Lt

On licences

Case No. 52/01

 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

RULING

ON THE COMPLIANCE OF ITEM 4 OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 1236) “ON THE CONFIRMATION OF THE LIST OF TYPES OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACTIVITIES SUBJECT TO LICENSING, AS WELL AS THE TERMS AND RULES OF LICENSING OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACTIVITIES” OF 17 OCTOBER 2000 WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, ITEM 5 (WORDING OF 9 JUNE 1998) OF PARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLE 4, PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 4 (WORDING OF 9 JUNE 1998) OF ARTICLE 9, PARAGRAPH 1 (WORDING OF 9 JUNE 1998) OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S LAW ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS, PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2 (WORDING OF 16 MARCH 2000) OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S LAW ON ENTERPRISES, AND PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2 (WORDING OF 23 MARCH 1999) OF ARTICLE 4 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S LAW ON COMPETITION

 

29 September 2004

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

Ieva Laurinavičienė, Deputy Director of the Law Department of the Ministry of Transport, as well as Mindaugas Žilinskas, Director of the Radio Communications Department of the Communications Regulatory Authority under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, acting as the representatives 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 8 September 2004, in its public hearing, considered case No. 52/01 subsequent to the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether a certain provision of Item 4 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1236) “On the Confirmation of the List of Types of Telecommunications Activities Subject to Licensing, as well as the Terms and Rules of Licensing of Telecommunications Activities” of 17 October 2000 was not in conflict with the principles of a just civil society and a state under the rule of law, which are entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as with Paragraph 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4, Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 9, Paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Telecommunications, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 13 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Enterprises, and Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 4 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Competition.

The Constitutional Court

has established:

I

The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, considered an administrative case. By its ruling, the court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition requesting an investigation into whether a certain provision of Item 4 of the Government Resolution (No. 1236) “On the Confirmation of the List of Types of Telecommunications Activities Subject to Licensing, as well as the Terms and Rules of Licensing of Telecommunications Activities” of 17 October 2000 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2000, No. 88-2718; hereinafter also referred to as the government resolution of 17 October 2000) was not in conflict with the principles of a just civil society and a state under the rule of law, which are entrenched in the Preamble to Constitution, as well as with Paragraph 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution, Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4, Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 9, Paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Law on Telecommunications, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 13 of the Law on Enterprises, and Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 4 of the Law on Competition.

II

The doubt of the petitioner whether the provision of Item 4 of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 was not in conflict with the principles of a just civil society and a state under the rule of law, which are entrenched in the Preamble to Constitution, as well as with Paragraph 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution, Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4, Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 9, Paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Law on Telecommunications, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 13 of the Law on Enterprises, and Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 4 of the Law on Competition is based upon the following arguments.

1. Article 1 of the Law on Telecommunications, which was adopted on 9 June 1998 (and which went into effect on 1 August 1998), defined the areas of telecommunication activities regulated by the said law. They were the regulation of relations between the telecommunications operators and the users of their services, the control over management and use of radio communication, as well as the ensuring of an effective use of radio frequencies and establishment of conditions for promoting competition in the telecommunications sector. The Law on Telecommunications provides as to which activity in the telecommunications sector is subject to licensing and which is not. Article 3 of this law provides that telecommunications are regulated, on behalf of the Republic of Lithuania, by the Government or an institution authorised by it and the Communications Regulatory Authority. Paragraph 30 of Article 2 of the Law on Telecommunications defines telecommunications services as services wholly or partially related to the transmission and switching of signals and the broadcasting of radio and television programmes via telecommunications networks. Under Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4, Paragraph 4 of Article 9 and Paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Law on Telecommunications, the Government or an institution authorised by it issues licences for provision of telecommunications services. Transmission of radio and television programmes is one of telecommunications services, this is an activity subject to licensing, thus, the Government or an institution authorised by it issues this licence only by way of competitive tender.

In the opinion of the petitioner, the following most important provisions of the licensing of enterprises providing telecommunications services are consolidated in the Law on Telecommunications: provision of radio programmes’ transmission services is subject to licensing; the Government or an institution authorised by it may issue the licence for provision of radio programmes’ transmission services; the licence for provision of radio programmes’ transmission services may be issued only by way of competitive tender.

2. It is pointed out in the government resolution of 17 October 2000 that the Government, while adopting it, was following Articles 4, 8, 9 and 10 of the Law on Telecommunications and Article 13 of the Law on Enterprises.

By the said resolution, the Government confirmed the Terms and Rules of Licensing of Telecommunications Activities (Item 1.2) that must be followed by all economic subjects of Lithuania, which wish to develop/provide telecommunications services.

Item 4 of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 commissioned the Ministry of Transport of the Republic of Lithuania on a non-competition basis to issue, within 6 months of the entry of this government resolution into effect, licences for provision of radio and television programmes’ transmission services to the enterprises that had filed applications with the Ministry of Transport and held permits issued under established procedure, to establish and operate radio and television stations, had provided radio and television programmes’ transmission services prior to the entry of this government resolution into effect.

In the opinion of the petitioner, by means of the provision of this item, the Law on Telecommunications was violated, since the Government granted the right to the Ministry of Transport to issue licences, on a non-competition basis, to individual enterprises to provide radio and television programmes’ transmission services upon the absence of any legal grounds. Thereby the Government exceeded the right established to it by the Law on Telecommunications to issue the said licences.

3. The petitioner contends that the economic subjects of Lithuania, after the Law on Telecommunications had gone into effect on 1 August 1998, could not develop telecommunications activities, as there were not any approved terms and rules of telecommunications activities, thus, it was impermissible to issue licences for such activity.

In the opinion of the petitioner, an enterprise that wished to engage in commercial-economic activity subject to licensing had, under Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 13 of the Law on Enterprises, to receive a licence for such an activity, while in case it did not have or did not receive it, the enterprise was not permitted to engage in the commercial-economic activity that was subject to licensing.

The terms and conditions pursuant to which economic subjects of Lithuania were permitted to develop telecommunications services were established only by the government resolution of 17 October 2000.

The petitioner maintains that in the provision of Item 4 of the said resolution the enterprises are distinguished that provided radio and television programmes’ transmission services prior to the publishing of this resolution. However, in the opinion of the petitioner, such an activity was licensed already from 1 August 1998, i.e. upon entry of the Law on Telecommunications into effect, thus, the enterprises that did not have the licence did not have the right to provide radio and television programmes’ transmission services, and if they provided such services without the licence, their activity was in violation of Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 13 of the Law on Enterprises. The government resolution not only made the engaging in telecommunications activities without a licence a deed not subject to prosecution and punishment, but also an exceptional and advantageous position was created for the enterprises that had been engaged in this activity, since they, within 6 months of the entry of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 into effect, could be issued, on a non-competition basis, licences for the activity subject to licensing, which they had been engaged in, although they had no right to do so. The petitioner notes that, according to the provision of Item 4 of the government resolution of 17 October 2000, licences for the aforesaid enterprises are not re-registered but issued anew.

4. According to the petitioner, the enterprises that followed the requirements of Article 13 of the Law on Enterprises and those of Paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Law on Telecommunications and which, having no licences, were not engaged in the telecommunications activity, found themselves at a disadvantage after the entry of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 into effect, if compared to those which, perhaps violating the above-mentioned laws, had been providing radio and television programmes’ transmission services, since the unlawful activity of the enterprises that did not have the licence but all the same were providing these services was admitted by Item 4 of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 and a privileged position was created for them—within 6 months of the entry of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 into effect, they could be issued licences on a non-competition basis for providing radio and television programmes’ transmission services; meanwhile, all other enterprises, if they wished to get such a licence, had to take part in a competitive tender and win it.

The petitioner notes that the provision of Item 4 of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 provided for one more exceptional term: prior to the publishing of the said government resolution, the enterprises that wished to get a licence for providing telecommunications services had to file applications with the Ministry of Transport requesting the issuance of such licences. This term appeared only in the government resolution of 17 October 2000, and it had not been published before. The petitioner believes that thereby an opportunity to make use of Item 4 of the government resolution of 17 October was even more diminished to other enterprises; the said reservation created pre-conditions for unfair competition; the legal regulation created by a legal act of the Government discriminates against individual economic subjects, and differences in competition conditions were created to the economic subjects competing in the market of provision of telecommunications services.

Therefore, according to the petitioner, the provision of Item 4 of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 was not in conformity with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 4 of the Law on Competition, under which institutions of state governance, while carrying out the tasks assigned to them, which are related to regulation of economic activity, must ensure freedom of fair competition, they are prohibited from adopting legal acts or other decisions that grant privileges or discriminate against individual economic subjects, and due to which differences might occur in the conditions of competition in respect to economic subjects competing in a corresponding market.

5. The petitioner notes that government resolutions may not be in conflict with laws, they may not create additional reservations, nor establish any additional terms, nor change the terms that are established in laws. Otherwise, the petitioner maintains, the principles of creation of a just society and a state under the rule of law, which are entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, are violated.

The law shall protect freedom of fair competition (Paragraph 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution). By Item 4 of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 it was admitted that the enterprises which were engaged in the activity subject to licensing without having the licence “were behaving correctly”, and competitive privileges were established to them.

III

In the course of the preparation of the case for the Constitutional Court’s hearing, written explanations were received from the representatives of the Government, the party concerned, who were I. Laurinavičienė and M. Žilinskas, as well as from V. Kvietkus, Head of the Post and Telecommunications Division of the Ministry of Transport of the Republic of Lithuania.

1. The representatives of the party concerned maintain that the government resolution of 17 October 2000, whereby the list of types of telecommunications activities subject to licensing and the Terms and Rules of Licensing of Telecommunications Activities were confirmed, was adopted pursuant to Articles 4, 8, 9, and 10 of the Law on Telecommunications and Article 13 of the Law on Enterprises.

2. The representatives of the party concerned believe that in Paragraph 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution only “the most general” principle of fair competition is consolidated, however, the content of the notion of fair competition is not disclosed; the content of the notion “fair competition” is disclosed by the norms of the Law on Competition. In the opinion of I. Laurinavičienė, M. Žilinskas, and V. Kvietkus, the government resolution of 17 October 2000 was not applied to a certain economic subject, it did not grant any monopolistic and exclusive rights to an individual economic subject, nor did it change the competitive environment in the telecommunications market. Therefore, Item 4 of the aforementioned government resolution was not in conflict with Paragraph 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution.

3. Transmission of radio and television programmes as a separate type of telecommunications activities was distinguished for the first time only in the Law on Telecommunications, which went into effect on 1 August 1998. According to I. Laurinavičienė, M. Žilinskas and V. Kvietkus, until then the enterprises, holding permits to exploit radio stations or licences to establish and operate radio transmitters in order to broadcast producers’ programmes of public information, which had been issued under procedure established by legal acts, had been conducting analogous telecommunications activities, by using the allocated radio frequencies. The Government, while taking account of the fact that the enterprises had been conducting the said activity in a lawful manner, by Item 4 of the resolution of 17 October 2000 commissioned the Ministry of Transport to issue, within 6 months of the entry of this government resolution into effect, on a non-competition basis, licences to provide radio and television programmes’ transmission services only to the enterprises that had filed applications with the Ministry of Transport and which, holding permits to establish and operate radio and television stations, which were issued under established procedure, had been providing radio and television programmes’ transmission services prior to the entry of this government resolution into effect. The representatives of the party concerned paid their attention to the fact that an issue was decided in a similar fashion concerning the enterprises that had been conducting postal and telecommunications activities and which had corresponding permits prior to the entry into effect of the Government Resolution (No. 1400) “On the Confirmation of the Rules for Licensing Postal and Telecommunications Activities”, as well as to the fact that according to Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Implementation of the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public, the permits issued for the activity of the television stations, cable television and radio stations which were registered prior to the beginning of the activity of the Radio and Television Commission are equalled to licences. In the opinion of the representatives of the party concerned, in case the Government had not established the legal regulation that was established in Item 4 of the government resolution of 17 October 2000, the enterprises providing respective telecommunications services would have had to cease their activities and take part in competitive tenders in order to receive radio frequencies which they had been using until then; this way the enterprises would have experienced negative consequences. In the opinion of I. Laurinavičienė, M. Žilinskas and V. Kvietkus, Item 4 of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 was not in conflict with Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4, Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 9 and Paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Law on Telecommunications.

4. Under Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 13 of the Law on Enterprises, enterprises may engage in commercial-economic activity which is subject to licensing only having a licence. The representatives of the party concerned noted that Item 4 of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 did not change the requirement established in laws to have licences for the activity, therefore, it was not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 13 of the Law on Enterprises.

5. According to the representatives of the party concerned, Item 4 of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 did not have any impact on the allocation of new radio frequencies, as radio frequencies had already been distributed, under procedure established in laws, to enterprises to conduct telecommunications activity. Therefore, in the opinion of the representatives of the party concerned, the said item was not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Law on Competition.

6. In the opinion of I. Laurinavičienė, M. Žilinskas and V. Kvietkus, Item 4 of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 had to be applied equally to all economic subjects, therefore, it was not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Law on Competition.

IV

In the course of the preparation of the case for the judicial consideration, explanations were received from R. Stanikūnas, Chairperson of the Competition Council of the Republic of Lithuania, T. Barakauskas, Director of the Radio Communications Department of the Communications Regulatory Authority under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, J. Liniauskas, Chairperson of the Lithuanian Radio and Television Commission, and R. Šimašius, Vice-President of the Lithuanian Free Market Institute.

V

At the Constitutional Court’s hearing, the representatives of the Government, the party concerned, who were I. Laurinavičienė and M. Žilinskas, virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in their written explanations.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

I

1. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requests an investigation into the compliance of a provision of Item 4 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1236) “On the Confirmation of the List of Types of Telecommunications Activities Subject to Licensing, as well as the Terms and Rules of Licensing of Telecommunications Activities” of 17 October 2000 with the principles of a just civil society and a state under the rule of law, which are entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, as well as with Paragraph 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution, Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4, Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 9, Paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Law on Telecommunications, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 13 of the Law on Enterprises, and Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 4 of the Law on Competition.

2. On 17 October 2000, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 1236) “On the Confirmation of the List of Types of Telecommunications Activities Subject to Licensing, as well as the Terms and Rules of Licensing of Telecommunications Activities”. This government resolution went into effect on 21 October 2000.

2.1. Item 4 of the Government Resolution (No. 1236) “On the Confirmation of the List of Types of Telecommunications Activities Subject to Licensing, as well as the Terms and Rules of Licensing of Telecommunications Activities” of 17 October 2000 used to provide: “To commission the Ministry of Transport, within 6 months of the entry of this Resolution into effect, on a non-competition basis to issue licences for provision of radio and television programmes’ transmission services to the enterprises that have filed applications with the Ministry of Transport and held permits issued under established procedure, to establish and operate radio and television stations, have been providing radio and television programmes’ transmission services before the entry of this Resolution into effect.”

The same resolution also indicated that the Government adopted it pursuant to Articles 4, 8, 9, and 10 of the Law on Telecommunications and Article 13 of the Law on Enterprises.

2.2. On 20 December 2002, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 2047) “On Recognising Some of Resolutions of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania as No Longer Valid”, by Item 5 whereof it recognised that the Government Resolution (No. 1236) “On the Confirmation of the List of Types of Telecommunications Activities Subject to Licensing, as well as the Terms and Rules of Licensing of Telecommunications Activities” of 17 October 2000 shall be no longer valid as of 1 January 2003.

Thus, the impugned government resolution of 17 October 2000 was valid from 21 October 2000 till 31 December 2002.

2.3. Under Paragraph 4 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the annulment of the impugned legal act shall be grounds to adopt a decision to dismiss the initiated legal proceedings. In its rulings the Constitutional Court has held many a time that the formula “shall be grounds <…> to dismiss the initiated legal proceedings” of 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 subjects 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 stipulating that in every case when the impugned legal act was annulled the instituted legal proceedings must be dismissed; under the Constitution, in the cases when a court considering a case applies to the Constitutional Court after it has had doubts concerning the compliance of a law applicable in the case with the Constitution, also concerning the compliance of an act adopted by the Seimas, or an act of the President of the Republic or the Government with the Constitution or laws, the Constitutional Court has a duty to consider the petition of the court regardless of whether the impugned law or other legal is valid or not.

3. The petitioner requests an investigation into the compliance of the provision of Item 4 of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 with the principles of a just civil society and state under the rule of law, which are entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, as well as with Paragraph 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution.

3.1. Paragraph 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution provides: “The law shall prohibit monopolisation of production and the market and shall protect freedom of fair competition.”

Although the petitioner requests an investigation into the compliance of the provision of Item 4 of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 with Paragraph 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution, it is clear from the petition of the petitioner that he doubts concerning the compliance of Item 4 of the aforesaid resolution with not entire Paragraph 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution, but only with its provision that the law shall protect freedom of fair competition.

3.2. The Preamble to the Constitution proclaims the striving for an open, just and harmonious civil society and state under the rule of law. In the Constitution the principle of a state under the rule of law is entrenched.

In its ruling of 11 July 2002, the Constitutional Court held that the values and strivings enshrined in the Constitution are expressed in the constitutional norms and principles. In its rulings, while construing the content of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the Constitutional Court held more than once that the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law is manifested in various provisions of the Constitution, that this constitutional principle should be construed inseparably from the striving for an open, just and harmonious civil society and state under the rule of law proclaimed in the Preamble to the Constitution. Thus, the principle of a state under the rule of law expresses various aspects of the striving for an open, just and harmonious civil society and state under the rule of law proclaimed in the Preamble to the Constitution.

4. The petitioner requests an investigation into the compliance of the provision of Item 4 of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 with Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4, Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 9 and Paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Law on Telecommunications.

4.1. On 9 June 1998, the Seimas adopted the Law on Telecommunications. This law went into effect on 1 August 1998.

4.2. Article 4 of the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 9 June 1998) used to provide:

1. The Government or an institution authorised by it shall perform the following functions: <…>

5) in cases set out by this Law, issue licences to provide telecommunications services, with the exception of services provided under the licences issued to broadcasters by the Radio and Television Commission <…>.”

Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 9 June 1998) used to provide: “Only such telecommunications activities for which limited resources—radio frequencies and telephone numbers—are available shall be licensable.”

Paragraph 4 of Article 9 of the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 9 June 1998) used to provide: “A licence to engage in telecommunications activity shall be awarded by competitive tender in a manner prescribed by the Government. In certain cases, the terms of the tender may stipulate that licences may contain a requirement providing that under certain conditions any other telecommunications operator is allowed to jointly use conduits, cable ducts, collectors, towers, poles and other facilities.”

Paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 9 June 1998) used to provide: “A licence for provision of transmission services shall be issued by the Government or an institution authorised by it.”

4.3. Until the adoption of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 and its entry into effect, the legal regulation established in the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 9 June 1998) underwent amendments, however, the articles (paragraphs and items thereof) indicated by the petitioner were not amended or supplemented. At the time of the adoption of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 and its entry into effect these the articles (paragraphs and items thereof) were set forth in the wording of 9 June 1998.

4.4. On 5 July 2002, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Amendment of the Law on Telecommunications, by Article 1 whereof it amended the Law on Telecommunications and set it forth in its new wording. It was established in Article 2 of the Law on the Amendment of the Law on Telecommunications that this law, except Articles 3 and 4, shall come into force as of 1 January 2003.

Thus, the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 5 July 2002) in its new wording went into effect as of 1 January 2003, while the last day of the validity of the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 9 June 1998 with subsequent amendments) was 31 December 2002.

4.5. As mentioned before, the government resolution of 17 October 2000 was valid from 21 October 2000 till 31 December 2002. At that time Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 4, Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 9, Paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 9 June 1998 with subsequent amendments) were set forth in the wording of 9 June 1998.

5. The petitioner requests an investigation into the compliance of the provision of Item 4 of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 13 of the Law on Enterprises.

5.1. On 8 May 1990, the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania adopted the Law on Enterprises. Until the adoption of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 and its entry into effect, the Law on Enterprises (wording of 8 May 1990) had been amended and supplemented more than once. At the time of the adoption of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 and its entry into effect, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 13 of the Law on Enterprises were set forth in their wording of 16 March 2000:

An enterprise may engage in commercial-economic activity subject to licensing only if it has a licence.

A licence is a document granting the right to the enterprise to engage in commercial-economic activity specified in the licence.”

5.2. As mentioned before, the government resolution of 17 October 2000 was valid from 21 October 2000 till 31 December 2002. At that time the legal regulation established in the Law on Enterprises (wording of 8 May 1990 with subsequent amendments and supplements) underwent amendments, however, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 13 (wording of 16 March 2000) of the same law were not amended or supplemented, and they were set forth in their wording of 16 March 2000.

6. The petitioner requests an investigation into the compliance of the provision of Item 4 of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 4 of the Law on Competition.

6.1. On 15 September 1992, the Supreme Council adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Competition. Later provisions of this law underwent amendments.

6.2. On 23 March 1999, the Seimas adopted a new Law on Competition. On the same day, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Entry into Effect of the Law on Competition. The new Law on Competition and the Law on the Entry into Effect of the Law on Competition went into effect on 2 April 1999. It was established in Article 1 of the Law on the Entry into Effect of Law on Competition that upon entry into effect of the 23 March 1999 Law on Competition, the 15 September 1992 Law on Competition (with subsequent amendments) shall become no longer valid, save Article 4 thereof, which becomes no longer valid as of 1 January 2000, and Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 7 thereof, which becomes no longer valid as from the entry into effect of the Republic of Lithuania’s law regulating the use of misleading advertisement.

6.3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 (wording of 23 March 1999) of Article 4 of the Law on Competition provide:

1. When carrying out the assigned tasks related to the regulation of economic activity within the Republic of Lithuania, institutions of state governance and of self-government shall ensure freedom of fair competition.

2. State governance and municipal institutions shall be prohibited from adopting legal acts or other decisions which grant privileges to or discriminate against any individual economic subjects or their groups and which bring about or may bring about differences in the conditions of competition for competitors in the relevant market, except where the difference in the conditions of competition cannot be avoided when the requirements of the laws of the Republic of Lithuania are complied with.”

6.4. Until the adoption of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 and its entry into effect, the legal regulation established in the Law on Competition (wording of 23 March 1999) underwent amendments, however, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 4 of the said law were not amended or supplemented. At the time of the adoption of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 and its entry into effect they were (and are now) set forth in their wording of 23 March 1999.

6.5. As mentioned before, the government resolution of 17 October 2000 was valid from 21 October 2000 till 31 December 2002. At that time Article 4 of the Law on Competition (wording of 23 March 1999 with subsequent amendments) was set forth in the wording of 23 March 1999).

7. Subsequent to the petition of the petitioner, the Constitutional Court will investigate the compliance of Item 4 of the Government Resolution (No. 1236) “On the Confirmation of the List of Types of Telecommunications Activities Subject to Licensing, as well as the Terms and Rules of Licensing of Telecommunications Activities” of 17 October 2000 with the provision of Paragraph 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution that the law shall protect freedom of fair competition, with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, Item 5 (wording of 9 June 1998) of Paragraph 1 of Article 4, Paragraphs 2 and 4 (wording of 9 June 1998) of Article 9, Paragraph 1 (wording of 9 June 1998) of Article 10 of the Law on Telecommunications, Paragraphs 1 and 2 (wording of 16 March 2000) of Article 13 of the Law on Enterprises, and Paragraphs 1 and 2 (wording of 23 March 1999) of Article 4 of the Law on Competition.

II

1. In Lithuania, telecommunications law virtually started to be developed upon the restoration of the independent State of Lithuania and the beginning of the creation of the national legal system. During all this time the development of telecommunications relations was very speedy, they underwent qualitative changes, the telecommunications business and legal acts formulated new notions, which had not been used before, therefore, telecommunications law, a new branch of law, was very dynamic, too.

The legal regulation of the relations connected with issuance of permits (licences) to enterprises in order to establish and operate radio and television stations was changed many a time as well.

2. In the context of the case at issue it needs to be noted that the legal acts that were valid prior to the adoption of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 used to provide that an enterprise that wished to provide radio and televisions programmes’ transmission services had to receive a corresponding permit or licence. It needs to be emphasised that in the legal acts the notions “permit” and “licence” often used to be employed as synonyms, or as replacing each other, since the notion “permit”, in the broad sense, includes the notion “licence” as well, while the notion “licence” also means a permit (as a rule, a permit to engage in a certain economic activity, where this activity is bound by certain conditions and is supervised by state or municipal institutions; in case these conditions are not followed, the permit to engage in a respective economic activity may be cancelled upon the grounds and under procedure established by legal acts).

3. In the context of the case at issue it also needs to be noted that the permits provided for in legal acts to enterprises to establish and operate radio and television stations for some time also meant the right of enterprises, holders of these permits, to transmit (retransmit) radiocasts and telecasts, and their right to provide transmission services.

4. Paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 9 June 1998) used to provide that a licence for provision of transmission services shall be issued by the Government or an institution authorised by it. However, the broadcaster using the transmission services provided by a third party had to have a licence issued by the Radio and Television Commission, while its conditions and terms had to be co-ordinated with the telecommunications operator providing transmission services (Paragraph 2 of Article 10), while the broadcaster who had been awarded a licence by the Radio and Television Commission, granting him the right to establish and operate his own telecommunications networks, had to obtain permits from the Communications Regulatory Authority to establish and operate telecommunications networks (the terms and conditions of these permits had to comply with the basic conditions for the activities of telecommunications networks submitted by the Communications Regulatory Authority for the competitive tenders organised by the Radio and Television Commission) (Paragraph 3 of Article 10).

The Law on Telecommunications (wording of 9 June 1998) did not contain any norms stipulating that the permits previously issued to enterprises to establish and operate radio and television stations under laws and other legal acts, which, at the time of issuance of these permits, also meant the right of these enterprises to provide transmission services, the duration of validity of which, upon the entry of the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 9 June 1998), had not expired, were to be abolished or replaced. Thus, the legal regulation established in the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 9 June 1998) meant that at the time of the entry of this law into effect the permits previously issued to enterprises to establish and operate radio and television stations under laws and other legal acts, which, at the time of issuance of these permits, also meant the right of these enterprises to provide transmission services, remained valid and were valid until the time of their validity expired.

In the context of the case at issue it also needs to be noted that that the provisions of the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 9 June 1998) concerning issuance of licences to provide transmission services were prospective. The provisions of the said law regulated the way (the grounds and procedure) of issuance new licences to provide transmission services to the enterprises which, upon the entry into effect of the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 9 June 1998), wished to provide these transmission services and which, until the entry into effect of the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 9 June 1998), did not have permits to establish and operate radio and television stations, which, at the time of issuance of these permits, also meant the right of holders of these permits to provide transmission services. Thus, the provisions of the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 9 June 1998) concerning the grounds and procedure of issuance of licences to provide transmission services were not designed to the enterprises which, at the time of the entry of the said law into effect, had valid permits issued under established procedure to establish and operate radio and television stations, which, at the time of issuance of these permits, also meant the right to provide transmission services.

Thus, by the legal regulation established in the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 9 June 1998) the rights acquired by enterprises to provide transmission services during the time specified in the permits were not denied, i.e. these rights persisted.

5. It has been mentioned that under Paragraph 1 (wording of 9 June 1998) of Article 10 of the Law on Telecommunications a licence for provision of transmission services is issued by the Government or an institution authorised by it. Under Article 4 (wording of 9 June 1998) of the Law on Telecommunications, the Government or an institution authorised by it, “in cases set out by this Law, [shall] issue licences for establishing and operating telecommunications networks, with the exception of the networks established and operated under the licences issued to broadcasters by the Radio and Television Commission” (Item 4), also “in cases set out by this Law, [shall] issue licences to provide telecommunications services, with the exception of services provided under the licences issued to broadcasters by the Radio and Television Commission” (Item 5). According to the Terms and Rules of Licensing of Telecommunications Activities as confirmed by the Government Resolution (No. 1236) “On the Confirmation of the List of Types of Telecommunications Activities Subject to Licensing, as well as the Terms and Rules of Licensing of Telecommunications Activities” of 17 October 2000, the aforementioned institution authorised by the Government is the Ministry of Transport.

6. Item 4 of the Government Resolution (No. 1236) “On the Confirmation of the List of Types of Telecommunications Activities Subject to Licensing, as well as the Terms and Rules of Licensing of Telecommunications Activities” of 17 October 2000 commissioned the Ministry of Transport of the Republic of Lithuania on a non-competition basis to issue, within 6 months of the entry of this government resolution into effect, licences for provision of radio and television programmes’ transmission services to the enterprises that had filed applications with the Ministry of Transport and held permits issued under established procedure, to establish and operate radio and television stations, and had provided radio and television programmes’ transmission services prior to the entry of the said resolution into effect.

Thus, the following provisions were consolidated in Item 4 of the government resolution of 17 October 2000:

1) the enterprises that under this item were being issued, on a non-competition basis, licences for provision of radio and television programmes’ transmission services had to be holding permits to establish and operate radio and television stations. It needs to be noted that licences for provision of radio and television programmes’ transmission services could be issued on a non-competition basis only to the enterprises which had permits to establish and operate radio and television stations, which had previously been issued under laws and other legal acts and which at the time of the adoption of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 were still valid, and which, at the time of their issuance meant the right of enterprises, holders of these permits, to provide transmission services;

2) the enterprises that were issued, under this item and on a non-competition basis, licences for provision of radio and television programmes’ transmission services, had to provide radio and television programmes’ transmission services prior to the entry of this resolution into effect. It needs to be noted that the formula “provided radio and television programmes’ transmission services prior to the entry of this resolution into effect” does not mean that the enterprise could provide the said services at some point in the past, but that the said services had been provided right until the entry into effect of the government resolution of 17 October 2000. This formula also means that the said services could be provided only if one held permits to establish and operate radio and television stations, which had previously been issued under laws and other legal acts and which, at the time of the adoption of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 were still valid, and which, at the time of their issuance meant the right of enterprises, holders of these permits, to provide transmission services;

3) the enterprises to which under this item and on a non-competition basis licences are issued for provision of radio and television programmes’ transmission services, and which, until the entry into effect of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 held permits issued under established procedure to establish and operate radio and television stations and which had been providing radio and television programmes’ transmission services filed applications with the Ministry of Transport to issue licences, on a non-competition basis, for provision of radio and television programmes’ transmission services after the said government resolution had gone into effect;

4) the Ministry of Transport of the Republic of Lithuania on a non-competition basis had to issue, within 6 months of the entry of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 into effect, licences for provision of radio and television programmes’ transmission services to the enterprises that met all the indicated conditions. It needs to be noted that a duty but not the right to issue the said licences was established for the Ministry of Transport. It also needs to be noted that in case the Ministry of Transport did not carry out this duty and, within 6 months of the entry of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 into effect, did not issue licences for provision of radio and television programmes’ transmission services to an enterprise, which meets all the indicated conditions, the right of such an enterprise to provide radio and television programmes’ transmission services subsequent to the permit to establish and operate a radio or television station, which was received under established procedure, would not disappear—this enterprise would further enjoy the right to provide transmission services during the time specified in the previously received permit.

7. Thus, Item 4 of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 established not the grounds and procedure for issuance of licences to provide transmission services to enterprises, but a duty of the Ministry of Transport to the enterprises which held permits issued under established procedure prior to the entry into effect of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 to establish and operate radio and television stations and which had been providing radio and television programmes’ transmission services, and which prior to the entry into effect of the aforesaid government resolution filed respective applications requesting the issuance of licences for providing radio and television programmes’ transmission services.

It needs to be noted that, under the legal regulation established in Item 4 of the government resolution of 17 October 2000, all enterprises which held permits issued under laws and other legal acts, which were still valid at the time of the entry into effect of the government resolution of 17 October 2000, to establish and operate radio and television stations, which had been providing radio and television programmes’ transmission services, and which, prior to the entry into effect of this resolution had already filed applications with the Ministry of Transport to issue, on a non-competition basis, licences to provide radio and television programmes’ transmission services, were treated equally.

III

On the compliance of Item 4 of the Government Resolution (No. 1236) “On the Confirmation of the List of Types of Telecommunications Activities Subject to Licensing, as well as the Terms and Rules of Licensing of Telecommunications Activities” of 17 October 2000 with Paragraphs 1 and 2 (wording of 16 March 2000) of Article 13 of the Law on Enterprises.

1. It was established in Paragraphs 1 and 2 (wording of 16 March 2000) of Article 13 of the Law on Enterprises:

An enterprise may engage in commercial-economic activity subject to licensing only if it has a licence.

A licence is a document granting the right to the enterprise to engage in commercial-economic activity specified in the licence.”

2. As mentioned before, the legal acts that were valid prior to the adoption of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 used to provide that an enterprise that wished to provide radio and televisions programmes’ transmission services had to receive a corresponding permit or licence, and that the notions “permit” and “licence” often used to be employed as synonyms, or as replacing each other, and that the notion “permit”, in the broad sense, includes the notion “licence” as well, while the notion “licence” also means a permit.

It was also mentioned that Item 4 of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 established not the grounds and procedure for issuance of licences to provide transmission services to enterprises, but a duty of the Ministry of Transport to the enterprises which held permits issued under established procedure prior to the entry into effect of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 to establish and operate radio and television stations and which had been providing radio and television programmes’ transmission services, and which prior to the entry into effect of the aforesaid government resolution filed respective applications requesting the issuance of licences for providing radio and television programmes’ transmission services.

3. By the legal regulation established in Item 4 of the government resolution of 17 October 2000, no conditions were created for any such legal situation where certain enterprises could be engaged in an economic activity subject to licensing, provision of transmission services, without having a licence issued under procedure established by legal acts. By the said legal regulation the concept of a licence established by law was not denied, either.

4. Taking account of the arguments set forth, it should be concluded that Item 4 of the Government Resolution (No. 1236) “On the Confirmation of the List of Types of Telecommunications Activities Subject to Licensing, as well as the Terms and Rules of Licensing of Telecommunications Activities” of 17 October 2000 was not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 (wording of 16 March 2000) of Article 13 of the Law on Enterprises.

IV

On the compliance of Item 4 of the Government Resolution (No. 1236) “On the Confirmation of the List of Types of Telecommunications Activities Subject to Licensing, as well as the Terms and Rules of Licensing of Telecommunications Activities” of 17 October 2000 with Item 5 (wording of 9 June 1998) of Paragraph 1 of Article 4, Paragraphs 2 and 4 (wording of 9 June 1998) of Article 9, Paragraph 1 (wording of 9 June 1998) of Article 10 of the Law on Telecommunications.

1. Article 4 of the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 9 June 1998), inter alia, used to provide:

1. The Government or an institution authorised by it shall perform the following functions: <…>

5) in cases set out by this Law, issue licences to provide telecommunications services, with the exception of services provided under the licences issued to broadcasters by the Radio and Television Commission <…>.”

Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 9 June 1998) used to provide: “Only such telecommunications activities for which limited resources—radio frequencies and telephone numbers—are available shall be licensable.”

Paragraph 4 of Article 9 of the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 9 June 1998) used to provide: “A licence to engage in telecommunications activity shall be awarded by competitive tender in a manner prescribed by the Government. In certain cases, the terms of the tender may stipulate that licences may contain a requirement providing that under certain conditions, any other telecommunications operator is allowed to jointly use conduits, cable ducts, collectors, towers, poles and other facilities.”

Paragraph 1 (wording of 9 June 1998) of Article 10 of the Law on Telecommunications used to provide: “A licence for provision of transmission services shall be issued by the Government or an institution authorised by it.”

2. As mentioned before, the provisions of the Law on Telecommunications (wording of 9 June 1998) concerning the grounds and procedure of issuance licences to provide transmission services were not designed to the enterprises which, at the time of the entry of the said law into effect, had valid permits issued under established procedure to establish and operate radio and television stations, which, at the time of issuance of these permits, meant the right to provide transmission services.

It was also mentioned that Item 4 of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 established not the grounds and procedure for issuance of licences to provide transmission services to enterprises, but a duty of the Ministry of Transport to the enterprises which held permits issued under established procedure prior to the entry into effect of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 to establish and operate radio and television stations and which had been providing radio and television programmes’ transmission services, and which prior to the entry into effect of the aforesaid government resolution filed respective applications requesting the issuance of licences for providing radio and television programmes’ transmission services.

Thus, Item 4 of the impugned government resolution was designated only for the enterprises which held permits issued under laws and other legal acts and still valid at the time of the entry into effect of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 to establish and operate radio and television stations, which were providing radio and television programmes’ transmission services, and which, prior to the entry into effect of this resolution had already filed applications with the Ministry of Transport to issue, on a non-competition basis, licences to provide radio and television programmes’ transmission services.

Thus, Item 4 of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 did not contain any provisions competing with the provisions of Item 5 (wording of 9 June 1998) of Paragraph 1 of Article 4, Paragraphs 2 and 4 (wording of 9 June 1998) of Article 9, Paragraph 1 of Article 10 (wording of 9 June 1998) of the Law on Telecommunications.

3. Taking account of the arguments set forth, it should be concluded that Item 4 of the Government Resolution (No. 1236) “On the Confirmation of the List of Types of Telecommunications Activities Subject to Licensing, as well as the Terms and Rules of Licensing of Telecommunications Activities” of 17 October 2000 was not in conflict with Item 5 (wording of 9 June 1998) of Paragraph 1 of Article 4, Paragraphs 2 and 4 (wording of 9 June 1998) of Article 9, and Paragraph 1 (wording of 9 June 1998) of Article 10 of the Law on Telecommunications.

V

On the compliance of Item 4 of the Government Resolution (No. 1236) “On the Confirmation of the List of Types of Telecommunications Activities Subject to Licensing, as well as the Terms and Rules of Licensing of Telecommunications Activities” of 17 October 2000 with Paragraphs 1 and 2 (wording of 23 March 1999) of Article 4 of the Law on Competition.

1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 (wording of 23 March 1999) of Article 4 of the Law on Competition provide:

1. When carrying out the assigned tasks related to the regulation of economic activity within the Republic of Lithuania, institutions of state governance and of self-government shall ensure freedom of fair competition.

2. State governance and municipal institutions shall be prohibited from adopting legal acts or other decisions which grant privileges to or discriminate against any individual economic subjects or their groups and which bring about or may bring about differences in the conditions of competition for competitors in the relevant market, except where the difference in the conditions of competition cannot be avoided when the requirements of the laws of the Republic of Lithuania are complied with.”

3. It has been mentioned in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that Item 4 of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 established not the grounds and procedure for issuance of licences to provide transmission services to enterprises, but a duty of the Ministry of Transport to the enterprises which held permits issued under established procedure prior to the entry into effect of the government resolution of 17 October 2000 to establish and operate radio and television stations and which had been providing radio and television programmes’ transmission services, and which prior to the entry into effect of the aforesaid government resolution filed respective applications requesting the issuance of licences for providing radio and television programmes’ transmission services.

It has also been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that, under the legal regulation established in Item 4 of the government resolution of 17 October 2000, all enterprises which held permits issued under laws and other legal acts, which were still valid at the time of the entry into effect of the government resolution of 17 October 2000, to establish and operate radio and television stations, which had been providing radio and television programmes’ transmission services, and which, prior to the entry into effect of this resolution had already filed applications with the Ministry of Transport to issue, on a non-competition basis, licences to provide radio and television programmes’ transmission services, were treated equally.

Thus, by the legal regulation established in Item 4 of the said government resolution no privileges were established to enterprises or their groups due to which different competition conditions occurred or might have occurred.

4. Taking account of the arguments set forth, it should be concluded that Item 4 of the Government Resolution (No. 1236) “On the Confirmation of the List of Types of Telecommunications Activities Subject to Licensing, as well as the Terms and Rules of Licensing of Telecommunications Activities” of 17 October 2000 was not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 (wording of 23 March 1999) of Article 4 of the Law on Competition.

VI

On the compliance of Item 4 of the Government Resolution (No. 1236) “On the Confirmation of the List of Types of Telecommunications Activities Subject to Licensing, as well as the Terms and Rules of Licensing of Telecommunications Activities” of 17 October 2000 with Paragraph 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

1. As mentioned before, the petitioner doubts as to the compliance of Item 4 of the Government Resolution (No. 1236) “On the Confirmation of the List of Types of Telecommunications Activities Subject to Licensing, as well as the Terms and Rules of Licensing of Telecommunications Activities” of 17 October 2000 with the provision of Paragraph 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution that the law shall protect freedom of fair competition and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

2. It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that by the legal regulation established in Item 4 of the Government Resolution (No. 1236) “On the Confirmation of the List of Types of Telecommunications Activities Subject to Licensing, as well as the Terms and Rules of Licensing of Telecommunications Activities” of 17 October 2000 no privileges were established to enterprises or their groups due to which different competition conditions occurred or might have occurred, and that Item 4 of the said government resolution was not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 (wording of 23 March 1999) of Article 4 of the Law on Competition.

3. Having held this, one is alongside to hold that Item 4 of the Government Resolution (No. 1236) “On the Confirmation of the List of Types of Telecommunications Activities Subject to Licensing, as well as the Terms and Rules of Licensing of Telecommunications Activities” of 17 October 2000 was not in conflict with the provision of Paragraph 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution that the law shall protect freedom of fair competition and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

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 Item 4 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1236) “On the Confirmation of the List of Types of Telecommunications Activities Subject to Licensing, as well as the Terms and Rules of Licensing of Telecommunications Activities” of 17 October 2000 was not in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, Item 5 (wording of 9 June 1998) of Paragraph 1 of Article 4, Paragraphs 2 and 4 (wording of 9 June 1998) of Article 9, Paragraph 1 of Article 10 (wording of 9 June 1998) of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Telecommunications, Paragraphs 1 and 2 (wording of 16 March 2000) of Article 13 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Enterprises, and Paragraphs 1 and 2 (wording of 23 March 1999) of Article 4 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Competition.

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