Lt

On returning part of a petition and refusing to consider part of the petition

 

 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

 

DECISION

ON THE PETITION OF THE PANEVĖŽYS REGIONAL COURT, THE PETITIONER, REQUESTING AN INVESTIGATION INTO WHETHER PARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLE 21410 OF THE CODE OF ADMINISTRATIVE VIOLATIONS OF LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA AND PARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLE 192 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH PARAGRAPH 4 OF ARTICLE 31 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE OF A STATE UNDER THE RULE OF LAW

 

13 November 2006

Vilnius

 

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court: Armanas Abramavičius, Toma Birmontienė, Egidijus Kūris, Kęstutis Lapinskas, Zenonas Namavičius, Ramutė Ruškytė, Vytautas Sinkevičius, Stasys Stačiokas, and Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis

The court reporter—Daiva Pitrėnaitė

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, at its procedural sitting, has considered the petition of the Panevėžys Regional Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 of the Code of Administrative Violations of Law of the Republic of Lithuania and Paragraph 1 of Article 192 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania are not in conflict with Paragraph 4 of Article 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

The Constitutional Court

has established:

I

The Panevėžys Regional Court, the petitioner, considered a criminal case. By its ruling, the court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 of the Code of Administrative Violations of Law (hereinafter also referred to as the CAVL) and Paragraph 1 of Article 192 of the Criminal Code (hereinafter also referred to as the CC) are not in conflict with Paragraph 4 of Article 31 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

This petition was received at the Constitutional Court on 13 September 2006.

II

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

1. Paragraph 1 of Article 192 of the CC provides for criminal liability to those who illegally reproduced a work of literature, science or art or part thereof, or imported, exported, distributed, transported or stored illegal copies thereof for commercial purposes, provided the total value of these copies, if compared to the retail prices of legal copies thereof, exceeded the sum of 100 minimum subsistence levels (hereinafter referred to as the MSL).

According to the petitioner, the Supreme Court of Lithuania has held that Paragraph 1 of Article 192 of the CC provides for criminal liability for criminal deeds of different kinds: (1) illegal reproduction of a work of literature, science or art or part thereof; (2) import, export, distribution, transportation or storage of illegal copies of a work of literature, science or art or part thereof for commercial purposes. It is maintained in the petition of the petitioner that, according to the construction of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the objective indication of the retail price higher than 100 minimum subsistence levels is linked with criminal liability for the criminal deeds of the “second group” and is not necessary for the appearance of criminal liability for illegal reproduction of a work of literature, science or art or part thereof.

2. Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 of the CAVL provides for administrative liability for illegal public performance, reproduction, publishing, other use, in any ways and by any means, of works of literature, science or art (including computer software and data bases) and of an audio-visual work or phonogram by seeking to gain property benefit as well as for distribution, storage, import, export or transportation of illegal copies by seeking to gain property benefit.

3. Under Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the CAVL, administrative liability for violations of law provided for in the CAVL appears if these violations by their nature do not incur criminal liability under valid laws.

According to the petitioner, according to the construction of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, illegal reproduction of a of a piece of work or part thereof as a crime is separated from the administrative violation of law, upon the assessment of the nature and degree of the dangerousness of the deed of the culprit in every concrete situation; when the nature and degree of dangerousness of the deed of the culprit is assessed, one can take account of such criterion as the price of the piece of work or part thereof.

4. According to the petitioner, Paragraph 1 of Article 192 of the CC and Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 of the CAVL establish criminal and administrative liability for a virtually analogous deed—illegal reproduction of a work of art. However, when one compares the legal regulation established in Paragraph 1 of Article 192 of the CC and Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 of the CAVL, it is clear that administrative liability for illegal reproduction of a work of art is possible only after the person seeks to gain property benefit, which has been proved—it is a necessary qualification feature of this illegal deed (its body).

Meanwhile, such seeking to gain property benefit is not necessary for appearance of the criminal liability under Paragraph 1 of Article 192 of the CC—here the mere fact of illegal reproduction of a work of art is sufficient.

Thus, in the opinion of the petitioner, the legislature has established not criminal liability, but administrative liability (legal liability pertaining to a kind less strict) for a deed which is more dangerous to society.

5. On the basis of the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, it is maintained in the petition of the petitioner that in a state under the rule of law the legislature has the right as well as a duty to prohibit, by means of laws, the deeds which inflict essential damage upon the interests of persons, society and the state, or such deeds which pose a threat that such damage will appear; the laws define what deeds are recognised as criminal ones and punishment is established for their commission; the laws protect persons and society from criminal attempts by punishment threat and the bases are established upon which the persons who have committed crimes are punished in order to correct such persons; by establishing what deeds are criminal, as well as criminal liability for them, the legislature is bound by the principles of natural justice and proportionality, which are entrenched in the Constitution, as well as by other requirements of a state under the rule of law. Under this constitutional principle, it is required, inter alia, that differentiated legal regulation be based only upon objective differences of subjects of social relations which are regulated by corresponding legal acts, so that the subjects of legal relations could be aware of what they are required by law, so that the legal regulation established in laws and other legal acts be clear, understandable, non-contradictory, the formulations of legal acts be precise, so that the consistency and inner harmony of the legal system be ensured, so that legal acts not contain any provisions, which would regulate the same social relations differently at the same time, so that the subjects of legal relations might orient their behaviour in accordance with requirements of law.

In the opinion of the petitioner, the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, Paragraph 2 of Article 31 of the Constitution which provides that a person charged with the commission of a crime shall have the right to a public and fair hearing of his case by an independent and impartial court, Paragraph 4 of this article which provides that punishment may be imposed or applied only on the grounds established by law, as well as Paragraph 3 of Article 109 of the Constitution which provides that when considering cases, judges shall obey only the law, imply a duty of the judge (court) to apply the law justly. While this duty is directly linked with requirements for the law: the law itself must be clear, precise and unambiguous; the sanction must be established while following the principle of proportionality of liability; stricter liability should not be applied for a deed, which is less dangerous to society.

It is maintained in the petition of the petitioner that the conditions for the application of criminal liability must be established clearly and in a sufficiently concrete manner, while criminal liability should be applied only when the deed committed by the person who is being brought to criminal liability precisely corresponds to the elements of the body of the criminal deed specified in the CC. By invoking the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, it is maintained that, according to Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, criminal deeds must be defined in the law clearly, the individual should have an opportunity to know from the text of a corresponding law or, if necessary, by making use of judicial interpretation of this law, what his actions or failure to act may incur criminal liability.

6. The petitioner has doubts whether the principle of proportionality of liability is not violated when not criminal liability, but namely administrative liability—legal liability of the kind less strict—is established for a deed which is more dangerous to society.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

I

1. The petition of the petitioner does not directly indicate the wording of the articles of the CAVL and the CC the provisions of which with the Constitution are impugned. It is clear of the arguments of the petition of the petitioner and of the annexes to the petition that the petitioner faced doubts whether Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 titled “Infringement of the Rights of Authors and Related Rights” (wording of 10 December 2002) of the CAVL and Paragraph 1 of Article 192 titled “Illegal Reproduction of a Work of Literature, Science, Art or Another Piece of Work, as well as Distribution, Transportation or Storage of Illegal Copies” (wording of 26 September 2000) of the CC are not in conflict with the Constitution.

Article 21410 titled “Infringement of the Rights of Authors and Related Rights” (wording of 10 December 2002) of the CAVL provides:

Illegal public performance, reproduction, publishing, of works of literature, science or art (including computer software and data bases) and of an audio-visual work or phonogram, other use thereof by any ways and means by seeking to gain property benefit as well as distribution, storage, export or transportation of illegal copies by seeking to gain property benefit

shall incur a fine from LTL 1000 to 3000 together with confiscation of the illegal copies of the work or phonogram and of the means or equipment of production of such copies.

The same actions performed by a person who has been given an administrative punishment for violations provided for in Paragraph 1 of this Article

shall incur a fine from LTL 2000 to 3000 together with confiscation of the illegal copies of the work or phonogram and of the means or equipment of production of such copies.

Note. The means or equipment of illegal reproduction is technical equipment, materials or other means which are exclusively or most often used for illegal reproduction and/or reproduction of illegal copies of production or a phonogram, or the purpose and direct aim of which is reproduction and/or distribution of illegal copies of production or a phonogram.”

3. Article 192 titled “Illegal Reproduction of a Work of Literature, Science, Art or Another Piece of Work, as well as Distribution, Transportation or Storage of Illegal Copies (wording of 26 September 2000) of the CC provides:

1. Those who illegally reproduced a work of literature, science or art or part thereof, or imported, exported, distributed, transported or stored illegal copies thereof for commercial purposes, provided the total value of these copies, if compared to the retail prices of legal copies thereof, exceeded the sum of 100 MSL

shall be punished by public works, or a fine, or limitation of freedom, or arrest, or deprivation of freedom for up to two years.

2. Also a legal person shall be liable for the deeds provided for in this Article.”

II

1. It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner that it has faced doubts on the compliance of Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the CAVL and Paragraph 1 of Article 192 (wording of 26 September 2000) of the CC with the Constitution due to the fact that, according to the petitioner, for a deed more dangerous to society—illegal reproduction of a work of art be seeking to gain property benefit—less strict, i.e. administrative liability is established, however, stricter, i.e. criminal liability, is established for a deed which is less dangerous.

2. The Constitutional Court has held that the legislature, when paying heed to the Constitution, inter alia, to the imperatives of consistency and of internal non-contradiction of the legal system that arises from it, may choose by what norms of a particular branch of law to define certain violations of law and what sanctions (criminal, administrative, etc.) to establish for them, that while establishing sanctions for violations of law, one must respect the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, inter alia, the requirements of reasonableness, justice and proportionality, also that the legislature must seek to achieve the inter-branch compatibility of administrative and criminal sanctions (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 10 November 2005). The inter-branch incompatibility of administrative and criminal sanctions can burden the implementation of the principle of justice (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 November 1997).

Alongside, it needs to be noted that, as it was held by the Constitutional Court in its ruling of 10 November 2005, in itself, establishment of legal liability of various kinds for violations of law cannot be the grounds to question the compliance of corresponding legal regulation established in laws with the constitutional principles of equal rights of people and a state under the rule of law; even though under the laws certain deeds which are contrary to law are defined as administrative violations of law (even though the administrative penalties established for them amount to criminal punishments), while others—as crimes or other deeds violating penal laws, it does not mean that the constitutional principles of equal rights of persons and a state under the rule of law are deviated from.

3. It needs to be noted that, on 5 July 2000, subsequent to the petition submitted to the Court by the petitioner—the Vilnius City District Court of the Third District—requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 of the Code of Administrative Violations of Law was in conformity with Article 23 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court adopted the Ruling “On the Compliance of Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 of the Republic of Lithuania Code of Administrative Violations of Law with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania” whereby it recognised, inter alia, that Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 of the CAVL was not in conflict with the Constitution.

The said ruling of the Constitutional Court is still in force.

4. It needs to be held that the Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 of the CAVL, which was ruled to be in compliance with the Constitution by the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 5 July 2000, is Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 titled “Infringement of Copyright and Related Rights” (wording of 24 February 1998) of the CAVL, which provides:

Illegal reproduction, circulation, public performance, other use by any means for commercial purposes of works of literature, science or art (including computer software and data bases) and/or a video recording (i.e. without permission of the author, or producer of audio and/or video recording, or that of a successor of their rights) as well as their storage for the said purposes

shall incur a fine from LTL 1000 to 3000 together with seizure of the items illegally manufactured, reproduced, circulated or used in other way or stored.

The same actions performed by a person who has been given an administrative punishment for violations provided for in Paragraph 1 of this Article

shall incur a fine from LTL 2000 to 3000 together with the seizure of the items illegally produced, reproduced, circulated or used in other way or stored as well as that of the equipment of the illegal reproduction.”

5. If one compares Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 titled “Infringement of the Rights of Authors and Related Rights” (wording of 10 December 2002) of the CAVL which is impugned by the Panevėžys Regional Court, the petitioner, with Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 titled “Infringement of Copyright and Related Rights” (wording of 24 February 1998) of the CAVL, which was ruled by the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 5 July 2000 to be not in conflict with the Constitution, it is clear that they provide for virtually the same administrative liability for “illegal reproduction <…> of works of art”.

6. Under Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, by its decision, the Constitutional Court shall refuse to consider petitions to investigate the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution, if the compliance of the legal act with the Constitution specified in the petition has already been investigated by the Constitutional Court and the ruling on this issue adopted by the Constitutional Court is still in force.

7. Thus, although Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 (wording of 24 February 1998) of the CAVL was amended, it is impossible to assert that there are legal grounds to apply to the Constitutional Court in the aspect specified by the Panevėžys Regional Court, the petitioner, so that the Constitutional Court would investigate the compliance of essentially the same legal regulation with the Constitution, since as Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 (wording of 24 February 1998) of the CAVL was ruled to be in compliance with the Constitution by the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 5 July 2000, the institutions (including courts) that apply law cannot have any doubts as regards the constitutionality of corresponding legal regulation.

To this extent the consideration of the petition of the petitioner must be refused.

8. On the other hand, in this context it needs to be mentioned that, as it was held by the Constitutional Court in its ruling of 28 March 2006, “none of the grounds of the refusal to investigate a petition provided for in Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court (a petition was filed by an institution or person who does not have the right to apply to the Constitutional Court (Item 1), the consideration of the petition does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court (Item 2), the compliance of the legal act with the Constitution specified in the petition has already been investigated by the Constitutional Court and the ruling on this issue adopted by the Constitutional Court is still in force (Item 3), the Constitutional Court has already commenced the investigation of a case concerning the same issue (Item 4), the petition is grounded on non-legal reasoning (Item 5)) may be construed as creating legal preconditions for the court that considers the case to apply such law or other legal act (part thereof) on whose compliance with the Constitution (other legal act of higher legal force) the said court doubts.”

Thus, the fact that there are no legal grounds to apply to the Constitutional Court in the aspect pointed out by the Panevėžys Regional Court, the petitioner, so that it would once again investigate the compliance of the legal regulation that used to be in Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 (wording of 24 February 1998) of the CAVL and which was virtually repeated in Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the CAVL, with the Constitution, since as Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 (wording of 24 February 1998) of the CAVL was ruled to be in compliance with the Constitution by the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 5 July 2000, the courts cannot have any doubts as regards the constitutionality of corresponding legal regulation, does not at all mean that Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the CAVL cannot be impugned before the Constitutional Court in other aspects, i.e. those aspects from which the legal regulation established in this paragraph is not identical to that established in Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 (wording of 24 February 1998) of the CAVL (the compliance of which, as mentioned before, has already been investigated in the Constitutional Court and which was ruled to be not in conflict with the Constitution by the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 5 July 2000).

9. It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner that the petitioner does not doubt whether separately taken Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the CAVL and separately taken Paragraph 1 of Article 192 (wording of 26 September 2000) of the CC are not in conflict with the Constitution, but whether the said paragraphs of the CAVL and the CC taken together are not in conflict with the Constitution, since, as mentioned before, according to the petitioner, stricter punishment for illegal reproduction of a work of art is established in Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the CAVL than in Paragraph 1 of Article 192 (wording of 26 September 2000) of the CC. Thus, the doubts of the petitioner whether Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the CAVL and Paragraph 1 of Article 192 (wording of 26 September 2000) of the CC are not in conflict with the Constitution due to the fact that, in the opinion of the petitioner, the principle of proportionality of liability is violated when not criminal liability, but namely administrative liability—legal liability of the kind less strict—is established for a deed which is more dangerous to society, are substantiated not by the arguments from which it could be clear why Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the CAVL, if taken separately, and why Paragraph 1 of Article 192 (wording of 26 September 2000) of the CC, if taken separately, are in conflict with the Constitution from the said aspect of proportionality of liability, but by such arguments, which makes it clear that the said paragraphs of the CAVL and the CC are in conflict with the Constitution, in the opinion of the petitioner, due to the fact that there is no harmony between the norms establishing legal liability of one branch of law, i.e. administrative law, and the norms of another branch of law, i.e. criminal law. In this context it needs to be emphasised that the petition of the petitioner does not contain any arguments from which it would be clear whether the petitioner doubts as to the compliance of Paragraph 1 of Article 192 (wording of 26 September 2000) of the CC with the Constitution (due to the fact that the legal liability established in the impugned paragraph of the corresponding article of the CC is too mild if compared with the legal liability established in Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the CAVL) with the Constitution, or as to the compliance of Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the CAVL (due to the fact that the legal liability established in the impugned paragraph of the corresponding article of the CAVL is too strict, if compared with the legal liability established in Paragraph 1 of Article 192 (wording of 26 September 2000) of the CC) with the Constitution.

Thus, the petitioner virtually doubts as to the inter-compatibility of corresponding articles of the CAVL and the CC.

10. Under the Constitution, the Constitutional Court does not decide issues of the compatibility and rivalry of legal acts of the same legal force (the Constitutional Court’s decision of 29 September 1999). If the laws contain obscurities, ambiguities, and gaps, it is the duty of the legislature to eliminate them (the Constitutional Court’s decision of 23 September 2002).

If the Constitutional Court is requested to solve an issue of the compatibility and rivalry of legal acts of the same legal force, such a request is not within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. Under Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, this shall be the grounds to refuse to consider the petition (the Constitutional Court’s decision of 23 September 2002).

11. On the other hand, this does not at all mean that in certain cases the incompatibility of legal acts (parts thereof) cannot imply a conflict of such legal acts (or some of them) with the Constitution, nor does it mean that the Constitutional Court cannot state the existence of such a conflict with the Constitution under certain circumstances.

12. After it has been held in this decision of the Constitutional Court that there are no legal grounds to apply to the Constitutional Court in the aspect pointed out by the Panevėžys Regional Court, the petitioner, so that it would once again investigate the compliance of the legal regulation that used to be in Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 (wording of 24 February 1998) of the CAVL and which was virtually repeated in Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the CAVL, with the Constitution, and that to this extent the consideration of the petition of the petitioner was refused, it needs to be held that the arguments of the Panevėžys Regional Court, the petitioner, upon which the doubt as to the compliance of Paragraph 1 of Article 192 (wording of 26 September 2000) of the CC with the Constitution is based cannot be accepted, since these arguments are related with the interrelation between the legal regulation established in Paragraph 1 of Article 192 (wording of 26 September 2000) of the CC and in Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the CAVL.

13. Thus, the petition of the petitioner requesting an investigation, inter alia, into the compliance of Paragraph 1 of Article 192 (wording of 26 September 2000) of the CC with the Constitution is not in conformity with Item 5 of Paragraph 2 of Article 67 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, whereby a court ruling by means of which one applies to the Constitutional Court as regards the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution, must contain legal arguments presenting the opinion of the court on the conflict of a law or other legal act with the Constitution.

14. Under Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, in the case that a petition or attachments thereto fail to comply with the requirements set forth, inter alia, in Article 67, the petition must be returned to the petitioner (Paragraph 1); the return of a petition shall not take away the right to apply to the Constitutional Court according to the common procedure after removal of the deficiencies thereof (Paragraph 2).

15. Thus, the petition of the Panevėžys Regional Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation, inter alia, into the compliance of Paragraph 1 of Article 192 (wording of 26 September 2000) of the CC with the Constitution must be returned to the petitioner. It does not mean that the constitutionality of the legal regulation established in the said paragraph cannot be impugned before the Constitutional Court, when this is not related with the legal regulation established in Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the CAVL and the interrelation between these paragraphs.

III

1. Item 2 of Paragraph 3 of Article 67 of the Constitutional Court provides that a duplicate of the whole text of the impugned legal act shall be attached to the court ruling. Under Paragraph 1 (wording of 7 July 2005) of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Procedure for the Publication of Laws and Other Legal Acts and Their Entry into Force, the official publication of laws and other legal acts is their publication in the official gazette “Valstybės žinios”. Under Item 15 of Section 1 of Chapter VI of the Rules of the Constitutional Court, the text of the legal act which is published in the official gazette “Valstybės žinios” must be considered such a duplicate.

2. The duplicates of the impugned provisions of the Criminal Code and the Code of Administrative Violations of Law that were attached to the petition of the Panevėžys Regional Court, the petitioner, were not those officially published in the official gazette “Valstybės žinios”, but other duplicates of the text of the said provisions.

Conforming to Articles 28, 69 and 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania adopts the following

decision:

1. To refuse to consider the petition of the Panevėžys Regional Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 1 of Article 21410 (wording of 10 December 2002; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 124-5623) of the Code of Administrative Violations of Law of the Republic of Lithuania is not in conflict with Paragraph 4 of Article 31 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

2. To return the petition of the Panevėžys Regional Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 1 of Article 192 (wording of 26 September 2000; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2000, No. 89-2741) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania is not in conflict with Paragraph 4 of Article 31 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, to the petitioner.

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

                                                                                        Toma Birmontienė

                                                                                        Egidijus Kūris

                                                                                        Kęstutis Lapinskas

                                                                                        Zenonas Namavičius

                                                                                        Ramutė Ruškytė

                                                                                        Vytautas Sinkevičius

                                                                                        Stasys Stačiokas

                                                                                        Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis