Lt

On the procedure for the transfer of buildings or premises for shares

Case No. 43/01

 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

RULING

ON THE COMPLIANCE OF ITEM 3 OF THE PROCEDURE OF THE TRANSFER OF BUILDINGS OR PREMISES BELONGING TO THE STATE OR MUNICIPALITIES BY RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP FOR SHARES (WORDINGS 4 FEBRUARY 1999 AND 14 APRIL 2000) WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE RESOLUTION GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 120) “ON THE PROCEDURE OF THE TRANSFER OF BUILDINGS OR PREMISES BELONGING TO THE STATE OR MUNICIPALITIES BY RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP FOR SHARES” OF 4 FEBRUARY 1999 WITH PARAGRAPH 5 OF ARTICLE 20 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S LAW ON THE POSSESSION, USE AND DISPOSAL OF STATE-OWNED AND MUNICIPAL PROPERTY (WORDING OF 12 MAY 1998)

 

21 August 2002

Vilnius

 

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court: Armanas Abramavičius, Egidijus Jarašiūnas, Egidijus Kūris, Kęstutis Lapinskas, Zenonas Namavičius, Augustinas Normantas, Jonas Prapiestis, Vytautas Sinkevičius, and Stasys Stačiokas

The court reporter—Daiva Pitrėnaitė

Rimantas Stanevičius, a lawyer of the Legal Division of the State Property Fund, acting as the representative of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, the party concerned

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, on 14 August 2002, in its public hearing, considered case No. 43/01 subsequent to the petition of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether the provisions of Item 3 of the Procedure of the Transfer of Buildings or Premises Belonging to the State or Municipalities by Right of Ownership for Shares (wording of 4 February 1999) which was approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 120) “On the Procedure of the Transfer of Buildings or Premises Belonging to the State or Municipalities by Right of Ownership for Shares” of 4 February 1999 stating that the premises may not be transferred for shares if the enterprises pointed out in Item 1 of this procedure are behindhand with the rent payment, are in arrears overdue for the State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania, also whether the provisions of the same item (wording of 14 April 2000) stating that the premises may not be transferred for shares if the enterprises pointed out in Item 1 of this procedure are behindhand with the rent payment, are in arrears overdue for the State Budget (municipal budget) of the Republic of Lithuania, and the State Social Insurance Fund Budget, were in compliance with Paragraph 5 of Article 20 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Possession, Use and Disposal of State-owned and Municipal Property (wording of 12 May 1998).

The Constitutional Court

has established:

I

1. On 12 May 1998, the Seimas enacted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Possession, Use and Disposal of State-owned and Municipal Property (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1998, No. 54-1492; hereinafter also referred to as the Law).

On 4 February 1999, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 120) “On the Procedure of the Transfer of Buildings or Premises Belonging to the State or Municipalities by Right of Ownership for Shares” (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1999, No. 15-391), whereby the Procedure of the Transfer of Buildings or Premises Belonging to the State or Municipalities by Right of Ownership for Shares (hereinafter also referred to as the Procedure) was approved. On 14 April 2000, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 427) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 120) ‘On the Procedure of the Transfer of Buildings or Premises Belonging to the State or Municipalities by Right of Ownership for Shares’ of 4 February 1999” (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2000, No. 32-907).

2. The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, the petitioner, was considering an administrative case. The said court suspended the consideration of the case by its ruling and applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition requesting an investigation into whether the provisions of Item 3 of the Procedure of the Transfer of Buildings or Premises Belonging to the State or Municipalities by Right of Ownership for Shares which was approved by the Government Resolution (No. 120) “On the Procedure of the Transfer of Buildings or Premises Belonging to the State or Municipalities by Right of Ownership for Shares” of 4 February 1999 stating that the premises may not be transferred for shares if the enterprises pointed out in Item 1 of this Procedure are behindhand with the rent payment, are in arrears overdue for the State Budget (municipal budget) of the Republic of Lithuania, and the State Social Insurance Fund Budget, were in compliance with the provisions of Paragraph 5 of Article 20 of the Law on the Possession, Use and Disposal of State-owned and Municipal Property.

II

The petition of the petitioner is based on the following arguments.

Paragraph 5 of Article 20 of the Law establishes the conditions under which the buildings or premises belonging to the state or municipalities by right of ownership the list whereof is approved through a Seimas resolution on the proposal of the Government, upon their evaluation according to the Law on the Privatisation of State-owned and Municipal Property, may, under procedure established by the Government, be transferred for shares to a newly established or functioning joint-stock company or private company. By Item 3 of the Procedure of the Transfer of Buildings or Premises Belonging to the State or Municipalities by Right of Ownership for Shares approved by the Resolution (No. 120) “On the Procedure of the Transfer of Buildings or Premises Belonging to the State or Municipalities by Right of Ownership for Shares” of 4 February 1999, the Government established that the premises may not be transferred for shares if the enterprises pointed out in Item 1 of this Procedure are behindhand with the rent payment, are in arrears overdue for the State Budget (municipal budget) of the Republic of Lithuania, and the State Social Insurance Fund Budget. The petitioner maintains that Paragraph 5 of Article 20 of the Law on the Possession, Use and Disposal of State-owned and Municipal Property does not provide for such conditions. The Law on the Possession, Use and Disposal of State-owned and Municipal Property does not put requirements for an enterprise of private capital not to be behindhand with the rent payment, not to be in arrears overdue for the State Budget (municipal budget) of the Republic of Lithuania, and the State Social Insurance Fund Budget. The Law commissioned the Government to establish a procedure under which state-owned property is transferred to enterprises of private capital, however, it did not granted powers to the Government to establish additional conditions of the transfer of the premises for shares. The petitioner doubts whether the provisions of Item 3 of the aforesaid Procedure are in conformity with the provisions of Paragraph 5 of Article 20 of the Law.

III

In the course of the preparation of the case for the Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations were received from the representative of the Government, the party concerned, who was R. Stanevičius, a lawyer of the Legal Division of the State Property Fund.

The representative of the party concerned noted that the Law regulates the procedure and conditions of possession, use and disposal of state-owned and municipal property as well as the powers of state and self-government institutions in this area as much as this is not regulated by other laws concerning the possession and/or use and/or disposal of such property. Paragraph 5 of Article 20 of the Law provides that the buildings or premises which belong to the state or municipalities by right of ownership the list whereof is approved through a Seimas resolution upon the proposal of the Government, upon their evaluation according to the Law on the Privatisation of State-owned and Municipal Property, may, under procedure established by the Government, be transferred for shares to a newly established or functioning joint-stock company or private company provided such a company, upon receiving, under procedure established by the Government, a permit to do major repairs in the same buildings or premises, invested, under procedure established by law until 26 July 1996, private capital the value of which comprises more than 1/2 of the buildings’ or premises’ value and provided no bankruptcy procedure has been instituted against the said company and no out-of-court bankruptcy procedure has been initiated as regards the same company.

The representative of the party concerned maintains that the legislature specified in the Law that in certain cases the property belonging to the state by right of ownership may be transferred to a private capital company under procedure established by the Government. This provision should be construed together with Paragraph 3 of Article 20 of the Law which provides that the Government shall adopt a decision on long-term and short-term investments concerning substantive property belonging to the state by right of ownership. Article 20 of the Law does not point out in what cases the said transfer is obligatory: it merely establishes minimal requirements, and the Government is commissioned to take the final decision. By means of the impugned resolution, the Government implemented the legal norm on the establishment of the transfer procedure, thus realising the right to adopt the decision and particularising the legal provision “property may be transferred”.

In the opinion of the representative of the party concerned, the state, conforming to the principle of proportionality, must strive for the harmonisation of public and private interests. Therefore, it is just reasonable that before transferring the premises to the private capital company one requires that such an enterprise perform its duties for the state, e.g., cover tax arrears or pay the rent fee for the use of the property belonging to the state by right of ownership.

In the opinion of R. Stanevičius, Item 3 of the Procedure approved by the Government Resolution (No. 120) “On the Procedure of the Transfer of Buildings or Premises Belonging to the State or Municipalities by Right of Ownership for Shares” of 4 February 1999 is in compliance with Paragraph 5 of Article 20 of the Law on the Possession, Use and Disposal of State-owned and Municipal Property.

IV

In the course of the preparation of the case for the Constitutional Court hearing, written explanations were received from R. Valentukevičius, a Seimas ombudsman, A. Zuokas, Mayor of the Vilnius City Municipality, K. Virketis, Director of the Law Department of the Office of the Seimas, Prof. T. Birmontienė, Head of the Constitutional Law Department, the Law Academy of Lithuania.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

I

1. On 12 May 1998, the Seimas enacted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Possession, Use and Disposal of State-owned and Municipal Property Article 20 whereof regulated the relations of long-term and short-term investments concerning state-owned and municipal substantive property.

The Government approved the Procedure of the Transfer of Buildings or Premises Belonging to the State or Municipalities by Right of Ownership for Shares by its Resolution (No. 120) “On the Procedure of the Transfer of Buildings or Premises Belonging to the State or Municipalities by Right of Ownership for Shares” of 4 February 1999.

The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, the petitioner, requests an investigation into whether the provisions of Item 3 of the Procedure of the Transfer of Buildings or Premises Belonging to the State or Municipalities by Right of Ownership for Shares which was approved by the Government Resolution (No. 120) “On the Procedure of the Transfer of Buildings or Premises Belonging to the State or Municipalities by Right of Ownership for Shares” of 4 February 1999 stating that the premises may not be transferred for shares if the enterprises pointed out in Item 1 of this Procedure are behindhand with the rent payment, are in arrears overdue for the State Budget (municipal budget) of the Republic of Lithuania, and the State Social Insurance Fund Budget, were in compliance with the provisions of Paragraph 5 of Article 20 of the Law on the Possession, Use and Disposal of State-owned and Municipal Property.

2. Item 3 of the procedure was amended for several times.

2.1. Item 3 of the Procedure approved by the Government Resolution (No. 120) “On the Procedure of the Transfer of Buildings or Premises Belonging to the State or Municipalities by Right of Ownership for Shares” of 4 February 1999 prescribed that the premises may not be transferred for shares if against the enterprises pointed out in Item 1 of this Procedure bankruptcy cases are instituted or either out-of-court bankruptcy or liquidation procedures are commenced, or provided their own capital is less than 3/4 of the capital pointed out in their articles of association, if they are behindhand with the rent payment, are in arrears overdue for the State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania or are insolvent according to the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy.

By means of the Government Resolution (No. 427) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 120) ‘On the Procedure of the Transfer of Buildings or Premises Belonging to the State or Municipalities by Right of Ownership for Shares’ of 4 February 1999” of 14 April 2000 Item 3 of the Procedure was amended and set forth as follows: “The premises may not be transferred for shares if against the enterprises pointed out in Item 1 of this Procedure bankruptcy cases are instituted, or out-of-court bankruptcy procedures are commenced, or there has been a court decision to announce that a respective enterprise is liquidated due to bankruptcy or the liquidation procedure of the enterprise is commenced, which is regulated by the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy, or provided the capital of the enterprise is less than 3/4 of the capital pointed out in its articles of association, if it is behindhand with the rent payment, is in arrears overdue for the State Budget (municipal budget) of the Republic of Lithuania, and the State Social Insurance Fund Budget.”

By means of the Government Resolution (No. 79) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 120) ‘On the Procedure of the Transfer of Buildings or Premises Belonging to the State or Municipalities by Right of Ownership for Shares’ of 4 February 1999” of 22 January 2000 Item 3 of the Procedure was amended and set forth as follows: “The premises may be transferred for shares to the enterprises pointed out in Item 1 of this Procedure provided bankruptcy cases are not instituted against them, or out-of-court bankruptcy or liquidation procedures are not commenced in their regard.”

2.2. The petitioner doubts whether the provisions of Item 3 of the Procedure that the premises may not be transferred for shares if against the enterprises pointed out in Item 1 of this Procedure are behindhand with the rent payment, are in arrears overdue for the State Budget (municipal budget) of the Republic of Lithuania, or the State Social Insurance Fund Budget are in compliance with Paragraph 5 of Article 20 of the Law. The provisions the compliance of which with Paragraph 5 of Article 20 of the Law are doubted by the petitioner were set forth in the wordings of 4 February 1999 and 14 April 2000.

3. By means of the Law on the Amendment of the Law on the Possession, Use and Disposal of State-owned and Municipal Property enacted by the Seimas on 23 May 2002, the Law on the Possession, Use and Disposal of State-owned and Municipal Property was amended and set forth in its new wording. The provisions of Paragraph 5 of Article 20 of the Law (wording of 12 May 1998) which are pointed out by the petitioner were abolished in the Law on the Possession, Use and Disposal of State-owned and Municipal Property (wording of 23 May 2002).

4. Under the Constitution, only the Constitutional Court shall decide whether the laws and other legal acts adopted by the Seimas are in conformity with the Constitution and whether legal acts adopted by the President of the Republic and the Government of the Republic are in conformity with the Constitution or laws (Paragraph 1 of Article 102). Paragraph 1 of Article 110 of the Constitution provides that judges may not apply laws which conflict with the Constitution. Under Paragraph 2 of the same article, in cases when there are grounds to believe that the law or other legal act applicable in a certain case conflicts with the Constitution, the judge shall suspend the investigation and shall apply to the Constitutional Court to decide whether the law or other legal act in question complies with the Constitution.

These constitutional provisions mean that in cases when a court considering a case, after it questions the compliance of the law applicable in the case with the Constitution or the compliance of another act adopted by the Seimas, the President of the Republic or the Government with the Constitution or the laws, applies to the Constitutional Court, the latter has a duty to consider the petition of the said court regardless of the fact whether the impugned law or another legal act is valid or not.

Under Paragraph 4 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the annulment of an impugned legal act shall be grounds to adopt a decision to dismiss the initiated legal proceedings. The provisions of Paragraph 4 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court may not be construed without taking into consideration the provisions of Article 110 of the Constitution. The formula “shall be grounds to adopt a decision to dismiss the initiated legal proceedings” employed in Paragraph 4 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court should be construed as establishing the right to the Constitutional Court, in cases when not courts but the other entities pointed out in Article 106 of the Constitution applied to the Constitutional Court, while taking account of the circumstances of the case, to dismiss the initiated legal proceedings, but not as establishing that in every case when the impugned legal act was annulled the instituted legal proceedings must be dismissed.

It needs to be noted that after the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, the petitioner, applied with the petition requesting an investigation into whether the impugned provisions of Item 3 of the Procedure (wordings of 4 February 1999 and 14 April 2000) approved by the Government Resolution (No. 120) “On the Procedure of the Transfer of Buildings or Premises Belonging to the State or Municipalities by Right of Ownership for Shares” of 4 February 1999 were in compliance with Paragraph 5 of Article 20 of the Law (wording of 12 May 1998), in case the Constitutional Court had not decided this issue in essence, the doubts of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania would not be removed as regards the compliance of the impugned provisions of the Procedure with the Law.

5. Subsequent to the petition of the petitioner, the Constitutional Court will consider whether the provisions of Item 3 of the Procedure (wording of 4 February 1999) that the premises may not be transferred for shares if the enterprises pointed out in Item 1 of this Procedure are behindhand with the rent payment and are in arrears overdue for the State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania, and whether the provisions Item 3 of the Procedure (wording of 14 April 2000) that the premises may not be transferred for shares if the enterprises pointed out in Item 1 of this Procedure are behindhand with the rent payment and are in arrears overdue for the State Budget (municipal budget) of the Republic of Lithuania, and the State Social Insurance Fund Budget, were in compliance with Paragraph 5 of Article 20 of the Law (wording of 12 May 1998).

II

1. Paragraph 5 of Article 20 of the Law (wording of 12 May 1998) prescribed:

The buildings or premises which belong to the state or municipalities by right of ownership the list whereof is approved through a Seimas resolution upon the proposal of the Government, upon their evaluation according to the Law on the Privatisation of State-owned and Municipal Property, may, under procedure established by the Government, be transferred for shares to a newly established or functioning joint-stock company or private company provided such a company, upon receiving, under procedure established by the Government, a permit to do major repairs in the same buildings or premises, invested, under procedure established by law until 26 July 1996, private capital the value of which comprises more than 1/2 of the buildings’ or premises’ value and provided no bankruptcy procedure has been instituted against the said company and no out-of-court bankruptcy procedure has been initiated as regards the same company and if the buildings or premises meet at least one of the following conditions:

1) not less than 1/2 of the main constructions have been changed;

2) the general area or capacity has been increased by more than 1/3;

3) more than 1/2 of the engineering communications have been changed or new ones have been installed;

4) part of the works pointed out in Items 1, 2 and 3 of Paragraph 5 of this Article have been performed or the technological equipment or manufacturing facilities have been installed, while in the case of its dismantling essential damage might be inflicted to the building or premises.”

Thus, Paragraph 5 of Article 20 of the Law (wording of 12 May 1998) established, inter alia, the conditions that had to be satisfied by a newly established or functioning joint-stock company or private company to which the buildings or premises, which belong to the state or the municipalities by right of ownership, the list whereof is approved through a Seimas resolution upon the proposal of the Government and upon their evaluation according to the Law on the Privatisation of State-Owned and Municipal Property, might be transferred for shares.

2. On 4 February 1999, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 120) “On the Procedure of the Transfer of Buildings or Premises Belonging to the State or Municipalities by Right of Ownership for Shares” whereby the Procedure of the Transfer of Buildings or Premises Belonging to the State or Municipalities by Right of Ownership for Shares was approved. Item 3 of the Procedure (wording of 4 February 1999) prescribed: “The premises may not be transferred for shares if against the enterprises pointed out in Item 1 of this Procedure bankruptcy cases are instituted or either out-of-court bankruptcy or liquidation procedures are commenced, or provided their own capital is less than 3/4 of the capital pointed out in their articles of association, if they are behindhand with the rent payment, are in arrears overdue for the State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania or are insolvent according to the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy.”

It was established in the above item of the Procedure, inter alia, that the premises may not be transferred for shares to the enterprises pointed out in Item 1 of this Procedure (i.e. newly established or functioning joint-stock companies or private companies) if they are behindhand with the rent payment and are in arrears overdue for the State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania.

Upon a partial amendment of the Government Resolution (No. 120) “On the Procedure of the Transfer of Buildings or Premises Belonging to the State or Municipalities by Right of Ownership for Shares” of 4 February 1999 made by the Government Resolution (No. 427) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 120) ‘On the Procedure of the Transfer of Buildings or Premises Belonging to the State or Municipalities by Right of Ownership for Shares’ of 4 February 1999” of 14 April 2000, Item 3 of the Procedure (wording of 14 April 2000) specified: “The premises may not be transferred for shares if against the enterprises pointed out in Item 1 of this Procedure bankruptcy cases are instituted, or out-of-court bankruptcy procedures are commenced, or there has been a court decision to announce that a respective enterprise is liquidated due to bankruptcy or the liquidation procedure is commenced, which is regulated by the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy, or provided the capital of the enterprise is less than 3/4 of the capital pointed out in its articles of association, if it is behindhand with the rent payment, is in arrears overdue for the State Budget (municipal budget) of the Republic of Lithuania, the State Social Insurance Fund Budget.”

Thus, Item 3 of the Procedure (wording of 14 April 2000) established, inter alia, additional conditions when the premises may not be transferred for shares to the enterprises pointed out in Item 1 of the Procedure: they are in arrears overdue for the municipal budget and the State Social Insurance Fund Budget.

3. The Constitutional Court has noted in its rulings more than once that norms of the law are realised by substatutory legal act, however, such a legal act may not replace the law itself or create new legal norms of a general character which would compete with the norms of the law. Otherwise, the supremacy of laws in respect to substatutory acts which is established in the Constitution would be violated.

A government resolution is a substatutory legal act. It may not contain any legal norms competing with those of the law.

4. Comparing the impugned provisions of Item 3 of the Procedure (wordings of 4 February 1999 and 14 April 2000) with the provisions of Paragraph 5 of Article 20 of the Law (wording of 12 May 1998), one can notice that the conditions contained in Item 3 of the Procedure (wording of 4 February 1999) that the premises may not be transferred to the enterprises pointed out in Item 1 of the Procedure for shares if they are behindhand with the rent payment, are in arrears overdue for the State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania, and the conditions contained in Item 3 of the Procedure (wording of 14 April 2000) that the premises may not be transferred to the enterprises pointed out in Item 1 of the Procedure for shares if they are behindhand with the rent payment, are in arrears overdue for the State Budget (municipal budget) of the Republic of Lithuania and the State Social Insurance Fund Budget, had not been established in Paragraph 5 of Article 20 of the Law (wording of 12 May 1998).

Thus, Item 3 of the Procedure (wordings of 4 February 1999 and 14 April 2000) established additional conditions for the enterprises, which had not been provided for in the Law, and under which the premises could not be transferred for shares under procedure established by the Government. It needs to be noted that the Procedure was not permitted to establish any additional conditions or different from those provided for in Paragraph 5 of Article 20 of the Law, which had to be met by the enterprises pointed out in Item 1 of the Procedure to which the premises might be transferred for shares under procedure established by the Government.

5. On the grounds of the arguments set forth, it should be concluded that the provisions of Item 3 of the Procedure (wording of 4 February 1999) that the premises may not be transferred to the enterprises pointed out in Item 1 of the Procedure for shares if they are behindhand with the rent payment, are in arrears overdue for the State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania, and the provisions of Item 3 of the Procedure (wording of 14 April 2000) that the premises may not be transferred to the enterprises pointed out in Item 1 of the Procedure for shares if they are behindhand with the rent payment, are in arrears overdue for the State Budget (municipal budget) of the Republic of Lithuania and the State Social Insurance Fund Budget, were in conflict with in Paragraph 5 of Article 20 of the Law (wording of 12 May 1998).

Conforming to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 1, 53, 54, 55 and 56 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania gives the following

ruling:

To recognise that the provisions of Item 3 of the Procedure of the Transfer of Buildings or Premises Belonging to the State or Municipalities by Right of Ownership for Shares (wording of 4 February 1999) that the premises may not be transferred to the enterprises pointed out in Item 1 of the Procedure for shares if they are behindhand with the rent payment, are in arrears overdue for the State Budget of the Republic of Lithuania and the provisions of the same item (wording of 14 April 2000) that the premises may not be transferred to the enterprises pointed out in Item 1 of the Procedure for shares if they are behindhand with the rent payment, are in arrears overdue for the State Budget (municipal budget) of the Republic of Lithuania and the State Social Insurance Fund Budget, which was approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 120) “On the Procedure of the Transfer of Buildings or Premises Belonging to the State or Municipalities by Right of Ownership for Shares” of 4 February 1999, conflicted with Paragraph 5 of Article 20 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Possession, Use and Disposal of State-owned and Municipal Property (wording of 12 May 1998).

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

The ruling is pronounced in the name of the Republic of Lithuania.

Justices of the Constitutional Court:                                                  Armanas Abramavičius

Egidijus Jarašiūnas

Egidijus Kūris

Kęstutis Lapinskas

Zenonas Namavičius

Augustinas Normantas

Jonas Prapiestis

Vytautas Sinkevičius

Stasys Stačiokas