Lt

On the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 1 July 2004 related to the continuous character of the activity of the Seimas and the incompatibility of the office of a member of the Seimas with other duties and work

Case No. 04/04

 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

DECISION

ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RULING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA “ON THE COMPLIANCE OF PARAGRAPH 4 OF ARTICLE 15 OF THE STATUTE OF THE SEIMAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (WORDING OF 22 DECEMBER 1998) WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA” OF 1 JULY 2004

 

10 February 2005

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

Seimas member Algimantas Salamakinas, who was the representative of the petitioner in constitutional justice case No. 04/04, and Jurgita Meškienė, a senior consultant to the Legal Department of the Office of the Seimas, who was the representative of the Seimas, the party concerned, in constitutional justice case No. 04/04

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, on 7 February 2005, in the public hearing considered the petition of the member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania Algimantas Salamakinas requesting the construction of whether:

the notion “continuity of the activity of the Seimas” used in the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania “On the Compliance of Paragraph 4 of Article 15 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 22 December 1998) with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania” of 1 July 2004 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2004, No. 105-3894; hereinafter also referred to as the Ruling) and whether the continuity of the activity of the Seimas would not be broken if all the members of the Seimas were granted holidays during the period between the sessions of the Seimas;

whether the statement “the notion ‘work’ used in the formula ‘work in business, commercial and other private establishments or enterprises’ of Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution also comprises any other private profit-making activity, as well as any profit-making activity engaged in without establishing an enterprise, establishment or organisation” of Item 13.6 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling means that any member of the Seimas can be neither a farmer nor a partner of a farmer;

whether the statements “The constitutional legal status of a member of the Seimas, a representative of the Nation, comprising, inter alia, the limitations established in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution, determines particularities of the exercising of the person’s rights consolidated in Article 46 and 48 of the Constitution, which are enjoyed by him as any other human being. It needs to be noted that the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution, with regard to the purpose of the legal regulation established in this paragraph, mean also that the member of the Seimas who is a founder, owner, co-owner or shareholder of a private enterprise, establishment or organisation, may not take an office, perform work, perform service, fulfil other functions, perform other tasks, hold a so-called office of honour, etc. (including participation in collegial management, control and other bodies) in the said establishment, enterprise or organisation, or represent it. This is incompatible with the constitutional legal status of a member of the Seimas: having acquired all the rights of the representative of the Nation, the member of the Seimas decides that he will be a representative of the Nation and will not be engaged in business, commerce or other profit-making private activity” of Item 13.7.1 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling, the statements “The legal regulation established in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution may not be construed in the way denying the essence of the consolidated in Article 23 of the Constitution right of ownership, enjoyed by a member of a Seimas as well. Thus, the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution, consolidating the incompatibility of the duties of a member of the Seimas with, inter alia, engaging in business, commerce or other profit-making private activity, may not be construed as the ones meaning the prohibition for a member of the Seimas against using his property, getting income from it, possessing the property owned by him, etc., as well as from concluding contracts related hereto also. However, such an activity of a member of the Seimas, when he uses his property, gets income from it, possesses the property owned by him, etc., as well as concludes contracts related hereto, according to the Constitution, may not take a form of business, commerce or other profit-making private activity, as this would violate the prohibition consolidated in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution for a member of the Seimas against engaging, in any form, in business, commerce or other profit-making private activity” of Item 13.7.2 of the same section, the statements “When establishing by law the constitutionally necessary legal regulation, the legislature must also establish the ways of providing legal conditions of preventing the origination of incompatibility of the duties of a member of the Seimas with engaging in business, commerce or other profit-making private activity. Such legal regulation would also create pre-conditions for avoiding the use of the mandate of a member of the Seimas in the interests of private benefit of certain persons, i.e. particular interests, rather than the interests of the Nation and the State of Lithuania, and confrontation of the private interests of a member of the Seimas with the interests of the Nation and the State of Lithuania, i.e. public interests; this would strengthen the Nation’s trust in members of the Seimas as representatives of the Nation and the Seimas as the representation of the Nation. Such control is an important condition of implementation of the provision of Item 7 of Article 63 of the Constitution, under which the powers of a member of the Seimas become terminated if he takes up, or does not resign from, employment which is incompatible with the duties of a member of the Seimas” and “Attention should be drawn to the fact that various methods of ensuring the incompatibility of the duties of a member of the parliament and engagement in business and control over it are established in foreign democratic states under the rule of law, for example trust of possession of property of a member of the parliament or other compulsory transfer to other persons, anonymous possession of such property, control over agreements concluded between the enterprises, the founder, owner, co-owner or a shareholder of which is a member of the parliament, and establishments, enterprises, and organisations of the public sector, etc.” of Item 13.7.3 of the same section mean that: (1) a member of the Seimas can be the founder, owner, co-owner or participator (sharer, shareholder, member of the cooperative etc.) of a legal subject, as well as the owner of a farmer’s farm; (2) the member of the Seimas, who is the founder, owner, co-owner or participant of a legal subject, can have all the rights (material and non-material) of a participant of the legal subject, but he cannot participate or vote in the meetings of the aforementioned legal subject himself; (3) the member of the Seimas, who is the founder, owner, co-owner or participant of a legal subject, can exercise his rights as those of a participant of the legal subject only through another person, and the owner’s rights of the member of the Seimas—the owner of a farmer’s farm—must be exercised following the same procedure; (4) entering into a contract with another person on handling property of a member of the Seimas (handling of property, trust of property, transfer, assignment of the voting right in the meeting of the participants of a legal subject, etc.), inspection of its implementation and amendment are not considered to be activities of the member of the Seimas, which are incompatible with the status of a member of the Seimas; (5) limitations on making contracts, related to the handling of the property owned by right of ownership, which, in order to avoid the conflict of public and private interests, must be established not only for a member of the Seimas, but for his close relatives and members of the family as well (interpreting these notions in accordance with Paragraph 5 of Article 2 of the Law on the Adjustment of Public and Private Interests in the State Service of the Republic of Lithuania), also for the legal subjects, participants of which are members of the Seimas and their close relatives and family members, if the shares (divvies) possessed by the member of the Seimas and his close relatives and family members allow exerting a decisive influence upon the control of the legal subject;

whether the statements “The constitutional right to freely form unions is linked with an opportunity to take various offices in such associations; the said opportunity is a derivative from the constitutional right to freely form unions. The procedure of taking the said offices in unions is established not by the state, but by acts regulating the internal order (articles of association, statutes, etc.) of the union itself (which, according to the Constitution, is autonomous in regard to public authority, as it has been already mentioned)” and “Under the Constitution, no legal regulation artificially or unreasonably restricting the freedom of forming unions and their activity may be established as this would violate the constitutional value—the right of union (freedom of association). Therefore, under the Constitution, the legislature may not establish any such legal regulation which would limit the right of a member of the Seimas to be a member of the union specified in the Constitution and to take office in it, as in regard to the said person this would violate the constitutional value—the right of union, or freedom of association” of Item 13.7.1 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling mean that a member of the Seimas can take the leading office in a trade union, political party, association, a member of which he is and represent it;

whether the statements of Items 12, 13.1, 13.5, 13.6, 13.9 of Section II in reasoning part of the Ruling on the incompatibility of the duties of a member of the Seimas with other duties and work mean that a member of the Seimas, who does not work and does not perform activities, because he was given leave for the period of performing the duties of a member of the Seimas following the procedure established in Articles 183, 184 or 185 of the Labour Code or his activity (powers) was suspended following the procedure established by law (Article 221 of Law on Notary Office of the Republic of Lithuania, Article 11 of Law on Bailiffs of the Republic of Lithuania, Article 14 of Law on Audit of the Republic of Lithuania) violates the principle of the incompatibility of the duties a member of the Seimas with other duties and work.

The Constitutional Court

has established:

I

1. On 1 July 2004, in constitutional justice case No. 04/04, the Constitutional Court passed the Ruling “On the Compliance of Paragraph 4 of Article 15 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 22 December 1998) with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania”.

2. Seimas member A. Salamakinas, who was the representative of a group of members of the Seimas, the petitioner, in constitutional justice case No. 04/04, by the petition of 13 January 2005 requests the Constitutional Court to construe:

the notion “continuity of the activity of the Seimas” used in the Ruling and whether the continuity of the activity of the Seimas would not be broken if all the members of the Seimas were granted holidays during the period between the sessions of the Seimas;

whether the statement “the notion ‘work’ used in the formula ‘work in business, commercial and other private establishments or enterprises’ of Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution also comprises any other private profit-making activity, as well as any profit-making activity engaged in without establishing an enterprise, establishment or organisation” of Item 13.6 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling means that a member of the Seimas can be neither a farmer nor a partner of a farmer;

whether the statements “The constitutional legal status of a member of the Seimas, a representative of the Nation, comprising, inter alia, the limitations established in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution, determines particularities of the exercising of the person's rights consolidated in Article 46 and 48 of the Constitution, which are enjoyed by him as any other human being. It needs to be noted that the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution, with regard to the purpose of the legal regulation established in this paragraph, mean also that the member of the Seimas who is a founder, owner, co-owner or shareholder of a private enterprise, establishment or organisation, may not take an office, perform work, perform service, fulfil other functions, perform other tasks, hold a so-called office of honour, etc. (including participation in collegial management, control and other bodies) in the said establishment, enterprise or organisation, or represent it. This is incompatible with the constitutional legal status of a member of the Seimas: having acquired all the rights of the representative of the Nation, the member of the Seimas decides that he will be a representative of the Nation and will not be engaged in business, commerce or other profit-making private activity” of Item 13.7.1 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling, the statements “The legal regulation established in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution may not be construed in the way denying the essence of the consolidated in Article 23 of the Constitution right of ownership, enjoyed by a member of a Seimas as well. Thus, the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution, consolidating the incompatibility of the duties of a member of the Seimas with, inter alia, engaging in business, commerce or other profit-making private activity, may not be construed as the ones meaning the prohibition for a member of the Seimas against using his property, getting income from it, possessing the property owned by him, etc., as well as from concluding contracts related hereto also. However, such an activity of a member of the Seimas, when he uses his property, gets income from it, possesses the property owned by him, etc., as well as concludes contracts related hereto, according to the Constitution, may not take a form of business, commerce or other profit-making private activity, as this would violate the prohibition consolidated in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution for a member of the Seimas against engaging, in any form, in business, commerce or other profit-making private activity” of Item 13.7.2 of the same section, the statements “When establishing by law the constitutionally necessary legal regulation, the legislature must also establish the ways of providing legal conditions of preventing the origination of incompatibility of the duties of a member of the Seimas with engaging in business, commerce or other profit-making private activity. Such legal regulation would also create pre-conditions for avoiding the use of the mandate of a member of the Seimas in the interests of private benefit of certain persons, i.e. particular interests, rather than the interests of the Nation and the State of Lithuania, and confrontation of the private interests of a member of the Seimas with the interests of the Nation and the State of Lithuania, i.e. public interests; this would strengthen the Nation’s trust in members of the Seimas as representatives of the Nation and the Seimas as the representation of the Nation. Such control is an important condition of implementation of the provision of Item 7 of Article 63 of the Constitution, under which the powers of a member of the Seimas become terminated if he takes up, or does not resign from, employment which is incompatible with the duties of a member of the Seimas” and “Attention should be drawn to the fact that various methods of ensuring the incompatibility of the duties of a member of the parliament and engagement in business and control over it are established in foreign democratic states under the rule of law, for example trust of possession of property of a member of the parliament or other compulsory transfer to other persons, anonymous possession of such property, control over agreements concluded between the enterprises, the founder, owner, co-owner or a shareholder of which is a member of the parliament, and establishments, enterprises, and organisations of the public sector, etc.” of Item 13.7.2 of the same section mean that: (1) a member can be the founder, owner, co-owner or participant (sharer, shareholder, member of the cooperative etc.) of a legal subject, as well as the owner of a farmer’s farm; (2) the member of the Seimas, who is the founder, owner, co-owner or participant of a legal subject, can have all the rights (material and non-material) of a participant of the legal subject, but he cannot participate or vote in the meetings of the aforementioned legal subject himself; (3) the member of the Seimas who is the founder, owner, co-owner or participant of a legal subject, can exercise his rights as those of a participant of the legal subject only through another person, and the owner’s rights of the member of the Seimas—the owner of a farmer’s farm—must be exercised following the same procedure; (4) entering into a contract with another person on handling property of a member of the Seimas (handling of property, trust of property, transfer, assignment of the voting right in the meeting of the participants of a legal subject, etc.), inspection of its implementation and amendment are not considered to be activities of the member of the Seimas, which are incompatible with the status of a member of the Seimas; (5) limitations on making contracts, related to the handling of the property owned by right of ownership, which, in order to avoid the conflict of public and private interests, must be established not only for a member of the Seimas, but for his close relatives and members of the family as well (interpreting these notions in accordance with Paragraph 5 of Article 2 of the Law on the Adjustment of Public and Private Interests in the State Service of the Republic of Lithuania), also for the legal subjects, participants of which are members of the Seimas and their close relatives and family members, if the shares (divvies) possessed by the member of the Seimas and his close relatives and family members allow exerting a decisive influence upon the control over the legal subject;

whether the statements “The constitutional right to freely form unions is linked with an opportunity to take various offices in such associations; the said opportunity is a derivative from the constitutional right to freely form unions. The procedure of taking the said offices in unions is established not by the state, but by acts regulating the internal order (articles of association, statutes, etc.) of the union itself (which, according to the Constitution, is autonomous in regard to public authority, as it has been already mentioned)” and “Under the Constitution, no legal regulation artificially or unreasonably restricting the freedom of forming unions and their activity may be established as this would violate the constitutional value—the right of union (freedom of association). Therefore, under the Constitution, the legislature may not establish any such legal regulation which would limit the right of a member of the Seimas to be a member of the union specified in the Constitution and to take office in it, as in regard to the said person this would violate the constitutional value—the right of union, or freedom of association” of Item 13.8.4 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling mean that a member of the Seimas can take the leading office in a trade union, political party, association, a member of which he is and represent it;

whether the statements of Items 12, 13.1, 13.5, 13.6, 13.9 of Section II in reasoning part of the Ruling on the incompatibility of the duties of a member of the Seimas with other duties and work mean that a member of the Seimas, who does not work and does not perform activities, because he was given leave for the period of performing the duties of a member of the Seimas following the procedure established in Articles 183, 184 or 185 of the Labour Code or his activity (powers) was suspended following the procedure established by law (Article 221 of Law on Notary Office of the Republic of Lithuania, Article 11 of Law on Bailiffs of the Republic of Lithuania, Article 14 of Law on Audit of the Republic of Lithuania) violates the principle of the incompatibility of the duties a member of the Seimas with other duties and work.

II

1. At the Constitutional Court’s hearing the representative of a group of members of the Seimas in constitutional justice case No. 04/04 A. Salamakinas explained some of the reasons of his request the Constitutional Court to construe certain statements of the Ruling.

2. J. Meškienė, the representative of the Seimas, the party concerned, in constitutional justice case No. 04/04 spoke at the Constitutional Court’s hearing.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

I

1. A ruling of the Constitutional Court is integral. Its operative part is based upon the arguments of the part of reasoning. While construing its ruling, the Constitutional Court is bound by both the content of the operative part and that of reasoning of its ruling. The decision adopted concerning the construction of a ruling of the Constitutional Court is inseparable from the said ruling of the Constitutional Court (the Constitutional Court’s decisions of 12 January 2000, 11 February 2004, and 13 February 2004).

2. Under Paragraph 3 of Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court must construe its ruling without changing its content.

II

1. Seimas member A. Salamakinas requests the construction of the notion “continuity of the activity of the Seimas” used in the Ruling and whether the continuity of the activity of the Seimas would not be broken if all the members of the Seimas were granted holidays during the period between the sessions of the Seimas.

2. Seimas member A. Salamakinas does not indicate in which sections, items or paragraphs of the Ruling the notion whose construction he requests is used.

The continuity of the activity of the Seimas and inseparably related to it continuity of work of a member of the Seimas in various aspects, using the words “continuity” and/or “continuous” are defined in Item 4 (all three paragraphs thereof), Paragraph 2 of Item 5, Paragraph 3 of Item 6, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Item 10, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Item 11.8, Paragraphs 1 and 4 of Item 12, Paragraph 4 of Item 13.7.1 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling:

1) “The Constitution establishes the organisation of state power where each institution of state power performs its functions incessantly. Under the Constitution, no legal situation may occur where any institution exercising state power fails to function.

<...> the Seimas must always ensure that its powers established in the Constitution are performed incessantly and that in any situation the representative of the Nation should be able to constructively, efficiently and incessantly implement the supreme sovereign power of the Nation.

The continuity of action of the Seimas, as the incessantly acting representation of the Nation, is ensured, inter alia, by the provisions of Article 59 of the Constitution, which provide that the term of office of members of the Seimas begins to be counted from the day that the newly-elected Seimas convenes for the first sitting and that the period of the powers of the previously elected members of the Seimas expires at the beginning of the sitting” (Item 4 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling);

2) “The continuity of the activity of the Seimas implies the continuity of the activity of a member of the Seimas as a representative of the Nation. Under the Constitution, legal acts should establish such a structure and procedure of work of the Seimas, as well as the legal status of a member of the Seimas, which would provide for an opportunity for each member of the Seimas to execute his constitutional duty to constantly participate at the work of the Seimas, the representation of the Nation, to incessantly perform his constitutional powers, as a representative of the Nation” (Paragraph 2 of Item 5 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling);

3) “The constitutional provisions that the period of the powers of a member of the Seimas begins to be counted from the day that the newly-elected Seimas convenes for the first sitting and that the period of the powers of the previously elected members of the Seimas expires at the beginning of the sitting, which are construed in the context of the principle of continuity of the Seimas’ activity as entrenched in the Constitution, implies that the newly-elected Seimas as the fully-fledged representation of the Nation must begin functioning namely from the beginning of this sitting. Since a member of the Seimas, under the Constitution, gains all the rights of a representative of the Nation only after taking an oath in the Seimas to the faithful to the Republic of Lithuania, the elected members of the Seimas, under the Constitution, must take an oath at the first sitting of the newly-elected Seimas. According to the Constitution, the legislature must establish a procedure of taking an oath of a member of the Seimas, so that all the members of the Seimas take oath namely at the first sitting of the newly-elected Seimas. An exemption could be made to the elected members of the Seimas who are not able to arrive at the first sitting of the newly-elected Seimas only due to especially important and justifiable reasons (for example, illness); under the Constitution, such an elected member of the Seimas must take an oath at the next earliest sitting of the Seimas after the end of existence of the especially important and justifiable reason due to which the elected member of the Seimas was not able to take the oath at the first sitting of the newly-elected sitting of the Seimas” (Paragraph 3 of Item 6 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling);

4) “In order that a member of the Seimas would be able to incessantly perform his duties, as a representative of the Nation, the Constitution itself establishes not only certain rights, but the duties of a member of the Seimas, too. Some duties of a member of the Seimas are formulated in the Constitution expressis verbis. The other duties of a member of the Seimas are not expressis verbis formulated in the Constitution, but they are entrenched implicitly—they are derived from the constitutional legal status of a member of the Seimas as a representative of the Nation. Still, some other duties of a member of the Seimas are established not in the Constitution, but in legal acts of lower legal force—laws and the Statute of the Seimas” (Paragraph 1 of Item 10 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling);

5) “The other constitutional duties of a member of the Seimas are formulated in the Constitution as a certain limitations applied in regard to a member of the Seimas—incompatibility of the office of a member of the Seimas with other offices or a job, except the cases established in the Constitution, and the prohibition for a member of the Seimas against receiving other remuneration, save the exceptions established in the Constitution (Article 60 of the Constitution); these limitations in regard to members of the Seimas are established in the Constitution in order to ensure the free mandate of a member of the Seimas as a representative of the Nation, and the continuity of his work at the Seimas and engaging in other parliamentary activities” (Paragraph 3 of Item 10 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling);

6) “<...> the activity of the Seimas as the representation of the Nation and of members of the Seimas as representatives of the Nation is incessant. Paragraph 1 of Article 64 of the Constitution provides that every year the Seimas convenes for two regular sessions—one in spring and one in autumn; the spring session begins on March 10th and ends on June 30th, and the autumn session begins on September 10th and ends on December 23rd; the Seimas may decide to prolong a session. Paragraph 2 of Article 64 of the Constitution provides for extraordinary sessions: extraordinary sessions are convened by the Speaker of the Seimas upon the motion of not less than one-third of all the members of the Seimas, and in cases provided for in the Constitution, by the President of the Republic” (Paragraph 1 of Item 11.8 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling);

7) “<...> sessions of the Seimas are not a single form of activity of the Seimas, and participation at sessions of the Seimas is not a single form of the work of a Seimas member at the Seimas or his parliamentary activity. <...> according to the Constitution, the activity of a member of the Seimas as a representative of the Nation is incessant; each member of the Seimas should have an opportunity to exercise his constitutional duty to constantly participate at the work of the Seimas, the representation of the Nation, and incessantly perform his constitutional powers as the ones of a representative of the Nation. Therefore, according to the Constitution, members of the Seimas perform their duties as representatives of the Nation beyond sessions of the Seimas as well. The constitutional principle of continuity of activity of the Seimas as the representation of the Nation implies that a period of time between sessions of the Seimas is not vacation of members of the Seimas, nor their other time for rest. It needs to noted that the Republic of Lithuania's Law on the Working Conditions of a Member of the Seimas provides that the duration of working hours of a member of the Seimas is not limited (Article 3). In addition, no other legal acts provide for any vacation of a member of the Seimas at all. In this context it needs to be stressed that from Paragraph 1 of Article 49 of the Constitution, which provides that each working human being has the right to rest and leisure, as well as annual paid holidays, and from Paragraph 4 of Article 60 of the Constitution, which provides that the duties, rights and guarantees of the activities of a member of the Seimas are established by law, stems the duty of the legislature to establish the duration of annual paid holidays of a member of the Seimas and other conditions by law. It should also be noted that establishment of holidays of a member of the Seimas by law would also ensure the absence of preconditions for treating, in a constitutionally unreasonable manner, the time between sessions of the Seimas as the time equal to holidays or other time for rest of a member of the Seimas” (Paragraph 3 of Item 11.8 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling);

8) “<...> certain constitutional duties of a member of the Seimas are formulated in the Constitution as certain limitations applied in regard to a member of the Seimas—incompatibility of the duties of a member of the Seimas with other duties or a job, save the exceptions established in the Constitution, and the prohibition for a member of the Seimas against receiving other remuneration, except the cases established in the Constitution; these limitations are meant to ensure the free mandate of a member of the Seimas as a representative of the Nation, and the continuity of his work at the Seimas and other parliamentary activities. When evaluating the entirety of limitations entrenched in the Constitution in regard to a member of the Seimas, it should be held that in this respect the constitutional legal status of a member of the Seimas, a representative of the Nation, is different in essence from the constitutional legal status of other citizens and it determines particularities of implementation of particular rights of a person entrenched in the Constitution, which a member of the Seimas enjoys as a human being and citizen” (Paragraph 1 of Item 12 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling);

9) “The purpose of the legal regulation established in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution is to ensure the free mandate of a member of the Seimas as a representative of the Nation, and continuity of his work at the Seimas and other parliamentary activities, to guarantee that a member of the Seimas shall act in the interests of the Nation and the State of Lithuania rather than their personal interests or the interests of a group, or the interests of political parties or political organisation, public or other organisations, and other persons, which nominated or supported the candidate to the office of a member of the Seimas, territorial communities, and voters of the constituency in which that member of the Seimas is elected, that a member of the Seimas will not use his status and the free mandate for the private benefit or the benefit of his close relatives or other persons, that each member of the Seimas will have an opportunity to exercise his constitutional duty to constantly participate at the work of the Seimas, the representation of the Nation, to incessantly perform his constitutional powers, as a representative of the Nation. This purpose would never be reached or conditions preventing the accomplishment of this purpose would be created if a member of the Seimas had an opportunity to hold another office to be engaged in other work, with the exception of the offices expressis verbis specified in the Constitution, as well as the offices which may be held upon the implication of the Constitution; this purpose would never be reached or conditions preventing the accomplishment of this purpose would also be created if a member of the Seimas received remuneration other than that specified in the Constitution” (Paragraph 4 of Item 12 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling);

10) “As mentioned before, under the Constitution, a member of the Seimas, a representative of the Nation, must properly fulfil his constitutional duty to represent the whole Nation, and to act only in the interests of the Nation and the State of Lithuania, and that the activity of a member of the Seimas, a representative of the Nation, is incessant. The member of the Seimas must use his mandate of a representative of the Nation only in the interests of the Nation and the State of Lithuania rather than a private benefit of his own or his close relatives or other persons. From incompatibility of the duties of a member of the Seimas, established in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution, with work at business, commercial or other private establishments or enterprises, as well as work at establishments or enterprises the founder, owner, co-owner or shareholder of which the member of the Seimas is, originates the prohibition on engaging, in any form, in business, commerce or other profit-making private activity. When deciding whether a certain activity of the member of the Seimas is engagement in business, commerce, etc., every time account should be taken of the content of the activity and all the other circumstances” (Paragraph 4 of Item 13.7.1 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling).

3. The Ruling discloses various aspects of the continuity of the activity of the Seimas. In construing the provision that of the activity of the Seimas is continuous, it should be stressed that according to the Constitution there can be no legal situations where the Seimas would not function as the representation of the Nation and institution of the legislative power and that the activity of each term of office of the Seimas lasts from the day when the newly-elected Seimas convenes for the first sitting until the day when the next newly-elected (i.e. of the next term of office) Seimas convenes for the first sitting. Legally, each Seimas of new term of office proceeds with the activity of the Seimas of earlier terms of office, there is continuity between the Seimas of various terms of office. The Seimas, as the representation of the Nation and the institution of the legislative power, functions constantly.

It was held in the Ruling that the continuity of the activity of the Seimas implies the continuity of the activity of a member of the Seimas, as a representative of the Nation. Participation in the work of the Seimas is a constitutional duty and at the same time a right of a member of the Seimas; this means, inter alia, that no such legal regulation can be established which, on the one hand, might allow a member of the Seimas not to participate in the work of the Seimas without especially important justifiable reasons, and, on the other hand, would not allow or would aggravate in other ways the opportunities for him to participate in the work of the Seimas. The constitutional duty of a member of the Seimas to participate in the work of the Seimas comprises, inter alia, his duty to participate in the work of the structural subdivisions of the Seimas, a member of which he is, and to perform other duties of a member of the Seimas established in the Constitution, the laws and the Statute of the Seimas.

The Constitution treats a member of the Seimas as a professional politician, i.e. as a representative of the Nation, whose work at the Seimas is his professional activity (Paragraph 3 of Item 5 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling). A member of the Seimas—a professional politician and state official—who has his mandate as a representative of the Nation during his whole term of office (incumbency), i.e. he can perform all duties of a representative of the Nation since the moment when he acquires all the rights of a representative of the Nation after he takes an oath in the Seimas to the Republic of Lithuania according to the Constitution, until the moment when his duties as those of a member of the Seimas terminate due to the reasons established in the Constitution.

4. It is clear from the petition of Seimas member A. Salamakinas and his explanations at the hearing of the Constitutional Court that he asks Constitutional Court to construe the notion “continuity of the activity of the Seimas” in the aspect whether this notion does not mean that the continuity of the activity of a member of the Seimas would be violated, if annual paid holidays were granted to all members of the Seimas during the period between the sessions of the Seimas. Thus, the principle of continuity of the activity of the Seimas, in the aspect indicated by Seimas member A. Salamakinas, should be construed along with the provision of the Ruling that the legislature has the constitutional duty to establish the duration, other conditions of the annual paid holidays of a member of the Seimas by law (Paragraph 3 of Item 11.8 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling).

The provision of the Ruling on the continuity of the activity of the Seimas and the provision of the Ruling that the legislature has a constitutional duty to establish the duration and other conditions of annual paid holidays of a member of the Seimas by law should be construed while taking into consideration, on the one hand, the nature, the constitutional mission of the Seimas as the representation of the Nation established in the Constitution (and the laws and the Statute of the Seimas grounded upon it), the established peculiarities of the functioning and work organisation of the Seimas and the legal constitutional status of a member of the Seimas, as a representative of the Nation and professional politician, which differs essentially from the legal status of other citizens and state officials as well as all other working people, and, on the other hand, the necessity not only to ensure the constitutional right of a member of the Seimas to rest and leisure time as well as annual paid holidays, which is enjoyed by a member of the Seimas as by any other working human being, but this right should also be ensured in a way which would comply with the imperative of an open, just and harmonious civil society and the constitutional principle of equal rights of all people, which does not allow granting privileges to any groups of persons or discriminating them, inter alia, due to their social status.

5. It should be mentioned that the beginning and the end of two regular sessions of the Seimas (the duration of these sessions) are established in the Constitution: every year, the Seimas shall convene for two regular sessions—one in spring and one in autumn. The spring session shall begin on March 10th and shall end on June 30th; the autumn session shall begin on September 10th and shall end on December 23rd (Paragraph 1 of Article 64 of Constitution). The Constitution also prescribes that, in case of need, the Seimas may decide to prolong the session (Paragraph 1 of Article 64 of Constitution), also a possibility for convening extraordinary sessions is established (Paragraph 2 of Article 64, Item 19 of Article 84, Paragraph 2 of Article 142, Paragraph 2 of Article 144 of the Constitution).

The Ruling states that, according to the parliamentary tradition of democratic states, a parliamentary session comprises sittings of the parliament and sittings of the parliamentary committees and other structural subunits held in between them (Paragraph 2 of Item 11.8 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling). The Ruling also states that sessions of the Seimas are not a single form of activity of the Seimas, and participation at sessions of the Seimas is not a single form of the work of a Seimas member at the Seimas or his parliamentary activity (Paragraph 3 of Item 11.8 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling). The sitting of the committees, other structural subunits, in which members of the Seimas are bound to participate, are convened not only during the Seimas sessions, but also when sessions of the Seimas are not taking place; between the sessions of the Seimas, its committees and other structural subunits, individual members of the Seimas, their groups perform other activities established in the Constitution, the Statute of the Seimas and the laws as well. Thus, as it was stated in the Ruling, according to the Constitution, the time between the sessions of the Seimas is not the holiday of members of the Seimas or other form of their rest; the treatment of the time between the sessions of the Seimas as that equalled to the holiday of the members of the Seimas or their other rest or leisure time would not be constitutionally grounded.

6. While construing the provision that the activity of the Seimas is continuous in the aspect indicated by Seimas member A. Salamakinas along with the provision that the legislature has a constitutional duty to establish the duration and other conditions of annual paid holidays of a member of the Seimas by law, it should be stated that the continuity of the activity of the Seimas as the representation of the Nation and the institution of the legislative power and continuity of the activity of a member of the Seimas as a representative of the Nation and a professional politician in no case implies that a member of the Seimas should not or cannot make use of the constitutional right he possesses as any other working person to the rest and leisure time as well as to annual paid holidays. Due to the fact that the Constitution treats a member of the Seimas as a professional politician as well as due to the fact that according to the Constitution the work of a member of the Seimas is a permanent job for which a member of the Seimas receives remuneration and the proper performance of which must be ensured by respective social guarantees and special guarantees of the parliamentary work established in the Constitution and the laws, the constitutional right of a member of the Seimas to rest and leisure time, as well as to annual paid holidays, cannot be denied, nor can the exercise of this right be restricted without sufficient reasoning.

It should be especially emphasised that, according to the Constitution, neither during the rest period, nor the leisure time, nor during annual paid holidays a member of the Seimas loses his status of a representative of the Nation: as at work during the Seimas sessions, the sittings of the Seimas committees, of other structural subunits, which take place not during the session of the Seimas, during the rest period, the leisure time or during annual paid holidays he retains his status as a representative of the Nation while the Seimas, even though the representatives of the Nation are on holiday, does not cease being the representation of the Nation and the institution of the legislative power.

7. The provision of the Ruling that the legislature has the duty to establish the duration and other conditions of the paid annual holidays of a member of the Seimas by law means, inter alia, that the holidays of members of the Seimas must be established not by any legal acts issued by the Seimas, but namely by law, also that such a law should determine the duration of the annual paid holidays of a member of the Seimas, the amount of the remuneration for the holidays, and other essential conditions of the holidays

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

8. Establishing the duration of the paid annual holidays of the members of the Seimas (by law), as well as determining the beginning and the end of annual paid holidays of the members of the Seimas each year (by means of a resolution of the Seimas), attention should also be paid to the constitutional imperative that the participation in the work of the Seimas is a constitutional duty and at the same time a right of a member of the Seimas, also to the fact that the constitutional duty of a member of the Seimas to participate in the work of the Seimas, inter alia, comprises his duty to participate in the work of the structural subunits of the Seimas a member of which this member of the Seimas is and to discharge all the other powers of a member of the Seimas established in the Constitution, the laws and the Statute of the Seimas. The sittings of the Seimas take place during the regular and extraordinary sessions. Thus, when the session of the Seimas is taking place, a member of the Seimas cannot be on annual paid holidays, save the exceptions described below concerning the time of annual paid holidays of the Speaker of the Seimas and the Deputy Speaker (Speakers) of the Seimas.

While establishing the duration of annual paid holidays of the members of the Seimas (by law), as well as their beginning and end (by means of a resolution of the Seimas), it is necessary to take into account that, as mentioned above, the sittings of the committees of the Seimas and other structural subunits, in which members of the Seimas must participate, are convened not only during the sessions of the Seimas, but also at the time when there are no sessions of the Seimas, as well as after that, between the sessions of the Seimas the Seimas, its committees and other structural subunits, individual members of the Seimas and their groups also perform other activities established in the Constitution, the Statute of the Seimas and the laws. Thus, a member of the Seimas cannot be on the paid annual holidays at the time when sittings of the committees of the Seimas and other structural subunits, in which the members of the Seimas must participate, take place, and when the activities of the Seimas, its committees and other structural subunits established in the Constitution, the Statute of the Seimas and the laws are carried out, even though the session of the Seimas does not take place, save the exceptions described below concerning annual paid holidays of the Speaker of the Seimas and the Deputy Speaker (Speakers) of the Seimas.

The constitutional imperatives of the continuity of the activity of the Seimas and the continuity of the activity of a member of the Seimas and the necessity to ensure the right of a member of the Seimas to annual paid holidays established in Paragraph 1 of Article 49 of the Constitution, when one construes these constitutional requirements in the context of one another, imply that the legislature, while regulating the relations linked with annual paid holidays of a member of the Seimas, can and must determine the time when the sittings of the Seimas as well as the sittings of the committees of the Seimas and other structural subunits do not take place, and when no other activity of the Seimas, the committees of the Seimas or other structural subdivisions established in the Constitution, the Statute of the Seimas and in the laws is performed. The annual paid holidays of members of the Seimas can be determined at that particular time by means of a resolution of the Seimas. According to the Constitution ,annual paid holidays of a member of the Seimas cannot be established at any other time, save the further described exceptions established in the Constitution on the annual paid holidays time of the Speaker of the Seimas and the Deputy Speaker (Speakers) of the Seimas.

The nature, constitutional mission of the Seimas as the representation of the Nation and the institution of the legislative power, the peculiarities of functioning and organisation of the work of the Seimas and the legal constitutional status of a member of the Seimas as a representative of the Nation and professional politician determines that all members of the Seimas take annual paid holidays at the same time.

At the same time, it should be noted that, as mentioned before, certain exceptions are established in the Constitution concerning the time of the annual paid holidays of the Speaker of the Seimas and the Deputy Speaker (Speakers) of the Seimas. The time of annual paid holidays of the state officials mentioned in the Constitution—the Speaker of the Seimas and the Deputy Speaker (Speakers) of the Seimas—must be established by taking into consideration that these officials must be able to immediately, if need occurs, perform the duties determined to them in the Constitution, the laws and the Statute of the Seimas. The possibility of establishing a differentiated legal regulation of the time for annual paid holidays of the Speaker of the Seimas and the Deputy Speaker (Speakers) of the Seimas (if compared with the legal regulation of the time for annual paid holidays of other members of the Seimas) is the only exception to the regulation of the aforementioned relations established in the Constitution. Nevertheless, while establishing a different time for the annual paid holidays to the Speaker of the Seimas and the Deputy Speaker (Speakers) of the Seimas it is necessary to ensure that these officials would be able to perform their duties in a way that would not interrupt the work of the Seimas, inter alia, the fact that the Speaker of the Seimas might be able to perform the duties (established in Paragraph 2 of Article 70 of the Constitution) of promulgating legal acts (the Statute of the Seimas or other substatutory acts of the Seimas).

9. The Seimas enjoys discretion to establish the duration of annual paid holidays of a member of the Seimas. At the same time it should be stressed that establishing this duration the Seimas is bound by the imperative of an open, just and harmonious civil society established in the Constitution, the constitutional principle of equal rights of all persons, which does not allow granting privileges to any of the groups of people or discriminating them, inter alia, due to their social status. Thus, the annual paid holidays of a member of the Seimas cannot be shorter than the minimal duration established in the laws, but they also cannot be unjustifiably long; all the differences in the annual paid holidays of a member of the Seimas, if compared with the duration of the holidays of other working people, no matter what they are, must be constitutionally grounded.

10. It was mentioned that the Constitution establishes an opportunity to convene extraordinary sessions of the Seimas, also, in case of need, the Seimas can decide to prolong the regular session. If a decision is made to prolong the regular session or an extraordinary session is convened, the members of the Seimas must convene to it, even though they are at annual paid holidays at that time. In such cases, the Seimas, ensuring the right of a member of the Seimas to annual paid holidays, established in Paragraph 1 of the Article 49 of the Constitution, can and should determine other time, when the sittings of the Seimas as well as the sittings of the committees of the Seimas, other structural subunits do not take place, the activity of the Seimas, its committees, other structural subunits established in the Constitution, the Statute of the Seimas and the laws is not performed, so that the members of the Seimas could make use of their constitutional right to annual paid holidays instead of the time that was used by the members of the Seimas for the prolonged regular session of the Seimas or for the extraordinary session of the Seimas.

11. It should be noted that according to the Constitution such a legal situation where, after the holidays of members of the Seimas are over, the committees, other structural subunits of the Seimas do not function and the time remaining till the beginning of the next session of the Seimas is treated as that equal to the holiday of members of the Seimas, or their other leisure time, is impermissible.

12. It goes without saying, situations may occur where, due to especially important personal and other justifiable reasons for a certain period of time a member of the Seimas cannot participate in the sittings of the Seimas, the committees of the Seimas, other structural subunits, a member of which he is, and/or for a certain period of time he cannot perform other duties of a member of the Seimas due to very important personal and other justifiable reasons. This implies the necessity to establish a procedure according to which in the said cases such a member of the Seimas should apply to the institution indicated in the law (the Statute of the Seimas) for a permission not to participate in the sittings of the Seimas, the committees of the Seimas, other structural subunits, a member of which he is, for the said period of time, and not to perform other duties of a member of the Seimas for the said period of time; if the reasons indicated by a member of the Seimas are especially important and justifiable, the aforementioned permission is granted; if such a permission is not granted, the absence of the member of the Seimas from the sittings of the Seimas, the committees of the Seimas, other structural subunits, a member of which this member of the Seimas is, or non-performance of other duties of a member of the Seimas would be unjustifiable.

Situations are also possible where a member of the Seimas is not capable of notifying the institution indicated in the law (the Statute of the Seimas) about his absence from the sitting before the commencement of the sitting. The legislature has the duty to establish under what procedure the institution indicated in the law (the Statute of the Seimas) would be able to decide if the reasons of the absence of the member of the Seimas from a sitting were especially important and justifiable.

If a member of the Seimas has not participated in the sitting of the Seimas, the committee, other structural subunit of the Seimas, a member of which he is—regardless of whether or not he notified about his absence following the established procedure in advance, whether or not he received a permission of a respective institution indicated in the law (the Statute of the Seimas)—the said time, according to the Constitution, is considered neither the time when the member of the Seimas performed the work of a member of the Seimas indicated in Paragraph 3 of Article 60 of the Constitution, remunerable from the state budget, nor the time when the member of the Seimas made use of the right established in Paragraph 1 of Article 49 of the Constitution to annual paid holidays.

13. It should be noted that the discharging of the powers of a member of the Seimas is not limited to his participation in the sittings of the Seimas, those of its committees and other structural subunits. In this context it should be mentioned that the discharging of the powers of a member of the Seimas, thus, also the work of a member of the Seimas determined in Paragraph 3 of Article 60 of the Constitution, is the same activity of a member of the Seimas, when he performs the assignments and other tasks of the Seimas, its committees and other structural subunits, when he represents groups of members of the Seimas in cases established by law, etc. The work of a member of the Seimas, his activity in the Seimas comprise the performance of the duties established in Paragraph 1 Article 60 of the Constitution (the office of the Speaker of the Seimas, Deputy Speaker of the Seimas; the offices of a member of the Seimas, which are taken by a member of the Seimas pursuant to the Statute of the Seimas in the governing body of the Seimas or when leading a structural subunit of the Seimas, as well as other offices, which may be taken in the Seimas only by a member of the Seimas; the offices of a member of the Seimas in inter-parliamentary and other international institutions, which may only be taken by member of the Seimas (Paragraph 4 of Item 13.1 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling)).

Such an activity of a member of the Seimas is the work of a member of the Seimas indicated in Paragraph 3 of Article 60 of the Constitution, remunerated from the State Budget.

14. It should also be mentioned that, according to Paragraph 2 of Article 60 of the Constitution, a member of the Seimas can be appointed Prime Minister or a Minister. That implies the possibility of regulating their employment relations at the Seimas in a differentiated way; the legislature has a certain discretion in this area.

15. In summary, it should be held that after establishing the duration and other conditions of annual paid holidays of a member of the Seimas, the right of a member of the Seimas to annual paid holidays established in Paragraph 1 of the Article 49 of the Constitution would be ensured. On the other hand, as it was held in the Ruling, the establishment of the holiday for a member of the Seimas by law would also ensure that there would be no preconditions for constitutionally ungrounded treatment of the period between the sessions of the Seimas as the time equal to the holidays of members of the Seimas or their other kind of rest.

16. Having taken account of the aforementioned arguments, it should be held that the notion “continuity of the activity of the Seimas” used in the Ruling does not mean that the continuity of work of the Seimas would be violated, if the paid annual holidays established in Paragraph 1 of the Article 49 of the Constitution was granted to all the members of the Seimas during the period between the sessions of the Seimas, save the exceptions, which arise out of the Constitution, concerning the time for annual paid holidays of the Speaker of the Seimas and the Deputy Speaker (Speakers) of the Seimas.

III

1. Seimas member A. Salamakinas requests the construction of whether the statement “the notion ‘work’ used in the formula ‘work in business, commercial and other private establishments and enterprises’ of Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution also comprises any other private profit-making activity, as well as any profit-making activity engaged in without establishing an enterprise, establishment or organisation” in Paragraph 2 of Item 13.6 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling means that a member of the Seimas can be neither a farmer, nor a partner of a farmer.

2. The prohibition established in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution for a member of the Seimas against taking any other office in state establishments or organisations, as well as performing work in business, commerce and other private establishments or enterprises, and the prohibition established in Paragraph 3 of the same article for a member of the Seimas against receiving any other remuneration, except for the remuneration of a member of the Seimas and remuneration for creative activities, for disclosing the content of which, inter alia, the statement of Paragraph 2 of Item 13.6 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling is dedicated, the construction of which is requested by Seimas member A. Salamakinas, does not mean that a member of the Seimas cannot use, handle, etc. the property belonging to him by right of ownership, as well as enter contracts related thereto. Nevertheless, the activity of a member of the Seimas, when he uses his property, receives income from it, handles the property belonging to him by right of ownership, etc., also enters contracts related thereto, according to the Constitution cannot turn into business, commerce or other profit-making activity (Paragraph 4 of Item 13.7.2 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling).

At the same time it should be noted that the handling of the property belonging by right of ownership and other activities related thereto can bear peculiarities which are determined by various factors—the nature of this property, the circumstances of its acquisition, the fact whether other persons have any rights to the property, etc. It is these various factors that may determine whether the use, handling, etc. of the property belonging to the person by right of ownership, receiving income from this activity, as well as entering contracts related thereto in some cases turn into a business, commerce, or other profit-making activity, and in other cases it does not. Within the context of the issue under consideration it should also be noted that the activity that is described as farming is usually linked with the use, handling, etc. of land, forests, water bodies as well as objects of living nature as objects of property, therefore, this activity has specific peculiarities.

3. It was mentioned that Seimas member A. Salamakinas requests the construction of whether the statement “the notion ‘work’ used in the formula ‘work in business, commercial and other private establishments and enterprises’ of Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution also comprises any other private profit-making activity, as well as any profit-making activity engaged in without establishing an enterprise, establishment or organisation” means that a member of the Seimas can be neither a farmer nor a partner of a farmer. Thus, Seimas member A. Salamakinas requests the construction of whether being a farmer or a partner of a farmer is compatible with the legal constitutional status of a member of the Seimas.

4. While construing the statement indicated by Seimas member A. Salamakinas in the aspect indicated by him, it should be noted that neither the notion “farmer”, nor the notion “partner of a farmer” is used in the Ruling; it should also be noted that the words “farmer” and “partner of a farmer” are not used in the text of the Constitution, either. The said notions are used and their content is disclosed in the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Farmer’s Farm, in other laws and other legal acts. Therefore, the legal content of these notions depends on the way it is defined not in the Constitution, but in legal acts of lower force. If legal regulation is changed, the legal content of these notions can also be changed.

It should be stressed that It is impossible to construe constitutional norms and principles on the basis of the legal acts adopted by the legislature and other subjects of law-making, as then the supremacy of the Constitution in the legal system would be denied (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 12 July 2001 and 1 July 2004).

It was mentioned that while construing its ruling, the Constitutional Court is bound both by the content of the operative part and that of reasoning of its ruling and also that the Constitutional Court must construe its ruling without changing its content.

The legal content of the notions “farmer” and “partner of a farmer” defined in the laws and other legal acts was not a matter of the investigation in constitutional justice case No. 04/04.

Considering the fact that the Constitutional Court must construe its ruling without changing its content, the fact that neither the notion “farmer”, nor the notion “partner of a farmer” were used in the Ruling and the fact that the legal content of these notions defined in the laws and other legal acts was not a matter of the investigation in constitutional justice case No. 04/04, thus, their content cannot be construed in this decision of the Constitutional Court, either.

5. It should also be noted that while evaluating if a certain activity of a member of the Seimas, related to the use, handling, etc. of the property belonging to the member of the Seimas by right of ownership, receiving income from it, as well as entering contracts related thereto, is compatible or incompatible with the legal constitutional status of a member of the Seimas, from the viewpoint of the Constitution it is not only important how the respective activity is defined in the laws or other legal acts, but, first of all, it is important whether the activity actually performed by a member of the Seimas is not a job prohibited for a member of the Seimas by the Constitution, whether it does not turn into a business, commerce or other activity, which is prohibited by the Constitution.

Taking into consideration the fact that the activity defined as farming can be distinguished by certain peculiarities, in itself only receiving profit from this activity does not mean that this activity has turned into a business, commerce or other activity, which is prohibited by the Constitution. According to the Constitution, the legislature has the duty to establish such legal regulation, that in each case, when it is doubted whether certain activity of a member of the Seimas, described as farming (regardless of the way it is defined in the laws or other legal acts), has not turned into a business, commerce or other activity prohibited for a member of the Seimas by the Constitution, it would be possible to ascertain all the factual circumstances, evaluate the said activity and determine whether the aforementioned activity is incompatible with the legal constitutional status of a member of the Seimas.

6. Having taken account of the aforementioned arguments it should be stated that the statement “the notion ‘work’ used in the formula ‘work in business, commercial and other private establishments and enterprises” of Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution also comprises any other private profit-making activity, as well as any profit-making activity engaged in without establishing an enterprise, establishment or organisation” of Paragraph 2 of Item 13.6 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling does not mean that any activity, which can be described as farming, is by itself incompatible with the constitutional legal status of a member of the Seimas (if it has not turned into a business, commerce or any other activity prohibited for a member of the Seimas by the Constitution).

IV

1. Seimas member A. Salamakinas requests the construction of whether the statements “The constitutional legal status of a member of the Seimas, a representative of the Nation, comprising, inter alia, the limitations established in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution, determines particularities of the exercising of the person’s rights consolidated in Article 46 and 48 of the Constitution, which are enjoyed by him as any other human being. It needs to be noted that the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution, with regard to the purpose of the legal regulation established in this paragraph, mean also that the member of the Seimas who is a founder, owner, co-owner or shareholder of a private enterprise, establishment or organisation, may not take an office, perform work, perform service, fulfil other functions, perform other tasks, hold a so-called office of honour, etc. (including participation in collegial management, control and other bodies) in the said establishment, enterprise or organisation, or represent it. This is incompatible with the constitutional legal status of a member of the Seimas: having acquired all the rights of the representative of the Nation, the member of the Seimas decides that he will be a representative of the Nation and will not be engaged in business, commerce or other profit-making private activity” of Paragraph 3 of Item 13.7.1 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling, the statements “The legal regulation established in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution may not be construed in the way denying the essence of the consolidated in Article 23 of the Constitution right of ownership, enjoyed by a member of a Seimas as well. Thus, the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution, consolidating the incompatibility of the duties of a member of the Seimas with, inter alia, engaging in business, commerce or other profit-making private activity, may not be construed as the ones meaning the prohibition for a member of the Seimas against using his property, getting income from it, possessing the property owned by him, etc., as well as from concluding contracts related hereto also. However, such an activity of a member of the Seimas, when he uses his property, gets income from it, possesses the property owned by him, etc., as well as concludes contracts related hereto, according to the Constitution, may not take a form of business, commerce or other profit-making private activity, as this would violate the prohibition consolidated in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution for a member of the Seimas against engaging, in any form, in business, commerce or other profit-making private activity” of Paragraph 4 of Item 13.7.2 of the same section, the statements “When establishing by law the constitutionally necessary legal regulation, the legislature must also establish the ways of providing legal conditions of preventing the origination of incompatibility of the duties of a member of the Seimas with engaging in business, commerce or other profit-making private activity. Such legal regulation would also create pre-conditions for avoiding the use of the mandate of a member of the Seimas in the interests of private benefit of certain persons, i.e. particular interests, rather than the interests of the Nation and the State of Lithuania, and confrontation of the private interests of a member of the Seimas with the interests of the Nation and the State of Lithuania, i.e. public interests; this would strengthen the Nation’s trust in members of the Seimas as representatives of the Nation and the Seimas as the representation of the Nation. Such control is an important condition of implementation of the provision of Item 7 of Article 63 of the Constitution, under which the powers of a member of the Seimas become terminated if he takes up, or does not resign from, employment which is incompatible with the duties of a member of the Seimas” of Paragraph 3 of Item 13.7.3 of the same section and the statements “Attention should be drawn to the fact that various methods of ensuring the incompatibility of the duties of a member of the parliament and engagement in business and control over it are established in foreign democratic states under the rule of law, for example trust of possession of property of a member of the parliament or other compulsory transfer to other persons, anonymous possession of such property, control over agreements concluded between the enterprises, the founder, owner, co-owner or a shareholder of which is a member of the parliament, and establishments, enterprises, and organisations of the public sector, etc.” of Paragraph 4 of the same Item mean that: (1) a member of the Seimas can be the founder, owner, co-owner or participant (sharer, shareholder, member of the cooperative etc.) of a legal subject, as well as the owner of a farmer’s farm; (2) the member of the Seimas who is the founder, owner, co-owner or participant of a legal subject, can have all the rights (material and non-material) of a participant of the legal subject, but he cannot participate or vote in the meetings of the aforementioned legal subject himself; (3) the member of the Seimas who is the founder, owner, co-owner or participant of a legal subject, can exercise his rights as those of a participant of the legal subject only through another person, and the owner’s rights of the member of the Seimas—the owner of a farmer’s farm—must be exercised following the same procedure; (4) entering into a contract with another person on handling property of a member of the Seimas (handling of property, trust of property, transfer, assignment of the voting right in the meeting of the participants of a legal subject, etc.), inspection of its implementation and amendment are not considered to be activities of the member of the Seimas, which incompatible with the status of a member of the Seimas; (5) limitations on making contracts, related to the handling of the property owned by right of ownership, which, in order to avoid the conflict of public and private interests, must be established not only for a member of the Seimas, but for his close relatives and members of the family as well (interpreting these notions in accordance with Paragraph 5 of Article 2 of the Law on the Adjustment of Public and Private Interests in the State Service of the Republic of Lithuania), also for the legal subjects, participants of which are members of the Seimas and their close relatives and family members, if the shares (divvies) possessed by the member of the Seimas and his close relatives and family members allow exerting a decisive influence upon the control over the legal subject.

2. The member of the Seimas A. Salamakinas, inter alia, requests the construction of whether the statements of Paragraph 3 of Item 13.7.1, of Paragraph 4 of Item 13.7.2 and of Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Item 13.7.3 of Section II of the reasoning part of the Ruling mean that: a member of the Seimas can be the founder, owner, co-owner or participant (sharer, shareholder, member of a cooperative etc.) of a legal subject, as well as the owner of a farmer’s farm; a member of the Seimas, who is the founder, owner, co-owner or participant of a legal subject, can have all the rights (material and non-material) of a participant of the legal subject, but he cannot participate or vote in the meetings of the aforementioned legal subject himself; a member of the Seimas, who is the founder, owner, co-owner or participant of a legal subject, can exercise his rights as those of a participant of the legal subject only through another person, and the owner’s rights of a member of the Seimas—the owner of a farmer’s farm—must be exercised following the same procedure.

While construing the statements of Paragraph 3 of Item 13.7.1, of Paragraph 4 of Item 13.7.2 and of Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Item 13.7.3 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling pointed out by Seimas member A. Salamakinas in the aspect indicated by him, it should be noted that none of the statements indicates that a member of the Seimas is prohibited from being the founder, owner, co-owner or shareholder of any private enterprise, establishment, organisation, that such a member of the Seimas, according to the Constitution, cannot enjoy the rights of the founder, owner, co-owner or shareholder of a private enterprise, establishment, organisation, that he cannot exercise these rights by himself, except for the prohibition for a member of the Seimas formulated in one of these statements: “the member of the Seimas who is a founder, owner, co-owner or shareholder of a private enterprise, establishment or organisation, may not take an office, perform work, perform service, fulfil other functions, perform other tasks, hold a so-called office of honour, etc. (including participation in collegial management, control and other bodies) in the said establishment, enterprise or organisation, or represent it” (Paragraph 3 of Item 13.7.1 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling).

On the other hand, the aforementioned statements do not deny the duty of the legislature originating from the Constitution to establish efficient control over the incompatibility of the duties of a member of the Seimas with other duties or work, as well as the prohibition on receiving other remuneration, save the exceptions established in the Constitution. The Seimas has a certain discretion in establishing such control; incompatibility of the duties of a member of the Seimas with other duties and work, as well as getting no other remuneration, save the exceptions established in the Constitution, can be ensured by the Seimas, inter alia, by establishing also such legal regulation that one might trust other persons with the handling of the property of the member of the Seimas (after establishing legal guarantees of protection and preservation of such property), and that transactions of enterprises, whose founder, owner, co-owner or shareholder is a member of the Seimas, with the establishments, enterprises, organisations, etc. of the public sector would be under control.

3. Having taken account of the aforementioned arguments it should be stated that the statements “The constitutional legal status of a member of the Seimas, a representative of the Nation, comprising, inter alia, the limitations established in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution, determines particularities of the exercising of the person’s rights consolidated in Article 46 and 48 of the Constitution, which are enjoyed by him as any other human being. It needs to be noted that the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution, with regard to the purpose of the legal regulation established in this paragraph, mean also that the member of the Seimas who is a founder, owner, co-owner or shareholder of a private enterprise, establishment or organisation, may not take an office, perform work, perform service, fulfil other functions, perform other tasks, hold a so-called office of honour, etc. (including participation in collegial management, control and other bodies) in the said establishment, enterprise or organisation, or represent it. This is incompatible with the constitutional legal status of a member of the Seimas: having acquired all the rights of the representative of the Nation, the member of the Seimas decides that he will be a representative of the Nation and will not be engaged in business, commerce or other profit-making private activity” of Paragraph 3 of Item 13.7.1 of Section II of the reasoning part of the Ruling, the statements “The legal regulation established in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution may not be construed in the way denying the essence of the consolidated in Article 23 of the Constitution right of ownership, enjoyed by a member of a Seimas as well. Thus, the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution, consolidating the incompatibility of the duties of a member of the Seimas with, inter alia, engaging in business, commerce or other profit-making private activity, may not be construed as the ones meaning the prohibition for a member of the Seimas against using his property, getting income from it, possessing the property owned by him, etc., as well as from concluding contracts related hereto also. However, such an activity of a member of the Seimas, when he uses his property, gets income from it, possesses the property owned by him, etc., as well as concludes contracts related hereto, according to the Constitution, may not take a form of business, commerce or other profit-making private activity, as this would violate the prohibition consolidated in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution for a member of the Seimas against engaging, in any form, in business, commerce or other profit-making private activity” of Paragraph 4 of Item 13.7.2 of the same section, the statements “When establishing by law the constitutionally necessary legal regulation, the legislature must also establish the ways of providing legal conditions of preventing the origination of incompatibility of the duties of a member of the Seimas with engaging in business, commerce or other profit-making private activity. Such legal regulation would also create pre-conditions for avoiding the use of the mandate of a member of the Seimas in the interests of private benefit of certain persons, i.e. particular interests, rather than the interests of the Nation and the State of Lithuania, and confrontation of the private interests of a member of the Seimas with the interests of the Nation and the State of Lithuania, i.e. public interests; this would strengthen the Nation’s trust in members of the Seimas as representatives of the Nation and the Seimas as the representation of the Nation. Such control is an important condition of implementation of the provision of Item 7 of Article 63 of the Constitution, under which the powers of a member of the Seimas become terminated if he takes up, or does not resign from, employment which is incompatible with the duties of a member of the Seimas” of Paragraph 3 of Item 13.7.3 of the same section and the statements “Attention should be drawn to the fact that various methods of ensuring the incompatibility of the duties of a member of the parliament and engagement in business and control over it are established in foreign democratic states under the rule of law, for example trust of possession of property of a member of the parliament or other compulsory transfer to other persons, anonymous possession of such property, control over agreements concluded between the enterprises, the founder, owner, co-owner or a shareholder of which is a member of the parliament, and establishments, enterprises, and organisations of the public sector, etc.” of Paragraph 4 of the same item do not mean that a member of the Seimas is prohibited from being the founder, owner, co-owner or shareholder of any enterprise, establishment, organisation, that such a member of the Seimas, according to the Constitution, cannot have the rights of the founder, owner, co-owner or shareholder of a private enterprise, establishment or organisation, that he cannot exercise the rights himself, except for the fact that such a member of the Seimas, who is the founder, owner, co-owner or shareholder of a private enterprise, establishment or organisation, may not take an office, perform work, perform service, fulfil other functions, perform other tasks, hold a so-called office of honour, etc. (including participation in collegial management, control and other bodies) in that enterprise, establishment, organisation or represent it.

4. Seimas member A. Salamakinas, inter alia, requests the construction of whether the statements of Paragraph 3 of Item 13.7.1, of Paragraph 4 of Item 13.7.2 and of Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Item 13.7.3 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling indicated by him mean that entering into a contract with another person on handling the property of a member of the Seimas (handling of property, trust of property, transfer, assignment of the voting right in the meeting of the participants of a legal subject, etc.), inspection of its implementation and amendment are not considered to be activities of a member of the Seimas, which are incompatible with the status of a member of the Seimas.

There are no statements in Paragraph 3 of Item 13.7.1, in Paragraph 4 of Item 13.7.2 and in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Item 13.7.3 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling concerning “entering into a contract with another person on handling the property of a member of the Seimas (handling of property, trust of property, transfer, assignment of the voting right in the meeting of the participants of the legal subject, etc.), inspection of its implementation and amendment”. Entering into a contract with another person as regards handling the property of a the member of the Seimas, inspection of its implementation and amendment were not a matter of the investigation in constitutional justice case No. 04/04.

Considering the fact that the Constitutional Court must construe its ruling without changing its content, the fact that entering into a contract with another person as regards handling the property of the member of the Seimas, inspection of its implementation and amendment were not a matter of the investigation in constitutional justice case No. 04/04, thus, the statements of Paragraph 3 of Item 13.7.1, of Paragraph 4 of Item 13.7.2 and of Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Item 13.7.3 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling indicated by Seimas member A. Salamakinas cannot be construed in this decision of the Constitutional Court in the aspect whether they mean that entering into a contract with another person as regards handling the property of a member of the Seimas (handling of property, trust of property, transfer, assignment of the voting right in the meeting of the participants of a legal subject, etc.), inspection of its implementation and amendment are considered to be activities of a member of the Seimas, which are incompatible with the status of a member of the Seimas.

5. Seimas member A. Salamakinas, inter alia, requests the construction of whether the statements of Paragraph 3 of Item 13.7.1, of Paragraph 4 of Item 13.7.2 and of Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Item 13.7.3 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling indicated by him mean that the limitations on making contracts, related to the handling of the property owned by right of ownership, which, in order to avoid the conflict of public and private interests, must be established not only for a member of the Seimas, but for his close relatives and members of the family as well (interpreting these notions in accordance with Paragraph 5 of Article 2 of the Law on the Adjustment of Public and Private Interests in the State Service of the Republic of Lithuania), also for the legal subjects, the participants of which are members of the Seimas and their close relatives and family members, if the shares (divvies) possessed by the member of the Seimas and his close relatives and family members allow exerting a decisive influence upon the control over the legal subject.

In Paragraph 3 of Item 13.7.1, Paragraph 4 of Item 13.7.2 and Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Item 13.7.3 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling there are no statements on any limitations on making contracts, related to the handling of the property owned by right of ownership, which, in order to avoid the conflict of public and private interests, must be established not only for a member of the Seimas, but for his close relatives and members of the family, as well as for the legal subjects, participants of which are members of the Seimas and their close relatives and family members, if the shares (divvies) possessed by the member of the Seimas and his close relatives and family members allow exerting a decisive influence upon the control over the legal subject. The limitations on making contracts, related to the handling of the property owned by right of ownership, which, in order to avoid the conflict of public and private interests, either must or can be established not only for a member of the Seimas, but for his close relatives and members of the family, as well as for the legal subjects, the participants of which are members of the Seimas and their close relatives and family members, if the shares (divvies) possessed by the member of the Seimas and his close relatives and family members allow exerting a decisive influence upon the control over the legal subject, were not a matter of the investigation in constitutional justice case No. 04/04. Moreover, the constitutional justice case did not investigate and the Ruling does not mention the legal regulation established in the Law on the Adjustment of Public and Private Interests in the State Service.

While considering the fact that the Constitutional Court must construe its ruling without changing its content, the fact that limitations on making contracts, related to the handling of the property owned by right of ownership, which, in order to avoid the conflict of public and private interests, either must or can be established not only for the member of the Seimas, but for his close relatives and members of the family, as well as for the legal subjects, the participants of which are members of the Seimas and their close relatives and family members, if the shares (divvies) possessed by the member of the Seimas and his close relatives and family members allow exerting a decisive influence upon the control over the legal subject, were not a matter of the investigation in constitutional justice case No. 04/04, thus, the statements of Paragraph 3 of Item 13.7.1, Paragraph 4 of Item 13.7.2 and Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Item 13.7.3 of Item 13.7.3 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling indicated by Seimas member A. Salamakinas cannot be construed in this decision of the Constitutional Court in the aspect that limitations on making contracts, related to the handling of the property owned by right of ownership, which, in order to avoid the conflict of public and private interests, must be established not only for a member of the Seimas, but for his close relatives and members of the family as well (interpreting these notions in accordance with Paragraph 5 of Article 2 of the Law on the Adjustment of Public and Private Interests in the State Service), also for the legal subjects, the participants of which are members of the Seimas and their close relatives and family members, if the shares (divvies) possessed by the member of the Seimas and his close relatives and family members allow exerting a decisive influence upon the control over the legal subject.

V

1. Seimas member A. Salamakinas requests the construction of whether the statements “The constitutional right to freely form unions is linked with an opportunity to take various offices in such associations; the said opportunity is a derivative from the constitutional right to freely form unions. The procedure of taking the said offices in unions is established not by the state, but by acts regulating the internal order (articles of association, statutes, etc.) of the union itself (which, according to the Constitution, is autonomous in regard to public authority, as it has been already mentioned)” of Paragraph 1 of Item 13.8.4 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling and the statements “Under the Constitution, no legal regulation artificially or unreasonably restricting the freedom of forming unions and their activity may be established as this would violate the constitutional value—the right of union (freedom of association). Therefore, under the Constitution, the legislature may not establish any such legal regulation which would limit the right of a member of the Seimas to be a member of the union specified in the Constitution and to take office in it, as in regard to the said person this would violate the constitutional value—the right of union, or freedom of association” of Paragraph 2 of the same item mean that a member of the Seimas can take the leading office in a trade union, political party, association, a member of which he is and represent it.

2. It should be noted that the notions “the leading office in a trade union, political party, association” and “representation of a trade union, political party and association” are not used in the statements of Item 13.8.4 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling indicated by Seimas member A. Salamakinas.

3. The freedom of societies, political parties, associations established in the Constitution, as well as freedom of establishment and operation of associations implies that all these associations can, while following laws, to independently regulate by their own acts (articles of association, statutes, etc.) their internal order (Paragraph 2 of Item 13.8.2 of Section II of the reasoning part of the Ruling), therefore, also independently establish their organisational structure, various offices (inter alia, the leading ones), and the procedure of taking them.

4. While construing the statements of Item 13.8.4 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling in the aspect indicated by Seimas member A. Salamakinas, whether a member of the Seimas can take the leading office in a political party, a member of which he is, and to represent it, it should be noted that political parties belong to the kind of associations, the aim and purpose of establishment and activity of which are inseparable from seeking political power, thus, as well from participation in elections to the representative institution, the Seimas.

The Constitution does not forbid a member of the Seimas from taking various offices (inter alia, the leading ones) in a political party, a member of which he is, and to represent it.

5. It was mentioned that Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution establishes the prohibition of a member of the Seimas against taking any other office in state establishments or organisations, also having another job in business, commercial and other private establishments and enterprises, and Paragraph 3 of the same article establishes the prohibition of a member of the Seimas against receiving any other remuneration than the remuneration as a member of the Seimas and remuneration for creative activities.

In this context it should be noted that a member of the Seimas holding any office (inter alia, the leading one) in a political party, a member of which he is, according to the Constitution cannot be linked with the political party and its structural subdivisions by employment relations regardless of whether this activity is registered by any legal contract or other legal act, or performed without any legal contract or legal act, whether this activity is remunerated in any payment or other form, or not.

It should also be noted that the prohibition to a member of the Seimas against receiving any other remuneration, except the remuneration as a member of the Seimas and remuneration for creative activities established in the Constitution, means that a member of the Seimas holding any office (inter alia, the leading one) in a political party, a member of which he is, under the Constitution cannot receive any remuneration for this activity.

In this context it should be stated that, as mentioned above, the content of the notion “remuneration” used in Paragraph 3 of Article 60 of the Constitution is a constitutional notion, it bears constitutional content and it should not be associated with the remuneration paid by employment etc. contracts and agreements; the content of the notion “remuneration” in Paragraph 3 of Article 60 is broader, it comprises monetary payments of various types or provisions of other material benefits to the member of the Seimas.

6. Having taken account of the arguments set forth, it should be held that the statements of Item 13.8.4 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling do not mean by themselves that a member of the Seimas cannot hold an office (inter alia, the leading one) in a political party, a member of which he is and represent it.

7. While construing the statements of Item 13.8.4 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling indicated by Seimas member A. Salamakinas in the aspect that a member of the Seimas can take a leading office in a trade union, association, a member of which he is, and represent it, it should be noted that freedom of associations as well as freedom of establishment and activity of trade unions imply that all these associations can, while following laws, independently regulate their organisational structure, various offices (inter alia, the leading ones), also the procedure of taking them.

The Constitution does not forbid a member of the Seimas from taking various offices (inter alia, the leading ones) in a trade union, other association, a member of which he is and represent it.

8. It should also be stressed that the prohibition established in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution for a member of the Seimas against taking any other office in state establishments or organisations, as well as working in business, commercial or other private establishments or enterprises and the prohibition established in Paragraph 3 of the same article for a member of the Seimas against receiving any other remuneration than the remunerations as a member of the Seimas and remuneration for creative activities imply that the member of the Seimas who holds a certain office (inter alia, the leading one) in a trade union, other association, a member of which he is, cannot be linked, according to the Constitution, with the trade union, other association or its structural subdivisions regardless of whether this activity is registered by any legal contract or other legal act, or performed without any legal contract or legal act, regardless of whether or not this activity is remunerated in any payment or other form, also that a member of the Seimas, who holds any office (inter alia, the leading one) in a trade union, other association, a member of which he is, cannot, according to the Constitution, receive any remuneration for this activity.

While construing whether a member of the Seimas can represent a trade union, other association, a member of which he is, it should also be noted that the representation of a trade union, other association by a member of the Seimas bears certain peculiarities determined by the constitutional legal status of a member of the Seimas as a representative of the Nation, which differs essentially from the legal status of other citizens or state officials. According to the Constitution, a member of the Seimas cannot represent a trade union, other association in legal relations with the state and municipal establishments, enterprises, organisations (their officers), as well as with other (non-state or municipal) establishments, enterprises, organisations (their officers), which under the laws were assigned (entrusted) with the implementation of certain state functions or which in certain ways and forms established in the laws participate in implementation of state functions, since the aforementioned establishments, enterprises, organisations (their officers) are (might be) directly or indirectly dependent on decisions of the Seimas (including decisions on appointment of budget appropriations), the parliamentary control implemented by the Seimas, the opportunity of the Seimas to appoint and release heads of the institutions, other state officials or exerting influence upon their appointment etc. Such representation, when a certain trade union, other association is represented by a member of the Seimas in legal relations with the state and municipal establishments, enterprises, organisations (their officers), as well as with other (non-state or municipal) establishments, enterprises, organisations (their officers), which under the law were assigned (entrusted) with the implementation of certain state functions or which in certain ways and forms established in the laws participate in implementation of state functions, might create preconditions for such a legal situation, where a trade union, other association represented by a member of the Seimas would gain an additional advantage over the other subject of these relations solely due to the fact that it is represented by a member of the Seimas.

6. Having taken account of the arguments set forth, it should be stated that the statements of Item 13.8.4 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling do not mean by themselves that a member of the Seimas cannot hold an office (inter alia, the leading one) in a trade union, other association, a member of which he is and represent it.

VI

1. Seimas member A. Salamakinas requests the construction of whether the statements of Items 12, 13.1, 13.5, 13.6 and 13.9 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling as regards the incompatibility of the duties of a member of the Seimas with other duties and work mean that the principle of the incompatibility of the duties of a member of the Seimas with other duties is violated by a member of the Seimas who does not work nor performs any activity, because he was granted holiday for the period of office of a member of the Seimas following the procedure established in Articles 183, 184 and 185 of the Labour Code or his activity (powers) have been suspended following the procedure established in the laws (Article 221 of the Law on Notary Office, Article 11 of the Law on Bailiffs, Article 14 of the Law on Audit).

2. Items 12, 13.1, 13.5, 13.6 and 13.9 of Section II in the Ruling of the Constitutional Court indicated by the member of the Seimas are stated in the following way:

1) “It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that certain constitutional duties of a member of the Seimas are formulated in the Constitution as certain limitations applied in regard to a member of the Seimas—incompatibility of the duties of a member of the Seimas with other duties or a job, save the exceptions established in the Constitution, and the prohibition for a member of the Seimas against receiving other remuneration, except the cases established in the Constitution; these limitations are meant to ensure the free mandate of a member of the Seimas as a representative of the Nation, and the continuity of his work at the Seimas and other parliamentary activities. When evaluating the entirety of limitations entrenched in the Constitution in regard to a member of the Seimas, it should be held that in this respect the constitutional legal status of a member of the Seimas, a representative of the Nation, is different in essence from the constitutional legal status of other citizens and it determines particularities of implementation of particular rights of a person entrenched in the Constitution, which a member of the Seimas enjoys as a human being and citizen.

As already mentioned above, under Article 60 of the Constitution, the duties of a member of the Seimas are incompatible with any other duties in State institutions and organisations, as well as with work in business, commercial and other private establishments or enterprises (Paragraph 1); a member of the Seimas may be appointed only either as Prime Minister or a Minister (Paragraph 2); a member of the Seimas may not receive any remuneration, with the exception of remuneration for creative activities (Paragraph 3).

It was mentioned also that the Constitution is an integral act, that all its provisions are interrelated and constitute a harmonious system, that no provision of the Constitution may be construed only literally, that no provision of the Constitution may be construed so that the content of another constitutional provision should be distorted or denied, since the essence of the whole constitutional regulation would thus be distorted and the balance of the constitutional values would thus be disturbed. Therefore, the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution that the duties of a member of the Seimas are incompatible with any other duties in state institutions and organisations, as well as with work in business, commercial and other private establishments or enterprises should be interpreted while taking account of the provision of this paragraph that a member of the Seimas may hold office at the Seimas, the provision of Paragraph 2 of this article that a member of the Seimas may be appointed only either as Prime Minister or a Minister, and the integral constitutional legal regulation, thus, of all the constitutional provisions entrenching the constitutional status of a member of the Seimas (the rights and duties of a member of the Seimas, guarantees of his work at the Seimas and other parliamentary activities, limitations applied in regard to a member of the Seimas, etc.), of the constitutional provisions entrenching the rights of a person, as well as the purposes of the constitutional regulation, which comprise, inter alia, the purposes on which the functions of legal regulation established in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution are based, the purposes of this regulation in regard to the entire integral constitutional legal regulation, of the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution that a member of the Seimas may hold office at the Seimas, of the provision of Paragraph 2 of this article that a member of the Seimas may be appointed only either as Prime Minister or a Minister, and also of the entire integral constitutional legal regulation in general; the purposes of the constitutional regulation should be taken account of when interpreting the provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 60 of the Constitution that a member of the Seimas may not receive any remuneration, with the exception of remuneration for creative activities also.

The purpose of the legal regulation established in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution is to ensure the free mandate of a member of the Seimas as a representative of the Nation, and continuity of his work at the Seimas and other parliamentary activities, to guarantee that a member of the Seimas shall act in the interests of the Nation and the State of Lithuania rather than their personal interests or the interests of a group, or the interests of political parties or political organisation, public or other organisations, and other persons, which nominated or supported the candidate to the office of a member of the Seimas, territorial communities, and voters of the constituency in which that member of the Seimas is elected, that a member of the Seimas will not use his status and the free mandate for the private benefit or the benefit of his close relatives or other persons, that each member of the Seimas will have an opportunity to exercise his constitutional duty to constantly participate at the work of the Seimas, the representation of the Nation, to incessantly perform his constitutional powers, as a representative of the Nation. This purpose would never be reached or conditions preventing the accomplishment of this purpose would be created if a member of the Seimas had an opportunity to hold another office to be engaged in other work, with the exception of the offices expressis verbis specified in the Constitution, as well as the offices which may be held upon the implication of the Constitution; this purpose would never be reached or conditions preventing the accomplishment of this purpose would also be created if a member of the Seimas received remuneration other than that specified in the Constitution” (Item 12 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling);

2) “The formula ‘the duties of a member of the Seimas, with the exception of his duties in the Seimas’ is used in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution. Under the Constitution, a member of the Seimas may hold certain other offices in the Seimas as well.

The offices in the Seimas directly specified in the Constitution, which may be taken by a member of the Seimas, are the office of the Speaker of the Seimas and his deputy.

As already mentioned above, under Article 76 of the Constitution, the structure and procedure of activities of the Seimas are established by the Statute of the Seimas. Therefore, the Statute of the Seimas may establish other offices in the Seimas, which may be taken by certain members of the Seimas, the offices in the governing body of the Seimas, as well as the offices of the heads of structural subunits of the Seimas and other offices in the Seimas, which may be held by a member of the Seimas only; the Statute of the Seimas may also provide for an opportunity for a member of the Seimas to take certain offices in inter-parliamentary and other international institutions, which may only be taken by a member of the Seimas—the formula ‘his duties in the Seimas’ of Article 60 of the Constitution comprises these offices as well.

Thus, the formula ‘his duties in the Seimas’ of Article 60 of the Constitution comprises: (1) the office of the Speaker of the Seimas, Deputy Speaker of the Seimas; (2) the offices of a member of the Seimas at the Seimas, which are taken by a member of the Seimas pursuant to the Statute of the Seimas in the governing body of the Seimas or when leading a structural subunit of the Seimas, as well as other offices, which may be taken in the Seimas only by a member of the Seimas; (3) the offices of a member of the Seimas in inter-parliamentary and other international institutions, which may only be taken by a member of the Seimas” (Item 13.1 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling);

3) “The constitutional norms and principles may not be construed on the basis of acts adopted by the legislature or other law-making subjects, as the supremacy of the Constitution in the legal system would thus be denied (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 12 July 2001).

It needs to be stressed that concepts “duties” and “work” used in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution are constitutional concepts, they bear the constitutional content and may not be construed only following the definition of similar concepts in laws and other legal acts (for example, legal acts regulating employment or public service relations). In this regard the duties and work specified in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution are not to be linked with employment or similar contracts or agreements” (Item 13.5 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling);

4) “The notion ‘duties’ used in the formula ‘duties in State institutions and organisations’ in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution and the notion ‘work’ used in the formula ‘work in business, commercial and other private establishments or enterprises’ in this paragraph should be construed with regard to the purpose of the constitutional legal regulation established in this article, and all the other constitutional provisions consolidating the constitutional status of a member of the Seimas. It should be noted that taking an office implies that the person who takes the said office must perform certain work, fulfil certain other functions, perform certain other tasks, etc., while performing work implies that a person must take certain office, fulfil certain other functions, perform certain other tasks, etc. The notion ‘duties’ used in the formula ‘duties in State institutions and organisations’ in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution and the notion ‘work’ used in the formula ‘work in business, commercial and other private establishments or enterprises’ in this paragraph mean activity. Therefore, in the context of the whole constitutional integral regulation these concepts may not be confronted, and they may not be construed literally, by ignoring their correlations.

The notion ‘duties’ used in the formula ‘duties in State institutions and organisations’ in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution comprises any activity in a Lithuanian state, municipal, foreign or international establishment, enterprise or organisation, or representing such an establishment, enterprise or organisation, if this activity is linked with taking office, performing work, holding the office, fulfilment of other functions, performing other tasks, holding a so-called office of honour, etc. (including participation in collegial management, control and other bodies), irrespective of whether this activity is of permanent, temporary, or one-off (episodic) type, whether this activity is remunerated in any payment or other form, or not, whether this activity is referred to in legal acts as offices or any other term, whether this activity is duties of a leader or not, whether the person is elected or appointed to the office, whether this activity is registered by any legal contract or other legal act, or performed without any legal contract or legal act, save the exceptions expressis verbis established or implicitly provided for in the Constitution. The notion ‘work’ used in the formula ‘work in business, commercial and other private establishments or enterprises’ in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution in its turn comprises any activity in a Lithuanian, foreign or international private establishment, enterprise or organisation, or representation of such an establishment, enterprise or organisation, if this activity is linked with performing work, taking the office, performing service, fulfilment of other functions, performing other tasks, holding a so-called office of honour, etc. (including participation in collegial management, control and other bodies), irrespective of whether this activity is of permanent, temporary, or one-off (episodic) type, whether this activity is remunerated in any payment or other form, or not, whether this activity is referred to in legal acts as work or any other term, whether or not any other persons engaged in any activity in this establishment, enterprise or organisation exist, whether this activity is duties of a leader or not, whether the person is elected or appointed to the office, whether the activity is registered by any legal contract or other legal act, or performed without any legal contract or legal act; the notion ‘work’ used in the formula ‘work in business, commercial and other private establishments or enterprises’ of Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution also comprises any other private profit-making activity, as well as any profit-making activity engaged in without establishing an enterprise, establishment or organisation” (Item 13.6 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling);

5) “In conclusion, it should be held that the principle of incompatibility of the duties of a member of the Seimas with other offices or work means that the duties of a member of the Seimas are incompatible with any other activity (taking office, performing work, performing service, fulfilment of other functions, performing other tasks, holding a so-called office of honour) in a state establishment, enterprise, organisation of Lithuania, or a municipal establishment, enterprise, organisation, or an international establishment, enterprise, organisation, or a private establishment, enterprise, organisation, or representing such an establishment, enterprise, organisation, with the exception of the duties expressis verbis or implicitly set down in the Constitution: (1) the duties of a member of the Seimas specified in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution, which comprise the office of the Speaker of the Seimas and the Deputy Speaker of the Seimas, the office of a member of the Seimas in the Seimas, which are taken by a member of the Seimas pursuant to the Statute of the Seimas in the governing body of the Seimas or when leading a structural subunit of the Seimas, as well as other offices, which may be taken in the Seimas only by a member of the Seimas, also offices of a member of the Seimas in inter-parliamentary and other international institutions, which may only be taken by a member of the Seimas; (2) the office of Prime Minister or a Minister specified in Paragraph 2 of Article 60 of the Constitution; (3) offices in the unions specified in the Constitution, which are linked with his membership in a respective union” (Item 13.9 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling).

3. The statements provided in the quoted Items of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling disclose the incompatibility of the duties of a member of the Seimas with other duties and work in various aspects.

4. The petition Seimas member A. Salamakinas and his explanations at the Constitutional Court’s hearing show that he requests the construction of the statements of Items 12, 13.1, 13.5, 13.6 and 13.9 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling on incompatibility of the duties of a member of the Seimas with other duties and work in the aspect whether they mean that a legal situation is permissible in which a member of the Seimas is a person who is related to a certain enterprise, establishment, organisation by employment relations and he was granted holiday for the period of office of a member of the Seimas (under Articles 183, 184 and 185 of the Labour Code) or his activity (powers) have been suspended following the procedure established in the laws (Article 221 of the Law on Notary Office, Article 11 of the Law on Bailiffs, Article 14 of the Law on Audit) and who does not perform work or does not perform activity in the respective enterprise, establishment, or organisation.

5. While construing the statements of Items 12, 13.1, 13.5, 13.6 and 13.9 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling in the aspect indicated by Seimas member A. Salamakinas, it should be noted that the legal regulation established in Articles 183, 184 and 185 of the Labour Code, Article 221 of the Law on Notary Office, Article 11 of the Law on Bailiffs, Article 14 of the Law on Audit indicated in his petition, was not a matter of the investigation in constitutional justice case No. 04/04.

While considering the fact that the Constitutional Court must construe its ruling without changing its content and the fact that legal regulation established in Articles 183, 184 and 185 of the Labour Code, Article 221 of the Law on Notary Office, Article 11 of the Law on Bailiffs, Article 14 of the Law on Audit was not a matter of the investigation in constitutional justice case No. 04/04, thus, their content cannot be construed in this decision of the Constitutional Court, either.

6. Alongside, it should be noted that it is clear from the statements of Items 12, 13.1, 13.5, 13.6, 13.9 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling on incompatibility of the duties of a member of the Seimas with other duties and work that according to the Constitution a legal situation is impermissible where a member of the Seimas is related to a certain state or municipal enterprise, establishment, organisation, or a private enterprise, establishment, or organisation, as well as with a certain public organisation, trade union, political party, association or other union (regardless of its title) by employment relations, except for the work (duties) expressis verbis indicated or implicitly provided in the Constitution.

This constitutional prohibition also means that the person elected as a member of the Seimas must terminate employment relations in all state or municipal enterprises, establishments, organisations, private enterprises, establishments, organisations, as well as in public organisations, trade unions, political parties, associations or other unions (regardless of their titles) before the first sitting of the newly-elected Seimas, during which he takes an oath. It was held in the Ruling that such “construction of the Constitution, that, purportedly, a member of the Seimas, having taken the oath, for certain period of time still may hold another office or perform other work, which is incompatible with the duties of a member of the Seimas (save the exceptions provided for in the Constitution), <…> would be unreasonable as the prohibitions established in the Constitution applicable to a member of the Seimas <…> would be disregarded; this would be in violation of the Constitution” (Item 15 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling).

Therefore, if a member of the Seimas, having taken the oath, would not terminate his employment relations with a certain state or municipal enterprise, establishment, organisation, private enterprise, establishment, organisation or any public organisation, trade union, political party, association or other union (regardless of its title) for some time, that would be disregard of the prohibitions for a member of the Seimas established in the Constitution, i.e. a violation of the Constitution. The Constitution would also be violated in case a member of the Seimas, having taken the oath, would not terminate his employment relations with a certain state or municipal enterprise, establishment, organisation, or a private enterprise, establishment, organisation or any public organisation, trade union, political party, association or other union (regardless of its title), but by a decision of the state or municipal enterprise, establishment, organisation, or the private enterprise, establishment, organisation or public organisation, trade union, political party, association or other union (regardless of its title) or its institution or officer he would be granted holiday or in any other way he would be allowed not to perform respective work, not to perform respective activities temporarily (for the period when he discharges the duties of a member of the Seimas) or discharging of his authority (powers) is suspended, etc. In this context it should be noted that a person’s leaving for any holiday, suspension of performance of his powers (duties) etc., do not terminate the employment relations of this person and the respective state, municipal enterprise, establishment, organisation, private enterprise, establishment, organisation or the public organisation, trade union, political party, association or other union (regardless of its title), but on the contrary, confirms that this person is (remains) related to the respective state, municipal enterprise, establishment, organisation, private enterprise, establishment, organisation, as well as with the public organisation, trade union, political party, association or other union (regardless of its title) by employment relations.

7. Under Item 7 of Article 63 of the Constitution, the powers of a member of the Seimas become terminated if he does not resign from employment, which is incompatible with the duties of a member of the Seimas. If it becomes clear that such a legal situation occurred where a member of the Seimas, having taken the oath, has not resigned from the employment which is incompatible with the duties of a member of the Seimas, under the Constitution, a duty arises for the Seimas to terminate the powers of such a member of the Seimas; the Seimas shall adopt a corresponding resolution thereon.

8. Taking account the arguments set forth, it should be held that the statements of Items 12, 13.1, 13.5, 13.6, 13.9 in Section II of the reasoning part of the Ruling on incompatibility of the duties of a member of the Seimas with other duties and work mean that under the Constitution a legal situation is impermissible, in which a member of the Seimas is a person who has not terminated his employment relations with a certain state or municipal enterprise, establishment, organisation, a private enterprise, establishment, organisation, or a certain public organisation, trade union, political party, association or other union (regardless of its title), but is granted holiday or in any other way is allowed not to perform respective work, not to perform respective activities temporarily (for the period when he discharges the duties of a member of the Seimas) or performance of his authority (duties) in that enterprise, establishment, organisation, public organisation, trade union, political party, association or other union (regardless of its title) is suspended in another way.

Conforming to Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania adopts the following

decision:

To construe that:

1. The notion “continuity of the activity of the Seimas” used in the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania “On the Compliance of Paragraph 4 of Article 15 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 22 December 1998) with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania” of 1 July 2004 does not mean that the continuity of work of the Seimas would be violated, if the paid annual holidays established in Paragraph 1 of the Article 49 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania was granted to all the members of the Seimas during the period between the sessions of the Seimas (save the exceptions, which arise out of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, concerning the time for annual paid holidays of the Speaker of the Seimas and Deputy Speaker (Speakers) of the Seimas).

2. The statement “the notion ‘work’ used in the formula ‘work in business, commercial and other private establishments or enterprises’ of Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution also comprises any other private profit-making activity, as well as any profit-making activity engaged in without establishing an enterprise, establishment or organisation” of Paragraph 2 of Item 13.6 in Section II of the reasoning part of the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania “On the Compliance of Paragraph 4 of Article 15 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 22 December 1998) with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania” of 1 July 2004 does not mean that any activity, which can be described as farming, is by itself incompatible with the constitutional legal status of a member of the Seimas (if it has not turned into a business, commerce or any other activity prohibited for a member of the Seimas by the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania).

3. The statements “The constitutional legal status of a member of the Seimas, a representative of the Nation, comprising, inter alia, the limitations established in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution, determines particularities of the exercising of the person’s rights consolidated in Article 46 and 48 of the Constitution, which are enjoyed by him as any other human being. It needs to be noted that the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution, with regard to the purpose of the legal regulation established in this paragraph, mean also that the member of the Seimas who is a founder, owner, co-owner or shareholder of a private enterprise, establishment or organisation, may not take an office, perform work, perform service, fulfil other functions, perform other tasks, hold a so-called office of honour, etc. (including participation in collegial management, control and other bodies) in the said establishment, enterprise or organisation, or represent it. This is incompatible with the constitutional legal status of a member of the Seimas: having acquired all the rights of the representative of the Nation, the member of the Seimas decides that he will be a representative of the Nation and will not be engaged in business, commerce or other profit-making private activity” of Paragraph 3 of Item 13.7.1 of Section II of the reasoning part of the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania “On the Compliance of Paragraph 4 of Article 15 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 22 December 1998) with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania” of 1 July 2004, the statements “The legal regulation established in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution may not be construed in the way denying the essence of the consolidated in Article 23 of the Constitution right of ownership, enjoyed by a member of a Seimas as well. Thus, the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution, consolidating the incompatibility of the duties of a member of the Seimas with, inter alia, engaging in business, commerce or other profit-making private activity, may not be construed as the ones meaning the prohibition for a member of the Seimas against using his property, getting income from it, possessing the property owned by him, etc., as well as from concluding contracts related hereto also. However, such an activity of a member of the Seimas, when he uses his property, gets income from it, possesses the property owned by him, etc., as well as concludes contracts related hereto, according to the Constitution, may not take a form of business, commerce or other profit-making private activity, as this would violate the prohibition consolidated in Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Constitution for a member of the Seimas against engaging, in any form, in business, commerce or other profit-making private activity” of Paragraph 4 of Item 13.7.2 of the same section, the statements “When establishing by law the constitutionally necessary legal regulation, the legislature must also establish the ways of providing legal conditions of preventing the origination of incompatibility of the duties of a member of the Seimas with engaging in business, commerce or other profit-making private activity. Such legal regulation would also create pre-conditions for avoiding the use of the mandate of a member of the Seimas in the interests of private benefit of certain persons, i.e. particular interests, rather than the interests of the Nation and the State of Lithuania, and confrontation of the private interests of a member of the Seimas with the interests of the Nation and the State of Lithuania, i.e. public interests; this would strengthen the Nation’s trust in members of the Seimas as representatives of the Nation and the Seimas as the representation of the Nation. Such control is an important condition of implementation of the provision of Item 7 of Article 63 of the Constitution, under which the powers of a member of the Seimas become terminated if he takes up, or does not resign from, employment which is incompatible with the duties of a member of the Seimas” of Paragraph 3 of Item 13.7.3 of the same section and the statements “Attention should be drawn to the fact that various methods of ensuring the incompatibility of the duties of a member of the parliament and engagement in business and control over it are established in foreign democratic states under the rule of law, for example trust of possession of property of a member of the parliament or other compulsory transfer to other persons, anonymous possession of such property, control over agreements concluded between the enterprises, the founder, owner, co-owner or a shareholder of which is a member of the parliament, and establishments, enterprises, and organisations of the public sector, etc.” of Paragraph 4 of the same item do not mean that a member of the Seimas is prohibited from being the founder, owner, co-owner or shareholder of any enterprise, establishment, organisation, that such a member of the Seimas, according to the Constitution, cannot have the rights of the founder, owner, co-owner or shareholder of a private enterprise, establishment or organisation, that he cannot exercise the rights himself, except for the fact that such a member of the Seimas, who is the founder, owner, co-owner or shareholder of a private enterprise, establishment or organisation, may not take an office, perform work, perform service, fulfil other functions, perform other tasks, hold a so-called office of honour, etc. (including participation in collegial management, control and other bodies) in that enterprise, establishment, organisation or represent it.

4. The statements of Item 13.8.4 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania “On the Compliance of Paragraph 4 of Article 15 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 22 December 1998) with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania” of 1 July 2004 do not mean by themselves that a member of the Seimas cannot take an office (inter alia, the leading one) in a political party, a member of which he is and represent it.

5. The statements of Item 13.8.4 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania “On the Compliance of Paragraph 4 of Article 15 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 22 December 1998) with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania” of 1 July 2004 do not mean by themselves that a member of the Seimas cannot hold an office (inter alia, the leading one) in a trade union, other association, a member of which he is and represent it.

6. The statements of Items 12, 13.1, 13.5, 13.6, 13.9 of Section II in the reasoning part of the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania “On the Compliance of Paragraph 4 of Article 15 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 22 December 1998) with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania” of 1 July 2004 on incompatibility of the duties of a member of the Seimas with other duties and work mean that under the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania a legal situation is impermissible, in which a member of the Seimas is a person who has not terminated his employment relations with a certain state or municipal enterprise, establishment, organisation, a private enterprise, establishment, organisation, or a certain public organisation, trade union, political party, association or other union (regardless of its title), but is granted holiday or in any other way is allowed not to perform respective work, not to perform respective activities temporarily (for the period when he discharges the duties of a member of the Seimas) or performance of his authority (duties) in that enterprise, establishment, organisation, public organisation, trade union, political party, association or other union (regardless of its title) is suspended in another way.

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

The decision 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