Lt

On the dismissal of representatives of the Government

Case No. 28/03-28/04

 

 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

 

RULING

ON THE COMPLIANCE OF PARAGRAPH 4 (WORDINGS OF 10 DECEMBER 2002 AND 8 JUNE 2004) OF ARTICLE 3, PARAGRAPH 4 (WORDING OF 10 DECEMBER 2002) OF ARTICLE 5, ARTICLE 7 (WORDING OF 10 DECEMBER 2002), ARTICLE 8 (WORDING OF 10 DECEMBER 2002), ARTICLE 9 (WORDING OF 10 DECEMBER 2002), AND ARTICLE 11 (WORDING OF 10 DECEMBER 2002) OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S LAW ON ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF MUNICIPALITIES, PARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S LAW ON AMENDING THE LAW ON ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF MUNICIPALITIES (WORDING OF 10 DECEMBER 2002), PARAGRAPH 1 (WORDING OF 10 DECEMBER 2002) OF ARTICLE 44, PARAGRAPH 12 (WORDING OF 21 NOVEMBER 2000) OF ARTICLE 62 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S LAW ON THE STATE SERVICE, THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 1525) “ON RELEASING THE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE MARIJAMPOLĖ COUNTY FROM OFFICE” OF 3 DECEMBER 2003, THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 1526) “ON RELEASING THE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PANEVĖŽYS COUNTY FROM OFFICE” OF 3 DECEMBER 2003, THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 1527) “ON RELEASING THE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ŠIAULIAI COUNTY FROM OFFICE” OF 3 DECEMBER 2003, ITEM 1 OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 1528) “ON RELEASING THE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE TELŠIAI COUNTY FROM OFFICE” OF 3 DECEMBER 2003, THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 1529) “ON RELEASING THE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE VILNIUS COUNTY FROM OFFICE” OF 3 DECEMBER 2003, AND ITEM 1 OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 1578) “ON RELEASING THE GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ŠIAULIAI COUNTY FROM OFFICE” OF 10 DECEMBER 2003 WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

 

14 April 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

Vidmondas Vėgelis, an advisor of the Legal Department of the Office of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, and Pranas Žukauskas, a senior advisor of the Legal Department of the Office of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, acting as the representatives of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, a party concerned

Nerijus Rudaitis, Deputy Director of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Lithuania, acting as the representative of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, a party concerned

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its public hearing, on 11 April 2006, considered case No. 28/03-28/04 subsequent to the following petitions:

the petition of the a group of members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 4 of Article 3 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities is not in conflict with Article 35, Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of legitimate expectations; into whether Paragraph 4 of Article 5 of the same law is not in conflict with Article 5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 123 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania; into whether Article 7 of the same law to the extent that it provides that the Minister authorised by the Government may give instructions to the Government Representative regarding the issues of organisational activity, Article 8 of the same law to the extent that it provides that the Government Representative, under procedure approved by the Minister authorised by the Government, submits information about his activities, Article 9 of the same law to the extent that it provides that the Minister authorised by the Government supervises how Government Representatives discharge their powers and coordinates the activity of Government Representatives, Article 11 of the same law to the extent that it provides that the Regulations of the Activity of the Service of the Government Representative are approved by the Minister authorised by the Government, are not in conflict with Article 123 of the Constitution; into whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities and Item 5 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service are not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of legitimate expectations;

the petition of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities, Item 5 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1525) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Marijampolė County from Office” of 3 December 2003, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1526) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Panevėžys County from Office” of 3 December 2003, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1527) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Šiauliai County from Office” of 3 December 2003, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1528) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Telšiai County from Office” of 3 December 2003, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1529) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Vilnius County from Office” of 3 December 2003, and the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1578) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Šiauliai County from Office” of 10 December 2003 are not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of legitimate expectations.

By the Constitutional Court’s decision of 14 March 2006, the aforementioned petitions of a group of members of the Seimas and the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court were joined into one case and it was given reference No. 28/03-28/04.

The Constitutional Court

has established:

I

1. A group of members of the Seimas, a petitioner, applied to the Constitutional Court with the petition requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 4 of Article 3 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities is not in conflict with Article 35, Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution as well as the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of legitimate expectations; whether Paragraph 4 of Article 5 of the same law is not in conflict with Article 5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 123 of the Constitution; whether Article 7 of the same law to the extent that it provides that the Minister authorised by the Government may give instructions to the Government Representative regarding the issues of organisational activity, Article 8 of the same law to the extent that it provides that the Government Representative, under procedure approved by the Minister authorised by the Government, submits information about his activities, Article 9 of the same law to the extent that it provides that the Minister authorised by the Government supervises how Government Representatives discharge their powers and coordinates the activity of Government Representatives, Article 11 of the same law to the extent that it provides that the Regulations of the Activity of the Service of the Government Representative are approved by the Minister authorised by the Government, are not in conflict with Article 123 of the Constitution; whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities and Item 5 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Law on the State Service are not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of legitimate expectations.

2. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, was considering an administrative case. By its ruling, the said court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional with the petition requesting an investigation into whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities, Item 5 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Law on the State Service, the Government Resolution (No. 1525) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Marijampolė County from Office” of 3 December 2003, the Government Resolution (No. 1526) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Panevėžys County from Office” of 3 December 2003, the Government Resolution (No. 1527) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Šiauliai County from Office” of 3 December 2003, the Government Resolution (No. 1528) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Telšiai County from Office” of 3 December 2003, the Government Resolution (No. 1529) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Vilnius County from Office” of 3 December 2003, and the Government Resolution (No. 1578) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Šiauliai County from Office” of 10 December 2003 are not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of legitimate expectations.

II

1. A group of members of the Seimas, a petitioner, grounds its petition on the following arguments.

1.1. Under Paragraph 4 of Article 3 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities, the Government Representative may not participate in the activities of political parties and organisations; thus, certain state servants—Government Representatives—are deprived of the opportunity to participate in the activity of political parties and political organisations. The petitioner had doubts whether such provision is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, which entrenches equality of all persons before the law, the court and other state institutions and officials; Article 35 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to citizens to freely form societies, political parties and associations, provided that the aims and activities thereof are not contrary to the Constitution and laws; and the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of legitimate expectations (since at the time when the representatives of the Government were appointed, they were not prohibited from participating in the activities of political parties).

1.2. Under Article 4 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities, the main function of the Government Representatives is to supervise the lawfulness of acts of municipal institutions (officials). Since Paragraph 2 of Article 123 of the Constitution does not particularise as to what precisely these acts are, whose lawfulness the representatives of the Government must control, they must verify the lawfulness of not only municipal acts of a normative character, but also that of individual municipal acts. In the opinion of the petitioner, Paragraph 4 of Article 5 of Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities unreasonably narrowed the competence of the Government Representative, since he was deprived of the right to consider complaints from natural and legal persons, which should be considered under proceedings of administrative cases. The petitioner faced doubts whether such legal regulation is not in conflict with Article 5 of the Constitution, which provides that state institutions shall serve the people, and Paragraph 2 of Article 123 thereof, under which the observance of the Constitution and the laws as well as the execution of decisions of the Government by municipalities shall be supervised by the representatives appointed by the Government.

1.3. Under Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities, the established term of appointing the Government Representative is also applied to the Government Representatives who were appointed prior to the entry into force of the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities. Under Paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities, the Government Representative shall be appointed to office for four years and shall be released from office according to the procedure established in the Law on the State Service. Under Item 5 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Law on the State Service, the beginning of the term of office of the Government Representative shall be the date of the entry into force of the Law on the State Service. Thus, retrospective application of the law was established, i.e. on 10 December 2002 it was prescribed that the beginning of the term of office of Government Representatives shall start as of 30 July 1999. Meanwhile, in a state under the rule of law there is the principle lex retro non agit. Therefore, the petitioner had doubts whether the aforesaid provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities and Item 5 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Law on the State Service are not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of legitimate expectations.

1.4. Under the Constitution, there is only one subject who enjoys authoritative empowerments in regard of Government Representatives—it is the Government. The petitioner had doubts whether the provisions of Articles 7, 8, 9, and 11 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities, which establish authoritative empowerments of the Minister authorised by the Government, are not in conflict with Article 123 of the Constitution.

2. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, grounds its petition on the following arguments.

2.1. Under Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities, which was adopted by the Seimas on 10 December 202, the term of appointing the Government Representative, which is established by the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities, is also applied to the Government Representatives who were appointed prior to the entry into force of the said law, i.e. retrospective application of the law was established. Under Item 5 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Law on the State Service, the state servant shall be released form office when the term of office (whose beginning is the date of entry into force of the Law on the State Service) of the Government Representative (head of the institution) expires; thus, on 10 December 2002 it was prescribed that the beginning of the term of office of Government Representatives was on 30 July 1999.

2.2. The Government Representatives were appointed by the Government Resolution (No. 1335) “On Appointing Government Representatives” of 2 December 1999 by following the then in force Law on the State Service (wording of 8 July 1999) and the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities (wording of 14 May 1998), which did not provide for any term for which they could be appointed to office. Thus, these persons could expect that they were appointed to this office on a termless basis and that they could be released from office only upon general grounds, but not subsequent to expiration of a certain term of office. However, by means of the impugned government resolutions, the Government Representatives to the Vilnius, Šiauliai, Panevėžys, Marijampolė and Telšiai counties were released from the corresponding office in accordance with Item 5 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Law on the State Service.

III

In the course of the preparation of the case for the Constitutional Court’s hearing, written explanations were received from the representatives of the Seimas, a party concerned, who were P. Žukauskas and V. Vėgelis, as well as the representative of the Government, a party concerned, who was N. Rudaitis, in which it is asserted that the impugned legal acts (parts thereof) are not in conflict with the Constitution.

1. The position of P. Žukauskas, a representative of the Seimas, a party concerned, is grounded on the following arguments.

1.1. The rights and duties of state servants are determined by the purpose of their incumbency and the social importance of the functions discharged by them. The extent of rights and duties of state servants depends on the character of the discharged duties. In order to ensure maximum transparency and efficiency of each state servant, it is permissible and even necessary to establish different extent of rights (including the right to participate in the activities of political parties) of state servants, since the constitutional political and civil rights are not absolute. The functions of the Government Representative are related to the supervision of lawfulness of decisions, which are adopted by municipalities. Municipal councils are formed only upon a party basis. The prohibition for a Government Representative to take part in the activity of political parties and political organisations, which is established in Paragraph 4 of Article 3 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities, guarantees the protection of the public interest and is not disproportionate, nor should it be assessed as a violation of the constitutional principle of equal rights.

1.2. Under Articles 4 and 5 of the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities, the Government Representative may verify, at his discretion and initiative, the lawfulness of all municipal legal acts without exceptions, including acts of an individual character. No duty arises for the Government Representative from the Constitution to execute the functions of a pre-judicial institution of consideration of disputes, therefore, the competence of the Government Representative established in the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities is in compliance with that established in the Constitution.

1.3. According to P. Žukauskas, the impugned provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities did not change the regulation which had been valid until then, as Paragraph 1 (wording of 21 December 2000) of Article 8 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities used to establish the term of office of the Government Representative, which was the same in length, i.e. four years.

The impugned Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Law on the State Service does not establish the beginning of the term of office of heads of institutions, but it specifies that the term of office of heads of a certain group of institutions objectively began after the law pointed out in this item came into force: the beginning of the term of office of the Government Representative who was appointed subsequent to the Law on Functionaries that had been valid until then is the date of entry into force of the Law on the State Service, but not an earlier date of the appointment of the said head of the institution.

2. The position of V. Vėgelis, a representative of the Seimas, a party concerned, is based on the following arguments.

2.1. Before the Law on the State Service came into force, by the Seimas Resolution (No. VIII-795) “On Amending and Supplementing the List of ‘A’ Level Functionaries of the State Governance Service of the Republic of Lithuania” of 16 June 1998, Government Representatives were categorised as ‘A’ level functionaries. Under Article 62 of the Law on the State Service, the status of the Government Representative as a state functionary had to change—he had to become a state servant. The Service of the Government Representative was assigned to state and municipal institutions, while the Government Representative—to heads of these establishments. Item 10 of Article 2 of the Law on the State Service provided for the work of the head of an establishment only for the period of the established term of office. Paragraph 4 of Article 62 of the same law provided that functionaries of level ‘A’ shall become state servants of political (personal) confidence. Their service had to end at the end of the term of office of the politicians who had appointed them, or upon the expiration of the powers of these politicians (Paragraph 5 (wording of 8 July 1999) of Article 15 of the Law on the State Service). Under Paragraph 5 (wording of 29 August 2000) of the Law on the State Service, the Government Representative was classed to be among heads of establishments (state servants) for the period established in legal acts, which had to be not shorter than 4 years, but not longer than 5 years, and the beginning of which was the date of entry into force of the Law on the State Service. Thus, the Government Representatives in counties, who were appointed by the Government Resolution (No. 1335) “On Appointing Government Representatives” of 2 December 1999, could not expect that they were appointed to this office on a termless basis nor that they could be released from this office only according to general grounds.

2.2. After the Law on the State Service had gone into effect, the office of the Government Representative was related with a certain term. Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities, which came into force on 31 December 2002, the provision of Paragraph 1 (wording of 21 December 2000) of Article 8 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities, which had been valid until then, and which had consolidated a time-limited character of the Service of the Government Representative, was repeated, thus, one did not establish any retrospective validity of the law.

3. The position of N. Rudaitis, a representative of the Government, a party concerned, is grounded on the following arguments.

Government resolutions are individual acts of application of law, therefore, the compliance of the impugned government resolutions with the Constitution could be assessed only in the aspect whether the Government, when adopting corresponding resolutions, was properly implementing corresponding provisions of the Constitution, the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities and the Law on the Government of the Republic of Lithuania which regulate the release of Government Representatives from office, as well as the provisions of the legal acts which regulate the adoption, publishing and entry into force of government resolutions. The impugned government resolutions were adopted by following Item 14 of Article 22 of the Law on the Government and by adhering to the procedures established in the Regulation of the Work of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, they were published and came into force without violating the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Procedure for Publishing and Coming into Force of Laws and Other Legal Acts, they implemented corresponding provisions of the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities and the Law on the State Service, but they neither created nor abolished any rights of the Government Representatives.

IV

1. At the Constitutional Court’s hearing, P. Žukauskas and V. Vėgelis, the representatives of the Seimas, a party concerned, and N. Rudaitis, the representative of the Government, a party concerned, virtually reiterated the arguments set forth in their written explanations.

2. P. Žukauskas also drew one’s attention to the fact that after the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities had come into force, which was adopted by the Seimas on 8 June 2004, by Article 1 of which the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities (wording of 10 December 2002 with subsequent amendments and supplements) was amended and set forth in a new wording, the provisions of Articles 7, 8, 9, and 11 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities which are impugned in this constitutional justice case were abolished. In the opinion of P. Žukauskas, as regards this part, the case should be dismissed.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

I

1. A group of members of the Seimas, a petitioner, request an investigation into whether Paragraph 4 of Article 3 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities is not in conflict with Article 35, Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution as well as the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of legitimate expectations; whether Paragraph 4 of Article 5 of the same law is not in conflict with Article 5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 123 of the Constitution; whether Article 7 of the same law to the extent that it provides that the Minister authorised by the Government may give instructions to the Government Representative regarding the issues of organisational activity, Article 8 of the same law to the extent that it provides that the Government Representative, under procedure approved by the Minister authorised by the Government, submits information about his activities, Article 9 of the same law to the extent that it provides that the Minister authorised by the Government supervises how Government Representatives discharge their powers and coordinates the activity of Government Representatives, Article 11 of the same law to the extent that it provides that the Regulations of the Activity of the Service of the Government Representative are approved by the Minister authorised by the Government, are not in conflict with Article 123 of the Constitution; whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities and Item 5 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Law on the State Service are not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of legitimate expectations.

2. The Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, a petitioner, requests an investigation into whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities, Item 5 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Law on the State Service, the Government Resolution (No. 1525) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Marijampolė County from Office” of 3 December 2003, the Government Resolution (No. 1526) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Panevėžys County from Office” of 3 December 2003, the Government Resolution (No. 1527) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Šiauliai County from Office” of 3 December 2003, the Government Resolution (No. 1528) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Telšiai County from Office” of 3 December 2003, the Government Resolution (No. 1529) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Vilnius County from Office” of 3 December 2003, and the Government Resolution (No. 1578) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Šiauliai County from Office” of 10 December 2003 are not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of legitimate expectations.

3. It should be held that that one doubts and requests the Constitutional Court to investigate:

whether Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 3 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities was not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 35, Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution as well as the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of legitimate expectations;

whether Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 5 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities was not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 123 of the Constitution;

Article 7 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities to the extent that it provides that the Minister authorised by the Government may give instructions to the Government Representative regarding the issues of organisational activity was not in conflict with Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 123 of the Constitution;

whether Article 8 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities to the extent that it provides that the Government Representative, under procedure approved by the Minister authorised by the Government, submits information about his activities was not in conflict with Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 123 of the Constitution;

whether Article 9 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities to the extent that it provides that the Minister authorised by the Government supervises how Government Representatives discharge their powers and coordinates the activity of Government Representatives was not in conflict with Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 123 of the Constitution;

whether Article 11 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities to the extent that it provides that the Regulations of the Activity of the Service of the Government Representative are approved by the Minister authorised by the Government was not in conflict with Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 123 of the Constitution;

whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities (wording of 10 December 2002) is not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of legitimate expectations;

whether the provision “A state servant shall be released from office if: <…> (5) the term of office of the Government Representative (head of an institution), the beginning of which is the date of entry into force of the Law on the State Service (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1999, No. 66-2130), expires” of Paragraph 1 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 44 of the Law on the State Service is not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of legitimate expectations;

whether the Government Resolution (No. 1525) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Marijampolė County from Office” of 3 December 2003 is not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of legitimate expectations;

whether the Government Resolution (No. 1526) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Panevėžys County from Office” of 3 December 2003 is not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of legitimate expectations;

whether the Government Resolution (No. 1527) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Šiauliai County from Office” of 3 December 2003 is not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of legitimate expectations;

whether Item 1 of the Government Resolution (No. 1528) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Telšiai County from Office” of 3 December 2003 is not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of legitimate expectations;

whether the Government Resolution (No. 1529) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Vilnius County from Office” of 3 December 2003 is not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of legitimate expectations;

whether Item 1 of the Government Resolution (No. 1578) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Šiauliai County from Office” of 10 December 2003 is not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of legitimate expectations.

II

On the compliance of Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 3 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities with Paragraph 1 of Article 35, Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution as well as the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of legitimate expectations.

1. On 14 May 1998, the Seimas adopted the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities which came into force on 3 June 1998. This law has been amended more than once, while by Article 1 of the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities, which was adopted by the Seimas on 10 December 2002, it was amended and set forth in a new wording. The Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities of the new wording came into force on 31 December 2002.

2. Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 3 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities provided: “The Government Representative may not participate in the activities of political parties and political organisations.”

3. Although the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities (wording of 10 December 2002) was later amended, Paragraph 4 of Article 3 thereof remained unchanged nor was it supplemented until 24 June 2004, when the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities, which was adopted by the Seimas on 8 June 2004, came into force, by Article 1 whereof the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities (wording of 10 December 2002 with subsequent amendments and supplements) was amended and set forth in a new wording.

4. The right of citizens, which is guaranteed by Paragraph 1 of Article 35 of the Constitution, to freely form, inter alia, political parties, provided that the aims and activities thereof are not contrary to the Constitution and laws, is one of the fundamental rights of the citizen of a democratic state. In its ruling of 21 December 2001, the Constitutional Court held that the content of right guaranteed in the Constitution to freely form political parties is composed of the right to form political parties and associations, the right to join them and take part in their activities; the Constitution guarantees the right to decide of one’s own free will whether to belong or not to belong to a certain political party; the person implements this constitutional right of his own free will, while this free will of the person is a fundamental principle of membership in political parties.

The constitutional right of citizens to freely joint, inter alia, political parties and political organisations (which, as mentioned before, includes the right of citizens to take part in the activities of political parties) is not absolute, it can be limited by law, however, not more than permitted by the Constitution itself. In this context it needs to be noted that when limitations on the said constitutional right are established by means of the law, inter alia, when citizens are prohibited from participating in the activities of political parties, one must pay heed to the norms and principles of the Constitution, inter alia, the principle of equal rights of persons, which is consolidated in Article 29 of the Constitution, as well as the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

The restrictions and limitations on the constitutional right to join into political parties and political organisations are established in the Constitution itself: Paragraph 2 of Article 113 of the Constitution provides that a judge may not participate in the activities of political parties and other political organisations; Article 141 of the Constitution consolidates that persons performing actual military service or alternative service, as well as officers of the national defence system, the police and the Interior, non-commissioned officers, re-enlistees, and other paid officials of paramilitary and security services who have not retired to the reserve may not take part in the activities of political parties and organisations; the provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 118 of the Constitution that when performing his functions, the prosecutor shall be independent and shall obey only the law implies also a prohibition for prosecutors to be members of political parties and political organisations and to participate in their activities; under Paragraph 2 of Article 83 of the Constitution, a person elected President of the Republic must suspend his activities in political parties and political organisations until the beginning of a new campaign of the election of the President of the Republic. In this context, it should be mentioned that the right of citizens to join into political parties, which is consolidated in Article 35 of the Constitution, may be temporarily limited after imposition of martial law or a state of emergency (Article 145 of the Constitution).

5. While deciding whether Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 3 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities was not in conflict with the Constitution, it needs to be noted that the prohibition for Government Representatives to be members of political parties or political organisations and/or participate in their activities neither is established expressis verbis in the Constitution nor may it be derived from its provisions. It is impermissible to establish such a prohibition either by law or by other legal act.

Alongside, it needs to be stressed that the Constitution does not prohibit the legislature from establishing such legal regulation that would create preconditions in order to ensure that the activity of Government Representatives be oriented not to satisfying the interests of party interests and that one not abuse the opportunities which are granted by this post. When the corresponding relations are regulated by law, heed must be paid to the Constitution.

6. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the conclusion should be drawn that Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 3 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 35 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

7. Having held that Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 3 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 35 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, in the constitutional justice case at issue the Constitutional Court will not further investigate the compliance of Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 3 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 the Constitution and the constitutional principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

8. On 8 June 2004, the Seimas adopted the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities by Article 1 whereof the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities (wording of 10 December 2002 with subsequent amendments and supplements) was amended and set forth in a new wording. The Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities came into force on 24 June 2004.

9. Paragraph 4 (wording of 8 June 2004) of Article 3 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities provides: “The representative of the Government may not participate in the activities of political parties.”

10. Having held that Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 3 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 35 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, it should also be held that also Paragraph 4 (wording of 8 June 2004) of Article 3 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 35 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

III

On the compliance of Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 5 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities with Paragraph 3 of Article 5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 123 of the Constitution.

1. Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 5 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities provided: “The representative of the Government shall not consider complaints from natural and legal persons, which should be considered according to proceedings of administrative cases.”

2. When deciding whether Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 5 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities was not in conflict with the Constitution, it should be noted that under Paragraph 3 of Article 123 of the Constitution the powers of the Government Representative and the procedure of their execution shall be established by law. Thus, establishment of the powers of the Government Representative is left for the legislature (of course, by paying heed to the Constitution, inter alia, the purpose of the constitutional institute of Government Representatives and the functions of Government Representatives which are entrenched in the Constitution); in this area the legislature enjoys broad discretion, it may establish very broad powers of the Government Representative, as well as such which would not repeat the powers of other institutions (officials), which are consolidated in laws.

The fact that under Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 5 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities the representative of the Government shall not consider complaints from natural and legal persons, which should be considered according to proceedings of administrative cases, does not mean that opportunities of the Government Representative to receive necessary information from natural of legal persons in order to discharge his constitutional functions (supervision of the observance of the Constitution and the laws as well as the execution of decisions of the Government by municipalities) or the opportunities for the said natural persons or legal persons to protect their violated rights are limited. Thus, by no means does such legal regulation mean that the requirement of Paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Constitution that state institutions shall serve the people is deviated from, nor that the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 123 of the Constitution that the observance of the Constitution and the laws as well as the execution of decisions of the Government by municipalities shall be supervised by the representatives appointed by the Government is not paid heed to.

3. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the conclusion should be drawn that Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 5 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities was not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 5 and Paragraph 2 of Article 123 of the Constitution.

IV

On the compliance of Article 7 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities to the extent that it provides that the Minister authorised by the Government may give instructions to the Government Representative regarding the issues of organisational activity, Article 8 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the same law to the extent that it provides that the Government Representative, under procedure approved by the Minister authorised by the Government, submits information about his activities, Article 9 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the same law to the extent that it provides that the Minister authorised by the Government supervises how Government Representatives discharge their powers and coordinates the activity of Government Representatives, Article 11 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the same law to the extent that it provides that the Regulations of the Activity of the Service of the Government Representative are approved by the Minister authorised by the Government, with Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 123 of the Constitution.

1. Article 7 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities used to provide: “The Government or the Prime Minister may assign the Government Representative with the task to investigate whether municipalities observe the Constitution and laws and whether they execute decisions of the Government. Either the Prime Minister or the Minister authorised by the Government may give instructions to the Government Representative regarding the issues of organisational activity.”

Article 8 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities used to provide: “The Government Representative, under procedure approved by the Minister authorised by the Government, once a half year shall submit information about his activities to the Government, the County Chief and the supervised municipalities.”

Article 9 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities used to provide: “Either the Government or the Minister authorised by the Government shall supervise how Government Representatives discharge their powers and shall coordinate the activity of Government Representatives.”

Article 11 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities used to provide: “The Service of the Government Representative shall be established and the number of offices of the state servants shall be determined by the Government. The Service of the Government Representative shall be maintained from the State Budget. The purpose of this Service is to help the Government Representative to implement his powers and rights. The Regulations of the Activity of the Service of the Government Representative are approved by the Minister authorised by the Government.”

2. It has been mentioned that a group of members of the Seimas, the petitioner, faced doubts whether Article 7 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities to the extent that it provides that the Minister authorised by the Government may give instructions to the Government Representative regarding the issues of organisational activity, Article 8 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the same law to the extent that it provides that the Government Representative, under procedure approved by the Minister authorised by the Government, submits information about his activities, Article 9 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the same law to the extent that it provides that the Minister authorised by the Government supervises how Government Representatives discharge their powers and coordinates the activity of Government Representatives, Article 11 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the same law to the extent that it provides that the Regulations of the Activity of the Service of the Government Representative are approved by the Minister authorised by the Government, were not in conflict with Paragraphs 2 and 3 Article 123 of the Constitution.

It was also mentioned that Article 1 of the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities, which was adopted by the Seimas on 8 June 2004 and which came into force on 24 June 2004, amended the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities (wording of 10 December 2002 with subsequent amendments and supplements) and set it forth in a new wording.

The Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities (wording of 8 June 2004 with subsequent amendments and supplements) does not contain any provisions, which would repeat the impugned provisions of Article 7 (wording of 10 December 2002), Article 8 (wording of 10 December 2002), Article 9 (wording of 10 December 2002) and Article 11 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities.

3. Under Paragraph 4 (wording of 11 July 1996) of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the annulment of the impugned legal act shall be grounds to adopt a decision to dismiss the instituted legal proceedings. In its acts the Constitutional Court has held more than once that the Constitutional Court, while taking account of the circumstances of a considered constitutional justice case, may dismiss the instituted legal proceedings on the ground provided for in Paragraph 4 (wording of 11 July 1996) of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court in cases when the Constitutional Court is applied not by a court, but by any other subject specified in Article 106 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court has also held more than once that the same should be said about the situations where the impugned legal act (part thereof) was not annulled, however, the legal regulation established therein was changed (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 4 March 2003, its decision of 14 March 2006 (Case No. 3/05), and its ruling of 30 March 2006).

4. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the part of the case concerning the compliance of Article 7 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities to the extent that it provides that the Minister authorised by the Government may give instructions to the Government Representative regarding the issues of organisational activity, Article 8 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the same law to the extent that it provides that the Government Representative, under procedure approved by the Minister authorised by the Government, submits information about his activities, Article 9 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the same law to the extent that it provides that the Minister authorised by the Government supervises how Government Representatives discharge their powers and coordinates the activity of Government Representatives, Article 11 (wording of 10 December 2002) of the same law to the extent that it provides that the Regulations of the Activity of the Service of the Government Representative are approved by the Minister authorised by the Government, with Paragraphs 2 and 3 Article 123 of the Constitution must be dismissed.

V

On the compliance of Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities (wording of 10 December 2002), the provision “A state servant shall be released from office if: <…> (5) the term of office of the Government Representative (head of an institution), the beginning of which is the date of entry into force of the Law on the State Service (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1999, No. 66-2130), expires” of Paragraph 1 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 44 of the Law on the State Service, the Government Resolution (No. 1525) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Marijampolė County from Office” of 3 December 2003, the Government Resolution (No. 1526) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Panevėžys County from Office” of 3 December 2003, the Government Resolution (No. 1527) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Šiauliai County from Office” of 3 December 2003, Item 1 of the Government Resolution (No. 1528) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Telšiai County from Office” of 3 December 2003, the Government Resolution (No. 1529) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Vilnius County from Office” of 3 December 2003, and Item 1 of the Government Resolution (No. 1578) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Šiauliai County from Office” of 10 December 2003 with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of legitimate expectations.

1. Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities (wording of 10 December 2002) provides: “The term of appointing the Government Representative, which is established by this Law, shall also be applied to the Government Representatives who were appointed prior to the entry into force of this Law.”

2. On 8 July 1999, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service. This law came into force on 30 July 1999. On 23 April 2002, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending the Law on the State Service by Article 1 whereof the Law on the State Service was amended and set forth in a new wording. The Law on the State Service of the new wording came into force on 1 July 2002. It has been amended and supplemented.

Item 5 (wording of 23 April 2002) of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Law on the State Service was amended by the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending Articles 10 and 44 of the Law on the State Service, which was adopted by the Seimas 10 December 2002 and which came into force on 31 December 2002.

Paragraph 1 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 44 of the Law on the State Service used to provide: “A state servant shall be released from office if: <…> (5) the term of office of the Government Representative (head of an institution), the beginning of which is the date of entry into force of the Law on the State Service (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1999, No. 66-2130), expires.”

3. On 14 May 1998, the Seimas adopted the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities. This law came into force on 3 June 1998. The Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities (wording of 14 May 1998) established the powers of the officials—Government Representatives—who conduct the administrative supervision of municipalities and the procedure for execution of this supervision. By means of the said law (by reacting to the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 18 February 1998, whereby the Republic of Lithuania’s Law “On the Amendment and Supplementation of the Law on the Governing of the County, as well as the Recognition of the Law on the Government Representative as Null and Void” in the part whereby the independent constitutional institution of the administrative supervision of local government activities is amalgamated with another institution, which found expression in the direct incorporation of local government supervision into the local administration was recognised as being in conflict with the Constitution) a separate institute of the Government Representative was returned into the system of the state service of the Republic of Lithuania and the Lithuanian legal system. In Paragraph 1 (wording of 14 May 1998) of Article 8 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities it was prescribed that the Government Representative shall be appointed and released by the Government upon the submission of the Minister of Public Reform and Municipal Affairs.

4. Under the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Functionaries (with subsequent amendments and supplements), which was adopted by the Seimas on 4 April 1995 and which came into force on 1 May 1995, Government Representatives used to be functionaries.

In this context, it should be emphasised that under the Law on Functionaries (wording of 4 May 1995 with subsequent amendments and supplements), all state functionaries, as well as all municipal functionaries were grouped into “A” and “B” levels.

Under Article 6 (wording of 16 January 1997) of the Law on Functionaries, state functionaries of “A” level shall be servants appointed by the Seimas, the President of the Republic, the Government and other servants specified in the list of offices who assist state politicians in fulfilling their functions; the service of the above state functionaries was connected with the duration of the term of office of their respective head officials (Paragraph 2 (wording of 4 April 1995)); the Seimas, on the proposal of the Government, would approve the offices to “A” level on the list of offices (Paragraph 6 (16 January 1997)). Under Paragraph 1 (wording of 4 April 1995) of Article 11 of the Law on Functionaries, functionaries of “A” level were employed in the state governance service in accordance with the procedure established by labour legislation and other laws of the Republic of Lithuania; employment contracts of limited duration were concluded with the above functionaries for the term of office of appropriate institutions or their head officials. Paragraph 2 (wording of 4 April 1995) of Article 20 of the Law on Functionaries it was prescribed that state and municipal functionaries of “A” level with whom employment contract of limited duration is concluded shall resign upon the expiry of the term of the contract.

5. On 16 June 1998, the Seimas adopted the Resolution (No. VIII-795) “On Amending and Supplementing the List of the ‘A’ Level Functionaries of the State Governance Service of the Republic of Lithuania”. This Seimas resolution came into force on 16 June 1998. By Article 1 thereof, Chapters I, III, IV and V of the List of the Offices of “A” Level Functionaries of the Service of State Governance of the Republic of Lithuania which were approved by the Seimas Resolution (No. I-965) “On the List of the Offices of ‘A’ Level Functionaries of the Service of State Governance of the Republic of Lithuania” of 27 June 1995 were amended and supplemented; Chapter IV of this list included, inter alia, Government Representatives as well.

6. It should be held that, as of 16 June 1998, Government Representatives, according to legal acts, which were in force in the Republic of Lithuania, were regarded as functionaries of “A” level, whose term of service was linked with the term of powers of the Government that had appointed them.

7. On 8 July 1999, the Seimas adopted the Law on the State Service. The Law on the State Service came into force on 30 July 1999. After this law had gone into effect, inter alia, the Law on Functionaries (wording of 4 April 1995 with subsequent amendments and supplements) which had been in force until then became no longer valid.

Under Article 6 (wording of 8 July 1999) of the Law on the State Service, state servants were grouped into state servants of public administration and state employees. State servants of public administration were grouped into career state servants, state servants of political (personal) confidence, heads of establishments and acting state servants. Under Paragraph 1 (wording of 8 July 1999) of Article 16 of the Law on the State Service, heads of establishments had to be recruited on the basis of public competition or without a competition on the basis of political (personal) confidence. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, it needs to be noted that state servants of political (personal) confidence were civil servants admitted to the service for a position included into the list of positions of state servants of political (personal) confidence approved by the Seimas (Item 9 (wording of 8 July 1999) of Article 2 of the Law on the State Service).

Paragraph 4 (wording of 8 July 1999) of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service provided that functionaries of level “A” who before entry into force of this law were covered by the Law on Functionaries had to become state servants of political (personal) confidence. Paragraph 5 (wording of 8 July 1999) of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service provided that heads of state and municipal establishments (except Government Representatives, county chiefs and Directors General of departments under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania) who prior to entry into force of this law had been covered by the Law on Functionaries had to become state servants—heads of establishments; they had to be appointed to the positions of heads of state or municipal establishments for the term specified in legal acts but not longer than 5 years which shall start from the day of entry into force of the Law on the State Service (wording of 8 July 1999).

It needs to be noted that Article 62 (wording of 8 July 1999) of the Law on the State Service was set forth in Chapter Twelve “Provisions of Transitional Period” of the said law. The provisions of this article, as well as those of other articles of Chapter Twelve of the Law on the State Service, were designed to regulate the relations of the state service and the ones linked with it, which had appeared under the legal acts valid until then and which were not terminated at the time when this law was coming into force.

Thus, the Government Representatives who have been appointed to this office prior to the day of entry into force of the Law on the State Service and whose term of service was, as mentioned before, linked with the term of powers of the Government that had appointed them became state servants of political (personal) confidence.

8. It was established in Paragraph 5 (wording of 8 July 1999) of Article 15 of the Law on the State Service that the service of state servants of political (personal) confidence shall be terminated on the expiry of the term of office of state politicians who have chosen them or upon the expiry of the powers of the said politicians, while Paragraph 1 (wording of 8 July 1999) of Article 56 of the same law provided that state servants shall lose the status of a civil servant, inter alia, in the case when the mandate or term in office of a state politician who has chosen the state servant of political (personal) confidence expire or the state servant loses the confidence of the state politician, provided that before assuming the above position the state servant of political (personal) confidence was not a career state servant (Item 14).

In this context it needs to be noted that the formulas “state politician (state politicians)” of Paragraph 5 (wording of 8 July 1999) of Article 15 and Item 14 (wording of 8 July 1999) of Paragraph 1 of Article 56 of Law on the State Service, inter alia, when one takes account of the legal and factual circumstances of the reform of the state service which was taking place at that time, cannot be construed as ones including only officials and as not including (in certain cases) collegiate state institutions, which are composed of state politicians.

The Government Representatives, both those who were appointed to this office prior to the day of entry into force of the Law on the State Service, which was adopted by the Seimas on 8 July 1999, on that day were holding this office and whose term of service, as mentioned before, was linked with the term of powers of the Government which had appointed them, and those who had to be appointed to this office after the Law on the State Service, which was adopted by the Seimas on 8 July 1999, had come into force, could be released from the said office, inter alia, as those who lost the confidence of the Government. Thus, such Government Representatives had an expectation, which derived from the Law on the State Service (wording of 8 July 1999), that they would not be released from this office until the expiration of the powers of the Government, unless they were released from office as those who lost the confidence of the Government or upon other grounds established in the law.

9. The Government which had appointed the Government Representatives until the day (30 July 1999) of the entry into force of the Law on the State Service, which was adopted by the Seimas on 8 July 1999, lost its powers on 11 November 1999, after a new Government had received the powers to act.

By the Government Resolution (No. 1334) “On the Release of Government Representatives from Office” of 1 December 1999, the Government Representatives appointed by the former Government that lost its powers on 11 November 1999, were released from office after they handed in their resignation statements, while by the Government Resolution (No. 1335) “On Appointing Government Representatives” of 2 December 1999 the Government Representatives who had political confidence of the new Government were appointed.

10. On 29 August 2000, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending and Supplementing the Law on the State Service. This law came into force on 7 September 2000.

By Article 13 of the Law on Amending and Supplementing the Law on the State Service Article 16 (wording of 8 July 1999) of the Law on the State Service was amended and set forth in a new wording. Under Item 1 (wording of 29 August 2000) of Paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Law on the State Service, Government Representatives had to be appointed to office by way of competition.

By Paragraph 2 of Article 43 of the Law on Amending and Supplementing the Law on the State Service Paragraph 5 (wording of 8 July 1999) of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service was changed. Paragraph 5 (wording of 29 August 2000) of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service, inter alia, provided:

Heads of state and municipal establishments shall become state servants—heads of establishments. Their state service relations are legalised by an order (ordinance) of the head (in case the head official is a state politician, then of the person who is responsible for personnel administration) of a corresponding institution: these servants are appointed heads of the institutions in the founding documents of these institutions, in the statues (regulations) or in other legal acts regulating their activities for the established term (term of office), which is not shorter than 4 years and not longer than 5 years, the beginning of which is the date of entry into force of the Law on the State Service, but for no longer until they reach 62 years and 6 months of age. The persons who reached this age and older persons shall be appointed for the term of 2 years, the beginning of which is the date of entry into force of the Law on the State Service. The service of the heads of establishments who reach 62 years and 6 months of age during the time of their term of office may be prolonged until they reach 65 years of age, but for the period not longer than the established term of office of the head official.”

By Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the Law on Amending and Supplementing the Law on the State Service Paragraph 9 (wording of 8 July 1999) of Article 2 of the Law on the State Service was amended. Paragraph 9 (wording of 29 August 2000) of Article 2 of the Law on the State Service provided that the state servant of political (personal) confidence is a state servant appointed for the term of office of the appointing state politician to the office which is entered on the list of offices of state servants of political (personal) confidence under this law. Besides, the Law on the State Service (which until then was set forth in the wording of 8 July 1999) was supplemented with Appendix 2 “Categories of Typical Positions of State Servants (Heads of Institutions and Career State Servants) of Public Administration” in Chapter 27 whereof also the position of the Government Representative was entered.

It needs to be noted that the formula “heads of state and municipal establishments” of Paragraph 5 (wording of 29 August 2000) of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service should be construed by taking account of, inter alia, that under Paragraph 10 (wording of 29 August 2000) of Article 2 of the Law on the State Service the head of an establishment is a state servant who is appointed, either by way of competition or on the grounds of political (personal) confidence, to head the state or municipal establishment for the period of the established term of office or on a termless basis. Thus, in itself the said formula of Paragraph 5 (wording of 29 August 2000) of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service does not mean that the heads of state and municipal establishments who were appointed to office after the entry into force of the Law on the State Service, which was adopted by the Seimas on 8 July 1999, but before coming into force of the Law on Amending and Supplementing the Law on the State Service, which was adopted by the Seimas on 29 August 2000, had to be treated only as state servants of political (personal) confidence or only as state servants, who are appointed to office by way of competition. However, the Government Representatives who were appointed to office after the entry into force of the Law on the State Service, which was adopted by the Seimas on 8 July 1999, but before coming into force of the Law on Amending and Supplementing the Law on the State Service (i.e. prior to 7 September 2000) were state servants of political (personal) confidence, since, as mentioned before, they had the political confidence of the Government that had appointed them and the length of their service was linked with the term of powers of the Government that had appointed them.

It needs to be emphasised that the legal regulation established in the Law on the State Service after corresponding amendments and supplements were made on 29 August 2000 became confused, inconsistent and ambiguous. However, when Paragraph 10 (wording of 29 August 2000) of Article 2, Item 1 (wording of 29 August 2000) of Paragraph 1 of Article 16 and Paragraph 5 (wording of 29 August 2000) of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service are construed in a systemic manner, especially when one takes account of the fact that the provision of Paragraph 4 (wording of 8 July 1999) of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service that the functionaries of “A” level to whom the Law on Functionaries was applied until the entry into effect of the Law on the State Service (wording of 8 July 1999) had to become state servants of political (personal) confidence was not changed by the Law on Amending and Supplementing the Law on the State Service, also when one takes account of the fact that, as mentioned before, the Government Representatives who were appointed to office after the entry into force of the Law on the State Service, which was adopted by the Seimas on 8 July 1999, but before coming into force of the Law on Amending and Supplementing the Law on the State Service, which was adopted by the Seimas on 29 August 2000 (i.e. prior to 7 September 2000), were state servants of political (personal) confidence, since, as mentioned before, they had the political confidence of the Government that had appointed them and the length of their service was linked with the term of powers of the Government that had appointed them, and disregarding the fact that in Appendix 2 “Categories of Typical Positions of State Servants (Heads of Institutions and Career State Servants) of Public Administration” of the Law on the State Service in Chapter 27 whereof also the position of the Government Representative was entered, it should be held that the Government Representatives who were appointed to office after the entry into force of the Law on the State Service, which was adopted by the Seimas on 8 July 1999, but before coming into force of the Law on Amending and Supplementing the Law on the State Service, which was adopted by the Seimas on 29 August 2000 (i.e. prior to 7 September 2000), continued to be state servants of political (personal) confidence who had an expectation, which derived from the Law on the State Service (wording of 8 July 1999) that they would not be released from this office until the expiration of powers of the Government, unless they were released from office as those who lost the confidence of the Government or upon other grounds established in the law.

11. The Government which received its powers to act on 11 November 1999 lost its powers on 9 November 2000, when a new Government received the powers to act.

Under Item 14 ((wording of 29 August 2000) of Paragraph 1 of Article 56 of the Law on the State Service, the Government Representatives who were appointed by the Government which lost its powers on 9 November 2000 had to be released from office upon the expiry of powers of the Government that had appointed them. New Government Representatives could be appointed only upon the procedure which was established to such servants by the Law on the State Service (wording of 29 August 2000), i.e. by way of a competition (Item 1 (wording of 29 August 2000)) of Paragraph 1 of Article 16).

12. It needs to be emphasised that although the aforesaid requirements arise from the Constitution and laws, they have not been fulfilled—the persons who were appointed as Government Representatives by the Government which received its powers to act on 11 November 1999 and which lost its powers on 9 November 2000 were not released from office (after this Government lost its powers) by Item 14 (wording of 29 August 2000) of Paragraph 1 of Article 56 of the Law on the State Service; they continued to hold this office although another Government, which received its powers to act on 9 November 2000, was working.

Under the Constitution, such legal and factual situation is intolerable.

Thus, no expectation (that the term of their powers would be longer than the term of powers of the Government which had appointed them) appeared for the said persons, who were holding the office of the Government Representative, although they were no longer appointed to this office under procedure (by way of competition) established by law; as mentioned before, the Government that had appointed them had lost its powers.

13. On 21 November 2000, the Seimas adopted the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending Articles 7, 17, 21, 33, 43, 50, 55, 56, 62, 66, 69, 71, 76, and 78 and Appendices 1 and 2 of the Law on the State Service. The Law on Amending Articles 7, 17, 21, 33, 43, 50, 55, 56, 62, 66, 69, 71, 76, and 78 and Appendices 1 and 2 of the Law on the State Service came into force on 29 November 2000.

By the Law on Amending Articles 7, 17, 21, 33, 43, 50, 55, 56, 62, 66, 69, 71, 76, and 78 and Appendices 1 and 2 of the Law on the State Service, Paragraph 12 (wording of 29 August 2000) of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service was amended. Under Paragraph 12 (wording of 21 November 2000) of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service, after the status of the position of a state servant is changed (when the position of the state servant, who became a state servant of political (personal) confidence according to Article 15 or Paragraph 4 of Article 62 of this law, was entered into Appendix 2 of this law or when the position is moved from Appendix 1 to Appendix 2 or from Appendix 2 into Appendix 1) the service relations of the person holding this office persist: he respectively becomes a career state servant, head of an establishment or a state servant of political (personal) confidence; his service relations are legalised by an order (ordinance) issued by the persons specified in Paragraph 7 (regarding career state servants) of Article 14, Paragraph 2 (state servants of political (personal) confidence) of Article 15 or Paragraph 5 (regarding heads of establishments) of Article 62 of this law.

14. Thus, Paragraph 12 (wording of 21 November 2000) of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service established, inter alia, the legal regulation whereby the state servants of political (personal) confidence that are specified in this paragraph become career state servants not by way of competition, but ex lege. This means that legal preconditions were created for certain persons to be distinguished from among all persons who were seeking to enter in the state service.

Such legal regulation was incompatible with Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Constitution under which citizens shall have the right to enter on equal terms in the state service of the Republic of Lithuania and with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution which provides that all persons shall be equal before the law, the court, and other state institutions and officials.

15. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the conclusion should be drawn that the rule which is consolidated in Paragraph 12 (wording of 21 November 2000) of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service that the state servants of political (personal) confidence may become career state servants not according to general grounds applied to the persons who seek to enter in the state service, but ex lege, was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 and Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Constitution.

16. It needs to be noted that the legal relation established in Paragraph 12 (wording of 21 November 2000) of Article 62 of the Law on the State Service could not create, nor did it create any expectation protected by law to the persons who were appointed as Government Representatives by the Government which lost its powers on 9 November 2000, so that the term of their powers could be longer than the term of powers (which, as mentioned before, had expired) of the Government that had appointed them.

17. Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending Article 8 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities, which was adopted by the Seimas on 21 December 2000 and which came into force on 1 January 2001, whereby Paragraph 1 (wording of 14 May 1998) of Article 8 of the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities was amended and whereby it was prescribed that the Government Representative shall be appointed for the term (term of office) of 4 years and shall be released from office under procedure established in the Law on the State Service, could not create nor did it create any expectation protected by law to the said persons.

It needs to be underlined that Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities (wording of 10 December 2002), which provides that the term of appointing the Government Representative, which is established by this law, shall also be applied to the Government Representatives who were appointed prior to the entry into force of this law, and the provision “A state servant shall be released from office if: <…> (5) the term of office of the Government Representative (head of an institution), the beginning of which is the date of entry into force of the Law on the State Service (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1999, No. 66-2130), expires” of Paragraph 1 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 44 of the Law on the State Service, both of which are impugned by the petitioners, could not create nor did they create any expectation protected by law to the said persons, either.

Quite to the contrary, the said provisions continued to legalise such legal and factual situation, which is not tolerated by the Constitution, where the persons who were appointed as Government Representatives by the Government that lost its powers on 9 November 2000 were not released from office subsequent to Item 14 (wording of 29 August 2000) of Paragraph 1 of Article 56 of the Law on the State Service, although the powers of the Government that had appointed them had expired.

18. In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, it should also be mentioned that the persons who were appointed as Government Representatives by the Government that lost its powers on 9 November 2000 were not released from office subsequent to Item 14 (wording of 29 August 2000) of Paragraph 1 of Article 56 of the Law on the State Service still for long time after the Government which received powers to act on 9 November 2000 (as mentioned before, the one which did not appoint those persons to the office of Government Representatives) lost its powers on 12 July 2001 and another Government began its work.

19. On 3 December the Government adopted: the Resolution (No. 1525) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Marijampolė County from Office” whereby it was decided do release Algirdas Juozas Grabauskas from the office of the Government Representative for the Marijampolė county on 8 December 2003 subsequent to Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service; the Resolution (No. 1526) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Panevėžys County from Office” whereby it was decided do release Zita Petronėlė Kriaučiūnaitė from the office of the Government Representative for the Panevėžys county on 8 December 2003 subsequent to Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service; the Resolution (No. 1527) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Šiauliai County from Office” whereby it was decided do release Vitolis Januševičius from the office of the Government Representative for the Šiauliai county on 8 December 2003 subsequent to Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service; the Resolution (No. 1528) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Telšiai County from Office” whereby it was decided do release Juozas Vengalis from the office of the Government Representative for the Telšiai county on 8 December 2003 subsequent to Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service; the Resolution (No. 1529) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Vilnius County from Office” whereby it was decided do release Gintautas Jakimavičius from the office of the Government Representative for the Vilnius county on 8 December 2003 subsequent to Item 5 of Paragraph 1 of Article 44 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service. On 10 December 2003, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 1578) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Šiauliai County from Office” by Item 1 whereof it was decided to move the indicated date of the release of Vitolis Januševičius from the office of the Government Representative from the Šiauliai county to the first working day after his sick-leave is over.

20. The specified persons, i.e. A. J. Grabauskas, Z. P. Kriaučiūnaitė, V. Januševičius, J. Vengalis, and G. Jakimavičius, were appointed as Government Representatives by the Government Resolution (No. 1335) “On Appointing Government Representatives” of 2 December 1999 and they could be deemed to have had political confidence of the then Government.

It has been held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court that the persons who were appointed as Government Representatives by the Government which lost its powers on 9 November 2000 could not have any expectation protected by law so that the term of their powers could be longer than the term of powers (which, as mentioned before, had expired) of the Government that had appointed them.

21. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the conclusion should be drawn that the Government Resolution (No. 1525) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Marijampolė County from Office” of 3 December 2003, the Government Resolution (No. 1526) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Panevėžys County from Office” of 3 December 2003, the Government Resolution (No. 1527) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Šiauliai County from Office” of 3 December 2003, Item 1 of the Government Resolution (No. 1528) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Telšiai County from Office” of 3 December 2003, the Government Resolution (No. 1529) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Vilnius County from Office” of 3 December 2003, and Item 1 of the Government Resolution (No. 1578) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Šiauliai County from Office” of 10 December 2003 in the aspect specified by the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, are not in conflict with the constitutional principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

Having held this, it should be held that the Government Resolution (No. 1525) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Marijampolė County from Office” of 3 December 2003, the Government Resolution (No. 1526) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Panevėžys County from Office” of 3 December 2003, the Government Resolution (No. 1527) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Šiauliai County from Office” of 3 December 2003, Item 1 of the Government Resolution (No. 1528) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Telšiai County from Office” of 3 December 2003, the Government Resolution (No. 1529) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Vilnius County from Office” of 3 December 2003, and Item 1 of the Government Resolution (No. 1578) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Šiauliai County from Office” of 10 December 2003 in the aspect specified by the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, are not in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

22. Having held that that the Government Resolution (No. 1525) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Marijampolė County from Office” of 3 December 2003, the Government Resolution (No. 1526) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Panevėžys County from Office” of 3 December 2003, the Government Resolution (No. 1527) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Šiauliai County from Office” of 3 December 2003, Item 1 of the Government Resolution (No. 1528) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Telšiai County from Office” of 3 December 2003, the Government Resolution (No. 1529) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Vilnius County from Office” of 3 December 2003, and Item 1 of the Government Resolution (No. 1578) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Šiauliai County from Office” of 10 December 2003 in the aspect specified by the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, are not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and protection of legitimate expectations, and taking account of the fact that, as held in this ruling of the Constitutional Court, Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities (wording of 10 December 2002), the provision “A state servant shall be released from office if: <…> (5) the term of office of the Government Representative (head of an institution), the beginning of which is the date of entry into force of the Law on the State Service (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1999, No. 66-2130), expires” of Paragraph 1 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 44 of the Law on the State Service, which are impugned by the petitioners, could not create, nor did they create any expectation protected by law to the persons who were appointed as Government Representatives by the Government which lost its powers on 9 November 2000, so that the term of their powers could be longer than the term of powers (which, as mentioned before, had expired) of the Government that had appointed them, as well as taking account of the fact that one has virtually answered to the question of law raised by the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court (which is linked with the investigation into the constitutionality of the government resolutions applicable in the corresponding case), in the constitutional justice case at issue the Constitutional Court will not further investigate whether Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities (wording of 10 December 2002), and the provision “A state servant shall be released from office if: <…> (5) the term of office of the Government Representative (head of an institution), the beginning of which is the date of entry into force of the Law on the State Service (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1999, No. 66-2130), expires” of Paragraph 1 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Article 44 of the Law on the State Service are not in conflict with the Constitution. This part of the case must be dismissed.

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

ruling:

1. To recognise that Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December 2002; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 127-5748) of Article 3 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

2. To recognise that Paragraph 4 (wording of 8 June 2004; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2004, No. 98-3626) of Article 3 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

3. To recognise that Paragraph 4 (wording of 10 December 2002; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 127-5748) of Article 5 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities was not in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

4. To recognise that the rule which is consolidated in Paragraph 12 (wording of 21 November 2000; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2000, No. 102-3213) of Article 62 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service that the state servants of political (personal) confidence may become career state servants not according to general grounds applied to the persons who seek to enter in the state service, but ex lege, was in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 and Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Constitution of Republic of Lithuania.

5. To recognise that the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1525) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Marijampolė County from Office” of 3 December 2003, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1526) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Panevėžys County from Office” of 3 December 2003, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1527) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Šiauliai County from Office” of 3 December 2003, Item 1 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1528) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Telšiai County from Office” of 3 December 2003, the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1529) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Vilnius County from Office” of 3 December 2003, and Item 1 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1578) “On Releasing the Government Representative for the Šiauliai County from Office” of 10 December 2003 are not in conflict with Constitution of Republic of Lithuania.

6. To dismiss the part of the case regarding the compliance of Article 7 (wording of 10 December 2002; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 127-5748) of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities to the extent that it provides that the Minister authorised by the Government may give instructions to the Government Representative regarding the issues of organisational activity, Article 8 (wording of 10 December 2002; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 127-5748) of the same law to the extent that it provides that the Government Representative, under procedure approved by the Minister authorised by the Government, submits information about his activities, Article 9 (wording of 10 December 2002; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 127-5748) of the same law to the extent that it provides that the Minister authorised by the Government supervises how Government Representatives discharge their powers and coordinates the activity of Government Representatives, Article 11 (wording of 10 December 2002; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 127-5748) of the same law to the extent that it provides that the Regulations of the Activity of the Service of the Government Representative are approved by the Minister authorised by the Government, with the Constitution of Republic of Lithuania.

7. To dismiss the part of the case regarding the compliance of Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Amending the Law on Administrative Supervision of Municipalities (wording of 10 December 2002; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 127-5748) with the Constitution of Republic of Lithuania.

8. To dismiss the part of the case regarding the compliance of the provision “A state servant shall be released from office if: <…> (5) the term of office of the Government Representative (head of an institution), the beginning of which is the date of entry into force of the Law on the State Service (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1999, No. 66-2130), expires” of Paragraph 1 (wording of 10 December 2002; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 127-5748) of Article 44 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Service with the Constitution of 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