sittings of the Seimas of 19 January 2010 regarding:

1) the proposal of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party Political Group to cross out, from the agenda, the Draft Law on the Amendment of the Law on Provision of Information to the Public (No. XIP-1561ES) and to charge the Seimas Committee on Legal Affairs with submission of a concrete conclusion as to whether the said draft law is in compliance with the Constitution;

2) the Seimas Draft Resolution “On the Conclusion of the Parliamentary Investigation, Carried out by the Republic of Lithuania Seimas Committee on National Security and Defence, into the Possible Transporting of Persons Detained by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America and Imprisonment of These Persons on the Territory of the Republic of Lithuania” and the conclusion thereon (No. XIP-1604);

3) the amendment proposed by a Member of the Seimas concerning Article 1 of the Draft Law on the Amendment of the Law on Registration, Confession and Entering into Record of the Persons Who Engaged Themselves in Secret Collaboration with the Former USSR Special Services and Protection of Those Who Confessed It (new wording) (No. XIP-571(2));

4) the assent to the Draft Law on the Amendment and Supplement of Articles 2 and 39 of the Law on Provision of Information to the Public (No. XIP-1638), following the submission of this draft law.

9. On the basis of the facts established in the case, it needs to be held that, at the plenary sittings of the Seimas of 14 and 19 January 2010, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk used the certificate of a Member of the Seimas of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and 8 times deliberately voted instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius in the course of the adoption of laws and other acts of the Seimas.

10. It has been mentioned that, at its sitting of 21 January 2010, the Seimas Commission on Ethics and Procedures held that, on 14 and 19 January 2010, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, by deliberately voting many a time instead of another Member of the Seimas, had violated the requirements of Paragraph 4 of Article 111 of the Statute of the Seimas, by deliberately voting dishonestly many a time, had violated the provisions of Items 3 and 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Code of Conduct for State Politicians and undermined the authority and reputation of the Seimas, and, pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the Statute of the Seimas, proposed to record in the minutes of the sitting a warning to the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk.

10.1. The procedure and means of voting at Seimas sittings, as well as the responsibility for violations of one-person voting are established by the Statute of the Seimas. In this context one needs to mention the following provisions of the Statute of the Seimas (wording of 22 December 1998 with subsequent amendments and supplements):

– “The Members of the Seimas shall vote personally. The right to vote may not be transferred to other persons” (Paragraph 4 of Article 111);

– “If a Member of the Seimas does not heed the warning of the Chairman of the sitting, the warning may be recorded in the minutes of the sitting. Warnings to a Member of the Seimas for a public threat to colleagues, for an insult of a Member of the Seimas or a group thereof, for dishonest voting or for the refusal to carry out the recommendation of the Commission on Ethics and Procedures regarding the avoidance of the conflict of interests shall be immediately recorded in the minutes” (Paragraph 2 of Article 20);

– “The warning which is recorded in the minutes of the sitting shall be administered on the recommendation of the Chairman of the Seimas sitting or the Commission on Ethics and Procedures, without consideration and by a simple majority of the Members of the Seimas participating in the voting” (Paragraph 3 of Article 20).

10.2. Items 3–5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 “Principles of Conduct of State Politicians” of the Code of Conduct for State Politicians, which was approved on 19 September 2006 by the Seimas by means of Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Approval, Entry into Force, and Implementation of the Code of Conduct for State Politicians, prescribe:

3) honesty—shall perform his duties honestly and adhere to the highest standards of conduct, and avoid situations that may influence taking the decisions that may raise doubts in the society;

4) transparency and publicity—when taking decisions, shall not raise doubts as to honesty, reveal the motives of his conduct and decisions to the society, always observe the principles of openness and publicity, except for the cases specified by laws restricting the disclosure of information, and declare his private interests;

5) decency—shall act properly according to the office held, avoid situations when the politician’s conduct could damage his or the institution’s, in which he holds office, reputation and standing, avoid unfair ways of seeking advantage, and use the received official information only for performing his duties and shall not make profit from it.”

10.3. The case does not provide any data as to whether Paragraph 3 of Article 20 of the Statute of the Seimas was applied and whether a warning was administered on the recommendation of the Seimas Commission on Ethics and Procedures to the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk. It needs to be noted that even if the said provision of the Statute of the Seimas was applied, this would pose no obstacle to emergence of constitutional liability of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, since, as mentioned, the circumstance that certain legal (civil, disciplinary, administrative, penal, etc.) liability has been applied to the person for a violation of law and that, for the same violation of law, constitutional liability is applied to this person does not mean that one violates the constitutional principle non bis in idem.

11. It was established in the case that, at the evening plenary sitting of the Seimas of 19 January 2010, before other Members of the Seimas gave publicity to the issue of the voting instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius who was not participating at the sitting of the Seimas, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk had notified a senior specialist of the Secretariat of Seimas Sittings A. Glavickas that he had managed to vote instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius. However, it was also established in the case that even before the moment when the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk notified A. Glavickas about his voting instead of another Member of the Seimas, he had already voted with the certificate of a Member of the Seimas of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius at the morning and evening plenary sittings of the Seimas of 14 January 2010 as well as the morning plenary sitting of 19 January.

12. Paragraph 2 of Article 59 of the Constitution prescribes:

The elected Member of the Seimas shall acquire all the rights of a representative of the Nation only after taking at the Seimas an oath to be faithful to the Republic of Lithuania.”

Paragraph 4 of Article 59 of the Constitution prescribes:

When in office, Members of the Seimas shall follow the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the interests of the State as well as their own consciences, and may not be restricted by any mandates.”

Article 5 of the Republic of Lithuania Law “On the Procedure for Entry into Force of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania”, which is a constituent part of the Constitution, provides:

The following text of the oath for the Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania shall be established:

I, (name, surname),

swear to be faithful to the Republic of Lithuania;

swear to respect and execute its Constitution and laws and to protect the integrity of its lands;

swear to strengthen, to the best of my ability, the independence of Lithuania, and to conscientiously serve my Homeland, democracy, and the welfare of the people of Lithuania.

So help me God.’

The oath may also be taken omitting the last sentence.”

13. It has been mentioned that the act of the oath of the Member of the Seimas is constitutionally legally important: when taking the oath, the elected Member of the Seimas publicly and solemnly accepts an obligation to act in line with the obligations of the oath and to breach the oath under no circumstances.

It has been mentioned that the constitutional status of the Member of the Seimas integrates the duties, rights and guarantees of activity of the Member of the Seimas as a representative of the Nation and it is based upon the constitutional principle of the free mandate of the Member of the Seimas; from the principle of the free mandate of the Member of the Seimas, which is entrenched in the Constitution, there stems the right of the Member of the Seimas to vote at his own discretion in the course of adoption of any decision of the Seimas, i.e. on each issue to vote according to his conscience; under the Constitution, the will of the Seimas regarding adoption of corresponding resolutions may not be expressed otherwise than by voting by Members of the Seimas at a Seimas sitting and adopting a corresponding legal act; the free mandate of the Member of the Seimas is one of the guarantees of independency of activities and equality of Members of the Seimas; the free mandate of the Member of the Seimas is not a privilege of a representative of the Nation, it is rather one of the legal measures ensuring that the Nation will be properly represented in its democratically elected representation, the Seimas, and that the representation of the Nation, the Seimas, will act only in the interests of the Nation and the State of Lithuania; this mandate may not be used in the interests other than those of the Nation and the State of Lithuania; the free mandate of the Member of the Seimas must be used in such a way, so that the Seimas could effectively act in the interests of the Nation and the State of Lithuania, that it would properly perform its constitutional obligation; the duty of the Member of the Seimas to act in the manner obligated by the oath taken by the Member of the Seimas, while heeding the requirements arising from the Constitution and the laws which are not in conflict with it, may not be interpreted as meaning the restriction of the constitutional principle of the free mandate of the Member of the Seimas; while in office, and implementing their rights, Members of the Seimas are guided by the Constitution, state interests, and their own consciences; under the Constitution, the Member of the Seimas not only acquires corresponding rights, but also must discharge certain duties arising from the Constitution and laws which are not in conflict with it; the Constitution implies such a notion of discretion and conscience of the Member of the Seimas, according to which, no gap should exist between the discretion of the Member of the Seimas and the conscience of the Member of the Seimas on the one hand, and the requirements of the Constitution, as well as values entrenched in and protected by the Constitution on the other hand: according to the Constitution, the discretion of the Member of the Seimas and his conscience should be oriented towards the Constitution, and the interests of the Nation and the State of Lithuania.

It has also been mentioned that, under the Constitution, the mandate of the Member of the Seimas is individual, i.e. it is conferred only on the person who, under the procedure established by the Constitution and laws, is elected as a Member of the Seimas; under the Constitution, the Member of the Seimas has the right and duty to only personally implement the mandate conferred on him by the electorate; the constitutional status of the Member of the Seimas, which integrates the duties, rights, and guarantees of activity, as well as responsibility of the Member of the Seimas, implies that the Member of the Seimas is obliged to implement the rights and duties of the Member of the Seimas, a representative of the Nation, which arise from the Constitution and laws not in conflict with the Constitution, only by himself in person, as well as that he may not, in any form, transfer to another person, inter alia a Member of the Seimas, the discharge of his, as a Member of the Seimas, rights and constitutional duties; the individuality of the mandate of the Seimas Member also implies that no person, inter alia a Member of the Seimas, may take over the rights and duties of another Member of the Seimas, a representative of the Nation, inter alia the right to vote.

It has also been mentioned that the right of the Member of the Seimas to vote at his own discretion in the course of adoption of any decision of the Seimas, which stems from the principle of the free mandate of the Member of the Seimas, inter alia the requirement of the individuality of the mandate of the Member of the Seimas, entrenched in the Constitution, may be implemented only by expression of the will of the Member of the Seimas in person in the course of voting at a sitting of the Seimas; in cases where the requirement of voting by the Member of the Seimas in person at a sitting of the Seimas is not observed, inter alia where in the course of voting a Member of the Seimas votes instead of another Member of the Seimas and thereby expresses the will of not that Member of the Seimas instead of whom a vote is cast, but his own, one disregards the requirements for the procedure of adoption of laws, which stem from the Constitution, inter alia Article 69 thereof, distorts the results of the voting, as well as creates preconditions for violation of the principle of the free mandate of the Member of the Seimas, entrenched in the Constitution.

It has been mentioned that not every violation of the Constitution is in itself a gross violation of the Constitution; when deciding whether a Member of the Seimas, by his actions, has grossly violated the Constitution, in each case it is necessary to assess the nature of the actions, their content, the circumstances of their performance, systemicity of the actions, their repeatedness and duration, as well as other significant circumstances. It has also been mentioned that a gross violation of the Constitution is at the same time a breach of the oath.

14. In this conclusion of the Constitutional Court it has been held that, at the plenary sittings of the Seimas of 14 and 19 January 2010, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk used the certificate of a Member of the Seimas of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and 8 times deliberately voted instead of the latter in the course of the adoption of laws and other acts of the Seimas.

15. By voting many a time at the plenary sittings of the Seimas instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk disregarded the principle of the free mandate of the Member of the Seimas, which is entrenched in the Constitution, inter alia Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 59 thereof, inter alia the requirement of the individuality of the mandate of the Member of the Seimas, as well as the prohibition, arising therefrom, to vote at a sitting of the Seimas instead of another Member of the Seimas, he expressed not the will of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, but his own will, he usurped the right of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius to vote at his own discretion in the course of adoption of laws and other acts of the Seimas, and he distorted the results of voting. The Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, while voting for the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius during the plenary sittings of the Seimas, held his office dishonestly, violated the imperatives arising from the Constitution, showed disrespect for the Constitution and laws, and discredited the authority of the Seimas as the representation of the Nation.

Thus, the actions of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk—the use of the certificate of a Member of the Seimas of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius at the plenary sittings of the Seimas and deliberate voting instead of the latter—are in conflict with the Constitution and, by these actions, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk has grossly violated the Constitution.

16. Taking account of the arguments set forth it needs to be held that the actions of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk—the use of the certificate of a Member of the Seimas of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius at the plenary sittings of the Seimas and deliberate voting instead of the latter 8 times—are in conflict with the Constitution. By these actions, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk has grossly violated the Constitution and breached the oath.

V

On the inquiry set forth in Seimas Resolution No. XI-837 “On the Institution of Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas Aleksandr Sacharuk and Application to the Constitutional Court” of 25 May 2010 regarding presentation of a conclusion on whether the actions of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk—making, in public space, statements, whereby the circumstances of the voting instead of the Seimas Member L. Karalius, which do not correspond to reality, were provided—are in conflict with the Constitution.

1. In its inquiry set forth in resolution No. XI-837 of 25 May 2010, the Seimas requests inter alia to present a conclusion as to whether the actions of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk—making, in public space, statements, whereby the circumstances of the voting instead of the Seimas Member L. Karalius, which do not correspond to reality, were provided—are in conflict with the Constitution.

2. In the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, it is inter alia indicated: in July 2009, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk voted many a time not from his own seat of work; such his previous voting for many a time not from his seat of work implies that, on 14 and 19 January 2010, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, while voting from his seat of work instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, was already aware of the possibilities and ways of voting at the sittings hall of the Seimas and understood that the votes of both would be counted, therefore, his statement to the producers of public information that he had been assured and thought that there was such order in the sittings hall of the Seimas that a Member of the Seimas could not vote from the seat of another person, is false; the statement of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk to the producers of public information that “he voted once out of curiosity, and right after that applied to the Office of the Seimas” is false, since he applied to the employee of the Secretariat of Seimas Sittings not immediately after the first casts of votes for the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, i.e. on 14 January, but only during the sitting that took place on 19 January.

3. In the explanations of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk as regards his words published in mass media it is noted that he had not said that he voted for the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius only once. He points out that the text shown on 20 January 2010 on television channels in the programmes “Žinios” does not reflect the whole context of the conversation. During this conversation one did not speak about voting for the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius only once. According to the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, in all the programmes, including the television programme “Žinios” on the Channel LNK, it is said that he admitted that he had voted for the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius several times. According to the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, the essence of his statement was that he had informed the Office of the Seimas about the possibility to vote for another person. Thus, he sees no lies in his words (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, letter of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk No. SN-001 of 6 April 2010, CCc, vol. III, pp. 140, 141).

The Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, before applying to the employee of the Secretariat of Seimas Sittings, was aware that it was possible to vote with his certificate of a Member of the Seimas from the seat of work of another Member of the Seimas (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, the shorthand records of the questioning of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk of 16 April 2010, CCc, vol. IV, p. 111).

4. In the 30 July 2010 written explanations of the advocate V. Barkauskas, the representative of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, to the Constitutional Court it is noted that in Item 3 of the resolving part of the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk as well as in the reasoning part thereof, the formulations of the charge do not fully coincide, and it is asserted that provision of circumstances that do not correspond to reality and false statements about circumstances that do not correspond to reality, regardless of certain similarities, constitute different deeds, since in once case the person is charged with provision of circumstances that do not correspond to reality, and in the other case—with lying. By bringing such contradictory charge, the right to defence of the party concerned is being unreasonably limited, since the right to know what the person is accused of is undoubtedly one of the fundamental rights of a person to whom an impeachment procedure is applied, which implies a duty of the subject initiating impeachment proceedings to lay a concrete charge. According to V. Barkauskas, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk is facing not only an inconcrete charge in this part, but also, on the whole, no action or decision, the compliance of which with the Constitution needs to be verified, is indicated.

V. Barkauskas asserts that the charges set forth in Item 3.3 of the descriptive part of the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk are groundless, as even prior to “the confusion which arose” during the sitting of the Seimas regarding the voting from one’s own or not one’s own seat of work, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk had talked to the employee of the Office of the Seimas A. Glavickas, who had answered that one could not vote with his certificate of a Member of the Seimas from the seat of work of another Member of the Seimas. According to V. Barkauskas, differently from what it is indicated in the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk did not tell the representatives of the mass media that he had approached the representatives of the Office of the Seimas on 14 January 2010. From the interviews shown on 20 January 2010 on the television programme “Žinios” on the Channel TV3 and on the television programme “Žinios” on the Channel LNK it is clear that A. Sacharuk was speaking about 19 January 2010, when he had actually applied to the employee of the Office of the Seimas A. Glavickas. The representative of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk draws a conclusion that the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk did not, in public space, disseminate information which did not correspond to reality and/or was false. According to him, in assessing the said charge, it means that there are no actions of the Seimas Member A. Sacharuk, a party concerned, the compliance of which with the Constitution needs to be verified, and, in this part the case is to be dismissed or, if the Constitutional Court did not establish such grounds, the actions of A. Sacharuk should not be assessed as gross violation of the Constitution and a breach of the oath of the Member of the Seimas, since he has not disseminated information regarding the circumstances of the voting instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, which does not correspond to reality, or let alone any false information.

5. At the Constitutional Court hearing, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk did not admit that he had expressed statements not corresponding to reality about the circumstances of the voting instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and explained that from the very beginning he had been telling the television channels and the Seimas Commission on Ethics and Procedures only the truth: that at first during voting in the plenary sitting of the Seimas he had made a mistake twice and used not his certificate of a Member of the Seimas, but that of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, and after that he had tried to vote from his seat of work by using both his certificate of Seimas Member, as well as that of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius. After that he had informed the Office of the Seimas about this. The Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk emphasised that he had never tried to vote using two certificates of different Members of the Seimas from a single seat of work of a Member of the Seimas.

6. At the Constitutional Court hearing, the advocate V. Barkauskas, the representative of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in his 30 July 2010 written explanations to the Constitutional Court and submitted these additional explanations.

The charge to the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk with making statements, in public space, about voting instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, which do not correspond to reality, is inconcrete and unclear. It is not clear from the formulation of such a charge as to what this public space is and what statements were expressed. Even though from the entire Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk it is possible to make certain assumptions about the concrete public space and about the time of the statements expressed, however, a charge should not be grounded on assumptions only. In addition, it was emphasised that false statements and statements which do not correspond to reality are synonyms in neither linguistic, nor legal meaning. The petitioner also does not indicate any provisions, articles or principles of the Constitution that were violated by the aforementioned actions of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk.

While assessing the statements of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk expressed in the programmes “Žinios” of the Channel LNK and the Channel TV3, the advocate V. Barkauskas, the representative of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, a party concerned, noted that the fragments of the interview with the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk correspond to reality, whereas these fragments are not exhaustive because not the entire interview was submitted. Even though the impeachment proceedings against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk were not instituted as far back as 20 January 2010, however, one should assess also the fact that the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk acquired the right to defence also at that time. Thus, such a charge, which is related with the charge with voting of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk instead of the Member of the Seimas A. Karalius is not in line with the constitutional principle prohibiting to compel one to give evidence against himself.

7. In the case the following was established:

7.1. The Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk indicated that the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, by means of statements expressed in public space, submitted the circumstances about voting instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, which do not correspond to reality. The Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk indicated that the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk expressed the statements not corresponding to reality in the journalistic reports broadcast in the programmes “Žinios” of the Channel LNK and the Channel TV3 on 20 January 2010 at 18.45 o’clock.

7.2. In Sub-items 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 of the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk the following is specified:

3.2.2. In the 20 January 2010 television programme “Žinios” of the Channel TV3, Aleksandr Sacharuk stated that ‘Yesterday (i.e., on 19 January 2010—the note of the Commission) I was assured that there is such order at the Seimas that a Member of the Seimas cannot vote from the seat of another person, therefore, I tried to vote from the seat of another person and asked the Office to remove the defects’ (recording of the 20 January 2010 television programme “Žinios” of the Channel TV3 broadcast on 18.45 o’clock).

3.2.3. In the 20 January 2010 television programme “Žinios” of the Channel LNK Aleksandr Sacharuk stated that ‘before giving the card I was assured that voting of a Member of the Seimas is possible only from the seat of work used only by that Member of the Seimas, I tried once, I noticed the text that it was not my seat of work, I had a talk, they said that it was really impossible, but after that my vote was counted, then I checked and informed the Office that there was a mess’ (recording of the 20 January 2010 television programme “Žinios” of the Channel LNK broadcast on 18.45 o’clock).”

7.3. The Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk indicates that “the statement of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk to the producers of public information that he had been assured and thought that there was such order in the sittings hall of the Seimas that a Member of the Seimas could not vote from the seat of another person, is false”, also “the statement of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk to the producers of public information that ‘he voted once out of curiosity, and right after that applied to the Office of the Seimas’ is false”.

7.4. In the reporting on the 20 January 2010 television programme “Žinios” of the Channel TV3 broadcast on 18.45 o’clock the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk said: “Yesterday I was assured that there is such order at the Seimas that a Member of the Seimas cannot vote from the seat of another person, therefore, I tried to vote from another seat and asked the Office to remove the defects” (the recording of the reporting on the television programme “Žinios” of the Channel TV3, annex to the CCc—a compact disc (CD)).

In the reporting on the 20 January 2010 television programme “Žinios” of the Channel LNK broadcast on 18.45 o’clock the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk said: “This is true. Linas Karalius forgot his card. Before giving him the card, I was assured that voting of a Member of the Seimas is possible only from the seat of work used only by that Member of the Seimas, I tried once, I noticed the text that it was not my seat of work, I had a talk, they said that it was really impossible, but after that my vote was counted, then I checked and informed the Office that there was a mess” (the recording of the reporting on the television programme “Žinios” of the Channel LNK, annex to the CCc—a digital versatile disc (DVD)).

7.5. The Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk asserts that his statements shown in the aforesaid programmes are taken out of the whole context, and only one sentence is placed, when he, while giving the interview admitted that he had voted for the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius more than once and said that “I made a mistake once, after that I made a try and informed the office”. On the other hand, he asserts that from what was said it is possible to understand that he is telling the truth (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, the shorthand records of the questioning of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk of 7 April 2010, CCc, vol. III, p. 147).

7.6. Since 16 July 2009, 55 times votes have been cast for the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk from seats of work of other Members of the Seimas (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, the material on voting by Members of the Seimas from the seat of another Member of the Seimas presented by the Department of Information Technologies and Telecommunications of the Seimas, CCc, vol. IV, pp. 39–70). The Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, even prior to 14 and 19 January 2010, when he, by using the certificate of a Member of the Seimas of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, voted instead of him, had been aware of the fact that the system allowed a Member of the Seimas to vote from the seat of work of another Member of the Seimas (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, the shorthand records of the questioning of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk of 16 April 2010, CCc, vol. IV, p. 111).

7.7. The Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk 8 times deliberately voted instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius: on 14 January—4 times, and on 19 January—4 times. In all these cases the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk voted both for himself and for the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius from his seat of work.

7.8. At the Constitutional Court hearing, A. Griškevičius, the journalist of the television programme “Žinios” of the Channel LNK, who took the interview from the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk and prepared the aforesaid 20 January 2010 reporting for the programme “Žinios”, explained that in the reporting only part of the interview was presented, however, he had not cut or edited it, i.e. he presented a consistent message of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk (the minutes of the Constitutional Court hearing, the testimony of the witness A. Griškevičius, CCc, vol. XII, pp. 109–111).

7.9. At the Constitutional Court hearing, A. Anužis, the journalist of the television programme “Žinios” of the Channel TV3, who took the interview from the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk and prepared the aforesaid 20 January 2010 reporting for the programme “Žinios”, explained that this interview was longer than it was shown in the reporting, however, he denied the fact that the words of the Member of the Seimas in the interview might have been distorted. According to this journalist, the essence of the reporting prepared by him was that the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk had voted for the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and had confessed it (the minutes of the Constitutional Court hearing, the testimony of the witness A. Anužis, CCc, vol. XII, pp. 105–107).

8. From the case material it is clear that the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk has not examined the entire filmed matter in which the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk was giving interview to the journalists of the said television channels, on the grounds of which the journalistic reports were prepared to the said television programmes. The Commission examined only the journalistic reports broadcast on the television programmes (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk, the minutes of the Constitutional Court hearing of 23 April 2010, CCc, vol. I, p. 34; vol. IV, p. 169).

From the case material it is also clear that neither the Channel LNK nor the Channel TV3 preserved all the filmed matter on the grounds of which the aforesaid journalistic reports were broadcast on the 20 January 2010 programmes “Žinios” (the 24 August 2010 Letter No. 10/282S of Zita Sarakienė, Director General of the JSC “Laisvas ir nepriklausomas kanalas”, along with which a digital versatile disk with a recording of the LNK television programme “Žinios” of 20 January 2010 was submitted, the 25 August 2010 letter of Darius Ratautas, Acting Senior Editor for TV3 news of the JSC “Tele-3”, along with which a compact disk with a recording of the TV3 television programme “Žinios” of 20 January 2010 was submitted, CCc, vol. I, pp. 71, 73).

At the Constitutional Court hearing, A. Griškevičius, a journalist of the television programme “Žinios” of the Channel LNK, explained that the 20 January 2010 interview with the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk lasted less than 5 minutes, whereas the speech of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk in the reporting broadcast on the programme “Žinios” lasted for around 20 seconds (the minutes of the Constitutional Court hearing, the testimony of the witness A. Griškevičius, CCc, vol. XII, pp. 109–111).

At the Constitutional Court hearing, A. Anužis, a journalist of the television programme “Žinios” of the Channel TV3, explained that the 20 January 2010 interview with the Member of the Seimas lasted for 5–10 minutes, whereas the speech of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk in the reporting broadcast on the programme “Žinios” lasted for around half a minute. A. Anužis also testified that he had not preserved the recording of the entire interview with the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk (the minutes of the Constitutional Court hearing, the testimony of the witness A. Anužis, CCc, vol. XII, pp. 105–107).

9. On the grounds of what has been established in this case, it needs to be held that the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk drew the conclusion that the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk had made statements not corresponding to reality about the circumstances of the voting instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius after it had examined not the entire interview of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk for the journalists, but only fragments thereof shown on the 20 January 2010 television programme “Žinios” of the Channel LNK and the television programme “Žinios” of the Channel TV3. It also needs to be held that the recordings of the entire interview of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk have not been preserved and there is no possibility to establish the content of the interview. Without assessing the content of the entire interview of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk there is no possibility to draw a conclusion whether the actions (the investigation of the compliance with the Constitution of which is being requested) of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk have been performed, i.e. such actions as making, in public space, statements which do not correspond to reality, whereby the circumstances of the voting instead of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius were provided.

10. While taking account of this it needs to be held that in the constitutional justice case at issue there are not any objective data on the grounds of which it would be possible to assert that the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk has performed the actions (whose compliance with the Constitution must be verified) specified in the inquiry set forth in Seimas resolution No. XI-837 of 25 May 2010.

11. It has been mentioned that, under Item 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 80 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court shall refuse to examine an inquiry concerning the presentation of a conclusion in the absence of an action or decision whose compliance with the Constitution must be verified; Paragraph 2 of Article 80 of the Law on the Constitutional Court provides that, if in the course of the consideration of the inquiry the matter under consideration ceases to exist, the Constitutional Court shall dismiss the instituted legal proceedings on the grounds thereof; under Paragraph 3 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, in the event that the grounds for refusal to consider a petition have been established after the commencement of the investigation of the case during the hearing of the Constitutional Court, a decision to dismiss the case shall be adopted.

Conforming to Paragraph 3 of Article 69 and Article 80 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the part of the case on the inquiry, which was set forth in Seimas Resolution No. XI-837 “On the Institution of Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas Aleksandr Sacharuk and Application to the Constitutional Court” of 25 May 2010, regarding presentation of a conclusion on whether the actions of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk—making, in public space, statements which do not correspond to reality, whereby the circumstances of the voting instead of the Seimas Member L. Karalius were provided—are in conflict with the Constitution, is to be dismissed.

12. Conforming to Paragraph 3 of Article 69 and Article 80 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has dismissed the part of the case on the inquiry, which was set forth in the 25 May 2010 Resolution No. XI-837 “On the Institution of Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas Aleksandr Sacharuk and Application to the Constitutional Court” of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, regarding presentation of a conclusion on whether the actions of the Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania A. Sacharuk—making, in public space, statements which do not correspond to reality, whereby the circumstances of the voting instead of the Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania L. Karalius were provided—are in conflict with the Constitution.

VI

On the inquiry, which was set forth in Seimas Resolution No. XI-838 “On the Institution of Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and Application to the Constitutional Court” of 25 May 2010, regarding presentation of a conclusion on whether the actions of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius—his going on a foreign tour and, due to this, his failure to attend, without a justifying reason, the plenary sittings of the Seimas, which took place on 13, 14, 19, 20 and 21 January 2010, as well as the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, which took place on 15 and 20 January 2010—are in conflict with the Constitution.

1. In the inquiry set forth in resolution No. XI-838 of 25 May 2010, the Seimas requests for a conclusion whether the actions of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, inter alia his going on a foreign tour and, due to this, his failure to attend, without a justifying reason, the plenary sittings of the Seimas, which took place on 13, 14, 19, 20 and 21 January 2010, as well as the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, which took place on 15 and 20 January 2010, are in conflict with the Constitution.

2. The Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius inter alia indicates that L. Karalius, having not co-ordinated with the Board of the Seimas, on 29 December 2009, went on a foreign tour and did not attend, without a justifying reason, the plenary sittings of the Seimas, which took place on 13, 14, 19, 20 and 21 January 2010, and the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, which took place on 15 and 20 January 2010; he informed neither the Secretariat of Seimas Sittings nor the Chairman of the said committee about his non-attendance. The non-attendance of L. Karalius in the said sittings without a justifying reason is to be assessed as failure to observe the constitutional duty of a Member of the Seimas to participate in sittings of the Seimas, as well as in the work of the structural units of the Seimas, a member of which he is, consequently, it is also to be assessed as violation of the Constitution.

3. In the written explanations of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the letter of L. Karalius of 26 March 2010, CCc, vol. VII, pp. 174–179) it is maintained that he had planned the time of his tour of Asian countries before it became known to him that the autumn session of the Seimas would be prolonged; having failed to change the date of the flight Bangkok–Vilnius to 12 January 2010, he made a decision to go on the planned tour, taking no heed to the prolongation of the session; due to the situation that occurred during his trip, he did not have any objective possibilities to come back to Lithuania earlier.

The Member of the Seimas L. Karalius acknowledged that by the aforementioned actions he had formally violated the Statute of the Seimas, however, hid had not done that deliberately, he had not pursued any negative aims or selfish consequences. He noted that failure to attend plenary sittings without a justifying reason is not a rare thing among Members of the Seimas, whereas with regard to the Member of the Seimas who failed to attend, without an important justifying reason, more than half of the Seimas sittings in which voting on the adoption of legal acts was scheduled in advance and took place at the scheduled time, Paragraph 1 of Article 151 of the Statute of the Seimas provides for a sanction—his remuneration of that month is reduced by one third. Thus, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, having no possibility to change the date of his return flight, expected his punishment under the said article (paragraph thereof) of the Statue of the Seimas and did not think that such a violation could create preconditions for loss of the mandate of a Member of the Seimas.

According to the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, in February 2009, with regard to the Members of the Seimas who failed to attend, without an important justifying reason, the Seimas sittings in which voting on the adoption of legal acts was scheduled in advance and took place at the scheduled time, neither the sanction provided for in Paragraph 1 of Article 151 of the Statute of the Seimas was applied, nor the impeachment proceedings were instituted.

The Member of the Seimas L. Karalius pointed out that after he had learned that on 11 February 2010 an extraordinary session of the Seimas is convened, he returned to Lithuania as early as 4 February 2010.

4. In the 30 July 2010 written explanations of the advocate S. Žentelis, the representative of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the following arguments are provided.

The Member of the Seimas L. Karalius does not dispute that, having not co-ordinated with the Board of the Seimas, on 29 December 2009, he went on a foreign tour and did not attend, without a justifying reason, the plenary sittings of the Seimas, which took place on 13, 14, 19, 20 and 21 January 2010, and the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, which took place on 15 and 20 January 2010, however, he notes that such his actions in themselves should not be considered as a breach of the oath of the Seimas Member, nor at the same time a gross violation of the Constitution. According to S. Žentelis, one must establish other significant circumstances, whereas special attention must be given to gravity and danger of a violation, circumstances of its commitment, and the consequences created.

The sanction prescribed in Paragraph 1 of Article 151 of the Statute of the Seimas (i.e. for a Member of the Seimas who failed to attend, without an important justifying reason, more than half of the Seimas sittings in which voting on the adoption of legal acts was scheduled in advance and took place at the scheduled time, his remuneration of that month shall be reduced by one third) means that the violation committed by the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius is a disciplinary (procedural) one, it is not considered as dangerous or grave, and the commitment of such a violation does not incur strict liability. The Seimas Commission on Ethics and Procedures, which applies the said sanction, also does not view the aforementioned violation as grave, since in the course of the entire history of the Seimas the said sanction was imposed upon no Member of the Seimas.

The Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius did not indicate any comprehensive and grounded arguments as to why the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius has to lose his mandate of the Seimas Member; no penalties were imposed on other Members of the Seimas for analogous violations. Such different behaviour towards the Members of the Seimas who committed analogous violations, according to S. Žentelis, is in conflict with the constitutional principle of equality of persons entrenched in Article 29 of the Constitution.

The fact that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius committed the violation because of his carelessness and irresponsibility, rather than in pursuit of some selfish objectives incompatible with duties of the Member of the Seimas, is proved by the following circumstances: he had planned the date of his tour of Asian states before it became known to him that the autumn session of the Seimas would be prolonged; having learned about this, he applied to the travel agency “BPC Travel” in order to change the date of the flight Bangkok–Vilnius to 12 January 2010, however, there was no possibility to satisfy his request; he made a decision to go on the tour and informed about this neither the Board of the Seimas, nor his secretary-assistant because of the fact that he had found out about the impossibility to change the date of his return just before the departure.

The Member of the Seimas L. Karalius acknowledged that he had committed the violation; he had not sought any negative consequences and had not supposed that such a violation was serious and that it might cause negative consequences. In addition, he refused his remuneration for January on a voluntary basis. While committing the said violation, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius was not aware and could not be aware (as it is nowhere defined, there is no court practice, etc.) of the fact that the impeachment proceedings might be instituted against him and that he might face the removal from office and revocation of the mandate of a Member of the Seimas for a violation which, under the Statute of the Seimas, is considered to be procedural and for which one incurs a penalty of reduction of the remuneration for one month by one third.

5. At the Constitutional Court hearing, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius explained that he had planned his one-month recreation tour to Asian countries, since “a Member of the Seimas can plan his time between sessions independently”; thus, he had two months for the tour. When a Member of the Seimas goes on a tour abroad with his own funds, the assent of the board is not necessary.

The Member of the Seimas L. Karalius also explained that he had received the information that the Seimas decided to prolong the autumn session when he had acquired tickets to the Kingdom of Thailand, i.e. right before Christmas, on 19, 20 or 21 December 2009. He flew to the tour of Asian states thinking that he would succeed in returning in time and in participating in the prolonged session. He made all the effort to change the return date from Bangkok to Vilnius, but did not succeed in doing so. As regards the change of the return date, on 28 December 2009 he applied to the travel agency “BPC Travel”, and the next day in the morning he departed, therefore, he received the negative reply from this agency after he had reached the Kingdom of Thailand. While seeking to change the return date, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius applied to the tour operators of the countries in which he had been, however, at that time there was the peak season for tourism and the flights were overcrowded. On 20 January, having learned about the situation that had occurred in Lithuania, he was looking for a possibility to return as fast as possible, and, no sooner had such a possibility become available than he returned, on 4 February. According to the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, he did not have a possibility to make a telephone call to Lithuania prior to 20 January, since he had visited such places where there were no telecommunications.

The Member of the Seimas L. Karalius also explained that the agreement on provision of tourism services was made till 24 February, and in this agreement the return date of 13 January was entered only on formal grounds, since, as it was explained to him in JSC “Irmusta”, the company from which he had purchased the tickets, when one purchased a ticket to a charter flight of travel agencies, the system automatically added two weeks for the trip; the price indicated in the agreement included a ticket for a flight of two people to the Kingdom of Thailand and from the Kingdom of Thailand to Lithuania.

The Member of the Seimas L. Karalius explained that, on 13 January 2010, he was in the Republic of Cambodia, whereas he was unable to comment on the 13 April 2010 letter of A. Sukovas, Director of the JSC “Tez Tour” and the letter of the JSC “Irmusta”, wherein it is pointed out that L. Karalius failed to appear at the 13 January 2010, 13.50 o’clock flight Bangkok–Vilnius, thus the part of transportation service had not been provided to him, since if he had known that there was a seat for him in the plane, he would definitely have arrived.

According to the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, he did not tell the journalist the indicated story (“We were supposed to return to the extraordinary session of the Seimas from there. Having packed our bags, we were waiting until a bus would pick us. It did not arrive and it meant that we would be late also for the flight home. All our plans collapsed as domino blocks”) in his interview published in the magazine “Žmonės”, and all this was only an interpretation of the journalist. Later, when correcting the text of the interview, he left these words since he thought that they were not very important and essential.

6. At the Constitutional Court hearing, the advocate S. Žentelis, the representative of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in his 30 July 2010 written explanations presented to the Constitutional Court.

7. In the case the following was established:

7.1. On 17 December 2009, the Seimas adopted Resolution No. XI-585 “On the Prolongation of the III (Autumn) Session of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania” (hereinafter referred to as Seimas resolution No. XI-585 of 17 December 2009), which came into force from the moment of its adoption (Article 2). By Article 1 of this resolution the Seimas decided to prolong the III (autumn) session of the Seimas till 21 January 2010. Seimas resolution No. XI-585 of 17 December 2009 was officially published in the official gazette “Valstybės žinios” on 22 December 2009.

7.2. In January 2010 the following sittings of the Seimas took place: the solemn sitting of 13 January 2010 dedicated to the commemoration of the Day of Defenders of Freedom No. 166 (morning); the 14 January 2010 (morning) sitting of the Seimas No. 167 (letter No. S-2010-7802 of 18 August 2010 of the Office of the Seimas, the minutes (No. SPP-167) of the 14 January 2010 morning plenary sitting of the III (autumn) session, CCc, vol. II, pp. 81–83); the 14 January 2010 (evening) sitting of the Seimas No. 167 (letter No. S-2010-7802 of 18 August 2010 of the Office of the Seimas, the minutes (No. SPP-168) of the 14 January 2010 evening plenary sitting of the III (autumn) session, CCc, vol. II, pp. 84–85); the 19 January 2010 (morning) sitting of the Seimas No. 169 (letter No. S-2010-7802 of 18 August 2010 of the Office of the Seimas, the minutes (No. SPP-169) of the 19 January 2010 morning plenary sitting of the III (autumn) session, CCc, vol. II, pp. 99–101); the 19 January 2010 (evening) sitting of the Seimas No. 170 (letter No. S-2010-7802 of 18 August 2010 of the Office of the Seimas, the minutes (No. SPP-170) of the 19 January 2010 evening plenary sitting of the III (autumn) session, CCc, vol. II, pp. 101–103); the 20 January 2010 (extraordinary) sitting of the Seimas No. 171 (letter No. S-2010-7802 of 18 August 2010 of the Office of the Seimas, the minutes (No. SPP-171) of the 14 January 2010 non-prescheduled plenary sitting of the III (autumn) session, CCc, vol. II, pp. 114–116); the 21 January 2010 (morning) sitting of the Seimas No. 172 (letter No. S-2010-7802 of 18 August 2010 of the Office of the Seimas, the minutes (No. SPP-172) of the 21 January 2010 morning plenary sitting of the III (autumn) session, CCc, vol. II, pp. 120–121); the 21 January 2010 (evening) sitting of the Seimas No. 173 (letter No. S-2010-7802 of 18 August 2010 of the Office of the Seimas, the minutes (No. SPP-173) of the 21 January 2010 evening plenary sitting of the III (autumn) session, CCc, vol. II, pp. 121–124).

7.3. The Seimas Commission on Ethics and Procedures held that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius missed all the plenary sittings of the Seimas without an important justifying reason in January 2010 (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the conclusion of the Seimas Commission on Ethics and Procedures of 19 February 2010, CCc, vol. X, pp. 18 and 19; the conclusion of the Seimas Commission on Ethics and Procedures No. 101-1-7 of 2 March 2010, CCc, vol. X, pp. 30–33). At the Constitutional Court hearing these facts were confirmed by the witness A. Salamakinas, a Member of the Seimas (the minutes of the Constitutional Court hearing, CCc, vol. XII, p. 84).

7.4. In January 2010, at the Seimas three sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs took place (on 13, 15 and 20 January 2010), and the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius failed to participate in all of them. Regarding the non-participation of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius in the 13 January 2010 sitting of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, no information had been provided to the Chairman of this Committee of the Seimas (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, letter of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs No. V-2010-1931 of 1 April 2010, CCc, vol. X, p. 87).

On 20 January 2010, at the Seimas a sitting of the Commission for Youth and Sport Affairs took place, in which the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius failed to participate. His secretary-assistant V. Vaičiulienė had informed this commission verbally that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius would not be able to participate in the sitting “due to reasons related to the condition of his father’s health”. The Commission for Youth and Sport Affairs recognised such a reason for non-attendance as justifying and important (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, letter of the Commission for Youth and Sport Affairs No. V-2010-1880 of 30 March 2010, CCc, vol. X, p. 94).

7.5. V. Vaičiulienė, the secretary-assistant of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, had informed V. Gegužinskaitė, the secretary-assistant of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, about the non-attendance of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius at the 15 and 20 January 2010 sittings of this committee by sending electronic mail messages from the electronic mailbox of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the electronic mail messages of 14 January 2010 and 19 January 2010, CCc, vol. II, pp. 136–137). It is indicated in these electronic mail messages that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius would not be able to participate in the 15 January 2010 sitting of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs “due to a non-prescheduled trip to the Klaipėda constituency”, and in the 20 January 2010 sitting of the same committee—“because the dad’s health became really worse after the operation”. Also, it is specified that the information is submitted “on the instruction of the Member of the Seimas Linas Karalius”: “I have just received the information from Linas Karalius.”

On 30 March 2010, V. Vaičiulienė, the secretary-assistant of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, while giving explanations regarding the electronic mail messages on the non-attendance of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius in the 15 and 20 January 2010 sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, pointed out to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius that, before going on his planned tour of Asian states, the Member of the Seimas had informed her that, while attempting to change the date of his return tickets to Lithuania, he had applied to the travel agency, that he was planning to go to the Klaipėda constituency on 15 January 2010, and that on 18 January his father was going to be operated upon. V. Vaičiulienė also pointed out that after she had failed to contact the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius by telephone and by electronic mail, while seeking to give grounds to his non-attendance in the 15 and 20 January 2010 sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, submitted this committee with the information, which was available to her, about the trip of the Member of the Seimas to the Klaipėda constituency and his sick father (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the 30 March 2010 Letter No. V-2010-1896 of V. Vaičiulienė, CCc, vol. X, pp. 89–90).

The Member of the Seimas L. Karalius additionally pointed out to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius that, before departing, he had informed V. Vaičiulienė that after his return from the tour of Asian states, in order to accomplish certain affairs of office, he intended to visit the city of Klaipėda, where he had planned “a number of meetings with medical staff, with the Klaipėda Blood Centre, with the parents of some pupils”, that, on 18 January 2010, his father was going to be operated upon and, in case of need, he would have to assist his father (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the shorthand records of the questioning of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius of 2 April 2010, CCc, vol. VII, pp. 195, 201). It needs to be mentioned that, on 18 January 2010, J. M., the father of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, underwent an operation (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, protocol No. 7 of the surgical operation, CCc, vol. VII, p. 193).

7.6. On 8 December 2009, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius made agreement No. 8602294 on provision of tourism services with the JSC “Irmusta”, a representative of the tour operator JSC “Tez Tour”, from which he acquired, for himself and G. G., transportation services from Vilnius (29 December 2009, 19.50 o’clock) to Bangkok (30 December 2009, 21.55 o’clock) and from Bangkok (13 January 2010, 13.30 o’clock) to Vilnius (13 January 2010, 21.55 o’clock) (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, agreement No. 8602294 on provision of tourism services of 8 December 2009, CCc, vol. VIII, p. 42–43). On 8 December 2009, the JSC “Irmusta”, a representative of the tour operator JSC “Tez Tour”, wrote out a bill for advance payment to the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius for the return plane tickets to Thailand (29 December 2009–13 January 2010), which he accepted on 9 December 2009 (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, bill No. S8602294 of 8 December 2009 for advance payment, CCc, vol. VIII, p. 44).

7.6.1. At the Constitutional Court hearing, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius explained that he made a verbal agreement with I. Ozerdem, Director of the JSC “Irmusta”, that it would be possible to return from the Kingdom of Thailand not after two weeks, but considerably later. After that, having learned about the prolonged session of the Seimas, he asked the Director of the JSC “Irmusta” to change back the date of flight from Bangkok (13 January 2010, 13.30 o’clock) to Vilnius (13 January 2010, 21.55 o’clock) specified in agreement No. 8602294 on provision of tourism services, however, it was impossible to do so. In addition, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius pointed out that regarding the changing of the return date to 12 January 2010 he had applied also to the JSC “BPC Travel”, however, he received the answer that the JSC “BPC Travel” could not do so; he received this answer when he was in the Kingdom of Thailand already (the minutes of the Constitutional Court hearing, CCc, vol. XII, pp. 55, 131, 132).

7.6.2. On 13 April 2010, I. Ozerdem, Director of the JSC “Irmusta”, pointed out to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius that there had been a verbal agreement with the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius that the flight Bangkok–Vilnius would be on 24 February 2010, whereas the date of the flight indicated in agreement No. 8602294 on provision of tourism services of 8 December 2009 was different because of the fact that in the course of flight reservation the system sets the return after 14 days automatically, since the flights are made every two weeks; she also pointed out the fact that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius had applied verbally to the JSC “Irmusta” and asked to change back the return date to 13 January 2010 as indicated in agreement No. 8602294 on provision of tourism services, however, it was impossible to satisfy his request, since there was no reservation in his name on that date (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the 13 April 2010 letter of I. Ozerdem, CCc, vol. VIII, p. 39).

In this context it needs to be noted that, on 30 August 2010, I. Ozerdem, Director of the JSC “Irmusta” explained to the Constitutional Court that “according to the knowledge available to the travel agency ‘Irmusta’, Linas Karalius did not come to the flight Bangkok (13.01.2010 13:50)–Vilnius (13.01.2010 21:55)”, “the JSC ‘Irmusta’ did not provide Linas Karalius with any other tourism services” (the 30 August 2010 letter No. 001 of I. Ozerdem, CCc, vol. II, p. 161). It also needs to be noted that, at the Constitutional Court hearing I. Ozerdem testified that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius had verbally applied to the JSC “Irmusta” and asked to change the return date, however, she also confirmed that the information specified in the 30 August 2010 letter No. 001 of the JSC “Irmusta” that “according to the knowledge available to the travel agency ‘Irmusta’, Linas Karalius did not come to the flight Bangkok (13.01.2010 13:50)–Vilnius (13.01.2010 21:55)” was correct (the minutes of the Constitutional Court hearing, CCc, vol. XII, p. 89–91).

7.6.3. On 30 March 2010, G. Aukštuolis, Director General of the JSC “BPC Travel”, pointed out to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius that, on 28 December 2009, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius verbally applied to the JSC “BPC Travel” and asked to find a possibility to change the date of the flight Bangkok–Vilnius to 12 January 2010, however, on 29 December 2009, the Member of the Seimas was verbally informed that the JSC “BPC Travel” had no possibilities to change the date of the flight (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the 30 March 2010 letter of G. Aukštuolis, CCc, vol. X, p. 100). In this context it needs to be noted that G. Aukštuolis confirmed these facts at the Constitutional Court hearing, where he was questioned as a witness (the minutes of the Constitutional Court hearing, CCc, vol. XII, pp. 91, 92).

7.6.4. On 13 April 2010, A. Sukovas, Director of the JSC “Tez Tour”, pointed out to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the 13 April 2010 letter No. 1-2347 of A. Sukovas, CCc, vol. X, p. 241) and, on 24 August 2010, he pointed out to the Constitutional Court (the 24 August 2010 letter No. 1-2520 of A. Sukovas, CCc, vol. II, pp. 156–157), that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius did not come to the flight from Bangkok (13 January 2010, 13.30 o’clock) to Vilnius (13 January 2010, 21.55 o’clock), while the reason for his failure to appear was unknown. A. Sukovas confirmed these facts at the Constitutional Court hearing, where he was questioned as a witness. He also pointed out that “all travel documents are in conformity with the agreement”, and the tour of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius began on 29 December 2009 and was supposed to finish on 13 January 2010 (the minutes of the Constitutional Court hearing, CCc, vol. XII, pp. 92, 93).

7.6.5. In February 2010, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius gave an interview to the magazine “Žmonės”. In this interview the following words of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius were printed: “We were supposed to return to the extraordinary session of the Seimas from there. Having packed our bags, we were waiting until a bus would pick us. It did not arrive and it meant that we would be late also for the flight home. All our plans collapsed as domino blocks” (magazine “Žmonės”, 2010, No. 6, CCc, vol. II, pp. 164, 165).

On 24 August 2010, D. Lingienė (Žemaitytė), Chief Editor of the magazine “Žmonės” of the JSC “Žurnalų leidybos grupė” pointed out the following to the Constitutional Court: “The text of the interview had been co-ordinated with Linas Karalius. In the electronic mailbox of the journalist Laisvė Radzevičienė there is the mail message with corrections made by Linas Karalius” and attached a copy of the electronic mailbox of the journalist Laisvė Radzevičienė. In this electronic mail message L. Karalius wrote the following to L. Radzevičienė: “Practically, I haven’t changed any of the questions, but made corrections to the answers. I hope you will keep it as it is” (the letter of D. Lingienė (Žemaitytė) (received at the Constitutional Court on 24 August 2010), CCc, vol. II, pp. 144–148, 153).

In this context it needs to be noted that, as mentioned, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius explained to the Constitutional Court that the interview text “We were supposed to return to the extraordinary session of the Seimas from there. Having packed our bags, we were waiting until a bus would pick us. It did not arrive and it meant that we would be late also for the flight home. All our plans collapsed as domino blocks” printed in the magazine “Žmonės” is not correct and that he did not tell the journalist the indicated story (the minutes of the Constitutional Court hearing, CCc, vol. XII, p. 51). It also needs to be noted that D. Lingienė (Žemaitytė) and L. Radzevičienė, when they were asked about the said quotation at the Constitutional Court hearing, testified that the text precisely rendered the thoughts of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, and that the whole text had been co-ordinated with him; in the course of editing the text was shortened, however, due to this, the thoughts and facts which were told by the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius about how he had spent his time during the trip, for which he was facing impeachment, could not be distorted (the minutes of the Constitutional Court hearing, CCc, vol. XII, p. 97).

7.7. As mentioned, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, as it is asserted by him, returned to Lithuania on 4 February 2010 (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the 26 March 2010 letter of L. Karalius, CCc, vol. VII, pp. 174–179; the shorthand records of the questioning of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius of 2 April 2010, CCc, vol. VII, p. 198).

7.8. In the diplomatic passport presented by the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, there is a visa of the Kingdom of Thailand, issued on 21 December 2009, a visa of the Kingdom of Cambodia, issued on 13 January 2010, a visa of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, issued on 18 January 2010, a visa of the People’s Republic of China, issued on 21 January 2010. There are border crossing stamps in the passport: 30 December 2009—the Kingdom of Thailand, 12 January 2010—the Kingdom of Thailand, 13 January 2010—the Republic of Singapore, 21 January 2010—the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 2 February 2010—the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Kingdom of Thailand, 4 February 2010—the Kingdom of Thailand (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, diplomatic passport of the Republic of Lithuania No. 00001792 issued to the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, CCc, vol. VII, pp. 180–187).

7.9. On 8 February 2010, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius refused his remuneration of a Member of the Seimas for January and asked that J. Milierius, Secretary General of the Seimas, deduct this remuneration of the said Member of the Seimas from the remuneration for February. His request was satisfied (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the 8 February 2010 letter of L. Karalius, CCc, vol. X, p. 197; the 7 April 2010 letter No. V-2010-2032 of the Finance Department of the Office of the Seimas, CCc, vol. X, p. 196). On 5 March 2010, the Board of the Seimas assented to the fact that the remuneration for February would not be paid to the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the minutes (No. SV-P-120) of the 5 March 2010 sitting of the Board of the Seimas, CCc, vol. X, p. 198).

8. On the grounds of what has been established in the case at issue, it needs to be held:

8.1. By its resolution No. XI-585 of 17 December 2009, the Seimas prolonged the III (autumn) session of the Seimas till 21 January 2010. This Seimas resolution was officially published in the official gazette “Valstybės žinios” on 22 December 2009. As it is seen from the individual results of the voting on the adoption of a draft (No. XI-1580) Seimas Resolution No. XI-585 “On the Prolongation of the III (Autumn) Session of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania”, which were published on the internet website of the Seimas, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius voted “for”, i.e. he assented to the decision of the Seimas to prolong the III (autumn) session of the Seimas.

Thus, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, before going on a tour of Asian states, was aware of the fact that the III (autumn) session of the Seimas was prolonged. He admitted this fact also at the Constitutional Court hearing.

8.2. The visas and border crossing stamps in the diplomatic passport presented by the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the explanations of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and to the Constitutional Court show that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius at the time of the prolonged III (autumn) session of the Seimas was on a tour of Asian states, i.e. the Kingdom of Thailand, the Kingdom of Cambodia, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Republic of Singapore, for private purposes.

8.3. The minutes of the sittings that took place in January 2010 at the Seimas, the 1 April 2010 letter of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, the electronic mail messages sent on 14 and 19 January 2010 by V. Vaičiulienė, the conclusions of 19 February and 2 March 2010 of the Seimas Commission on Ethics and Procedures, the explanations of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and V. Vaičiulienė to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the explanations of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius to the Constitutional Court, the testimony of the Member of the Seimas A. Salamakinas at the sitting of the Constitutional Court confirm that, in January 2010, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius missed inter alia:

all plenary sittings of the Seimas, i.e. the solemn sitting of 13 January 2010 dedicated to the commemoration of the Day of Defenders of Freedom; the morning and evening plenary sittings of the Seimas, which took place on 14, 19, and 21 January 2010 and the extraordinary plenary sitting of the Seimas, which took place on 20 January 2010;

the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, which took place on 15 and 20 January 2010.

8.4. The Member of the Seimas L. Karalius had not informed the Secretariat of Seimas Sittings and the Chairman of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs that he would not participate in the plenary sittings of the Seimas and the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, which were to take place in January 2010.

9. The Member of the Seimas L. Karalius virtually substantiates his non-attendance in the III (autumn) session of the Seimas by the fact that he, while seeking to participate in the prolonged autumn session of the Seimas, made all the effort to change the return date from Bangkok to Vilnius, but he did not succeed in doing so. Thus, it is necessary to elucidate whether the said statements of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius are confirmed by the evidence collected in the constitutional justice case at issue. In this context it needs to be noted that:

9.1. As mentioned, on 8 December 2009, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and the JSC “Irmusta”, a representative of the tour operator JSC “Tez Tour”, on behalf of the JSC “Tez Tour”, made agreement No. 8602294 on provision of tourism services, whereby the JSC “Tez Tour” took an obligation to provide transportation services from Vilnius (29 December 2009, 19.50 o’clock) to Bangkok (30 December 2009, 21.55 o’clock) and from Bangkok (13 January 2010, 13.30 o’clock) to Vilnius (13 January 2010, 21.55 o’clock). This agreement was not amended and supplemented. Thus, under agreement No. 8602294 on provision of tourism services, the JSC “Tez Tour” inter alia took an obligation to provide the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius with transportation services from Bangkok (13 January 2010, 13.30 o’clock) to Vilnius (13 January 2010, 21.55 o’clock), whereas the Member of eth Seimas L. Karalius acquired the right inter alia to fly on this route.

9.2. It has also been mentioned that I. Ozerdem, Director of the JSC “Irmusta”, pointed out to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius had asked to change the return date to 13 January 2010 as indicated in agreement No. 8602294 on provision of tourism services, however, it was impossible to satisfy his request, since there was no reservation in his name on that date; however, when she was being questioned as a witness, she also explained to the Constitutional Court that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius did not come to the flight from Bangkok (13 January 2010, 13.30 o’clock) to Vilnius (13 January 2010, 21.55 o’clock). Thus the explanations of I. Ozerdem to the Constitutional Court, if assessed in the context of agreement No. 8602294 on provision of tourism services, negate her testimony given to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius. Since, as regards the circumstances of the return of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius from his tour of Asian states, the witness I. Ozerdem gave different explanations to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and to the Constitutional Court, her testimony is to be assessed as contradictory, therefore, in the constitutional justice case at issue the Constitutional Court will not substantiate itself by such testimony.

9.3. It has been mentioned that G. Aukštuolis, Director General of the JSC “BPC Travel”, pointed out to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius that, on 28 December 2009, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius verbally applied to the JSC “BPC Travel” and asked to find a possibility to change the date of the flight Bangkok–Vilnius to 12 January 2010, however, on 29 December 2009, the Member of the Seimas was verbally informed that the JSC “BPC Travel” had no possibilities to change the date of the flight. Thus, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius asked to change the date of the return flight Bangkok–Vilnius to 12 January 2010, but not to give an opportunity to return to Lithuania by the flight established in agreement No. 8602294 on provision of tourism services, i.e. from Bangkok (13 January 2010, 13.30 o’clock) to Vilnius (13 January 2010, 21.55 o’clock). Consequently, the testimony of G. Aukštuolis neither negates nor confirms the fact that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius had an opportunity to return to Lithuania by the flight established in agreement No. 8602294 on provision of tourism services, i.e. from Bangkok (13 January 2010, 13.30 o’clock) to Vilnius (13 January 2010, 21.55 o’clock).

9.4. It has been mentioned that A. Sukovas, Director of the JSC “Tez Tour”, pointed out to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and to the Constitutional Court that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius did not come to the flight from Bangkok (13 January 2010, 13.30 o’clock) to Vilnius (13 January 2010, 21.55 o’clock), while the reason for his failure to appear was unknown. At the Constitutional Court hearing, the witness A. Sukovas confirmed his written explanations presented to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and additionally testified that “all travel documents are in conformity with the agreement”, whereas, under agreement No. 8602294 on provision of tourism services, the tour of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius began on 29 December 2009 and was supposed to finish on 13 January 2010.

9.5. It has also been mentioned that, at the time of all questionings, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius maintained that he did not have a possibility to make a telephone call to Lithuania prior to 20 January 2010, since he had visited such places where there were no telecommunications. His such testimony is to be assessed critically, since, from the border crossing stamps that are in the diplomatic passport presented by him, it is clear that on 30 December 2009 and 12 January 2010 he crossed the border of the Kingdom of Thailand, and on 13 January 2010 (i.e. on the day when, according to agreement No. 8602294 on provision of tourism services, he was supposed to be at the Bangkok airport) he crossed the border of the Republic of Singapore, i.e. from 29 December 2009 till 20 January 2010 he was inter alia in such places (airports, border crossing points, etc.), where there exists a possibility to use telecommunication technologies.

Thus, during his private tour of Asian states, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius had an objective possibility to contact the Seimas and inform the Secretariat of Seimas Sittings and the Chairman of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs that, in January 2010, he would not participate in the plenary sittings of the Seimas and the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs.

10. Having assessed the aforesaid data, it needs to be held that, under the said agreement, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius had an opportunity to use the right to return from Bangkok (13 January 2010, 13.30 o’clock) to Vilnius (13 January 2010, 21.55 o’clock) at the time and under the conditions specified in agreement No. 8602294 on provision of tourism services, however, he did not come to the flight. From 29 December 2009 till 20 January 2010, he had a possibility to contact the Seimas and inform the Secretariat of Seimas Sittings and the Chairman of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs that, in January 2010, he would not participate in the plenary sittings of the Seimas and the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, a member of which he is, however, he did not make use of these possibilities.

Consequently, from the data of the case it is clear that the explanations of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius that he, “while seeking to participate in the prolonged autumn session of the Seimas, made all the effort to change the return date from Bangkok to Vilnius, but he did not succeed in doing so”, do not conform to reality, thus, they are insincere.

11. Thus, it needs to be held that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, intentionally and due to private reasons, without prior notification to the Secretariat of Seimas Sittings and the Chairman of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, did not participate in the plenary sittings of the Seimas (the solemn sitting of 13 January 2010 dedicated to the commemoration of the Day of Defenders of Freedom, the morning and evening plenary sittings of the Seimas, which took place on 14, 19, and 21 January 2010 and the extraordinary plenary sitting of the Seimas, which took place on 20 January 2010), as well as in the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, which took place on 15 and 20 January 2010.

12. It has been mentioned that the constitutional legal status of the Member of the Seimas as a representative of the Nation, implies the constitutional duty of the Member of the Seimas to represent the Nation, thus, also his duty to participate at the sittings of the Seimas; the constitutional duty of the Member of the Seimas to participate in the work of the Seimas comprises inter alia his duty to participate in the work of the structural sub-units of the Seimas a member of which this Member of the Seimas is and to discharge all the other powers of the Member of the Seimas established in the Constitution, laws and the Statute of the Seimas.

13. The participation of Members of the Seimas in the work of the Seimas, inter alia their participation in sittings of the Seimas, sittings of Seimas committees, is regulated by the Statute of the Seimas (wording of 22 December 1998 with subsequent amendments and/or supplements).

13.1. Paragraphs 1, 2, 5 of Article 10 (wording of 23 December 2005) of the Statute of the Seimas inter alia prescribe:

1. A Seimas Member must participate in Seimas sittings.

2. Each Seimas Member, with the exception of the Speaker of the Seimas and the Prime Minister, must serve as a member of some committee and must participate in the work thereof <...>

5. A Seimas Member must participate in meetings of <…> the Seimas committees <…> a member of which he is.”

13.2. Paragraphs 2, 3, 5 of Article 11 (wording of 23 December 2005) of the Statute of the Seimas prescribe:

2. If a Seimas Member is unable to attend a Seimas sitting, a Seimas committee <…> sitting, he must, in advance or if not possible in advance—not later than within one week, notify respectively the Secretariat of Seimas Sittings, the committee <…> chairman, specifying the reasons of non-attendance.

3. Important, justifiable reasons for non-attendance at Seimas sittings as well as at Seimas committee <…> sittings shall include a Seimas Member’s temporary working incapacity, business trip, child-rearing leave or other important circumstances, as well as non-attendance at sittings or meetings with the approval of the Board of the Seimas. If a Seimas Member fails to inform that he will not attend a sitting or to indicate the reasons for non-attendance, it shall be deemed that the sitting has been missed without an important justifiable reason.

<...>

5. The Commission on Ethics and Procedures shall decide whether or not the reasons for non-attendance at a Seimas sitting are important and justifiable, the chairmen of the Seimas committees <…> decide whether or not the reasons for non-attendance at a committee <…> sitting are important and justifiable. Disputes whether or not the reasons for non-attendance at a committee <…> sitting are important and justifiable, shall be solved by the Commission on Ethics and Procedures, taking into account the conclusions of the chairmen of the appropriate committees <…> and the explanations of the Seimas Member.”

13.3. Article 156 (wording of 23 December 2005) of the Statute of the Seimas prescribes:

Functioning of the Seimas shall be continuous. The Board of the Seimas shall fix working time of a Seimas Member during Seimas sessions. A Seimas Member shall independently plan time between Seimas sessions, if he does not participate in sittings of the Seimas committees and commissions.”

14. In its conclusions of 19 February and 2 March 2010, the Commission on Ethics and Procedures held that, without a prior assent by the Board of the Seimas, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius was on a tour of Asian states during the prolonged III (autumn) session of the Seimas and in January 2010 missed all plenary sittings of the Seimas without an important and justifying reason.

In its letter of 1 April 2010, the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs held that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius missed, without a justifying reason, the sittings of this committee that took place on 15 and 20 January 2010.

As mentioned, at the Constitutional Court hearing the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius explained that he had planned his one-month recreation tour to Asian countries, since “a Member of the Seimas can plan his time between sessions independently”. As mentioned, under Article 156 (wording of 23 December 2005) of the Statute of the Seimas, a Seimas Member shall independently plan time between Seimas sessions, if he does not participate in sittings of the Seimas committees and commissions. It has also been mentioned that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, at the time of the prolonged III (autumn) session of the Seimas, while being aware of the fact that this session of the Seimas was prolonged, missed all plenary sittings of the Seimas and the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, which took place on 15 and 20 January 2010. Consequently, in this case the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius could not refer to the provision of Article 156 (wording of 23 December 2005) of the Statute of the Seimas.

15. Thus, it needs to be held that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, while being aware of the fact that the III (autumn) session of the Seimas was prolonged, without the consent of the Board of the Seimas and without notifying the Secretariat of Seimas Sittings, at the time of the prolonged III (autumn) session of the Seimas was on a tour of Asian states for private purposes and, because of this, without important and justifying reasons, he missed the plenary sittings of the Seimas (the solemn sitting of 13 January 2010 dedicated to the commemoration of the Day of Defenders of Freedom; the morning and evening plenary sittings, which took place on 14, 19, and 21 January 2010 and the extraordinary plenary sitting, which took place on 20 January 2010), as well as the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, which took place on 15 and 20 January 2010.

16. Taking account of the specified arguments, it needs to be held that the actions of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius—going on a foreign tour and, due to this, failure to attend, without a justifying reason, the plenary sittings of the Seimas, which took place on 13, 14, 19, 20, and 21 January 2010, and the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, which took place on 15 and 20 January 2010, are in conflict with the provisions of Paragraphs 1, 2 and 5 of Article 10 (wording of 23 December 2005) and Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 11 (wording of 23 December 2005) of the Statute of the Seimas.

17. Paragraph 2 of Article 59 of the Constitution provides that the elected Member of the Seimas shall acquire all the rights of a representative of the Nation only after taking at the Seimas an oath to be faithful to the Republic of Lithuania, whereas Paragraph 4 of the same article provides that, when in office, Members of the Seimas shall follow the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the interests of the state as well as their own consciences, and may not be restricted by any mandates.

18. It has been mentioned that the text of the oath of a Member of the Seimas is established in Article 5 of the Republic of Lithuania Law “On the Procedure for Entry into Force of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania”, which is a constituent part of the Constitution; the Constitution unreservedly requires that the Member of the Seimas take an oath to be loyal to the State of Lithuania only, that he pledge to respect and observe the Constitution and laws; while taking the oath, the Member of the Seimas takes an unreserved obligation to observe all constitutional values, to conscientiously serve the Homeland; the act of the oath of a Member of the Seimas is constitutionally legally important: when taking the oath, the elected Member of the Seimas publicly and solemnly accepts an obligation to act in line with the obligations of the oath and to breach the oath under no circumstances.

19. It has been mentioned that the responsibility of state power for the public is inseparable from the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law; it is constitutionally consolidated by establishing that state institutions shall serve the people, and that the scope of power shall be limited by the Constitution. It also needs to be mentioned that, under the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law (which, as it has been held by the Constitutional Court more than once, is a universal principle upon which the entire legal system of Lithuania is based, its content is revealed in various provisions of the Constitution), in a democratic state under the rule of law, state institutions and their officials must be guided by laws and law in their activities.

20. It has been mentioned that, under the Constitution, the Member of the Seimas is a professional politician; the continuity of the activity of the Seimas implies the continuity of the activity of the Member of the Seimas; the constitutional status of the Member of the Seimas as a representative of the Nation, implies the constitutional duty of the Member of the Seimas to represent the Nation, thus, also his duty to participate at the sittings of the Seimas; the constitutional duty of the Member of the Seimas to participate in the work of the Seimas comprises inter alia his duty to participate in the work of the structural sub-units of the Seimas a member of which this Member of the Seimas is and to discharge all the other powers of the Member of the Seimas established in the Constitution, laws and the Statute of the Seimas.

It has also been mentioned that situations may occur where, due to especially important personal and other justifiable reasons, for a certain period of time, a Member of the Seimas cannot participate at the sittings of the Seimas, the committees of the Seimas, other structural sub-units, a member of which he is, and/or, for a certain period of time, he cannot perform other duties of the Member of the Seimas; in the aforesaid cases, such a Member of the Seimas should apply to the institution indicated in the law (the Statute of the Seimas) for a permission not to participate at the sittings of the Seimas, the committees of the Seimas, other structural sub-units, a member of which he is, for the said period of time, and not to perform other duties of the Member of the Seimas for the said period of time; if such a permission is not granted, the absence of the Member of the Seimas from the sittings of the Seimas, the committees of the Seimas, other structural sub-units, a member of which this Member of the Seimas is, or non-performance of other duties of the Member of the Seimas would be unjustifiable.

It has also been mentioned that not every violation of the Constitution is in itself a gross violation of the Constitution. When deciding whether a Member of the Seimas, by his actions, has grossly violated the Constitution, in each case it is necessary to assess the nature of the actions, their content, circumstances of their performance, the time and place, systemicity, duration, the behaviour of the person, who carried out the said actions, after the commission of these actions, and other significant circumstances.

It has also been mentioned that faithfulness to the State of Lithuania is also inseparable from faithfulness to the Constitution; upon the breach of the oath to be faithful to the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitution is grossly violated as well, whereas a gross violation of the Constitution is, alongside, also a breach of the oath.

21. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it needs to be noted that, as mentioned:

the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, before going on a tour of Asian states, was aware of the fact that the III (autumn) session of the Seimas was prolonged till 21 January 2010, however, he did not ask the Board of the Seimas to give its consent for his departure, nor did he notify the Secretariat of Seimas Sittings about his departure;

he was on a tour of Asian states for a long time for personal purposes during the prolonged III (autumn) session of the Seimas and, due to this, without important and justifying reasons, did not participate in the plenary sittings of the Seimas (the solemn sitting of 13 January 2010 dedicated to the commemoration of the Day of Defenders of Freedom, the morning and evening plenary sittings of the Seimas, which took place on 14, 19, and 21 January 2010, and the extraordinary plenary sitting of the Seimas, which took place on 20 January 2010), as well as in the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, which took place on 15 and 20 January 2010;

while enjoying the right, under agreement No. 8602294 on provision of tourism services, to return to Lithuania on 13 January 2010 and to have a possibility to participate in the aforesaid plenary sittings of the Seimas, which took place in January 2010, as well as in the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius did not make use of this right without important and justifying reasons;

the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius did not take the existing opportunities, from 29 December 2009 till 20 January 2010, to contact the Seimas and inform the Secretariat of Seimas Sittings that he would not participate in the plenary sittings of the Seimas, which were to be held in January 2010;

the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius explained his non-attendance at the plenary sittings of the Seimas, as well as at the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, which took place in January 2010, by giving the reasons which, in the case at issue, have been negated by the collected evidence assessed by the Constitutional Court. Thus, the explanations of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius regarding the said non-attendance in the plenary sittings of the Seimas and in the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, are inconsistent and insincere.

22. It has been mentioned that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, before leaving for a personal tour of Asian countries, left his certificate of a Member of the Seimas on the premises of the then political group “The Lithuania United”.

In this conclusion of the Constitutional Court it has been held that, at the plenary sittings of the Seimas of 14 and 19 January 2010, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk used the certificate of a Member of the Seimas of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and 8 times deliberately voted instead of the latter; by these actions, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk has grossly violated the Constitution and breached the oath.

23. Taking account of the specified circumstances, one is to draw a conclusion that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, having gone on a foreign tour of Asian states and, due to this, failing to attend, without important and justifying reasons, the plenary sittings of the Seimas, which took place on 13, 14, 19, 20 and 21 January 2010, and the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, which took place on 15 and 20 January 2010, discharged his duties unconscientiously, acted by raising his personal interests above the interests of the Nation and the state, deliberately did not perform the duties established for the Member of the Seimas in the Constitution and the laws, thus, he showed disrespect to the Constitution and the laws, thus, he did not act in the manner obliged by the oath taken. By these actions he discredited the authority of the Seimas as representation of the Nation. By such actions the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius breached the oath and grossly violated the Constitution.

24. It needs to be held that the actions of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius—going on a foreign tour of Asian states and, due to this, failing to attend, without important and justifying reasons, the plenary sittings of the Seimas, which took place on 13, 14, 19, 20 and 21 January 2010, and the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, which took place on 15 and 20 January 2010—are in conflict with the Constitution. By these actions the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius breached the oath and grossly violated the Constitution.

VII

On the inquiry, which was set forth in Seimas Resolution No. XI-838 “On the Institution of Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and Application to the Constitutional Court” of 25 May 2010 regarding presentation of a conclusion on whether the actions of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, by which he, while covering up, with the facts invented and not corresponding to reality, his non-attendance at the plenary sittings of the Seimas and the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, intentionally lied to the Seimas, are in conflict with the Constitution.

1. In the inquiry set forth in its resolution No. XI-838 of 25 May 2010, the Seimas requests that a conclusion be presented whether inter alia the actions of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, by which he, while covering up, with the facts invented and not corresponding to reality, his non-attendance at the plenary sittings of the Seimas and the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, intentionally lied to the Seimas, are in conflict with the Constitution.

2. It needs to be noted that the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius was grounded upon the facts related with the content of electronic mail messages sent, on 14 and 19 January 2010, by V. Vaičiulienė, the secretary-assistant of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, from the electronic mailbox of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius regarding the non-attendance of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius in the 15 and 20 January 2010 sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, with the circumstances of writing these messages, as well as with the information specified in the detailed list of conversations of the service telephone (No. 8616 XXXXX) held by the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius. Thus, the Constitutional Court will investigate whether the actions (related with the aforesaid facts) of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, by which, according to the Seimas, the petitioner, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, while covering up, with the facts invented and not corresponding to reality, his non-attendance the 15 and 20 January 2010 sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, intentionally lied to the Seimas, are in conflict with the Constitution.

3. In the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius it is inter alia pointed out that the explanations of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and his replies regarding his non-attendance at the plenary sittings of the Seimas, which took place on 13, 14, 19, 20, and 21 January 2010, and the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, which took place on 15 and 20 January 2010, are lies to the Seimas, they present invented, misleading facts that do not correspond to reality, some important facts, which are significant in order to confirm the factual circumstances, are suppressed. In this context it needs to be noted that, in the opinion of V. P. Andriukaitis, a representative of the Seimas, lying to a committee of the Seimas is the same as lying to the Seimas.

4. In the written explanations of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the 26 March 2010 letter of L. Karalius, CCc, vol. pp. 174–179) it is noted that he has never given any instructions to his assistant-secretary V. Vaičiulienė “to cover up the <…> tour with false facts that do not correspond to reality”. V. Vaičiulienė was informed prior to the departure of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius that the latter had applied to the travel agency with a request to change the time of the return to Lithuania into 12 January 2010, she was also informed about the visit of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius to the Klaipėda constituency, which would have taken place if changing the travel time were a success, also, she was also informed about the fact that his father had some health problems and would have to undergo an operation, and that he intended to stay with his father for some time. V. Vaičiulienė, while writing the electronic mail messages to the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, did not have a possibility to contact the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, and she, while assuming that he had returned to Lithuania, erroneously indicated that he had allegedly departed for the Klaipėda constituency and was taking care of his father (visiting him).

5. In the 30 July 2010 written explanations of the advocate S. Žentelis, the representative of the Member of the Seimas, to the Constitutional Court it is maintained that the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius: “The collected and assessed evidence, as well as the established factual circumstances, confirm the reasonableness of the second charge against the party concerned regarding the lying to the Seimas about his non-attendance of the sittings of the Seimas and the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, by covering up it with the facts invented and not corresponding to reality” is substantiated not by objective facts and data, but by speculations and assumptions, as neither the explanations of the Seimas Member L. Karalius and his assistant-secretary V. Vaičiulienė, nor the detailed list of conversations on the service telephone of January 2010 confirms the said fact. In the opinion of S. Žentelis, there are no grounds to investigate the compliance of the said actions with the Constitution, and the Constitutional Court should dismiss the case in this part.

6. At the Constitutional Court hearing, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius explained that he did not give any instructions to his assistant-secretary V. Vaičiulienė to write electronic mail messages to the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs on 14 and 19 January 2010. V. Vaičiulienė wrote them because she had not understood their conversation correctly, during which in some context he mentioned that upon returning he would have to manage to visit the Klaipėda constituency and that in the second half of January his father would be operated upon. This conversation took place prior to the departure of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius on the tour of Asian states.

While explaining the circumstances of the telephone call made on 12 January 2010, at 8.49 o’clock, and the SMS message sent on the same day at 8.53 o’clock to Thailand, the Member of the Seimas explained that he, having had used the mobile telephone of an employee of the hotel which he was staying at, made an attempt to contact his assistant-secretary, however, he did not succeed in doing so. Later, V. Vaičiulienė, admittedly, having found a missed call, also tried to reach him, but he was no longer near the telephone. The Member of the Seimas L. Karalius pointed out that he succeeded in making a telephone call to Lithuania around January 20, when “the noise about all this story” had already caught the attention of the media.

Also the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius explained that prior to that he had not been able to contact Lithuania, since he had been in places without telecommunications.

7. At the Constitutional Court hearing, S. Žentelis, the representative of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in his 30 July 2010 written explanations to the Constitutional Court.

8. As mentioned, in the constitutional justice case at issue the following has been established:

8.1. In January 2010, at the Seimas three sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs took place (on 13, 15 and 20 January 2010), and the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius failed to participate in all of them (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, letter of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs No. V-2010-1931 of 1 April 2010, CCc, vol. X, p. 87).

8.2. V. Vaičiulienė, the secretary-assistant of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, had informed V. Gegužinskaitė, the secretary-assistant of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, about the non-attendance of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius at the 15 and 20 January 2010 sittings of this committee by sending electronic mail messages from the electronic mailbox of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the electronic mail messages of 14 January 2010 and 19 January 2010, CCc, vol. II, pp. 136–137). It is indicated in these electronic mail messages that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius would not be able to participate in the 15 January 2010 sitting of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs “due to a non-prescheduled trip to the Klaipėda constituency”, and in the 20 January 2010 sitting of the same committee—“because the dad’s health became really worse after the operation”, that the information is submitted “on the instruction of the Member of the Seimas Linas Karalius”: “I have just received the information from Linas Karalius”.

On 30 March 2010, V. Vaičiulienė, the secretary-assistant of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, while giving explanations regarding the electronic mail messages on the non-attendance of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius in the 15 and 20 January 2010 sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, pointed out to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius that before going on his planned tour of Asian states, the Member of the Seimas had informed her that while attempting to change the date of his return tickets to Lithuania, had applied to the travel agency, that on 15 January 2010 he was planning to go to the Klaipėda constituency, and that on 18 January his father was going to be operated upon. V. Vaičiulienė also pointed out that after she had failed to contact the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius by telephone and by electronic mail, while seeking to give grounds to his non-attendance in the 15 and 20 January 2010 sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, she submitted this committee with the information, which was available to her, about the trip of the Member of the Seimas to the Klaipėda constituency and his sick father (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the 30 March 2010 Letter No. V-2010-1896 of V. Vaičiulienė, CCc, vol. X, pp. 89–90).

The Member of the Seimas L. Karalius additionally pointed out to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius that, before departing, he had informed V. Vaičiulienė that after his return from the tour of Asian states, in order to accomplish certain affairs of office, he intended to visit the city of Klaipėda, where he had planned “a number of meetings with medical staff, with the Klaipėda Blood Centre, with the parents of some pupils”, that, on 18 January 2010, his father was going to be operated upon and, in case of need, he would have to assist his father (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the shorthand records of the questioning of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius of 2 April 2010, CCc, vol. VII, pp. 195, 201). On 18 January 2010, J. M., the father of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, underwent an operation (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, protocol No. 7 of the surgical operation, CCc, vol. VII, p. 193).

9. In the case also the following has been established:

from the service telephone (No. 8616XXXXX) held by the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, a telephone call was made to Thailand (No. 00668694XXXXX) on 12 January 2010, at 8.49 o’clock, and an SMS message was sent to Thailand (No. 668694XXXXX) on the same day at 8.53 o’clock (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the 31 March 2010 letter No. V-2010-1883 of the Department of Information Technologies and Telecommunications of the Office of the Seimas, CCc, vol. X, pp. 99–105);

on 17 August 2010, Vidmantas Venckūnas, Head of the Administering Unit of the JSC “Omnitel”, inter alia reported to the Constitutional Court that he did not have any possibility to provide data about the telephone numbers from which the telephone calls were made from 29 December 2009 till 4 February 2010 to telephone number 8 616 XXXXX, which belongs to the “Omnitel” network, since such data are kept for 6 months only and they no longer exist (the 17 August 2010 letter, CCc, vol. II, p. 149).

10. In the constitutional justice case at issue it has been held that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, while being aware of the fact that the III (autumn) session of the Seimas was prolonged, without the consent of the Board of the Seimas and without notifying the Secretariat of Seimas Sittings, at the time of the prolonged III (autumn) session of the Seimas was on a tour of Asian states for private purposes and, because of this, without important and justifying reasons, he missed inter alia the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, which took place on 15 and 20 January 2010.

11. The letter of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs No. V-2010-1931 of 1 April 2010, the electronic mail messages sent from the electronic mailbox of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius by V. Vaičiulienė, the secretary-assistant of this Member of the Seimas, to V. Gegužinskaitė, the secretary-assistant of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, the explanations of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and V. Vaičiulienė to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the explanations of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius to the Constitutional Court show that in the electronic mail messages of V. Vaičiulienė, the secretary-assistant of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, in which she explained the reasons for the non-attendance of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius in the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, which took place on 15 and 20 January 2010, she submitted information not corresponding to reality about the fact that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius would not be able to participate in the 15 January 2010 sitting of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs “due to a non-prescheduled trip to the Klaipėda constituency”, and in the 20 January 2010 sitting of the same committee—“because the dad’s health became really worse after the operation”.

12. In this context it needs to be held that although from the service telephone (No. 8616XXXXX) held by the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius a telephone call was made to Thailand (No. 00668694XXXXX) on 12 January 2010, at 8.49 o’clock, and an SMS message was sent to Thailand (No. 668694XXXXX) on the same day at 8.53 o’clock, however, there are not any objective data on the grounds of which it would be possible to assert that at the time of the aforesaid telephone conversation and sending the SMS message, the telephone No. 00668694XXXXX was being used by the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, also, there are not any objective data on the grounds of which it would be possible to assert that the aforesaid telephone conversation took place and the SMS message was received by the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, it is not known what was spoken during these conversations (if anything was spoken at all) and/or what information was sent by the SMS message (if any information was sent at all).

While taking account of this and having assessed other data established in the constitutional justice case at issue (inter alia the fact that, before departing, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius had informed his secretary-assistant V. Vaičiulienė that after his return, in order to accomplish certain affairs of office, he intended to visit the city of Klaipėda and that on 18 January his father was going to be operated upon), it needs to be held that there are no grounds to assert that V. Vaičiulienė, the secretary-assistant of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, sent the 14 and 19 January 2010 electronic mail messages to V. Gegužinskaitė, the secretary-assistant of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, upon instruction of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius.

13. Consequently, there are no grounds to assess the information in the 14 and 19 January 2010 electronic mail messages written by V. Vaičiulienė, the secretary-assistant of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, regarding the non-attendance of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius in the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, which took place on 15 and 20 January 2010, as a lie of this Member of the Seimas, as the facts invented and not corresponding to reality in order to deliberately cover up his non-attendance in the aforesaid sittings.

14. Having assessed the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, which was submitted to the Constitutional Court together with Seimas resolution No. XI-838 of 25 May 2010, as well as the other documents received in the course of preparation of the case for the Constitutional Court hearing, it needs to be held that neither the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius collected, nor the Seimas, the petitioner, presented any objective data on the grounds of which it would be possible to assert that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, while covering up, with the facts invented and not corresponding to reality, his non-attendance at the 15 and 20 January 2010 sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, intentionally lied to the Seimas. Neither have such data been established at the Constitutional Court hearing.

15. While taking account of this, one is to draw a conclusion that there are no grounds to assert that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius performed the actions specified in the inquiry set forth in Seimas resolution No. XI-838 of 25 May 2010, by which, according to the Seimas, the petitioner, he, while covering up, with the facts invented and not corresponding to reality, his non-attendance at the 15 and 20 January 2010 sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, intentionally lied to the Seimas.

Thus it needs to be held that in the constitutional justice case at issue there are not any objective data on the grounds of which it would be possible to assert that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius performed the actions, the compliance of which with the Constitution needs to be verified.

16. Under Item 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 80 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court shall refuse to examine an inquiry concerning the presentation of a conclusion in the absence of an action or decision whose compliance with the Constitution must be verified; Paragraph 2 of Article 80 of the Law on the Constitutional Court provides that, if in the course of the consideration of the inquiry the matter under consideration ceases to exist, the Constitutional Court shall dismiss the instituted legal proceedings on the grounds thereof; under Paragraph 3 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, in the event that the grounds for refusal to consider a petition have been established after the commencement of the investigation of the case during the hearing of the Constitutional Court, a decision to dismiss the case shall be adopted.

17. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the part of the constitutional justice regarding the inquiry, which was set forth in Seimas resolution No. XI-838 of 25 May 2010 regarding presentation of a conclusion on whether the actions of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, by which he, while covering up, with the facts invented and not corresponding to reality, his non-attendance at the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Health Affairs, intentionally lied to the Seimas, which took place on 15 and 20 January 2010, are in conflict with the Constitution, is to be dismissed.

18. Conforming to Paragraph 3 of Article 69 and Article 80 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has dismissed the part of the case regarding the inquiry, which was set forth in Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania No. XI-838 “On the Institution of Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and Application to the Constitutional Court” of 25 May 2010 regarding presentation of a conclusion on whether the actions of L. Karalius, a Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, by which he, while covering up, with the facts invented and not corresponding to reality, his non-attendance at the sittings of the Committee on Health Affairs of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, which took place on 15 and 20 January 2010, intentionally lied to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, are in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

VIII

On the inquiry, which was set forth in Seimas Resolution No. XI-838 “On the Institution of Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and Application to the Constitutional Court” of 25 May 2010 regarding presentation of a conclusion on whether the actions of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius—leaving behind his certificate of a Member of the Seimas and making no efforts to find it, due to which conditions were created for the use of this certificate of a Member of the Seimas by another person—are in conflict with the Constitution.

1. In the inquiry set forth in its resolution No. XI-838 of 25 May 2010, the Seimas requests that inter alia a conclusion be presented whether the actions of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius—leaving behind his certificate of a Member of the Seimas and making no efforts to find it, due to which conditions were created for the use of this certificate of a Member of the Seimas by another person—are in conflict with the Constitution.

2. It is pointed out in the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius that, before leaving for a personal tour of Asian countries, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius left his certificate of a Member of the Seimas on the premises of the political group “The Lithuania United” and made no efforts to find it, due to which conditions were created for the use of this certificate of a Member of the Seimas by another person. The Member of the Seimas was aware of the requirements established in the Constitution and laws, deliberately did not obey them in a due manner and, although, he did not mean the aforementioned consequences (voting of the Member of the Seimas Aleksandr Sacharuk instead of him in the hall of Seimas plenary sittings), he deliberately allowed these consequences to occur.

3. In the 30 July 2010 written explanations of the advocate S. Žentelis, the representative of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, to the Constitutional Court it is maintained that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius left his certificate of a Member of the Seimas on the premises of the political group “The Lithuania United” unintentionally. In these actions of L. Karalius one may not establish the presence or absence of indirect intentional actions, i.e. a feature of a criminal deed, since the action of leaving a certificate of a Member of the Seimas and making no effort to find the left certificate do not incur criminal liability.

In the 30 July 2010 written explanations of S. Žentelis to the Constitutional Court it is noted that in this case there are not any data proving that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius left his certificate of a Member of the Seimas on the premises of the political group “The Lithuania United” intentionally. While making an assumption that the circumstance that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, while giving an interview to the magazine “Žmonės”, asserted: “On important issues the party votes unanimously. Therefore, before leaving I had entrusted my right of vote to the party”, confirms the deliberateness of leaving the certificate of a Member of the Seimas, the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius did not take into consideration the fact that, at the time when they were being questioned, neither L. Radzevičienė, a journalist of the magazine “Žmonės”, nor D. Lingienė (Žemaitytė), Chief Editor of the magazine “Žmonės”, confirmed that the Member of the Seimas made namely these statements during the interview and that they were printed verbatim in the magazine. The circumstance that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius had been familiarised with the text of the interview and that he had not disputed it does not prove in any manner that he made namely these statements in the interview and that they were printed verbatim in the magazine, and it does not negate the explanations of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius that the statements printed in the magazine “Žmonės” were only an interpretation of the journalist L. Radzevičienė.

It is also pointed out that there are not any legitimate grounds to assert that the consequences of the actions of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius—leaving his certificate of a Member of the Seimas behind—are the actions of the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk—voting in the name of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius at the plenary sittings of the Seimas—since in Item 3.4.2 of the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius it is established that “the collected, examined and assessed evidence, as well as the established factual circumstances, do not allow to draw a conclusion that the Members of the Seimas Linas Karalius and Aleksandr Sacharuk had a prior arrangement as regards voting in order to cover up the non-attendance of the Member of the Seimas Linas Karalius at the sittings of the Seimas and, thus, to unlawfully appropriate the allocations of the State Budget”.

4. At the Constitutional Court hearing, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius explained that he had left his certificate of a Member of the Seimas somewhere among other documents unintentionally, due to his inconsiderateness. As he found out later, it happened on the premises of the political group “The Lithuania United”. He made no effort to find the certificate of a Member of the Seimas because he did not notice that he did not have it, since on that day the autumn session of the Seimas finished and on the next day he did not have to use it. He learned about the fact that he did not have his certificate of a Member of the Seimas only on 20 January, after he had made a telephone call to Lithuania, and only then did he understand that he had left it behind.

The Member of the Seimas L. Karalius also explained that the words written in the magazine “Žmonės”: “Yes. On important issues the party votes unanimously. Therefore, before leaving I had entrusted my right of vote to the party. I am a novice at the Seimas and I did not think I was committing a big crime. Voting of such kind is taking place at the Seimas all the time. In some countries it is a legalised thing. For instance, in Australia a member of parliament is allowed to authorise his colleague in writing to vote for him” does not mean that he left his certificate of a Member of the Seimas behind intentionally so that someone would vote for him, since he left his certificate of a Member of the Seimas unintentionally, inadvertently.

In addition, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius explained that he had not been familiarised with the legal acts how his certificate was to be kept.

5. At the Constitutional Court hearing, S. Žentelis, the representative of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in his 30 July 2010 written explanations to the Constitutional Court.

6. In the case the following was established:

6.1. On 23 August 2007, the Central Electoral Commission adopted Decision No. 292 “On New Type Certificates of Members of the Seimas”, which came into force on 15 September 2007. The Central Electoral Commission, while taking into account inter alia the fact that, as from 10 September 2007, upon beginning of a new session of the Seimas, a new voting system would become operational in the Seimas sittings hall, by Item 1 of its decision decided to concur to the request of the Office of the Seimas to manufacture new type certificates of Members of the Seimas—electronic voting cards, which are used for identifying a Member of the Seimas and for voting.

On 26 March 2010, Z. Vaigauskas, Chairman of the Central Electoral Commission pointed out to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius that “in the certificate of a Member of the Seimas the function of a voting card was created. <…> The certificate of a Member of the Seimas has the equipment (microchip) tuned to the security system of the Seimas sittings hall <…> and the equipment tuned to the security system of the House of the Seimas” (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the 26 March 2010 letter No. 2-141(1.5) of Z. Vaigauskas, CCc, vol. VIII, pp. 66–67). Z. Vaigauskas also confirmed these facts at the Constitutional Court hearing in which he was questioned as a specialist, in addition, he pointed out that it was beyond his knowledge whether there were any legal acts establishing the procedure of keeping the certificate of a Member of the Seimas (the minutes of the Constitutional Court hearing, CCc, vol. XII, p. 123).

6.2. The Member of the Seimas L. Karalius stated to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius that the autumn session finished at Christmas time, and he remembered that moment when he, after the plenary sitting of the Seimas, came into the premises of the then political group “The Lithuania United”, and, being in a good humour, perhaps already somewhat relaxed, gave the holiday greetings to the colleagues and the secretariat. At that time he unintentionally left his certificate of a Member of the Seimas. According to the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, he did not do it deliberately and he had really had no agreement with the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk regarding the voting. The Member of the Seimas L. Karalius maintained that he did not know and was incapable of knowing that the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk was intending to vote for him (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the shorthand records of the questioning of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius of 2 April 2010, CCc, vol. VII, pp. 195, 199, 201).

6.3. On 26 March 2010, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk pointed out to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius that he had found the electronic voting card of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius on the premises of the then political group “The Lithuania United” on the table among the other documents (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the 26 March 2010 letter No. V-2010-1806 of A. Sacharuk, CCc, vol. VI, p. 6). He confirmed these facts at the Constitutional Court hearing as well (the minutes of the Constitutional Court hearing, CCc, vol. XII, pp. 75, 137).

6.4. On 24 March 2010, the Department of Information Technologies and Telecommunications of the Office of the Seimas pointed out to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius that the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk voted from the place of voting ascribed to him for the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the 24 March 2010 letter No. V-2010-1723 of the Department of Information Technologies and Telecommunications of the Office of the Seimas, CCc, vol. X, pp. 59–61):

at the morning and evening plenary sittings of the Seimas of 14 January 2010 regarding: the proposal of a Member of the Seimas for the Draft Law on the Amendment of the Law on Budgetary Establishments (new wording) (No. XIP-1518(2)); the assent, following the consideration, to the Draft Law on the Amendment and Supplement of Articles 32, 36, 51, 54, 60, 61, 66, 67, 70, 72, 76, 85, 96, 99, 100, 105, 112, 114, 118, 120, 121, 142, 143, 146, 154, 155, 165, 183 and Annex 1 of the Code of Execution of Punishments and the Recognition of Article 149 Thereof as no Longer Valid (No. XIP-812(2)); the adoption of the Draft Law on the Amendment of the Law on Plant Seed Growing (new wording) (No. XIP-1180(2)); the proposal of the main committee to refer back to the initiators for improvement the Draft Law on the Amendment of the Law on Veterinary Medicine (new wording) (No. XIP-1570); the assent to the Draft Law on the Amendment of the Law on Excises (new wording) (No. XIP-1570), following the submission of this draft law; the approval of the revised agendas of sittings.

at the morning and evening plenary sittings of the Seimas of 19 January 2010 regarding: the approval of the agenda of the sitting; the adoption of the Seimas Draft Resolution “On the Conclusion of the Parliamentary Investigation, Carried out by the Republic of Lithuania Seimas Committee on National Security and Defence, into the Possible Transporting of Persons Detained by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America and Imprisonment of These Persons on the Territory of the Republic of Lithuania” and the conclusion thereon (No. XIP-1604); the proposal by a Member of the Seimas concerning the Draft Law on the Amendment of the Law on Registration, Confession and Entering into Record of the Persons Who Engaged Themselves in Secret Collaboration with the Former USSR Special Services and Protection of Those Who Confessed It (new wording) (No. XIP-571(2)); the assent to the Draft Law on the Amendment and Supplement of Articles 2 and 39 of the Law on Provision of Information to the Public (No. XIP-1638), following the submission of this draft law.

6.5. In February 2010, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius gave an interview to the magazine “Žmonės”. In this interview the following words of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius were printed: “On important issues the party votes unanimously. Therefore, before leaving I had entrusted my right of vote to the party. I am a novice at the Seimas and did not think I was committing a big crime. Voting of such kind is taking place at the Seimas all the time. In some countries it is a legalised thing” (the magazine “Žmonės”, 2010, No. 6, CCc, vol. II, pp. 164, 165). On 6 April 2010, D. Lingienė (Žemaitytė), Chief Editor of the magazine “Žmonės”, pointed out to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius that the editorial office of the magazine “Žmonės” did not have a possibility to submit an audio recording or other material of the interview with the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, since no audio recording had been made, whereas the work material had not been preserved (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the 6 April 2010 letter of D. Lingienė (Žemaitytė), CCc, vol. X, p. 238).

While answering to the question of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius about the precision of the specified quotation “on most important issues the party votes unanimously” from the interview of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius given to the magazine “Žmonės” in February 2010, L. Radzevičienė, a journalist of this magazine, who had taken the interview, said: “I don’t think that I distorted the truth”; “Actually, now it is very hard to remember these things.” D. Lingienė (Žemaitytė), Chief Editor of this magazine, maintained: “L. Karalius had read this text and the idea is really such as he had said it should be”; “This quotation had absolutely been co-ordinated with L. Karalius. If the court asks us for the evidence, we actually posses it—the co-ordinated text and the evidence that it had really been read by L. Karalius” (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the shorthand records of the questioning of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius of 14 April 2010, CCc, vol. VIII, pp. 47, 51). D. Lingienė (Žemaitytė) noted: “The written and proofread text was sent to L. Karalius by electronic mail. L. Karalius corrected what seemed wrong to him, what seemed to him as misleading information, and sent the text back, saying that this is the text. <…> we have, as we say in our slang, the finally sanctioned text of L. Karalius. Every sentence written in the text had been sanctioned”; the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius had familiarised himself with the text of the prepared interview; he said nothing, he had really read that quotation and if he had noticed something wrong, he would have said so and they would have co-ordinated these words (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the shorthand records of the questioning of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius of 14 April 2010, CCc, vol. VIII, p. 51).

In the Letter “On the Provision of Information” (received at the Constitutional Court on 24 August 2010), D. Lingienė (Žemaitytė) pointed out the following: “The text of the interview had been co-ordinated with Linas Karalius. In the electronic mailbox of the journalist Laisvė Radzevičienė there is the mail message with corrections made by Linas Karalius” and attached a copy of the electronic mailbox of the journalist L. Radzevičienė. In this electronic mail message L. Karalius wrote the following words to L. Radzevičienė: “Practically, I haven’t changed any of the questions, but made corrections to the answers. I hope you will keep it as it is.” Inter alia the following was written in the document “karaliuskambodza.doc” attached to this electronic mail message: “On important issues the party votes unanimously. Therefore, before leaving I had entrusted my right of vote to the party. I am a novice at the Seimas and I did not think I was committing a big crime. Voting of such kind is taking place at the Seimas all the time. In some countries it is a legalised thing” (the Letter “On the Provision of Information” of D. Lingienė (Žemaitytė) (received at the Constitutional Court on 24 August 2010), CCc, vol. II, pp. 144–148, 153).

In this context it needs to be mentioned that, as regards the fact of co-ordination of the interview text, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius noted that whenever some text appears in a magazine, the journalist takes notes and writes it in the manner how he has understood the words in the notes, later, the text is proofread by editors and “in the end there is ‘broken telephone’ anyway”; it is impossible to take and rewrite the entire article and he did not go deep into those details, since he did not expect there would be the impeachment; if he had known it, he would have written this text with his lawyer (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the shorthand records of the questioning of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius of 16 April 2010, CCc, vol. VIII, p. 108). At the Constitutional Court hearing the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius explained that the interview text printed in the magazine “Žmonės”: “On important issues the party votes unanimously. Therefore, before leaving I had entrusted my right of vote to the party. I am a novice at the Seimas and I did not think I was committing a big crime. Voting of such kind is taking place at the Seimas all the time. In some countries it is a legalised thing” is imprecise, since he had been misunderstood (the minutes of the Constitutional Court hearing, CCc, vol. XII, pp. 53, 54).

It also needs to be mentioned that D. Lingienė (Žemaitytė) and L. Radzevičienė, when they were asked about the said quotation at the Constitutional Court hearing, testified that the text precisely rendered the thoughts of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, and that the whole text had been co-ordinated with him; in the course of editing the text was shortened, however, due to this, the thoughts and facts which were told by the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius about how he had spent his time during the trip, and the facts for which the impeachment proceedings have been instituted against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, could not be distorted (the minutes of the Constitutional Court hearing, CCc, vol. XII, pp. 95–98).

7. In this Constitutional Court conclusion it has been held that, at the plenary sittings of the Seimas of 14 and 19 January 2010, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk used the certificate of a Member of the Seimas of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and 8 times deliberately voted instead of the latter; by these actions, the Member of the Seimas A. Sacharuk has grossly violated the Constitution and breached the oath.

8. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it needs to be noted that Item 3.1 of Chapter VIII of the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius established the following: “The collected, examined and assessed evidence, as well as the established factual circumstances, does not confirm the reasonableness of the charge against the Member of the Seimas Linas Karalius, which was indicated in the proposal of a group of Members of the Seimas, regarding the deliberate leaving, by Linas Karalius, of his certificate of the Seimas Member to another Member of the Seimas, who was Aleksandr Sacharuk, thereby creating an opportunity for the latter to use the right of vote of Linas Karalius, and regarding a possible arrangement made in advance between these Members of the Seimas in order to cover up the non-attendance of the Member of the Seimas Linas Karalius at the sittings of the Seimas and, thus, to unlawfully appropriate the allocations of the State Budget.” It also needs to be noted that the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius did not establish that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius left his certificate of a Member of the Seimas to another person so that he could use this certificate of a Member of the Seimas.

Thus, having assessed the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius which was presented to the Constitutional Court together with Seimas resolution No. XI-838 of 25 May 2010, as well as having assessed other documents received in the course of the preparation of the case for the Constitutional Court hearing, one is to hold that neither the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius nor the Seimas, the petitioner, presented any objective data on the grounds of which it would be possible to assert that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius left his certificate behind deliberately and, due to this, there appeared the conditions for use of this certificate of a Member of the Seimas by another person. Neither have such data been established at the Constitutional Court hearing.

Since no such circumstances have been established, there is no opportunity to draw a conclusion whether the actions—leaving the certificate of a Member of the Seimas behind and making no effort to find it, due to which there appeared the conditions for use of this certificate of a Member of the Seimas by another person—by the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the investigation of the compliance of which with the Constitution is requested, were actually performed.

9. Thus it needs to be held that in the constitutional justice case at issue there are not any objective data on the grounds of which it would be possible to assert that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius performed the actions, the compliance of which with the Constitution needs to be verified.

10. It has been mentioned that, under Item 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 80 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court shall refuse to examine an inquiry concerning the presentation of a conclusion in the absence of an action or decision whose compliance with the Constitution must be verified; Paragraph 2 of Article 80 of the Law on the Constitutional Court provides that, if in the course of the consideration of the inquiry the matter under consideration ceases to exist, the Constitutional Court shall dismiss the instituted legal proceedings on the grounds thereof; under Paragraph 3 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, in the event that the grounds for refusal to consider a petition have been established after the commencement of the investigation of the case during the hearing of the Constitutional Court, a decision to dismiss the case shall be adopted.

Conforming to Paragraph 3 of Article 69 and Article 80 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the part of the case on the inquiry, which was set forth in Seimas resolution No. XI-838 of 25 May 2010, regarding presentation of a conclusion on whether the actions of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius—leaving the certificate of a Member of the Seimas behind and making no effort to find it, due to which there appeared the conditions for use of this certificate of a Member of the Seimas by another person—are in conflict with the Constitution, is to be dismissed.

11. Conforming to Paragraph 3 of Article 69 and Article 80 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has dismissed the part of the case regarding the inquiry, which was set forth in Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania No. XI-838 “On the Institution of Impeachment Proceedings Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and Application to the Constitutional Court” of 25 May 2010 regarding presentation of a conclusion on whether the actions—leaving the certificate of a Member of the Seimas behind and making no effort to find it, due to which there appeared the conditions for use of this certificate of a Member of the Seimas by another person—of L. Karalius, a Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, are in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

IX

On the inquiry, which was set forth in Seimas Resolution No. XI-838 “On the Institution of Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and Application to the Constitutional Court” of 25 May 2010 regarding presentation of a conclusion on whether the action of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius—the use, during a personal foreign tour, of the diplomatic passport issued to him—is in conflict with the Constitution.

1. In the inquiry set forth in its resolution No. XI-838 of 25 May 2010, the Seimas requests that inter alia a conclusion be presented whether the action of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius—the use, during a personal foreign tour, of the diplomatic passport issued to him—is in conflict with the Constitution.

2. In the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius it is inter alia pointed out that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius used, during a personal foreign tour, the diplomatic passport issued to him. It is also indicated that this commission did not establish any features of crime in the actions of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, i.e. abuse in the service-related position, during the said tour, when he used the diplomatic passport, nor did it establish any conflict of interests as it is defined in the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Adjustment of Public and Private Interests in the State Service. Neither did this commission establish that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, while using the diplomatic passport during the said tour, had gained any concrete and tangible personal benefit.

In the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius it is indicated that: under the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Diplomatic Service, issuance of a diplomatic passport is related not with holding a certain office or carrying out instructions, but with holding the status of a Member of the Seimas; the office of a Member of the Seimas is continuous, therefore, during his private tour he should have not only the passport of a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania, but also the certificate of a Member of the Seimas and the diplomatic passport. Regardless of this, it is noted in the conclusion that during his private tour a Member of the Seimas must use the passport of a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania. According to this commission, even though it does not grant any privileges, using a diplomatic passport for personal purposes compromises the diplomatic service and state institutions and, alongside, discredits the state authority.

3. In the 26 March 2010 written explanations of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the 26 March 2010 letter of L. Karalius, CCc, vol. VII, pp. 174–179) it is noted that the diplomatic passport was legally issued to him, as a Member of the Seimas, i.e. as a person holding a certain status. In his opinion, a diplomatic passport is not a privilege and it may be used in all travels, not only on official business trips, since Members of the Seimas discharge their functions during their entire term of office.

According to the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, when using the diplomatic passport during his personal tour of Asian states, he did not seek to acquire an exceptional status and due to this no privileges were granted to him.

4. In the 30 July 2010 written explanations of the advocate S. Žentelis, the representative of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, to the Constitutional Court it is maintained that, by using his diplomatic passport during a personal tour, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius did not breach the oath of the Seimas Member and did not commit a gross violation of the Constitution, since, as it is established in the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, by using his diplomatic passport during a personal tour, he violated no legal acts. The actions of the Member of the Seimas, which were lawful and not prohibited by the law, could not give rise to any negative effects, since in such a case these actions should not be recognised as lawful ones. The request to investigate whether by his lawful and nowhere prohibited actions the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius has grossly violated the Constitution is to be assessed critically.

According to S. Žentelis, the Conclusion of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius that, by his actions, i.e. the use of a diplomatic passport during a personal tour, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius has discredited the authority of the state and compromised the diplomatic service and state institutions, is substantiated by assumptions rather than established factual circumstances, which would confirm that the actions of this Member of the Seimas have indeed given rise to negative consequences for the prestige and reputation of this country and state institutions.

5. At the Constitutional Court hearing, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius explained that he used his diplomatic passport during the tour, since he knew that the work of a Member of the Seimas is continuous and he might need the diplomatic passport in case he had to return to Lithuania immediately. When asked about his profession, he used to show his diplomatic passport to foreign migration services as a proof that he was a Member of the Seimas.

The Member of the Seimas L. Karalius explained that he had used his diplomatic passport during the tour of Asian states only at an airport and that at that time he was really not behaving improperly.

6. At the Constitutional Court hearing, the advocate S. Žentelis, the representative of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in his 30 July 2010 written explanations presented to the Constitutional Court.

7. In the case the following was established:

7.1. As mentioned, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius was elected to the Seimas during the 12 October 2008 elections to the Seimas, whereas in the 17 November 2008 sitting of the Seimas he took an oath to be faithful to the Republic of Lithuania.

7.2. On 2 December 2008, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania issued a diplomatic passport of the Republic of Lithuania (passport No. 00001792, valid till 1 December 2013) to the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius. It is established therein that “the owner of this passport is a Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania” (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the diplomatic passport of the Republic of Lithuania No. 00001792 issued to the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, CCc, vol. VII, pp. 180–187).

7.3. As mentioned, from 29 December 2009 till 4 February 2010, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, while following his personal aims, toured the Asian countries, i.e. the Kingdom of Thailand, the Kingdom of Cambodia, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Republic of Singapore. In his diplomatic passport there are visas (inter alia a visa of the Kingdom of Thailand, issued on 21 December 2009, a visa of the Kingdom of Cambodia, issued on 13 January 2009, a visa of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, issued on 18 January 2010), as well as border crossing stamps (30 December 2009—the Kingdom of Thailand, 12 January 2010—the Kingdom of Thailand, 13 January 2010—the Republic of Singapore and the Kingdom of Cambodia, 21 January 2010—the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 2 February 2010—the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Kingdom of Thailand, 4 February 2010—the Kingdom of Thailand).

The Member of the Seimas L. Karalius inter alia explained to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius that during the tour of Asian states he was using the diplomatic passport, although he had taken both passports along with him; when he would cross the border, if he was asked by the migration services about his activity in his own country, he used to say that he was a Member of the Seimas, and, if he produced both passports, they used to take the diplomatic passport and would place the entry visa in it (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the shorthand records of the questioning of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius of 2 April 2010, CCc, vol. VII, p. 204). As mentioned, at the Constitutional Court hearing, the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius also explained the fact that, when asked about his profession, he used to show his diplomatic passport to foreign migration services as a proof that he was a Member of the Seimas (the minutes of the Constitutional Court hearing CCc, vol. XII, pp. 46, 47).

7.4. On 6 April 2010, Audronius Ažubalis, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania, pointed out to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius that the Law on the Diplomatic Service does not establish any rules and possibilities for using a diplomatic passport, whereas the right to hold a diplomatic passport is related not only with discharging service-related duties, but also with the status of persons (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the 6 April 2010 letter No. (22.3.11.1)-3-1938 of A. Ažubalis, CCc, vol. VIII, pp. 88–89). At the Constitutional Court hearing, V. Pinkus, Director of the Consular Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who was questioned as the specialist, also pointed out that neither the Law on the Diplomatic Service nor other legal acts establish any rules and possibilities for using a diplomatic passport, whereas the right to hold a diplomatic passport is related not only with discharging service-related duties, but also with the status of persons (the minutes of the Constitutional Court hearing, CCc, vol. XII, pp. 123–125).

On 6 April 2010, A. Ažubalis informed the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs could not and did not petition in the process of getting the visas of the Kingdom of Cambodia, the Vietnam Socialist Republic, and the Kingdom of Thailand by the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, and noted that, in the absence of the general practice for application of concessions for holders of diplomatic passports in the course of issuance of visas, it is the purpose of the travel, but not holding of a diplomatic passport per se, that has the greatest influence in adopting decisions on exemption from the consular fee and on application of a simplified procedure for issuing visas (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the 6 April 2010 letter No. (22.3.11.1)-3-1939 of A. Ažubalis, CCc, vol. VIII, pp. 90–91).

7.5. Tauras Pajaujis, Assistant Director of the Consular Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who testified to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, pointed out that a diplomatic passport grants no privileges as regards exchange of tickets or as regards travels; if there is no accreditation issued in a concrete state, the holder of a diplomatic passport is granted no privileges during crossing a state border, customs checks or border control; there is no legal regulation whereby it would be prohibited to use a diplomatic passport as an identity document during a private trip; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is under no obligation to exercise control over how diplomatic passports are used, there are no written recommendations on this question; there is no general diplomatic practice as to “what dress code used together with a diplomatic passport is” (the material of the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, the shorthand records of the questioning of the Member of the Seimas A. Karalius of 16 April 2010, CCc, vol. VIII, pp. 95–98).

8. On the grounds of what has been established in the case at issue, it needs to be held that the visas in the diplomatic passport presented by the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius (inter alia a visa of the Kingdom of Thailand, issued on 21 December 2009, a visa of the Kingdom of Cambodia, issued on 13 January 2009, a visa of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, issued on 18 January 2010), as well as border crossing stamps (30 December 2009—the Kingdom of Thailand, 12 January 2010—the Kingdom of Thailand, 13 January 2010—the Republic of Singapore and the Kingdom of Cambodia, 21 January 2010—the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 2 February 2010—the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Kingdom of Thailand, 4 February 2010—the Kingdom of Thailand), the explanations of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius to the Special Investigation Commission for Impeachment Against the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius and to the Constitutional Court confirm the fact that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius, from 29 December 2009 till 4 February 2010, during his private tour, used the diplomatic passport of the Republic of Lithuania (valid till 1 December 2013), which was issued to him, as a Member of the Seimas, by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 2 December 2008.

9. The purpose and issuance of a diplomatic passport, as well as the use, and the procedure of returning thereof is established in the Law on the Diplomatic Service, which was adopted by the Seimas on 29 December 1998. Under Chapter IX “Diplomatic Passport” of this law:

the diplomatic passport of the Republic of Lithuania means an identity document issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs certifying Lithuanian citizenship of its holder and the holder’s status of a diplomat or that the holder is entitled to use the diplomatic passport pursuant to Article 47 of this Law (Article 46);

the Ministry of Foreign Affairs shall issue diplomatic passports inter alia to Members of the Seimas (Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 47);

the persons who have completed performing their duties referred to in Article 47, except for those specified in Paragraph 4 of Article 47 of this law who have the right to retain their diplomatic passports, must return their diplomatic passports to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs within 7 days (Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 50).

10. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue it needs to be held that neither the Law on the Diplomatic Service (wording of 29 December 1998 with subsequent amendments and/or supplements) nor other legal acts contain any legal regulation prohibiting a person, inter alia a Member of the Seimas, who was issued a diplomatic passport, to use this diplomatic passport as an identity document during his private tour.

11. It has been held in this conclusion of the Constitutional Court that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius is a lawfully elected Member of the Seimas, who took an oath to be faithful to the Republic of Lithuania and acquired all rights of the representative of the Nation. From 29 December 2009 till 4 February 2010, during his private tour of Asian states, he used the diplomatic passport of the Republic of Lithuania (valid till 1 December 2013), which was issued to him, as a Member of the Seimas, by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 2 December 2008.

12. It has been mentioned that a Member of the Seimas is not prohibited from using a diplomatic passport as an identity document during a private trip. Thus, the mere fact that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius used the diplomatic passport issued to him as an identity document during his personal tour of Asian states (from 29 December 2009 till 4 February 2010) is not the ground to recognise that the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius has violated the Constitution.

13. While taking account of this, one is to hold that the action of the Member of the Seimas L. Karalius—the use, during a personal foreign tour, of the diplomatic passport issued to him—is not in conflict with the Constitution.

Conforming to Paragraph 3 of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 73 and 83 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has presented the following

conclusion:

1. The actions of Aleksandr Sacharuk, a Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania—the use of the certificate of a Member of the Seimas of L. Karalius, a Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, at the plenary sittings of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania and deliberate voting instead of the latter 8 times—are in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. By these actions, Aleksandr Sacharuk, a Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, has grossly violated the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and breached the oath.

2. The actions of Linas Karalius, a Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania—going on a foreign tour of Asian states and, due to this, failing to attend, without important and justifying reasons, the plenary sittings of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, which took place on 13, 14, 19, 20 and 21 January 2010, and the sittings of the Committee on Health Affairs of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, which took place on 15 and 20 January 2010—are in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. By these actions, Linas Karalius, a Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, has breached the oath and grossly violated the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

3. The action of Linas Karalius, a Member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania—the use, during a personal foreign tour, of the diplomatic passport issued to him—is not in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

This conclusion of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania shall be final and not subject to appeal.

Justices of the Constitutional Court: Armanas Abramavičius
                                                                      Toma Birmontienė
                                                                      Pranas Kuconis
                                                                      Kęstutis Lapinskas
                                                                      Zenonas Namavičius
                                                                      Ramutė Ruškytė
                                                                      Egidijus Šileikis
                                                                      Algirdas Taminskas
                                                                      Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis