Lt

On the status of the Constitutional Court

Case No. 12/06

 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

RULING

ON THE COMPLIANCE OF THE TITLE “THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT—A JUDICIAL INSTITUTION” OF ARTICLE 1 OF THE LAW ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA AND OF PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE SAME ARTICLE WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

 

6 June 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

Seimas member Egidijus Klumbys, acting as the representative of a group of members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner

Česlovas Juršėnas, Deputy Speaker of the Seimas, and Ona Buišienė, Director of the Legal Department of the Office of the Seimas, acting as the representatives of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the party concerned

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, in its public hearing, on 5 June 2006, considered case No. 12/06 subsequent to the petition of a group of members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, consisting of Egidijus Klumbys, Julius Veselka, Vytautas Čepas, Violeta Boreikienė, Henrikas Žukauskas, Algimantas Salamakinas, Arimantas Dumčius, Ona Valiukevičiūtė, Marija Aušrinė Pavilionienė, Algirdas Monkevičius, Petras Gražulis, Laima Mogenienė, Alfredas Pekeliūnas, Leokadija Počekovska, Vytas Navickas, Viktoras Rinkevičius, Rytis Kupčinskas, Petras Auštrevičius, Petras Boguška, Jonas Ramonas, Jonas Juozapaitis, Vytautas Galvonas, Kęstutis Glaveckas, Valentinas Mazuronis, Algirdas Sysas, Remigijus Ačas, Aldona Balsienė, Audrius Endzinas, Algimantas Matulevičius, Rimantas Smetona, Rima Baškienė, Valerijus Simulik, Vaclovas Karbauskis and Saulius Pečeliūnas, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether the title and Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Constitutional Court are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1 of Article 111 of the Constitution.

The Constitutional Court

has established:

I

1. A group of members of the Seimas, the petitioner, have applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition requesting an investigation into whether the Law on the Constitutional Court is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5, Paragraph 1 of Article 111, Chapters VIII and IX of the Constitution.

2. By the Constitutional Court’s Decision “On the Petition of a Group of the Seimas, the petitioner, Requesting an Investigation into Whether the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Constitutional Court is not in Conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania” of 29 March 2006, it was decided:

to accept the petition of the petitioner requesting an investigation into whether the title and Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1 of Article 111 of the Constitution;

to return the petition, requesting an investigation into whether the title and Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court are not in conflict with Chapters VIII and IX of the Constitution, to the petitioner.

II

The petition of the petitioner requesting an investigation into whether the title “The Constitutional Court—a Judicial Institution” and Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Constitutional Court, under which the Constitutional Court shall be a free and independent court which implements judicial power according to the procedure established by the Constitution and this Law, are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1 of Article 111 of the Constitution is based on the following arguments.

In Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Constitution it is prescribed that in Lithuania, state power shall be executed by the Seimas, the President of the Republic and the Government, and the Judiciary. Under Paragraph 1 of Article 111 of the Constitution, the courts of the Republic of Lithuania shall be the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, regional courts and local courts. According to the petitioner, the Constitutional Court is not included into this “final list”, while separate Chapter VIII of the Constitution is designated for it. According to the petitioner, under Paragraph 2 of Article 5, the scope of power shall be limited by the Constitution. The fact that Chapter IX of the Constitution is designated for the Court, which executes state power, while separate Chapter VIII of the Constitution—to the Constitutional Court, certifies that under the Constitution, the Constitutional Court is not a court and it does not execute state power.

III

In the course of the preparation of the case for the Constitutional Court’s hearing, written explanations were received from Č. Juršėnas, Deputy Speaker of the Seimas, and Ona Buišienė, Director of the Legal Department of the Office of the Seimas, both of whom were representatives of the Seimas, the party concerned, in which it is stated that the title and Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court are not in conflict with the Constitution. The position of the representatives of the party concerned is based on the following arguments.

1. While construing the Constitution, various methods of construction of law are applied: systemic, historical, theological, logic and other. The mere literal method of construction, preferred by the petitioner, is not enough, as this method does not enable one to “see” the Constitution as a whole, and the essence of the legal regulation is distorted by reading the Constitution only literally. All the provisions of the Constitution are interrelated not only formally, but also according to the content, they constitute an integral and harmonious system.

While grounding its doubts on the fact that the Constitutional Court and other courts are placed in different chapters of the Constitution, the petitioner gives too much prominence to the arrangement structure without going into the content of these chapters.

2. The trinomial system of powers is entrenched in the Constitution. The place of the Constitutional Court in this system is determined by the purpose of the Constitutional Court and the peculiarities of its executive function. Under Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution, the most important function of the Constitutional Court is to guarantee the supremacy of law while investigating and deciding disputes on whether laws and other acts adopted by the Seimas are not in conflict with the Constitution, whether the acts of the President of the Republic and the Government are not in conflict with the Constitution and laws, as well as while presenting conclusions in the cases provided for in the Constitution. While fulfilling these powers the Constitutional Court administers constitutional justice. The Constitutional Court is the institutional guarantee of the principles of the supremacy of the Constitution and a state under the rule of law entrenched in the Constitution. The Constitutional Court’s decisions on the unconstitutionality of laws and other legal acts adopted by the Seimas and acts of the President of the Republic and those of the Government have a legal impact on the application of the legal acts adopted by these state power executing subjects and create a duty for them to harmonise the adopted acts with the requirements of the Constitution.

3. The following shows the judicial nature of the Constitutional Court as an institution of state power: the title of the Constitutional Court (in the Constitution, the Constitutional Court is named as the Court not incidentally—the Nation, the creator of the Constitution, considered it as a judicial institution); the procedure of formation of the Constitutional Court (the Constitutional Court, as other institutions of judicial power, is formed not on the political, but on the professional basis); the principles and guarantees of the activity of the justices of the Constitutional Court (while in office, the justices are independent of any other state or municipal institution, person or organisation and they only follow the Constitution; before taking office, the justices of the Constitutional Court take the oath; they have the right concerning inviolability of their person; the powers of a justice of the Constitutional Court cease only on the bases entrenched in Article 108 of the Constitution); the limitations on work and political activities which are provided for for court judges apply also to justices of the Constitutional Court; the function of the Constitutional Court is the constitutional judicial control; the “form of activity” of the Constitutional Court (under Article 106 of the Constitution, only certain subjects may initiate a constitutional justice case at the Constitutional Court and only by observing the rules established in the Law on the Constitutional Court; the Constitutional Court investigates a constitutional justice case while observing the rules of the constitutional legal proceedings (i.e. the judicial process) which, under Paragraph 2 of Article 102 of the Constitution, is established in the Law on the Constitutional Court); and the legal force of the Constitutional Court’s decisions (they may suspend the validity of legal acts, discontinue the application of the legal acts, they are adopted in the name of the state and are valid in the whole territory of the country, they are final and obligatory to all institutions of state power, all officials and citizens). These features of the Constitutional Court, as an institution of state power, confirm that the Constitutional Court is a court—a special court which ensures constitutional justice. The fact that a separate chapter is designated for the Constitutional Court in the Constitution shows not the extrajudicial nature of this institution, but the significance of the Constitutional Court, as a special institution of judicial constitutional control and its particular role in ensuring constitutional justice.

IV

1. At the hearing of the Constitutional Court, the representative of the group of members of the Seimas, the petitioner, who was E. Klumbys, a member of the Seimas, virtually repeated the arguments set forth in the petition of the petitioner.

2. At the hearing of the Constitutional Court, the representatives of the Seimas, the party concerned, who were Č. Juršėnas and O. Buišienė, virtually repeated the arguments set forth in their written explanations.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

I

1. On 3 February 1993, the Seimas adopted the Law on the Constitutional Court, which came into force on 7 February 1993. This law has been amended and/or supplemented more than once, however, its Article 1 has not been amended and/or supplemented.

2. In Article 1 titled “The Constitutional Court—a Judicial Institution” of the Law on the Constitutional Court it is established:

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania shall guarantee the supremacy of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania in the legal system as well as constitutional legality by deciding, according to the established procedure, whether the laws and other acts adopted by the Seimas are not in conflict with the Constitution and whether acts of the President of the Republic and the Government are not in conflict with the Constitution or laws.

In cases established in the Constitution and this Law, the Constitutional Court shall present conclusions to the Seimas and the President of the Republic.

The Constitutional Court shall be a free and independent court which implements judicial power according to the procedure established by the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and this Law.”

3. The purpose of the Constitutional Court is to guarantee the supremacy of the Constitution in the legal system as well as constitutional legality. Such purpose is entrenched in Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, and it is also established therein that the Constitutional Court shall do that by deciding whether the laws and other acts adopted by the Seimas are not in conflict with the Constitution and whether acts of the President of the Republic and the Government are not in conflict with the Constitution or laws. The status of the Constitutional Court as free and independent court is entrenched in this article of the Law on the Constitutional Court.

4. The petitioner requests an investigation into whether the title “The Constitutional Court—a Judicial Institution” and Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1 of Article 111 of the Constitution.

5. In Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5 of the Constitution it is established:

In Lithuania, State power shall be executed by the Seimas, the President of the Republic and the Government, and the Judiciary.

The scope of power shall be limited by the Constitution.”

6. In Paragraph 1 of Article 111 of the Constitution it is established: “The courts of the Republic of Lithuania shall be the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, regional courts and local courts.”

7. Under the Constitution, in Lithuania state power shall be organised and implemented on the basis of the principle of the separation of powers. The Constitutional Court has held in its acts more than once that this constitutional principle means that the legislative, executive and judicial powers are separated and sufficiently independent; there must be a balance among them; that every institution of power has the competence corresponding to its purpose whose concrete content depends on the branch of state power to which this institution belongs and on the place of the institution among other institutions of power as well as the relation of its powers with those of other institutions; that after the powers of a concrete institution of state power have been directly established in the Constitution, no institution of state power may either take over, transfer or waive such powers; and that such powers may neither be changed nor limited by law.

8. Courts are one kind of institutions of state power entrenched in the Constitution. The constitutional purpose and competence of courts is administration of justice.

The Constitutional Court has held in its acts more than once that the function of administration of justice determines the independence of the judge and courts, which is one of the essential principles of a democratic state under the rule of law: courts, while administering justice, must ensure the implementation of the rights established in the Constitution, the laws and other legal acts, to guarantee the supremacy of law, and to protect human rights and freedoms. The independence of judges and courts is not an end in itself: this is a necessary condition of protection of human rights and freedoms, not a privilege but one of the main duties of a judge and courts arising from the right (guaranteed in the Constitution (inter alia, Paragraph 2 of Article 109 in which it is prescribed that while administering justice the judge and courts shall be independent, as well as in Paragraph 1 of Article 30, in which it is prescribed that the person whose constitutional rights or freedoms are violated shall have the right to apply to court)) of every person who thinks that his rights or freedoms are violated to an independent and impartial arbiter of the dispute, which, under the Constitution and laws, would in essence solve the dispute at law (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 6 December 1995, 1 October 1997, 21 December 1999, 8 May 2000, 12 February 2001, 12 July 2001, 4 March 2003, 17 August 2004, 29 December 2004, 16 January 2006, 28 March 2006, and 9 May 2006). The autonomy and independence of the judicial power from other branches of state power are determined by the fact, that differently than other branches of state power, it is formed not on the political, but on the professional basis (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 21 December 1999, 12 July 2001, its conclusion of 31 March 2004, and its rulings of 28 March 2006 and 9 May 2006).

9. The courts that, under the Constitution, implement judicial power in Lithuania are to be attributed not to one, but to two or more (if that, taking account of the Constitution, is established in certain laws) systems of the courts. Under the Constitution and laws, at present in Lithuania there are three systems of courts: (1) the Constitutional Court executes constitutional judicial control; (2) the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, regional courts and local courts, specified in Paragraph 1 of Article 111 of the Constitution, constitute the system of courts of general jurisdiction; (3) under Paragraph 2 of Article 111 of the Constitution, for the consideration of administrative, labour, family and cases of other categories, specialised courts may be established to law; one system of specialised courts, namely, administrative ones, which is composed of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania and regional administrative courts, is established and is functioning at present (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 13 December 2004, 16 January 2006, 28 March 2006, and 9 May 2006).

10. The powers of the Constitutional Court, as part of the judiciary system, are entrenched in the Constitution.

10.1. In Paragraph 1 of Article 102 of the Constitution, it is prescribed that the Constitutional Court shall decide whether the laws and other legal acts of the Seimas are not in conflict with the Constitution and whether the acts of the President of the Republic and the Government are not in conflict with the Constitution or laws.

While construing Paragraph 1 of Article 102 of the Constitution in the context of other provisions of the Constitution, the whole constitutional legal regulation, inter alia, the hierarchy of all legal acts arising from the Constitution, the Constitutional Court has held that the Constitutional Court has the exclusive competence to investigate and decide on whether any act of the Seimas, the President of the Republic or the Government, as well as any act (part thereof) adopted by referendum is not in conflict with any act of higher legal force, inter alia (and, first of all), with the Constitution, namely: whether any constitutional law (part thereof) is not in conflict with the Constitution, whether any law (part thereof) and the Statute of the Seimas (part thereof) are not in conflict with the Constitution and constitutional laws, whether any substatutory legal act (part thereof) of the Seimas is not in conflict with the Constitution, constitutional laws, laws, and the Statute of the Seimas, whether any act (part thereof) of the President of the Republic is not in conflict with the Constitution, constitutional laws and laws, and whether any act (part thereof) of the Government is not in conflict with the Constitution, constitutional laws and laws (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 28 March 2006).

10.2. In Paragraph 3 of Article 105 of the Constitution it is prescribed that the Constitutional Court shall present conclusions: (1) whether there were violations of election laws during an election of the President of the Republic or an election of members of the Seimas; (2) whether the state of health of the President of the Republic allows him to continue to hold office; (3) whether international treaties of the Republic of Lithuania are not in conflict with the Constitution; (4) whether concrete actions of the members of the Seimas and state officials against whom an impeachment case has been instituted are in conflict with the Constitution.

10.3. Under Paragraph 1 of Article 107 of the Constitution, a law (or part thereof) or other act (or part thereof) of the Seimas, act of the President of the Republic, act (or part thereof) of the Government may not be applied from the day of the official publication of the decision of the Constitutional Court that the act in question (or part thereof) is in conflict with the Constitution.

In Paragraph 2 of Article 107 of the Constitution it is prescribed that the decisions of the Constitutional Court on issues within competence according to the Constitution shall be final and not subject to appeal.

The Constitutional Court has noted that Paragraph 1 of Article 107 of the Constitution should be construed as meaning that every legal act (or part thereof) passed by the Seimas, the President of the Republic or the Government or adopted by referendum, which is ruled to be in conflict with any legal act of higher legal force, inter alia (and, first of all), with the Constitution, is removed from the Lithuanian legal system for good, it may never be applied anymore. The power of the Constitutional Court to rule a legal act or part thereof unconstitutional may not be overruled by a repeated adoption of a like legal act or part thereof (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 30 May 2003 and 28 March 2006).

10.4. Thus, while deciding constitutional justice cases under corresponding petitions of petitioners, the Constitutional Court has the constitutional powers to annul the legal force of the corresponding legal acts (parts thereof) if they are in conflict with legal acts of higher legal force, alia (and, first of all), with the Constitution. In order to be able to establish and adopt a decision whether the investigated legal acts (parts thereof) are not in conflict with legal acts of higher legal force, the Constitutional Court has the constitutional powers to officially construe the investigated legal acts and the said legal acts of higher legal force.

Thus, also the exclusive powers of the Constitutional Court to construe the Constitution officially and to provide the official concept of the provisions of the Constitution—to form the official constitutional doctrine—arise from the Constitution itself. Under the Constitution, the concept of the constitutional provisions, the arguments set forth in the Constitutional Court’s rulings as well as in other acts of the Constitutional Court—conclusions and decisions, are also binding on law-making and law-applying institutions (officials), including courts of general jurisdiction and specialised courts established under Paragraph 2 of Article 111 of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court’s decision of 20 September 2005 and its ruling of 28 March 2006).

10.5. In the Constitution, the procedure of formation of the Constitutional Court is determined, the bases and guarantees of the implementation (activity) of the powers of the Constitutional Court are established and the status of the justices of the Constitutional Court and is entrenched, etc.

11. Thus, under the Constitution, the Constitutional Court is the institution of constitutional justice, which implements constitutional judicial control (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 28 March 2006 and 9 May 2006). The Constitutional Court has held in its acts more than once that when deciding, under its competence, on the compliance of legal acts of lower legal force (parts thereof) with legal acts of higher legal force, inter alia (and, first of all), with the Constitution, as well as when executing its other constitutional powers, the Constitutional Court—an individual and independent court—administers constitutional justice and guarantees the supremacy of the Constitution in the legal system and constitutional legitimacy (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 12 July 2001, 29 November 2001, 13 December 2004, and 28 March 2006).

12. It needs to be noted that the title—the Constitutional Court—of the constitutional justice institution for which the exercise of constitutional judicial control is assigned is expressis verbis entrenched in the Constitution itself.

It should be emphasised that a state power institution, which is named as a court in the Constitution itself, in its constitutional nature may not be regarded as not a court, i.e. as not a judicial institution.

13. The petitioner grounds its petition requesting an investigation into the compliance of the title “The Constitutional Court—a Judicial Institution” of Article 1 and Paragraph 3 of the same article of the Law on the Constitutional Court, under which the Constitutional Court shall be a free and independent court which implements judicial power according to the procedure established by the Constitution and this law, with the Constitution on the fact that the provisions entrenching the constitutional basis of the Constitutional Court activity are set forth in a separate Chapter of the Constitution—its Chapter VIII titled “The Constitutional Court”, and not in Chapter IX thereof tilted “The Court”.

14. The Constitution is an integral act (Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Constitution). The Constitutional Court has held in its acts more than once: all the Constitutional provisions are interrelated so that the content of some provisions of the Constitution determine the content of its other provisions; the norms and principles of the Constitution constitute a harmonious system; there is a balance among the values established in the Constitution; it is not permitted to construe any provision of the Constitution only literally, it is not permitted to oppose any provision of the Constitution against other provisions of the Constitution, nor to construe them so that the content of any other constitutional provision might be distorted or denied, since, thus, the essence of the entire constitutional regulation would be distorted and the balance of the constitutional values would be disturbed.

It needs to be specially emphasised that, as the Constitutional Court has held in its acts more than once, it is impossible to construe the Constitution (and law in general) only literally, by means of the application of only the linguistic (verbal) method of law construction. In case one has made the literal (linguistic, verbal) construction of the Constitution absolute, the content of the overall constitutional legal regulation is also lessened, and, if not all, then at least some values entrenched in, and defended and protected by the Constitution, are ignored, and, possibly, preconditions are created by which the aims that the Nation consolidated in the Constitution adopted by referendum might be violated.

In this context, it should be noted that it is not permissible to make only the literal (linguistic, verbal) method of construction of the Constitution, but also any other method of construction absolute. As the Constitutional Court has held in its rulings more than once, in construing the Constitution, various methods of construction of law must be applied: systemic, the one of general principles of law, logical, teleological, the one of intentions of the legislature, the one of precedents, historical, comparative, etc. Only such comprehensive interpretation of the Constitution may provide conditions for the realisation of the purpose of the Constitution as a social contract and the act of the supreme legal force, and for ensuring that the meaning of the Constitution will not be deviated from, that the spirit of the Constitution will not be denied, and that the values upon which the Nation has based the Constitution adopted by it will be consolidated in reality (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 25 May 2004, 13 December 2004, and 28 March 2006).

15. The mere fact that there are separate Chapters “The Court” and “The Constitutional Court” in the Constitution, is not and may not be a basis to construe that, allegedly, as it seems to the petitioner, the Constitutional Court is not a court—part of the judicial power and is somewhere out of the limits of the judiciary system. Such presumption made by the petitioner is essentially wrong and not reasoned constitutionally at all. On the contrary, the fact that there are two separate Chapters “The Court” and “The Constitutional Court” in the Constitution does not deny the fact that the Constitutional Court which, under the Constitution, executes constitutional judicial control, is a part of the system of courts, but it emphasises its particular status in the system of judicial power as well as in the system of all the state institutions executing state power; in this way, the peculiarities of the constitutional purpose and competence of the Constitutional Court are emphasised.

16. It should also be emphasised that there are significant links between courts of general jurisdiction and specialised courts established under Paragraph 2 of Article 111 of the Constitution and the Constitutional Court, the institution of constitutional justice, inter alia: every court of general jurisdiction and specialised court (its judge), as a petitioner, have the right to initiate constitutional justice cases at the Constitutional Court on the basis established in the Constitution (Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 106 and Paragraph 2 of Article 110). All courts of general jurisdiction—the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, regional courts and local courts—as well as specialised courts (the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania and regional administrative courts) are bound by the fact that, under Article 107 of the Constitution, decisions on issues attributed to the competence of the Constitutional Court are final and not subject to appeal. All courts of general jurisdiction and specialised courts are bound by the official constitutional doctrine formed in the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, etc. However, the said court systems—the Constitutional Court, when executing constitutional judicial control, and the courts of general jurisdiction as well as the specialised courts established under Paragraph 2 of Article 111 of the Constitution, in the organisational and administrative aspects are separated in the Constitution.

17. It should be emphasised that the presumption made by the petitioner that the Constitutional Court is not a court and does not implement state power is not in line with the concept of power and the powers of the Constitutional Court established in the Constitution at all. The fact that under the Constitution, the Constitutional Court has the powers to rule legal acts of other institutions that implement state power—the Seimas, the President of the Republic, the Government—to be in conflict with legal acts of higher legal force, first of all, with the Constitution, and, thus, to abolish the legal force of these acts and to remove these legal acts from the Lithuanian legal system for good, the fact that only the Constitutional Court has the constitutional powers to construe the Constitution officially—to provide with the concept of the provisions of the Constitution which is binding on all the law-making and law-applying institutions as well as on the Seimas, the representation of the Nation, obviously testify that the Constitutional Court may not be an institution not implementing state power. The presumption made by the petitioner that the Constitutional Court is not a court and does not implement state power is utterly irrational, not only is it not in line with the constitutional concept of state power implementing institutions—it strikes the raison d’être of the petition of the petitioner himself in this constitutional justice case, since, as states the petitioner, if the Constitutional Court is not a court and does not implement state power, it is not comprehensible why the petitioner applies namely to this court, requesting an investigation into whether a legal act, passed by the Seimas—one of the institutions implementing state power (in this case—legislative power) is not in conflict with the Constitution.

18. While taking account of the arguments set forth, the conclusion should be drawn that the title “The Constitutional Court—a Judicial Institution” of Article 1 and Paragraph 3 of the same article of the Law on the Constitutional Court are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1 of Article 111 of the Constitution.

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

ruling:

To recognise that the title “The Constitutional Court—a Judicial Institution” of Article 1 and Paragraph 3 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1993, No. 6-120) of the same article of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1 of Article 111 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

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

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

Justices of the Constitutional Court:            Armanas Abramavičius

                                                                                 Toma Birmontienė

                                                                                 Egidijus Kūris

                                                                                 Kęstutis Lapinskas

                                                                                 Zenonas Namavičius

                                                                                 Ramutė Ruškytė

                                                                                 Vytautas Sinkevičius

                                                                                 Stasys Stačiokas

                                                                                 Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis