Lt

On the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000 related to the status of the churches and religious organisations that are traditional in Lithuania

Cases Nos. 10/95, 23/98

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

DECISION

ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF ITEM 6 OF SECTION I OF THE REASONING PART OF THE RULING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA “ON THE COMPLIANCE OF ITEM 5 OF ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPHS 3 AND 4 OF ARTICLE 10, PARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLE 15, ARTICLE 20, ITEM 2 OF ARTICLE 21, PARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 32, PARAGRAPHS 2, 3 AND 4 OF ARTICLE 34, ITEMS 2 AND 5 OF ARTICLE 35, ITEM 2 OF ARTICLE 37 AND ITEMS 2 AND 3 OF ARTICLE 38 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S LAW ON EDUCATION WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA” OF 13 JUNE 2000 AS WELL AS ON THE PETITION OF THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, THE PETITIONER, REQUESTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF ITEM 1 OF THE REASONING PART OF THE RULING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA “ON THE COMPLIANCE OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 1164) ‘ON THE CAPITALISATION OF THE CREDITS OF SOME ENTERPRISES OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE’ OF 30 AUGUST 1995 WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, AS WELL AS WITH ARTICLE 13 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S LAW ON BUDGETING, ARTICLE 9 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S LAW ON STATE REGULATION OF ECONOMIC RELATIONS IN AGRICULTURE, AND PARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLE 43 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S COMPANY LAW” OF 28 FEBRUARY 1996

 

 

6 December 2007

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

Donatas Glodenis, chief specialist of the Division of Religious Issues and Legal Registration of the Register Department of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, acting as the representative of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania (who submitted the petition requesting the construction of provisions of the rulings of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania), the petitioner

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, at is public hearing, on 4 December 2006, considered the petition of the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania requesting the construction of the following:

the provision “The naming of churches and religious organisations as traditional is <...> an act stating both their tradition and the status of their relations with society, which does not depend on the willpower of the legislature. Such an act reflects the development and the situation of the religious culture in society” of Item 6 of Section I of the reasoning part of the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania “On the Compliance of Item 5 of Article 1, Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 10, Paragraph 1 of Article 15, Article 20, Item 2 of Article 21, Paragraph 2 of Article 32, Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Article 34, Items 2 and 5 of Article 35, Item 2 of Article 37 and Items 2 and 3 of Article 38 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Education with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania” of 13 June 2000;

the provisions “the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 43 of the Constitution providing for the presence of traditional Lithuanian churches and religious organisations is the constitutional basis upon which a different status of traditional churches and organisations may be established if compared with other churches and religious organisations. This means that, without limiting the rights guaranteed for all churches and religious organisations, additional rights for traditional churches and religious organisations may also be ensured by law which are not enjoyed by the churches and organisations which are not traditional” of Item 6 of Section I of the reasoning part of the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania “On the Compliance of Item 5 of Article 1, Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 10, Paragraph 1 of Article 15, Article 20, Item 2 of Article 21, Paragraph 2 of Article 32, Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Article 34, Items 2 and 5 of Article 35, Item 2 of Article 37 and Items 2 and 3 of Article 38 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Education with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania” of 13 June 2000;

the provision “Thus, in itself, the constitutional principle of the equality of persons does not deny the fact that the law may establish different legal regulation concerning certain categories of persons who are in different situations. This should also be applied to legal persons, and not only to natural persons as the former are, as a rule, associations of natural persons” of Item 1 of the reasoning part of the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania On the Compliance of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1164) ‘On the Capitalisation of the Credits of Some Enterprises of the Ministry of Agriculture’ of 30 August 1995 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as with Article 13 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Budgeting, Article 9 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture, and Paragraph 1 of Article 43 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Company Law” of 28 February 1996, the provision “without limiting the rights guaranteed for all churches and religious organisations, additional rights for traditional churches and religious organisations may also be ensured by law which are not enjoyed by the churches and organisations which are not traditional” of Item 6 of Section I of the reasoning part of the Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania “On the Compliance of Item 5 of Article 1, Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 10, Paragraph 1 of Article 15, Article 20, Item 2 of Article 21, Paragraph 2 of Article 32, Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Article 34, Items 2 and 5 of Article 35, Item 2 of Article 37 and Items 2 and 3 of Article 38 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Education with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania” of 13 June 2000.

The Constitutional Court

has established:

I

1. On 28 February 1996, in constitutional justice case No. 10/95 subsequent to the petition of a group of members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1164) “On the Capitalisation of the Credits of Some Enterprises of the Ministry of Agriculture” of 30 August 1995 was not in conflict with the Constitution, with Article 13 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Budgeting, Article 9 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture, and Paragraph 1 of Article 43 of Company Law of the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court passed the Ruling On the Compliance of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1164) ‘On the Capitalisation of the Credits of Some Enterprises of the Ministry of Agriculture’ of 30 August 1995 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as with Article 13 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Budgeting, Article 9 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture, and Paragraph 1 of Article 43 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Company Law” (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1996, No. 20-537; hereinafter also referred to as the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 28 February 1996).

2. On 13 June 2000, in constitutional justice case No. 23/98 subsequent to the petition of a group of members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into the compliance of: Item 5 of Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Education with Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 26, Paragraph 1 of Article 40 and Paragraphs 1, 2, 5 and 7 of Article 43 of the Constitution, Paragraph 3 of Article 10 of the same law with Paragraph 1 of Article 40, Paragraph 2 of Article 41, and Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 120 of the Constitution; Paragraph 4 of Article 10 of the same law with Paragraph 2 of Article 26, Paragraph 2 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 40 and Paragraphs 3 and 7 of Article 43 of the Constitution; Paragraphs 1 of Article 15 of the same law with Paragraph 2 of Article 38, and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 39 of the Constitution; Article 20 of the same law with Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 5 of Article 26, Paragraph 2 of Article 29, Paragraph 1 of Article 40 and Paragraph 7 of Article 43 of the Constitution; Item 2 of Article 21 of the same law with Paragraph 1 of Article 40 of the Constitution; Paragraph 2 of Article 32 of the same law with Paragraph 1 of Article 25, Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 26 and Paragraph 1 of Article 40 of the Constitution; Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 34 of the same law with Paragraph 4 of Article 40 of the Constitution; Paragraph 4 of Article 34 of the same law with Paragraph 1 of Article 40, Paragraph 2 of Article 41 and Paragraph 2 of Article 120 of the Constitution; Items 2 and 5 of Article 35 of the same law with Paragraph 2 of Article 120 of the Constitution; Item 2 of Article 37 and Items 2 and 3 of Article 38 of the same law with Paragraph 2 of Article 120 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court passed the Ruling “On the Compliance of Item 5 of Article 1, Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 10, Paragraph 1 of Article 15, Article 20, Item 2 of Article 21, Paragraph 2 of Article 32, Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Article 34, Items 2 and 5 of Article 35, Item 2 of Article 37 and Items 2 and 3 of Article 38 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Education with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania” (Official gazette Valstybės žinios, 2000, No. 49-1424; hereinafter also referred to as the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000).

3. The Minister of Justice, the petitioner, requests that the Constitutional Court construe the following:

the provision “The naming of churches and religious organisations as traditional is <...> an act stating both their tradition and the status of their relations with society, which does not depend on the willpower of the legislature. Such an act reflects the development and the situation of the religious culture in society” of Item 6 of Section I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000;

the provisions “the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 43 of the Constitution providing for the presence of traditional Lithuanian churches and religious organisations is the constitutional basis upon which a different status of traditional churches and organisations may be established if compared with other churches and religious organisations. This means that, without limiting the rights guaranteed for all churches and religious organisations, additional rights for traditional churches and religious organisations may also be ensured by law which are not enjoyed by the churches and organisations which are not traditional” of Item 6 of Section I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000;

the provisions “Thus, in itself, the constitutional principle of the equality of persons does not deny the fact that the law may establish different legal regulation concerning certain categories of persons who are in different situations. This should also be applied to legal persons, and not only to natural persons as the former are, as a rule, associations of natural persons” of Item 1 of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 28 February 1996, and the provision “without limiting the rights guaranteed for all churches and religious organisations, additional rights for traditional churches and religious organisations may also be ensured by law which are not enjoyed by the churches and organisations which are not traditional” of Item 6 of Section I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000.

II

At the Constitutional Court’s hearing, D. Glodenis, the representative of the Minister of Justice, the petitioner, who has submitted the petition requesting the construction of the Constitutional Court’s rulings, explained the reasons which encouraged the petitioner to apply to the Constitutional Court, as well as presented documents demonstrating how the provisions of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000, whose construction is requested in the petition, are interpreted in the public administration and courts’ practice.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

I

1. The Law on the Constitutional Court consolidates the powers of the Constitutional Court to officially construe its rulings (Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court). The Constitutional Court has the powers also to construe its other final acts (the Constitutional Court’s decisions of 6 April 2004, 14 March 2006 (Case No. 13/2000-14/2000-20/2000-21/2000-22/2000-25/2000-31/2000-35/2000-39/2000-8/01-31/01), 20 November 2006, and 21 November 2006).

2. Paragraph 1 of Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court provides that a ruling of the Constitutional Court may only be officially construed by the Constitutional Court at the request of the parties to the case, of other institutions or persons to whom it was sent, or on its own initiative. Under Paragraph 1 of Article 60 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court’s ruling shall be sent, inter alia, to the Minister of Justice. Therefore, the Minister of Justice is entitled to request that the Constitutional Court construe provisions of a respective ruling.

3. A decision concerning construction of a ruling of the Constitutional Court shall be adopted as a separate document (Paragraph 2 of Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court).

4. The Constitutional Court has stated in its acts that the purpose of the institute of construction of rulings and other final acts of the Constitutional Court is to reveal the contents and meaning of the corresponding rulings or other final acts of the Constitutional Court more broadly and in more detail if it is necessary in order to ensure proper execution of that ruling or other final act of the Constitutional Court so that this ruling or other final act of the Constitutional Court would be followed (the Constitutional Court’s decisions of 14 March 2006 (Case No. 13/2000-14/2000-20/2000-21/2000-22/2000-25/2000-31/2000-35/2000-39/2000-8/01-31/01) and 21 November 2006).

5. A ruling of the Constitutional Court is integral, its operative part is based upon the arguments of the part of reasoning; while construing its ruling, the Constitutional Court is bound both by the content of the operative part and that of reasoning of its ruling; the decision adopted concerning the construction of a ruling of the Constitutional Court is inseparable from that ruling of the Constitutional Court (the Constitutional Court’s decisions of 12 January 2000, 11 February 2004, 13 February 2004, 10 February 2005, 14 March 2006 (Case No. 13/2000-14/2000-20/2000-21/2000-22/2000-25/2000-31/2000-35/2000-39/2000-8/01-31/01), its ruling of 28 March 2006, and its decision of 21 November 2006).

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

This provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court means, among other things, that while construing its ruling, the Constitutional Court cannot construe its content so that the meaning of its provisions, inter alia, the notional entirety of the elements constituting the content of the ruling, the arguments and reasons upon which that ruling of the Constitutional Court is based, is changed, also that the Constitutional Court may not construe what was not investigated in that constitutional justice case, subsequent to which the construed ruling was adopted, either (the Constitutional Court’s decision of 14 March 2006 (Case No. 13/2000-14/2000-20/2000-21/2000-22/2000-25/2000-31/2000-35/2000-39/2000-8/01-31/01), 28 March 2006, and 21 November 2006). The Constitutional Court has stated that the consideration of a petition requesting the construction of a ruling or other final act of the Constitutional Court does not imply a new constitutional justice case (the Constitutional Court’s decision of 21 November 2006).

In this context, it should be noted that the formula “shall be final and not subject to appeal” of Paragraph 2 of Article 107 of the Constitution, which provides that the decisions of the Constitutional Court on the issues within its competence according to the Constitution shall be final and not subject to appeal, means that the Constitutional Court’s rulings, conclusions and decisions by which a constitutional justice case is finished, i.e. final acts of the Constitutional Court, are obligatory to all state institutions, courts, all enterprises, establishments and organisations, as well as officials and citizens, including the Constitutional Court itself: final acts of the Constitutional Court are obligatory to the Constitutional Court itself, they restrict the Constitutional Court in the aspect that it may not change them or review them if there are no constitutional grounds for that (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 28 March 2006, its decision of 21 November 2006).

Therefore, in the official construction (subsequent to a petition of the persons that participated in the case, other institutions and individuals, to whom the Constitutional Court’s ruling was sent, also on the initiative of the Constitutional Court itself) of rulings and other final acts of the Constitutional Court, the constitutional doctrine is not corrected. The correction of the official constitutional doctrine (which, undoubtedly, must always have a constitutional basis and be explicitly reasoned in the respective act of the Constitutional Court) should be related with the consideration of new constitutional justice cases and creation of new Constitutional Court precedents therein, but not with the official construction of provisions of rulings and other final acts of the Constitutional Court (the Constitutional Court’s decision of 21 November 2006, its rulings of 28 March 2006 and 9 May 2006, its decision of 8 August 2006, its ruling of 24 October 2007).

7. It should also be noted that the uniformity and continuity of the official constitutional doctrine implies a necessity to construe each construed provision of a ruling or other final act of the Constitutional Court by taking account of the entire official constitutional doctrinal context, also of other provisions (explicit and implicit) of the Constitution, which are related with the provision (provisions) of the Constitution in the course of construction of which in a ruling or other final act of the Constitutional Court the corresponding official constitutional doctrine was formulated. No official constitutional doctrinal provision of a ruling or other final act of the Constitutional Court may be construed in isolation, by ignoring its meaning and systemic links with the other official constitutional doctrinal provisions set forth in that ruling or other final act of the Constitutional Court, in other acts of the Constitutional Court, as well as with other provisions (explicit and implicit) of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court’s decision of 21 November 2006).

II

1. The Minister of Justice requests the construction of, inter alia, the provision “The naming of churches and religious organisations as traditional is <...> an act stating both their tradition and the status of their relations with society, which does not depend on the willpower of the legislature. Such an act reflects the development and the situation of the religious culture in society” of Item 6 of Section I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000.

2. As noted by the Minister of Justice, the petitioner, in the public administration practice this provision is interpreted as such a definition identifying the criteria of tradition of a religious community or association, based on which tradition is an indicator of the quality of the status of relations with society, i.e. meaning that “traditional religious communities and associations are those which are recognised in society as such”, while “the criteria of identifying their tradition should be essentially socio-cultural”, although another, alternative criterion for the identification of tradition was used in the public administration practice, specifically, the criterion of institutional succession, in which in identifying whether a community is traditional the last word should be given to a religious community representing the religious trend which is named as traditional. According to the petitioner, situations occur in the public administration practice when a religious community seeks its entry on the Legal Persons Register as traditional, however, it does not belong to a traditional religious association (or has seceded from it) that unites the predominant part of the religious communities practicing the same faith. According to the petitioner, “it is obvious that from the socio-cultural point of view a religious community is a successor of traditions of the same religious tradition, which the legislature named as traditional by Article 5 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Religious Communities and Associations and that the society recognises this community as such”, and “then it is not clear whether the public administration institution (the Ministry of Justice) is obligated by the Constitution to recognise the tradition of such a religious community, or, based on the criterion of the institutional succession, <...> to reject the request of such a religious community”.

3. It should be noted that the said provisions, whose construction is requested by the Minister of Justice, are a part of a larger text; Item 6 of Section I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000 in its entirety is set forth as follows:

It is established in Paragraph 1 of Article 43 of the Constitution, that the state shall recognise traditional Lithuanian churches and religious organisations, as well as other churches and religious organisations provided that they have a basis in society and their teaching and rituals do not contradict morality or the law.

The constitutional provision that the state shall recognise traditional Lithuanian churches and religious organisations presupposes the fact that the legislature may, in certain cases, name certain religious organisations as traditional in Lithuania. The naming of churches and religious organisations as traditional is a special way of their recognition by the state.

The constitutional establishment of the institute of recognition of churches and religious organisations as traditional means that such recognition by the state is irrevocable. Tradition is neither created nor abolished by an act of the will of the legislature. The naming of churches and religious organisations as traditional is not an act of their establishment as traditional organisations but an act stating both their tradition and the status of their relations with society, which does not depend on the willpower of the legislature. Such an act reflects the development and the situation of the religious culture in society. It needs to be noted that the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 43 of the Constitution providing for the presence of traditional Lithuanian churches and religious organisations is the constitutional basis upon which a different status of traditional churches and organisations may be established if compared with other churches and religious organisations. This means that, without limiting the rights guaranteed for all churches and religious organisations, additional rights for traditional churches and religious organisations may also be ensured by law which are not enjoyed by the churches and organisations which are not traditional.”

4. It was noted that each construed provision of a ruling or other final act of the Constitutional Court must be construed by taking account of the entire official constitutional doctrinal context, also of other provisions (explicit and implicit) of the Constitution, which are related with the provision (provisions) of the Constitution in the course of the construction of which in a ruling or other final act of the Constitutional Court the corresponding official constitutional doctrine was formulated, that no official constitutional doctrinal provision of a ruling or other final act of the Constitutional Court may be construed in isolation, by ignoring its meaning and systemic links with the other official constitutional doctrinal provisions set forth in that ruling or other final act of the Constitutional Court, in other acts of the Constitutional Court, as well as with other provisions (explicit and implicit) of the Constitution.

5. Therefore, the provision “The naming of churches and religious organisations as traditional is <...> an act stating both their tradition and the status of their relations with society, which does not depend on the willpower of the legislature. Such an act reflects the development and the situation of the religious culture in society” of Item 6 of Section I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000 should be construed in the light of the entire context of that ruling of the Constitutional Court, and that the Constitution explicitly consolidates the recognition by the state of the institute of churches and religious organisations traditional in Lithuania (Paragraph 1 of Article 43 of the Constitution), as well as other provisions of the Constitution.

6. In this context, it should be noted that the Constitution consolidates a threefold status of churches and religious organisations acting in Lithuania: some churches and religious organisations are traditional in Lithuania, other churches and religious organisations (non-traditional in Lithuania) are recognised by the state, yet other churches and religious organisations acting in Lithuania have neither the status of traditional in Lithuania nor are they recognised by the state.

7. In the systemic construction of the provision “The naming of churches and religious organisations as traditional is <...> an act stating both their tradition and the status of their relations with society, which does not depend on the willpower of the legislature. Such an act reflects the development and the situation of the religious culture in society” of Item 6 of Section I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000, it should be stated that:

under the Constitution, the Seimas has the powers to name in the law (it not only can, but also must do so) as to which churches and religious organisations are traditional in Lithuania; such naming is the statement of an objective fact that some churches and religious organisations are traditional in Lithuania, but it is not the creation of tradition of respective churches and religious organisations, since their existence as traditional does not depend on the willpower of the legislature;

only those churches and religious organisations may be named as traditional in the law, the tradition of which does not raise any doubts, since they are a part of the social, cultural and spiritual heritage of the society formed in Lithuania historically over the centuries; for churches and religious organisations to be recognised as traditional in Lithuania, it is far from sufficient for them, inter alia, to act in Lithuania for several decades or meet other formal criteria established by the legislature, since tradition of churches and religious organisations does not appear even over several generations, but it is a long-term process progressing uninterrupted over the centuries, which should be related with a long-lived spiritual and cultural development of the Lithuanian society and which has an essential impact on it; therefore, in laws the legislature must name those churches and religious organisations as traditional in Lithuania, which undoubtedly correspond to the aforementioned concept of tradition and may not name those churches and religious organisations as traditional in Lithuania, which do not correspond to the aforementioned concept; upon stating and naming in the law, which churches and religious organisations are traditional in Lithuania, the legislature may not expand this list, unless a very long time has passed after such statement and the expansion of such a list would reflect the changed development and status of religious culture of the Lithuanian society;

since the tradition of specific churches and religious organisations in Lithuania is an objective status of relations of churches and religious organisations with the society irrespective of the willpower of the legislature, the legislature may not withdraw the statement of the existence of this tradition.

8. In the context of the petition of the Minister of Justice, the petitioner, it should be noted that the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000 (the construction of the provision of Item 6 of Section I of the reasoning part whereof is requested) states, inter alia, that the secular character of the state consolidated in the Constitution presupposes the non-interference of the state in the internal life of churches and religious organisations, while the tradition of religion is not identified with its being a state religion. Churches and religious organisations shall conduct their affairs freely according to their canons and statutes (Paragraph 4 of Article 43 of the Constitution). The status of churches and other religious organisations in the state shall be established by agreement or by law (Paragraph 5 of Article 43 of the Constitution).

The constitutional provision that “the status of churches and other religious organisations in the State shall be established by agreement or by law” may not be interpreted as an obligation for the state to make respective agreements with all churches and religious organisations traditional in Lithuania, also with other churches and religious organisations recognised by the state. The state freely decides regarding the entering into respective agreements or not, and if to be entered, whom they will be entered with. The said constitutional provision may not be interpreted in such a way that once the state has entered into a specific agreement with a certain church or a religious organisation, it has to enter into respective agreements with other churches and religious organisations acting in Lithuania.

9. The petition of the Minister of Justice, the petitioner, as well as the explanations of his representative at the hearing of the Constitutional Court reveals that the Constitutional Court is requested to construe the provision “The naming of churches and religious organisations as traditional is <...> an act stating both their tradition and the status of their relations with society, which does not depend on the willpower of the legislature. Such an act reflects the development and the situation of the religious culture in society” of Item 6 of Section I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000 from such a point of view whether in the course of deciding regarding the entry of religious communities on the Legal Persons Register as traditional, thus, regarding their categorisation as those belonging to a respective church or a religious organisation traditional in Lithuania, it is possible to follow not only the concept of tradition of churches and religious organisations as set forth in the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000, which in the petition of the petitioner is named as “socio-cultural criterion” of tradition of churches and religious organisations, but also “the institutional succession criterion” of a respective religious community traditional in Lithuania as pointed in the petition of the petitioner, i.e. the institutional ties of the respective religious community or association with a religious community traditional in Lithuania, which unites the majority religious communities practicing the same faith; this petition of the petitioner, inter alia, is reasoned by the difficulties in the public administration practice, when a certain religious community which seeks the entry on the Legal Persons Register as being traditional in Lithuania has no institutional ties with a religious community that is traditional in Lithuania and that unites the majority of religious communities practicing the same faith (for example, it has seceded from it).

10. In the context of the petition of the Minister of Justice, the petitioner, it should be noted that the establishment of specific criteria for the guidance of the public administration subjects in decision-making regarding the entry on a respective register of religious communities and associations as belonging to traditional ones in Lithuania is the prerogative of the legislature. However, whatever criteria the legislature may establish for the guidance of the public administration subjects in decision-making regarding the entry on a respective register of religious communities and associations as belonging to traditional in Lithuania, those criteria may not deviate from the constitutional concept of tradition of churches and religious organisations, moreover, they may not negate them.

11. It should be noted that the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000 contains neither the notion of “socio-cultural criterion”, nor the notion “institutional succession criterion”. The above-mentioned ruling of the Constitutional Court generally provides no consideration which criteria should be used for the entry of religious communities and associations on a respective register as traditional in Lithuania, nor does it assess the existing public administration practice; it only clarifies the constitutional concept of tradition of churches and religious organisations.

12. It was noted that the Constitutional Court may not construe whatever it did not consider in the constitutional justice case, in which the ruling, the construction of which is requested, was passed.

13. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the Constitutional Court will not construe the provision “The naming of churches and religious organisations as traditional is <...> an act stating both their tradition and the status of their relations with society, which does not depend on the willpower of the legislature. Such an act reflects the development and the situation of the religious culture in society” of Item 6 of Section I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000 from the point of view indicated by the Minister of Justice, the petitioner, namely, whether this provision means that in the course of deciding regarding the entry on a respective register of religious communities as traditional in Lithuania it is possible to follow some “institutional succession criterion” of a respective traditional religious community, i.e. institutional ties with a religious community traditional in Lithuania, which unites the majority religious communities practicing the same faith.

III

1. The Minister of Justice requests, inter alia, the construction of the provisions “the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 43 of the Constitution providing for the presence of traditional Lithuanian churches and religious organisations is the constitutional basis upon which a different status of traditional churches and organisations may be established if compared with other churches and religious organisations. This means that, without limiting the rights guaranteed for all churches and religious organisations, additional rights for traditional churches and religious organisations may also be ensured by law which are not enjoyed by the churches and organisations which are not traditional” of Item 6 of Section I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000.

2. According to the Minister of Justice, the petitioner, Article 5 of the Law on Religious Communities and Associations names traditional religious communities and associations which are recognised by the state, while, under Article 6 thereof, the status of a religious community recognised by the state may also be obtained by other religious communities, if they act sufficiently long in Lithuania—at least 25 years, also if they have support in society, and if their teaching and rituals do not contradict the law and public morals; the drafters of this law sought equal rights to all communities and associations, both traditional in Lithuania and other ones, which may differ from certain points of view (such as in the area of teaching faith at school) in comparison with those rights which are enjoyed by other religious communities which did not obtain state recognition (however, which were registered as religious communities with the rights of legal persons). The petitioner finds it unclear, whether the said provisions of the ruling of the Constitutional Court mean that these “additional” rights are established only on the basis of tradition, but not on the basis of the state recognition and that the status of a religious community recognised by the state does not form constitutional grounds for the establishment of “additional rights” to respective religious communities, also whether these provisions may be interpreted as meaning that the Constitution does not allow granting rights to religious communities that were recognised by the state when such rights are not enjoyed by other religious communities that have not been recognised by the state. According to the petitioner, “the analysis of practice of law-making since 2000 makes it obvious that for the purpose of granting privileges to specific religious communities or associations the criterion of tradition, rather than that of the recognition by the state, is applied”, therefore, “the institute of recognition of religious communities by the state loses its content, while religious communities that obtained it <…> or have started the process regarding the obtaining of state recognition <...> find themselves in a very indefinite situation”.

3. Thus, the Minister of Justice, the petitioner, requests the construction of whether the provisions “the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 43 of the Constitution providing for the presence of traditional Lithuanian churches and religious organisations is the constitutional basis upon which a different status of traditional churches and organisations may be established if compared with other churches and religious organisations. This means that, without limiting the rights guaranteed for all churches and religious organisations, additional rights for traditional churches and religious organisations may also be ensured by law which are not enjoyed by the churches and organisations which are not traditional” of Item 6 of Section I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000 mean the following:

certain rights, which are not enjoyed by other churches and religious organisations recognised by the state, are established to the churches and religious organisations traditional in Lithuania specifically on that constitutional basis that these churches and religious organisations are traditional in Lithuania;

if any other (non-traditional in Lithuania) church or religious organisation is recognised by the state, in itself this does not provide grounds to establish such rights to them, to which churches and religious organisations traditional in Lithuania are entitled because they are traditional in Lithuania;

the Constitution does not allow the establishment of such rights to churches and religious organisations that are not traditional in Lithuania, which are not enjoyed by churches and religious organisations that are nor recognised by the state.

4. It was noted that under Paragraph 1 of Article 43 of the Constitution, the state shall recognise the churches and religious organisations that are traditional in Lithuania, whereas other churches and religious organisations shall be recognised provided that they have support in society and their teaching and practices are not in conflict with the law and public morals. It was also noted that the naming of churches and religious organisations as traditional in Lithuania is a special way of state recognition.

It was also noted that the Constitution consolidated a threefold status of churches and religious organisations acting in Lithuania: some churches and religious organisations are traditional in Lithuania, other churches and religious organisations (that are not traditional in Lithuania) are recognised by the state, yet other churches and religious organisations acting in Lithuania have the status of being neither traditional in Lithuania, nor are they recognised by the state.

5. It has been held in this decision of the Constitutional Court that the naming in the law as to which churches and religious organisations are traditional in Lithuania, is the statement of an objective fact that certain churches and religious organisations are traditional in Lithuania, but not the creation of tradition of respective churches and religious organisations, since their being traditional does not depend on the willpower of the legislature, that the tradition in Lithuania of certain churches and religious organisations is an objective status of relation of churches and religious organisations with society, which does not depend on the willpower of the legislature, also that the legislature may not withdraw its statement of the existence of this tradition.

In this context, it should be stated that the provision “the State shall recognise <...> other churches and religious organisations <...> provided that they have support in society and their teaching and practices are not in conflict with the law and public morals” of Paragraph 1 of Article 43 of the Constitution means that churches and religious organisations, which are not traditional in Lithuania may be distinguished from other churches and religious organisations that are not traditional by means of granting a special status to them, by means of establishment that they are churches and religious organisations recognised by the state. Taking into account the fact that the said special status is nothing else, but the establishment of the status in the state of a respective church and a religious organisation, as well as that this special status may be granted only to those churches and religious organisations, which have support in society, it should be held that the granting of this status is within the prerogative of the legislature.

The condition “have support in society” consolidated in Paragraph 1 of Article 43 of the Constitution means that for a respective church and a religious organisation the support of society should be strong and long-termed, therefore, it may not be limited to a small group of people or a small part of the society, or to several decades of activities, or to one or a few generations. The said support in society for a respective church and religious organisation should be such that it would be subjected to no doubt. While deciding whether a certain church or religious organisation may be granted state recognition, it should be ascertained that there is support in society for that church or religious organisation. Under Paragraph 1 of Article 43 of the Constitution, it should also be ascertained that the teaching and practices of that church and religious organisation are not in conflict with the law and public morals. If those conditions are not satisfied, state recognition may not be granted to a respective church or religious organisation.

6. Therefore, the provision “the State shall recognise <...> other churches and religious organisations <...> provided that they have support in society and their teaching and practices are not in conflict with the law and public morals” of Paragraph 1 of Article 43 of the Constitution implies a different legal situation, other than that, which is implied by the provision of this part that “the State shall recognise the churches and religious organisations that are traditional in Lithuania”. The churches and religious organisations that are not traditional in Lithuania may obtain state recognition by the willpower and resolution of the Seimas. It should be noted that such state recognition, other than the statement that a certain church or religious organisation is traditional in Lithuania, may be withdrawn, if a respective church or religious organisation recognised by the state loses its support in society or its teaching and practices become contradictory to laws or public morals.

This means that the different status of churches and religious organisations that are traditional in Lithuania and other churches and religious organisations originates from the Constitution itself. Therefore, from the Constitution itself stem the powers of the legislature to establish by law such rights to the churches and religious organisations that are traditional in Lithuania, which are not enjoyed by churches and religious organisations that are not traditional in Lithuania (obviously, the establishment of such rights must be substantiated constitutionally). Namely this is stated in the provisions “the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 43 of the Constitution providing for the presence of traditional Lithuanian churches and religious organisations is the constitutional basis upon which a different status of traditional churches and organisations may be established if compared with other churches and religious organisations. This means that, without limiting the rights guaranteed for all churches and religious organisations, additional rights for traditional churches and religious organisations may also be ensured by law which are not enjoyed by the churches and organisations which are not traditional” of Item 6 of Section I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000.

7. Taking account of the arguments set forth, it should be held that the provisions “the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 43 of the Constitution providing for the presence of traditional Lithuanian churches and religious organisations is the constitutional basis upon which a different status of traditional churches and organisations may be established if compared with other churches and religious organisations. This means that, without limiting the rights guaranteed for all churches and religious organisations, additional rights for traditional churches and religious organisations may also be ensured by law which are not enjoyed by the churches and organisations which are not traditional” of Item 6 of Section I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000 mean the following:

certain rights, which are not enjoyed by other churches and religious organisations recognised by the state, are established to the churches and religious organisations traditional in Lithuania specifically on that constitutional basis that these churches and religious organisations are traditional in Lithuania;

if any other (non-traditional in Lithuania) church or religious organisation is recognised by the state, in itself this does not provide grounds to establish such rights to them, to which churches and religious organisations traditional in Lithuania are entitled because they are traditional in Lithuania.

8. It has been mentioned that the Minister of Justice, the petitioner, also requests the construction of whether the provisions “the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 43 of the Constitution providing for the presence of traditional Lithuanian churches and religious organisations is the constitutional basis upon which a different status of traditional churches and organisations may be established if compared with other churches and religious organisations. This means that, without limiting the rights guaranteed for all churches and religious organisations, additional rights for traditional churches and religious organisations may also be ensured by law which are not enjoyed by the churches and organisations which are not traditional” of Item 6 of Section I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000 mean that the Constitution does not allow the establishment of such rights to churches and religious organisations that are not traditional in Lithuania, which are not enjoyed by churches and religious organisations that are nor recognised by the state.

9. The purpose of the said provisions of the official constitutional doctrine is to show that, under the Constitution, the status of churches and religious organisations that are traditional in Lithuania differs from the status of all other churches and religious organisations acting in Lithuania (namely because that “without limiting the rights guaranteed for all churches and religious organisations, additional rights for traditional churches and religious organisations may also be ensured by law which are not enjoyed by the churches and organisations which are not traditional”). It should be noted that the fragment of the text from Item 6 of Section I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000 does not discuss similarities and differences of the status of churches and religious organisations that were not recognised by the state and churches and religious organisations that are recognised by the state (but which are not traditional in Lithuania).

10. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the Constitutional Court will not construe whether the provisions “the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 43 of the Constitution providing for the presence of traditional Lithuanian churches and religious organisations is the constitutional basis upon which a different status of traditional churches and organisations may be established if compared with other churches and religious organisations. This means that, without limiting the rights guaranteed for all churches and religious organisations, additional rights for traditional churches and religious organisations may also be ensured by law which are not enjoyed by the churches and organisations which are not traditional” of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000 mean that the Constitution does not allow the establishment of such rights to churches and religious organisations that are not traditional in Lithuania, which are not enjoyed by churches and religious organisations that are nor recognised by the state.

11. The Minister of Justice, the petitioner, requests the construction of the provisions “Thus, in itself, the constitutional principle of the equality of persons does not deny the fact that the law may establish different legal regulation concerning certain categories of persons who are in different situations. This should also be applied to legal persons, and not only to natural persons as the former are, as a rule, associations of natural persons” of the reasoning part of Item 1 of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 28 February 1996 and the provision “without limiting the rights guaranteed for all churches and religious organisations, additional rights for traditional churches and religious organisations may also be ensured by law which are not enjoyed by the churches and organisations which are not traditional” of Item 6 of Section I of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000.

12. While providing the reasons for his request, the Minister of Justice, the petitioner, states that “the size of granting privileges (the rights which are enjoyed by traditional religious communities and which are not enjoyed by other religious communities) and the principle whereby such privileges are granted are not clear”. According to the petitioner, “in the practice of law-making the provision of Item 6 of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000 was often interpreted by making a statement that the legislature may at its own discretion establish the rights to traditional churches and religious organisations, which are different from the rights established to other churches and religious organisations, provided such regulation does not violate the essential rights to the freedom of religion and faith as consolidated in the Constitution and the right of churches and other religious organisations to conduct their affairs freely according to their internal rules”. The petitioner states that the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000 “also does not establish the option of granting privileges, but simply points that the basis for granting privileges is the provision of the Constitution that there are churches and religious organisations that are traditional in Lithuania”. The permission of granting privileges, upon an analysis of the Constitutional Court jurisprudence, in the opinion of the petitioner, could be the provision “Thus, in itself, the constitutional principle of the equality of persons does not deny the fact that the law may establish different legal regulation concerning certain categories of persons who are in different situations. This should also be applied to legal persons, and not only to natural persons as the former are, as a rule, associations of natural persons” of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 28 February 1996. The petitioner states that “in the application of this provision as grounds for permission to grant privileges to traditional churches and other religious organisations, an answer to the question should be sought whether natural persons united under a traditional religious community do form a category of persons that have a different position than those that united under a religious community (a legal person) on the basis of other religious beliefs”. In the opinion of the petitioner, “although the interpretations of the permission to grant privileges as consolidated in the above-mentioned ruling of 13 June 2000 seem possible, an impression is made that they necessarily create presumptions primarily in the process of law-making, and later in the practical implementation of legal acts for existence of discrimination on the basis of religion”. According to the petitioner, “it is likely that specifically due to the uncertainty of the term of permission to grant privileges as consolidated in the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000, its application in the law-making practice after 2000 considerably increased the number of provisions in legal acts, which grant privileges to traditional religious communities only”.

13. It should be noted that, as held in this decision of the Constitutional Court, a different status of churches and religious organisations that are traditional in Lithuania in comparison with other churches and religious organisations recognised by the state originated from the Constitution itself. It was also held that from the Constitution itself stem the powers of the legislature to establish by law such rights for churches and religious organisations that are traditional in Lithuania, which are not enjoyed by churches and religious organisations that are not traditional in Lithuania.

Therefore, from the Constitution itself also stems a possibility, while in some cases—the necessity, to establish differentiated legal regulation of corresponding relations with regard to churches and religious organisations that are traditional in Lithuania, as well as with regard to the churches and religious organisations that are recognised by the state, as collective legal subjects.

The establishment of such differentiated legal regulation may not be interpreted as it in itself negates the human constitutional right to freely choose any religion or belief and, either alone or with others, in private or in public, to profess his religion, to perform religious practices, to practice and teach his belief; in itself, it does not mean that some believers are discriminated while others are granted privileges.

14. It is clear from the arguments of the Minister of Justice, the petitioner, that an attempt is made to oppose two provisions of the official constitutional doctrine: one of them, set forth in Item 1 of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 28 February 1996 reveals one of the aspects of the general constitutional principle of equal rights (equality) of persons—that this constitutional principle does not negate the possibility of differentiated legal regulation—which is a universal provision, intended to all legal subjects that may be very different, while the other provision, set forth in Item 6 of Section I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000, is intended only to such differentiated legal regulation, when one of the subjects of the regulated relations is churches and religious organisations.

Such opposition has no legal basis.

15. In this context, it should be noted that the provision “Thus, in itself, the constitutional principle of the equality of persons does not deny the fact that the law may establish different legal regulation concerning certain categories of persons who are in different situations. This should also be applied to legal persons, and not only to natural persons as the former are, as a rule, associations of natural persons” of Item 1 of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 28 February 1996, whose construction is requested, was adopted in the constitutional justice case, which investigated the compliance of the Government Resolution (No. 1164) “On the Capitalisation of the Credits of Some Enterprises of the Ministry of Agriculture” of 30 August 1995 with articles (paragraphs thereof) of the Constitution, the Law on Budgeting, the Law on the State Regulation of Economic Relations in Agriculture, and the Company Law. The said ruling of the Constitutional Court does not mention a word about churches and religious organisations, does not discuss constitutional right of an individual to freely choose any religion or belief and, either alone or with others, in private or in public, to profess his religion, to perform religious practices, to practice and teach his belief, does not provide any provisions whether “natural persons united under a traditional religious community do form a category of persons that have a different position than those that united under a religious community (a legal person) on the basis of other religious beliefs”, nor does it contain any provisions regarding the possibility of granting privileges to specific religious communities and associations as indicated in the petition of the petitioner.

16. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the Constitutional Court will not construe the provisions “Thus, in itself, the constitutional principle of the equality of persons does not deny the fact that the law may establish different legal regulation concerning certain categories of persons who are in different situations. This should also be applied to legal persons, and not only to natural persons as the former are, as a rule, associations of natural persons” of Item 1 of the reasoning part of its ruling of 28 February 1996.

17. It should also be noted that the provision “without limiting the rights guaranteed for all churches and religious organisations, additional rights for traditional churches and religious organisations may also be ensured by law which are not enjoyed by the churches and organisations which are not traditional” of Item 6 of Section I of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 June 2000 whose construction is requested (together with the said provisions of Item 1 of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 28 February 1996) is a part of the larger text, the provisions stated wherein have already been construed in this decision of the Constitutional Court (in Item 7 of Section III of the reasoning part).

In this case, it is obvious that upon the construction of the entirety there is no sense in construing a part thereof.

18. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the Constitutional Court will not make another construction (in the context of respective provisions of Item 1 of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 28 February 1996) of the provision “without limiting the rights guaranteed for all churches and religious organisations, additional rights for traditional churches and religious organisations may also be ensured by law which are not enjoyed by the churches and organisations which are not traditional” of Item 6 of Section I of the reasoning part of its ruling of 13 June 2000.

Pursuant to Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, Articles 1 and 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania adopts the following

decision:

1. To construe that the provisions “the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 43 of the Constitution providing for the presence of traditional Lithuanian churches and religious organisations is the constitutional basis upon which a different status of traditional churches and organisations may be established if compared with other churches and religious organisations. This means that, without limiting the rights guaranteed for all churches and religious organisations, additional rights for traditional churches and religious organisations may also be ensured by law which are not enjoyed by the churches and organisations which are not traditional” of Item 6 of Section I of the reasoning part of the ruling of 13 June 2000 of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania mean that certain rights, which are not enjoyed by other churches and religious organisations recognised by the state, are established to the churches and religious organisations traditional in Lithuania specifically on that constitutional basis that these churches and religious organisations are traditional in Lithuania, and if any other (non-traditional in Lithuania) church or religious organisation is recognised by the state, in itself this does not provide grounds to establish such rights to them, to which churches and religious organisations traditional in Lithuania are entitled because they are traditional in Lithuania.

2. To provide no construction of whether the provisions “the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 43 of the Constitution providing for the presence of traditional Lithuanian churches and religious organisations is the constitutional basis upon which a different status of traditional churches and organisations may be established if compared with other churches and religious organisations. This means that, without limiting the rights guaranteed for all churches and religious organisations, additional rights for traditional churches and religious organisations may also be ensured by law which are not enjoyed by the churches and organisations which are not traditional” of Item 6 of Section I of the reasoning part of the ruling of 13 June 2000 of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania mean that the Constitution does not allow the establishment of such rights to churches and religious organisations that are not traditional in Lithuania, which are not enjoyed by churches and religious organisations that are nor recognised by the state.

3. To provide no construction of whether the provision “The naming of churches and religious organisations as traditional is <...> an act stating both their tradition and the status of their relations with society, which does not depend on the willpower of the legislature. Such an act reflects the development and the situation of the religious culture in society” of Item 6 of Section I of the reasoning part of the ruling of 13 June 2000 of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania means that in the course of deciding regarding the entry on a respective register of religious communities as traditional in Lithuania it is possible to follow some “institutional succession criterion” of a respective traditional religious community, i.e. institutional ties with a religious community traditional in Lithuania, which unites the majority religious communities practicing the same faith.

4. To provide no construction of the provisions “Thus, in itself, the constitutional principle of the equality of persons does not deny the fact that the law may establish different legal regulation concerning certain categories of persons who are in different situations. This should also be applied to legal persons, and not only to natural persons as the former are, as a rule, associations of natural persons” of Item 1 of the reasoning part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 28 February 1996.

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

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

Justices of the Constitutional Court Armanas Abramavičius
                                                                     Toma Birmontienė
                                                                     Egidijus Kūris
                                                                     Kęstutis Lapinskas
                                                                     Zenonas Namavičius
                                                                     Ramutė Ruškytė
                                                                     Vytautas Sinkevičius
                                                                     Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis