Lt

On accepting part of a petition and on refusing to consider part of the petition

 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

 

DECISION

ON THE PETITION OF THE KAUNAS REGIONAL COURT REQUESTING AN INVESTIGATION INTO WHETHER THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 540) “ON THE APPROVAL OF THE LIST OF THE AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES AND ORGANISATIONS NOT SUBJECT TO PRIVATISATION” OF 9 DECEMBER 1991 AND THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 134) “ON A PARTIAL AMENDMENT OF THE 9 DECEMBER 1991 RESOLUTION (NO. 540) AND THE 28 JANUARY 1992 RESOLUTION (NO. 59) OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA” OF 27 FEBRUARY 1992 ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA AND ARTICLE 1 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S LAW “ON THE PROCEDURE AND CONDITIONS OF THE RESTORATION OF THE RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP OF CITIZENS TO THE EXISTING REAL PROPERTY” (WORDING OF 18 JUNE 1991), INTO WHETHER THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 579) “ON THE ALLOCATION OF A LAND LOT AND ON AMENDING THE TARGETED PURPOSE OF THE LAND USE” OF 14 MAY 1999 AND THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 584) “ON A PARTIAL AMENDMENT OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 540) ‘ON THE APPROVAL OF THE LIST OF THE AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES AND ORGANISATIONS NOT SUBJECT TO PRIVATISATION’ OF 9 DECEMBER 1991” OF 14 MAY 1999 ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA AND THE PREAMBLE TO THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S LAW ON THE RESTORATION OF THE RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP OF CITIZENS TO THE EXISTING REAL PROPERTY (WORDING OF 13 MAY 1999), ALSO INTO WHETHER THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 266) “ON A PARTIAL AMENDMENT OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 1026) ‘ON THE USERS OF THE LAND ALLOTTED TO SCIENTIFIC AND EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENTS AND TRANSFERRED TO STATE SPECIALISED SEED-GROWING AND STOCK-BREEDING FARMS, SPECIAL-PURPOSE STOCK-BREEDING COMPANIES, AND ON ESTABLISHING THE SIZE OF LAND LOTS USED BY THESE USERS’ OF 13 AUGUST 1998” OF 8 MARCH 2001 IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA AND THE PREAMBLE TO THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S LAW ON THE RESTORATION OF THE RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP OF CITIZENS TO THE EXISTING REAL PROPERTY (WORDING OF 10 OCTOBER 2000)

 

17 January 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

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, at its procedural sitting, has considered the petition (No. 1B-32) of the Kaunas regional Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether:

1) the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 540) “On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation” of 9 December 1991 to the extent that it provides for the area of the farming lands not subject to privatisation, which, according to the petitioner, “had to be allotted to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy”, is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, with the provision of Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that property shall be inviolable, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property” (wording of 18 June 1991);

2) the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 134) “On a Partial Amendment of the 9 December 1991 Resolution (No. 540) and the 28 January 1992 Resolution (No. 59) of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania” of 27 February 1992 to the extent that it provides for the area of the farming lands not subject to privatisation, which, according to the petitioner, “had to be allotted to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy”, is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, with the provision of Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that property shall be inviolable, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property” (wording of 18 June 1991);

3) the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 579) “On the Allocation of a Land Lot and on Amending the Targeted Purpose of the Land Use” of 14 May 1999 is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, with the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that property shall be inviolable and that property may be taken over only for the needs of society according to the procedure established by law and shall be justly compensated for, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and with the provision entrenched, according to the petitioner, in the Preamble to the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of 13 May 1999) that the real property must be returned to citizens first of all in kind;

4) the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 584) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 540) ‘On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation’ of 9 December 1991” of 14 May 1999 is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, with the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that property shall be inviolable and that property may be taken over only for the needs of society according to the procedure established by law and shall be justly compensated for, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and with the provision entrenched, according to the petitioner, in the Preamble to the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of 13 May 1999) that the real property must be returned to citizens first of all in kind;

5) the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 266) “On a Partial Amendment of Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1026) ‘On the Users of the Land Allotted to Scientific and Educational Establishments and Transferred to State Specialised Seed-growing and Stock-breeding Farms, Special-purpose Stock-breeding companies, and on Establishing the Size of Land Lots used by these Users’ of 13 August 1998” of 8 March 2001 is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, with the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that property shall be inviolable and that property may be taken over only for the needs of society according to the procedure established by law and shall be justly compensated for, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and with the provision entrenched, according to the petitioner, in the Preamble to the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of 10 October 2000) that the real property must be returned to citizens first of all in kind.

The Constitutional Court

has established:

I

The Kaunas Regional Court, the petitioner, considered a civil case. By its ruling, the court suspended the consideration of the case and applied to the Constitutional Court requesting an investigation into whether:

1) the Government Resolution (No. 540) “On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation” of 9 December 1991 to the extent that it provides for the area of the farming lands not subject to privatisation, which, according to the petitioner, “had to be allotted to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy”, is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with the provision of Article 23 of the Constitution that property shall be inviolable, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and Article 1 of the Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property” (wording of 18 June 1991);

2) the Government Resolution (No. 134) “On a Partial Amendment of the 9 December 1991 Resolution (No. 540) and the 28 January 1992 Resolution (No. 59) of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania” of 27 February 1992 to the extent that it provides for the area of the farming lands not subject to privatisation, which, according to the petitioner, “had to be allotted to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy”, is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with the provision of Article 23 of the Constitution that property shall be inviolable, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and Article 1 of the Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property” (wording of 18 June 1991);

3) the Government Resolution (No. 579) “On the Allocation of a Land Lot and on Amending the Targeted Purpose of the Land Use” of 14 May 1999 is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution that property shall be inviolable and that property may be taken over only for the needs of society according to the procedure established by law and shall be justly compensated for, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and with the provision entrenched, according to the petitioner, in the Preamble to the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of 13 May 1999) that the real property must be returned to citizens first of all in kind;

4) the Government Resolution (No. 584) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 540) ‘On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation’ of 9 December 1991” of 14 May 1999 is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution that property shall be inviolable and that property may be taken over only for the needs of society according to the procedure established by law and shall be justly compensated for, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and with the provision entrenched, according to the petitioner, in the Preamble to the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of 13 May 1999) that the real property must be returned to citizens first of all in kind;

5) the Government Resolution (No. 266) “On a Partial Amendment of Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1026) ‘On the Users of the Land Allotted to Scientific and Educational Establishments and Transferred to State Specialised Seed-growing and Stock-breeding Farms, Special-purpose Stock-breeding companies, and on Establishing the Size of Land Lots used by these Users’ of 13 August 1998” of 8 March 2001 is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution that property shall be inviolable and that property may be taken over only for the needs of society according to the procedure established by law and shall be justly compensated for, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and with the provision entrenched, according to the petitioner, in the Preamble to the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of 10 October 2000) that the real property must be returned to citizens first of all in kind.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

I

1. The Kaunas Regional Court, the petitioner, inter alia, requests an investigation into whether the Government Resolution (No. 540) “On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation” of 9 December 1991 to the extent that it provides for the area of the farming lands not subject to privatisation, which, according to the petitioner, “had to be allotted to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy”, is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with the provision of Article 23 of the Constitution that property shall be inviolable, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and Article 1 of the Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property” (wording of 18 June 1991).

2. The Government Resolution (No. 540) “On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation” of 9 December 1991 approved the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation and permitted the specification of the land area not subject to privatisation in the course of preparing plans of organisation of land exploitation.

3. It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner that it had doubts whether the provision of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation as approved by the Government Resolution (No. 540) “On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation” of 9 December 1991 that the area of the farming lands not subject to privatisation assigned to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy shall be 1000 hectares is not in conflict with the Constitution and Article 1 of the Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property” (wording of 18 June 1991).

4. The Government Resolution (No. 540) “On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation” of 9 December 1991 had been adopted prior to the entry into force (on 2 November 1992) of the Constitution adopted by the referendum of the Nation, which took place on 25 October 1992.

5. The Constitutional Court held that the Constitution does not provide for retrospective validity of constitutional norms (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 21 April 1994).

It needs to be held that, under the Constitution, the Constitutional Court has the powers to investigate also the compliance of the legal acts (which were adopted prior to the entry into force of the Constitution) with legal acts of higher legal force, inter alia, with the Constitution, however, the Constitutional Court has the powers to investigate the compliance of only those legal acts which had not lost their validity before the entry into force of the Constitution.

6. On 27 February 1992, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 134) “On a Partial Amendment of the 9 December 1991 Resolution (No. 540) and the 28 January 1992 Resolution (No. 59) of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania” by Item 1 whereof the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation as approved by the Government Resolution (No. 540) “On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation” of 9 December 1991 was amended. The Government Resolution (No. 134) “On a Partial Amendment of the 9 December 1991 Resolution (No. 540) and the 28 January 1992 Resolution (No. 59) of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania” of 27 February 1992 came into force (after it had been published in the daily “Lietuvos aidas”) on 5 March 1992.

The List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation as approved by the Government Resolution (No. 540) “On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation” of 9 December 1991 (wording of 27 February 1992) provided for a different area of the farming lands not subject to privatisation, assigned to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy—it was 800 hectares.

Thus, the legal regulation established by the Government Resolution (No. 540) “On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation” of 9 December 1991 (wording of 9 December 1991) had been amended and had become no longer valid before the Constitution was adopted and came into force.

7. It needs to be held that the petition of the Kaunas Regional Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether the Government Resolution (No. 540) “On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation” of 9 December 1991 to the extent that it provides that the area of the farming lands not subject to privatisation assigned to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy shall be 1000 hectares is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with the provision of Article 23 of the Constitution that property shall be inviolable, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and Article 1 of the Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property” (wording of 18 June 1991), is not within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.

8. Under Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, by a decision, the Constitutional Court shall refuse to consider petitions to investigate the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution, if the consideration of the petition does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.

9. Taking account of the arguments set forth, one must refuse to consider the petition of the Kaunas Regional Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether the Government Resolution (No. 540) “On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation” of 9 December 1991 to the extent that it provides that the area of the farming lands not subject to privatisation assigned to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy shall be 1000 hectares is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with the provision of Article 23 of the Constitution that property shall be inviolable, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and Article 1 of the Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property” (wording of 18 June 1991).

II

1. The Kaunas Regional Court, the petitioner, inter alia, requests an investigation into whether the Government Resolution (No. 134) “On a Partial Amendment of the 9 December 1991 Resolution (No. 540) and the 28 January 1992 Resolution (No. 59) of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania” of 27 February 1992 to the extent that it provides for the area of the farming lands not subject to privatisation, which, according to the petitioner, “had to be allotted to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy”, is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with the provision of Article 23 of the Constitution that property shall be inviolable, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and Article 1 of the Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property” (wording of 18 June 1991).

2. Although the Government Resolution (No. 134) “On a Partial Amendment of the 9 December 1991 Resolution (No. 540) and the 28 January 1992 Resolution (No. 59) of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania” of 27 February 1992 had come into force before the Constitution was adopted and came into force (as mentioned before, the said Government resolution came into force on 5 March 1992), it had not been recognised as no longer valid (nor had it been abolished, nor amended) and it had still been in force.

2.1. Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law “On the Procedure for Entry into Force of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania” which is a constituent part of the Constitution, provides that laws, other legal acts or parts thereof, which were in force on the territory of the Republic of Lithuania prior to the adoption of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, shall be effective inasmuch as they are not in conflict with the Constitution and this law, and shall remain in force until they are either declared null and void or brought in line with the provisions of the Constitution.

The Constitutional Court has held that the principle of the superiority of the Constitution implies the duty of the legislature and other lawmaking subjects to revise, while taking account of norms and principles of the Constitution, the legal acts which were issued before coming into effect of the Constitution, to ensure a harmonious hierarchical system of legal acts, which regulate the same relationships; that the constitutionality of legal acts (or parts thereof), which have not been harmonised with the Constitution by passing a new legal act by the appropriate legislative subject, which would have amended, in the opinion of that legislative subject, the legal act (or part thereof) that was not in conformity with the Constitution, and which have not been recognised as no longer valid, may be verified by conducting constitutional control; that the Constitutional Court, inter alia, decides as to the conformity of Government acts, which were adopted prior to the entry into effect of the Constitution, with the Constitution (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 29 October 2003 and 5 March 2004).

2.2. Thus, the compliance of the Government Resolution (No. 134) “On a Partial Amendment of the 9 December 1991 Resolution (No. 540) and the 28 January 1992 Resolution (No. 59) of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania” of 27 February 1992 with the Constitution and Article 1 of the Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property” (wording of 18 June 1991) may be investigated at the Constitutional Court.

3. As mentioned before, Item 1 of the Government Resolution (No. 134) “On a Partial Amendment of the 9 December 1991 Resolution (No. 540) and the 28 January 1992 Resolution (No. 59) of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania” of 27 February 1992 amended the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation which had been as approved by the Government Resolution (No. 540) “On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation” of 9 December 1991; the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation as approved by the Government Resolution (No. 540) “On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation” of 9 December 1991 (wording of 27 February 1992), inter alia, consolidated the provision that the area of the farming lands not subject to privatisation assigned to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy shall be 800 hectares.

4. The List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation as approved by the Government Resolution (No. 540) “On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation” of 9 December 1991 (wording of 27 February 1992) was amended more than once, however, the provision that the area of the farming lands not subject to privatisation assigned to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy shall be 800 hectares had not been amended until the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 584) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 540) ‘On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation’ of 9 December 1991” on 14 May 1999.

On 14 May 1999, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 584) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 540) ‘On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation’ of 9 December 1991” whereby it made partial amendment to the last section of the Chapter titled “Agricultural Scientific Institutes and Other Establishments Not Subject to Privatisation” of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation (wording of 11 October 1995) as approved by the Government Resolution (No. 540) “On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation” of 9 December 1991; the provision was consolidated therein that the area of the farming lands not subject to privatisation assigned to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy shall be 767.5 hectares.

Thus, the provision that the area of the farming lands not subject to privatisation assigned to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy shall be 800 hectares, which used to be in the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation as approved by the Government Resolution (No. 540) “On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation” of 9 December 1991 (wording of 27 February 1992), ceased to exist.

5. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the petition of the Kaunas Regional Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether the Government Resolution (No. 134) “On a Partial Amendment of the 9 December 1991 Resolution (No. 540) and the 28 January 1992 Resolution (No. 59) of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania” of 27 February 1992 to the extent that it provides for the area of the farming lands not subject to privatisation, which, according to the petitioner, “had to be allotted to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy”, is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with the provision of Article 23 of the Constitution that property shall be inviolable, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and Article 1 of the Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property” (wording of 18 June 1991), should be treated as a petition requesting an investigation into whether the provision of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation that the area of the farming lands not subject to privatisation assigned to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy shall be 800 hectares, which was approved by the Government Resolution (No. 540) “On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation” of 9 December 1991 (wording of 27 February 1992), was not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and Article 1 of the Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property” (wording of 18 June 1991).

6. The petition of the Kaunas Regional Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether the provision of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation that the area of the farming lands not subject to privatisation assigned to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy shall be 800 hectares, which was approved by the Government Resolution (No. 540) “On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation” of 9 December 1991 (wording of 27 February 1992), was not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and Article 1 of the Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property” (wording of 18 June 1991) may be accepted for consideration at the Constitutional Court.

III

1. The Kaunas Regional Court, the petitioner, inter alia, requests an investigation into whether:

the Government Resolution (No. 579) “On the Allocation of a Land Lot and on Amending the Targeted Purpose of the Land Use” of 14 May 1999 is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution that property shall be inviolable and that property may be taken over only for the needs of society according to the procedure established by law and shall be justly compensated for, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and with the provision entrenched, according to the petitioner, in the Preamble to the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of 13 May 1999) that the real property must be returned to citizens first of all in kind;

the Government Resolution (No. 584) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 540) ‘On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation’ of 9 December 1991” of 14 May 1999 is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution that property shall be inviolable and that property may be taken over only for the needs of society according to the procedure established by law and shall be justly compensated for, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and with the provision entrenched, according to the petitioner, in the Preamble to the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of 13 May 1999) that the real property must be returned to citizens first of all in kind;

the Government Resolution (No. 266) “On a Partial Amendment of Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1026) ‘On the Users of the Land Allotted to Scientific and Educational Establishments and Transferred to State Specialised Seed-growing and Stock-breeding Farms, Special-purpose Stock-breeding companies, and on Establishing the Size of Land Lots used by these Users’ of 13 August 1998” of 8 March 2001 is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution that property shall be inviolable and that property may be taken over only for the needs of society according to the procedure established by law and shall be justly compensated for, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and with the provision entrenched, according to the petitioner, in the Preamble to the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of 10 October 2000) that the real property must be returned to citizens first of all in kind.

2. It was prescribed in the Government Resolution (No. 579) “On the Allocation of a Land Lot and on Amending the Targeted Purpose of the Land Use” of 14 May 1999, inter alia, that the Government shall resolve: “to allot the state agricultural 32.4 hectare land lot, which is in the village of Vijūkai, the District of Kaunas, which is at present used by Lithuanian Veterinary Academy according to the prepared plan of the land lot, to the Weaponry Fund of the Republic of Lithuania under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania <…> to use it on a non-terminable basis for the construction of an ammunition manufacture enterprise” (Item 1); “to permit that the main targeted purpose of the land use of the land lot specified in Item 1 of this Resolution be changed from the agricultural purpose to a different purpose” (Item 2); “to commission the Chief of the Kaunas County to prepare and conclude an agreement of use with the Weaponry Fund regarding the transfer of the aforesaid land lot for use gratis” (Item 3); “to permit the Chief of the Kaunas County to write off the land reclamation equipment subject to destruction the remainder value of which is LTL 69,128” (Item 4).

As mentioned before, the Government Resolution (No. 584) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 540) ‘On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation’ of 9 December 1991” of 14 May 1999 made partial amendment to the last section of the Chapter titled “Agricultural Scientific Institutes and Other Establishments Not Subject to Privatisation” of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation (wording of 11 October 1995) as approved by the Government Resolution (No. 540) “On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation” of 9 December 1991 and the provision was consolidated therein that the area of the farming lands not subject to privatisation assigned to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy shall be 767.5 hectares.

Item 1 of the Government Resolution (No. 266) “On a Partial Amendment of Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1026) ‘On the Users of the Land Allotted to Scientific and Educational Establishments and Transferred to State Specialised Seed-growing and Stock-breeding Farms, Special-purpose Stock-breeding companies, and on Establishing the Size of Land Lots used by these Users’ of 13 August 1998” of 8 March 2001 in part amended the Government Resolution (No. 1026) “On the Users of the Land Allotted to Scientific and Educational Establishments and Transferred to State Specialised Seed-growing and Stock-breeding Farms, Special-purpose Stock-breeding companies, and on Establishing the Size of Land Lots used by these Users” of 13 August 1998 and it was prescribed in Annex 2 thereof titled “Scientific and Educational Establishments and State Specialised Seed-growing and Stock-breeding Farms and the Size of Land Used by Them”, inter alia, that the general amount of the land lots of Lithuanian Veterinary Academy shall be 815 hectares, 767.5 hectares of which shall be farming lands, and 34.1 hectares of which shall be territories with buildings built on them.

In addition, Item 2 of the Government Resolution (No. 266) “On a Partial Amendment of Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1026) ‘On the Users of the Land Allotted to Scientific and Educational Establishments and Transferred to State Specialised Seed-growing and Stock-breeding Farms, Special-purpose Stock-breeding companies, and on Establishing the Size of Land Lots used by these Users’ of 13 August 1998” of 8 March 2001 recognised the Government Resolution (No. 540) “On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation” of 9 December 1991, as well as the government resolutions (inter alia, the Government Resolution (No. 584) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 540) ‘On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation’ of 9 December 1991” of 14 May 1999) which had amended the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation and the said Government resolution, as no longer valid.

3. It is clear from the arguments of the petitioner that the Kaunas Regional Court, the petitioner, impugns the compliance of the Government Resolution (No. 579) “On the Allocation of a Land Lot and on Amending the Targeted Purpose of the Land Use” of 14 May 1999, the Government Resolution (No. 584) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 540) ‘On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation’ of 9 December 1991” of 14 May 1999 and the Government Resolution (No. 266) “On a Partial Amendment of Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1026) ‘On the Users of the Land Allotted to Scientific and Educational Establishments and Transferred to State Specialised Seed-growing and Stock-breeding Farms, Special-purpose Stock-breeding companies, and on Establishing the Size of Land Lots used by these Users’ of 13 August 1998” of 8 March 2001 with the Constitution and the Preamble to the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property to the extent that these government resolutions have assigned the land (to which, according to the petitioner, the heirs of J. Jerinas, the former owner of the land, wish to restore the rights of ownership) to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy or the Weaponry Fund of the Republic of Lithuania under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania.

4. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the petitions of the Kaunas Regional Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether:

the Government Resolution (No. 579) “On the Allocation of a Land Lot and on Amending the Targeted Purpose of the Land Use” of 14 May 1999 is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution that property shall be inviolable and that property may be taken over only for the needs of society according to the procedure established by law and shall be justly compensated for, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and with the provision entrenched, according to the petitioner, in the Preamble to the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of 13 May 1999) that the real property must be returned to citizens first of all in kind;

the Government Resolution (No. 584) “On a Partial Amendment of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 540) ‘On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation’ of 9 December 1991” of 14 May 1999 is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution that property shall be inviolable and that property may be taken over only for the needs of society according to the procedure established by law and shall be justly compensated for, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and with the provision entrenched, according to the petitioner, in the Preamble to the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of 13 May 1999) that the real property must be returned to citizens first of all in kind;

the Government Resolution (No. 266) “On a Partial Amendment of Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1026) ‘On the Users of the Land Allotted to Scientific and Educational Establishments and Transferred to State Specialised Seed-growing and Stock-breeding Farms, Special-purpose Stock-breeding companies, and on Establishing the Size of Land Lots used by these Users’ of 13 August 1998” of 8 March 2001 is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with the provisions of Article 23 of the Constitution that property shall be inviolable and that property may be taken over only for the needs of society according to the procedure established by law and shall be justly compensated for, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and with the provision entrenched, according to the petitioner, in the Preamble to the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of 10 October 2000) that the real property must be returned to citizens first of all in kind,

should be treated as petitions requesting an investigation whether:

the Government Resolution (No. 579) “On the Allocation of a Land Lot and on Amending the Targeted Purpose of the Land Use” of 14 May 1999 to the extent that it has assigned the land (to which, according to the petitioner, the heirs of J. Jerinas, the former owner of the land, wish to restore the rights of ownership) to the Weaponry Fund of the Republic of Lithuania under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 23 of the Constitution, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and with the Preamble to the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of 1 July 1997);

the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation (wording of 14 May 1999) as approved by the Government Resolution (No. 540) “On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation” of 9 December 1991 to the extent that it has assigned the land (to which, according to the petitioner, the heirs of J. Jerinas, the former owner of the land, wish to restore the rights of ownership) to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy, was not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 23 of the Constitution, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and with the Preamble to the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of 1 July 1997);

the Government Resolution (No. 266) “On a Partial Amendment of Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1026) ‘On the Users of the Land Allotted to Scientific and Educational Establishments and Transferred to State Specialised Seed-growing and Stock-breeding Farms, Special-purpose Stock-breeding companies, and on Establishing the Size of Land Lots used by these Users’ of 13 August 1998” of 8 March 2001 to the extent that it has assigned the land (to which, according to the petitioner, the heirs of J. Jerinas, the former owner of the land, wish to restore the rights of ownership) to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy, is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 23 of the Constitution, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and with the Preamble to the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of 1 July 1997).

5. The petitions of the Kaunas Regional Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether:

the Government Resolution (No. 579) “On the Allocation of a Land Lot and on Amending the Targeted Purpose of the Land Use” of 14 May 1999 to the extent that it has assigned the land (to which, according to the petitioner, the heirs of J. Jerinas, the former owner of the land, wish to restore the rights of ownership) to the Weaponry Fund of the Republic of Lithuania under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 23 of the Constitution, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and with the Preamble to the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of 1 July 1997);

the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation (wording of 14 May 1999) as approved by the Government Resolution (No. 540) “On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation” of 9 December 1991 to the extent that it has assigned the land (to which, according to the petitioner, the heirs of J. Jerinas, the former owner of the land, wish to restore the rights of ownership) to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy, was not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 23 of the Constitution, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and with the Preamble to the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of 1 July 1997);

the Government Resolution (No. 266) “On a Partial Amendment of Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1026) ‘On the Users of the Land Allotted to Scientific and Educational Establishments and Transferred to State Specialised Seed-growing and Stock-breeding Farms, Special-purpose Stock-breeding companies, and on Establishing the Size of Land Lots used by these Users’ of 13 August 1998” of 8 March 2001 to the extent that it has assigned the land (to which, according to the petitioner, the heirs of J. Jerinas, the former owner of the land, wish to restore the rights of ownership) to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy, is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 23 of the Constitution, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and with the Preamble to the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of 1 July 1997),

can be adopted for consideration at the Constitutional Court.

IV

1. Under the Constitution and the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court, when it considers a constitutional justice case, enjoys the powers to investigate, if necessary, the factual circumstances which are important to the decision in the case.

2. The fact that by this decision of the Constitutional Court the petitions of the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether:

the provision of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation that the area of the farming lands not subject to privatisation assigned to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy shall be 800 hectares, which was approved by the Government Resolution (No. 540) “On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation” of 9 December 1991 (wording of 27 February 1992), was not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and Article 1 of the Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property” (wording of 18 June 1991);

the Government Resolution (No. 579) “On the Allocation of a Land Lot and on Amending the Targeted Purpose of the Land Use” of 14 May 1999 to the extent that it has assigned the land (to which, according to the petitioner, the heirs of J. Jerinas, the former owner of the land, wish to restore the rights of ownership) to the Weaponry Fund of the Republic of Lithuania under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 23 of the Constitution, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and with the Preamble to the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of 1 July 1997);

the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation (wording of 14 May 1999) as approved by the Government Resolution (No. 540) “On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation” of 9 December 1991 to the extent that it has assigned the land (to which, according to the petitioner, the heirs of J. Jerinas, the former owner of the land, wish to restore the rights of ownership) to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy, was not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 23 of the Constitution, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and with the Preamble to the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of 1 July 1997);

the Government Resolution (No. 266) “On a Partial Amendment of Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1026) ‘On the Users of the Land Allotted to Scientific and Educational Establishments and Transferred to State Specialised Seed-growing and Stock-breeding Farms, Special-purpose Stock-breeding companies, and on Establishing the Size of Land Lots used by these Users’ of 13 August 1998” of 8 March 2001 to the extent that it has assigned the land (to which, according to the petitioner, the heirs of J. Jerinas, the former owner of the land, wish to restore the rights of ownership) to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy, is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution, with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 23 of the Constitution, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and with the Preamble to the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of 1 July 1997),

were accepted for consideration, cannot be interpreted as the fact that the Constitutional Court, purportedly, regards all the specified circumstances in the petition (No. 1B-32) of the Kaunas Regional Court, the petitioner, as established a priori, and that it, purportedly, regards all the arguments set forth therein as reasonable and/or legal.

Conforming to Articles 28 and 69 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 accept the petitions of the Kaunas Regional Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether:

the provision of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation that the area of the farming lands not subject to privatisation assigned to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy shall be 800 hectares, which was approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 540) “On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation” of 9 December 1991 (wording of 27 February 1992), was not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, with Paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution, and Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property” (wording of 18 June 1991);

the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation (wording of 14 May 1999) as approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 540) “On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation” of 9 December 1991 to the extent that it has assigned the land (to which, according to the petitioner, the heirs of J. Jerinas, the former owner of the land, wish to restore the rights of ownership) to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy, was not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and with the Preamble to the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of 1 July 1997);

the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 579) “On the Allocation of a Land Lot and on Amending the Targeted Purpose of the Land Use” of 14 May 1999 to the extent that it has assigned the land (to which, according to the petitioner, the heirs of J. Jerinas, the former owner of the land, wish to restore the rights of ownership) to the Weaponry Fund of the Republic of Lithuania under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and with the Preamble to the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of 1 July 1997);

the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 266) “On a Partial Amendment of Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1026) ‘On the Users of the Land Allotted to Scientific and Educational Establishments and Transferred to State Specialised Seed-growing and Stock-breeding Farms, Special-purpose Stock-breeding companies, and on Establishing the Size of Land Lots used by these Users’ of 13 August 1998” of 8 March 2001 to the extent that it has assigned the land (to which, according to the petitioner, the heirs of J. Jerinas, the former owner of the land, wish to restore the rights of ownership) to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy, is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and with the Preamble to the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property (wording of 1 July 1997).

2. To refuse to consider the petition of the Kaunas Regional Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 540) “On the Approval of the List of the Agricultural Enterprises and Organisations Not Subject to Privatisation” of 9 December 1991 to the extent that it provides that the area of the farming lands not subject to privatisation assigned to Lithuanian Veterinary Academy shall be 1000 hectares is not in conflict with the principle of a state under the rule of law which, according to the petitioner, is entrenched in the Preamble to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, with the provision of Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that property shall be inviolable, with the principle of legitimate expectations entrenched, according to the petitioner, in Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property” (wording of 18 June 1991).

Justices of the Constitutional Court:           Armanas Abramavičius

                                                                                Toma Birmontienė

                                                                                Egidijus Kūris

                                                                                Kęstutis Lapinskas

                                                                                Zenonas Namavičius

                                                                                Ramutė Ruškytė

                                                                                Vytautas Sinkevičius

                                                                                Stasys Stačiokas

                                                                                Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis