Lt

On violations of the Law on Elections to the Seimas

Case No. 32/08

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

CONCLUSION

ON THE INQUIRY SET FORTH IN THE 5 NOVEMBER 2008 DECREE (NO. 1K-1564) OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC WHETHER THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S LAW ON ELECTIONS TO THE SEIMAS WAS NOT VIOLATED DURING THE 2008 ELECTION TO THE SEIMAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

7 November 2008
Vilnius

 

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court: Armanas Abramavičius, Toma Birmontienė, Pranas Kuconis, Kęstutis Lapinskas, Zenonas Namavičius, Ramutė Ruškytė, Egidijus Šileikis, Algirdas Taminskas, and Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis

The court reporter—Daiva Pitrėnaitė

Aušra Rauličkytė and Mindaugas Kluonis, advisers to the President of the Republic, acting as the representatives of the President of the Republic, the petitioner

Zenonas Vaigauskas, Chairperson of the Central Electoral Commission of the Republic of Lithuania, Pavelas Kujalis, Deputy Chairperson of the Central Electoral Commission of the Republic of Lithuania, and Julius Jasaitis, a member of this commission

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to Item 1 of Paragraph 3 of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, Paragraph 2 of Article 1, Item 1 of Article 73 and Article 77 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its public hearing, on 6 November 2008, considered constitutional justice case No. 32/08 subsequent to the inquiry set forth in the Decree of the President of the Republic (No. 1K-1564) “On the Inquiry to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania” of 5 November 2008 for the conclusion whether the provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 77, Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 79, Paragraph 1 of Article 80, Paragraph 1 of Article 81 and Paragraph 2 of Article 82 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Elections to the Seimas were not violated during the 2008 election to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania.

The Constitutional Court

has established:

I

1. On 12 October 2008, an election to the Seimas took place. The members of the Seimas were not elected in 68 single-member constituencies from the total number of 71 such constituencies. On 26 October 2008, a repeat voting took place in these single-member constituencies.

2. On 2 November 2008, the Central Electoral Commission confirmed the final results of the 2008 election to the Seimas by its Decision (No. 191) “On the Final Results of the Election to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania of 12 October 2008”. This decision of the Central Electoral Commission was announced on the Internet on 2 November 2008, and in the official gazette “Valstybės žinios”—on 6 November 2008 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2008, No. 127-4891).

3. On 4 November 2008, the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party lodged a complaint with the President of the Republic concerning the violations of the Law on Elections to the Seimas whereby it was requested to apply to the Constitutional Court with an inquiry “regarding the repeat election of a member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania in Šeškinė Constituency No. 6”.

4. By his Decree (No. 1K-1564) “On the Inquiry to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania” of 5 November 2008, the President of the Republic applied to the Constitutional Court with an inquiry requesting for a conclusion whether the Law on Elections to the Seimas was not violated during the 2008 election to the Seimas.

II

1. At the Constitutional Court’s hearing, A. Rauličkytė, the representative of the President of the Republic, the petitioner, explained that the application by means of inquiry to the Constitutional Court by the President of the Republic whether the Law on Elections to the Seimas was not violated during the 2008 election to the Seimas was determined by the concern of the Head of State whether during the repeat voting in the Šeškinė single-member constituency the procedures of the election to the Seimas linked to the counting of votes, the record of the bulletins and the ensuring of their security were not violated.

2. At the Constitutional Court’s hearing, Chairperson of the Central Electoral Commission Z. Vaigauskas explained what facts were investigated and assessed by the Central Electoral Commission and by what arguments it was guided in the course of the adoption of the Decision (No. 198) “Regarding the Complaint of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party Requesting the Recognition of the Results of the Election as Invalid” of 2 November 2008.

3. At the Constitutional Court’s hearing, A. Rauličkytė, the representative of the President of the Republic, the petitioner, and J. Jasaitis, the representative of the Central Electoral Commission, expressed their doubt regarding the official source for the announcement of the results of elections and the counting of the corresponding time periods which are connected therewith and are established in laws.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

I

1. On 12 October 2008, an election to the Seimas took place. The members of the Seimas were not elected in 68 single-member constituencies from the total number of 71 such constituencies. On 26 October 2008, a repeat voting took place in these single-member constituencies.

2. In Šeškinė Single-member Constituency No. 6, the repeat voting took place as regards two candidates to members of the Seimas who had received most votes during the first electoral round, and who were Vilija Blinkevičiūtė and Audronius Ažubalis.

3. After the repeat voting was over and upon counting the votes, on 26 October 2008, at 23.35, the protocol of the Electoral Commission of the Šeškinė Constituency was signed in which it was specified that 12,335 voters took part in the vote. 11,762 ballot-papers were recognised to be valid and it was counted that 5,865 votes went for A. Ažubalis and 5,897 votes went for V. Blinkevičiūtė (the protocol of the counting of votes of the Electoral Commission of the Šeškinė Constituency of 26 October 2008). Thus, the difference between the votes cast for the candidates was 32 votes in favour of V. Blinkevičiūtė.

4. On 27 October 2008, Paulius Švilpa, the representative of the Homeland Union-Lithuanian Christian Democrats in Šeškinė Constituency No. 6 requested the electoral commission of the constituency to recount all the ballot-papers in Šeškinė Single-member Constituency No. 6.

5. After the Electoral Commission of the Šeškinė Constituency has recounted the ballot-papers, on 29 October 2008, at 23.50, the protocol of the Electoral Commission of the Šeškinė Constituency was signed in which it was recorded that 12,337 voters took part in the vote, the number of invalid ballot-papers was 639, while the number of the valid ballot-papers was 11,698, as well as that 5,877 votes went for A. Ažubalis and 5,821 votes went for V. Blinkevičiūtė (the protocol of the counting of votes of the Electoral Commission of the Šeškinė Constituency of 29 October 2008). Thus, the difference between the votes cast for the candidates was 56 votes in favour of A. Ažubalis.

6. On 28 October 2008, Chairperson of the Central Electoral Commission Z. Vaigauskas addressed the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Lithuania with a request to initiate the pre-trial investigation regarding a possibly incorrect counting of the votes cast during the election to the Seimas in Šeškinė Single-member Constituency No. 6 which meets the features of the crime provided for in Article 174 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania.

7. On 29 October 2008, the Central Electoral Commission received a complaint “Regarding Tampering with the Results of Elections to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania” from Julius Jurginis, the representative of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party at the Central Electoral Commission for elections, whereby it is requested to recognise “the results (of the repeat voting of election to the Seimas of 26 October 2008) of the initial counting of votes as final or to call a repeat election to the Seimas in Šeškinė Constituency No. 6”. This complaint is grounded on the fact that, according to J. Jurginis, the results of the counting of the repeat voting could be determined by the deeds provided for in Article 173 titled “Tampering with Documents of Elections or Referendums or Using Tampered Documents of Elections or Referendums” of the Criminal Code and Article 174 titled “False Counting of Votes Cast During Elections” of the same code. According to him, upon recounting the votes, one found the ballot-papers with the marked surname of candidate A. Ažubalis which, purportedly, had not been counted previously, and could be put in the bags of the ballot-papers at night after the (first) counting of the votes cast during the election.

8. On 29 October 2008, the Central Electoral Commission formed a working group composed of the Chairperson of the Central Electoral Commission Z. Vaigauskas, Deputy Chairperson P. Kujalis and its members Vaidotas Vaičaitis and Živilė Verbylaitė. This working group checked the bags of the ballot-papers of Šeškinė Single-member Constituency No. 6, Šeškinės Polling District No. 258 and Statybininkų Polling District No. 305, and it drew up two verification acts. In these acts it was held that in both polling districts the number of ballot-papers sealed with the seal of the constituency is not bigger than that specified in the protocol of the counting of votes and that no ballot-papers sealed with the seals of electoral commissions of other polling districts were found. The 30 October 2008 verification would not essentially change the recounting results of 29 October 2008: while carrying out the verification, it was established that in Šeškinės Polling District No. 258, 363 voters voted for A. Ažubalis and 410 voted for V. Blinkevičiūtė (2 ballot-papers were not sealed), while in Statybininkų Polling District No. 305, 503 voters voted for A. Ažubalis (11 ballot-papers were not sealed) and 448 voted for V. Blinkevičiūtė (7 ballot-papers were not sealed) (Decision of the Central Electoral Commission (No. 198) “Regarding the Complaint of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party Requesting the Recognition of the Results of the Election as Invalid” of 2 November 2008).

On 29 October 2008, the Electoral Commission of the Šeškinė Constituency recounted the annulled ballot-papers of all polling districts of the Šeškinė constituency, matched the numbers of counterfoils of these ballot-papers with the numbers of counterfoils of the ballot-papers issued to the electoral commissions of the polling districts (the protocol of the recounting of votes of the polling districts of Šeškinė Single-member Constituency No. 6 of 29 October 2008).

9. On 29 October 2008 J. Jurginis, the representative of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party at the Central Electoral Commission for elections, addressed the Prosecutor General with a request to carry out the pre-trial investigation regarding the recounting of the votes cast during the election to the Seimas in Šeškinė Single-member Constituency No. 6 which met the features of the crimes provided for in Articles 173 and 174 of the Criminal Code.

10. On 29 October 2008, the Office of the Prosecutor General assigned the Chief Prosecutor of the Local Prosecutor’s Office of the Vilnius City to conduct the pre-trial investigation.

11. On 1 November 2008, the Chief Prosecutor of the Second Division of Organised Crimes Investigation of the Local Prosecutor’s Office of the Vilnius City adopted a decision to dismiss the pre-trial investigation subsequent to the petitions of the Chairperson of the Central Electoral Commission Z. Vaigauskas and J. Jurginis, the representative of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party at the Central Electoral Commission for elections, since in Šeškinė Single-member Constituency No. 6 and polling districts, while counting the results of the election to the Seimas of the second electoral round, no criminal deed provided for in Paragraph 1 of Article 173 and Paragraph 1 of Article 174 of the Criminal Code had been committed.

The joint investigation group of the officials of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Vilnius City and the State Security Department established that the seals and envelopes of the bags with the ballot-papers of the election had been undamaged except for one envelope with invalid ballot-papers which had been in the bag received from Statybininkų Polling District No. 305—its side was torn. The seal of the bag received from Ozo Polling District No. 251 was not fully tightened (therefore, it was easy to take it off, even though it had to be taken off only after breaking it), however, after having recounted the ballot-papers of this polling district, no discrepancies were found. According to the data of the investigation, the premises where the ballot-papers were kept were always locked, the member of the electoral commission K. Kazliūnas had the key, and later the key was held by the Deputy Chairperson of the electoral commission L. Lajauskas. According to the witness L. Lajauskas, for the night of 26 to 27 October 2008, the alarm was turned on in the premises. No traces of break-in were found in the lock. Upon the receipt of the request from the observer of the election P. Švilpa on 27 October 2008, the ballot-papers of the polling districts of Šeškinė Constituency No. 6 were recounted, first of all of Statybininkų Polling District No. 305 in which the difference of votes for the candidates was the smallest (Decision of the Chief Prosecutor of the Second Division of Organised Crimes Investigation of the Local Prosecutor’s Office of the Vilnius City of 1 November 2008).

12. By Decision of the Central Electoral Commission No. 198 “Regarding the Complaint of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party, Requesting the Recognition of the Results of the Election as Invalid” of 2 November 2008, the complaint of J. Jurginis, the representative of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party at the Central Electoral Commission for elections, was rejected. The Central Electoral Commission drew the conclusion that all the feasible possibilities had been used to verify and make sure that during the time period between the counting of the results of voting on 26 October 2008 and their recounting on 29 October 2008 no unlawful actions were committed in order to try to change the ballot-papers. The Central Electoral Commission also held that the votes were recalculated in the Electoral Commission of the Šeškinė Constituency on 29 October 2008 pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 6 of Article 82 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas and that there was no legal ground to doubt the recounting results or to make any additional recounting. Therefore, the Central Electoral Commission drew the conclusion that the request to recognise the results of the initial counting of votes of 26 October 2008 as final or to recognise the results of the repeat voting as invalid and to announce a repeat election was groundless and was to be rejected.

13. On 2 November 2008, the Central Electoral Commission adopted the Decision (No. 191) “On the Final Results of the Election to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania of 12 October 2008”, whereby it was decided:

1. To establish the results of the repeat voting of the Election to the Seimas of 26 October 2008 in 68 single-member constituencies (Annex 1);

2. To establish the final ranks of the lists of candidates for members of the Seimas in the multi-member constituency of the election to the Seimas of 12 October 2008 (Annex 2);

3. According to the results of the election in multi-member and single-member constituencies, to establish the persons who have been elected to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (Annex 3). To grant the certificate of a member of the Seimas to the elected members of the Seimas in the March 11th Hall of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania at 12.00 on 5 November 2008;

<...>

5. To announce the final results of the election on the Internet and in the next the official gazette ‘Valstybės žinios’”.

This decision of the Central Electoral Commission was announced on the Internet on 2 November 2008 and in the official gazette “Valstybės žinios”—on 6 November 2008 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2008, No. 127-4891).

14. On 4 November 2008, the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party addressed the President of the Republic asking him to apply to the Constitutional Court with the request “regarding the repeat election of a member of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania in Šeškinė Constituency No. 6”.

In the complaint of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party it is stated that while recounting the votes, one noticed the uncounted ballot-papers which had been cast for A. Ažubalis, and these ballot-papers could be put in the bags of the ballot-papers already after counting the votes on the day of election. It is also specified that upon recounting the ballot-papers, all the non-sealed ballot-papers in the constituency were recognised as invalid, even though, according to Article 80 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas, only the ballot-papers which were sent by post and which are not sealed with the seal of the constituency may be recognised as invalid. Before taking the bags of the ballot-papers of the repeat voting to the constituency and before the recounting of votes in the election commission of the constituency, the seals of all bags should have been checked, however, this was not done.

15. In this context, it needs to be noted that the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Procedure of the Publication and Entry into Force of Laws and Other Legal Acts, inter alia, provides: the official publication of laws and other legal acts shall be their publishing in the official gazette “Valstybės žinios”, the day of their publication in the official gazette “Valstybės žinios” shall be the day of their release; in cases established by this law, the official publication of other legal acts shall be their publishing in the mass media or in the internet websites of a corresponding institution (Paragraph 1 (wording of 7 July 2005) of Article 2)); the decisions of the Central Electoral Commission regarding the final results of elections to the Seimas must be announced in the official gazette “Valstybės žinios” (Item 7 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Paragraph 1 (wording of 16 January 2007) of Article 3).

16. Paragraph 1 of Article 93 (wording of 11 December 2004) of the Law on Elections to the Seimas provides that the Central Electoral Commission shall establish the final election results after it has investigated all complaints and established all election results in the constituency, including the voting results of the voters who have voted on ships and abroad. Paragraph 2 (wording of 11 May 2004) of the same article provides, inter alia, that the Central Electoral Commission shall announce the final election results not later than within 7 days following the election or the repeat voting, and that the Central Electoral Commission shall first of all announce the final results on the Internet and in the next issue of the official gazette “Valstybės žinios”.

Therefore, Paragraph 2 (wording of 11 May 2004) of Article 93 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas provides for two sources for announcement of the final results of elections to the Seimas: the Internet and the official gazette “Valstybės žinios”.

17. It needs to be mentioned that, in its ruling of 27 June 2007, the Constitutional Court held that: in general, the legislature may also regulate the official publication of legal acts in a differentiated manner on other grounds and establish alternative (in comparison with the general procedure of the official publication of legal acts) sources, ways and procedure of the official publication of legal acts; the situations are possible where a certain legal act must come into force immediately, right after being issued. In such cases, one must ensure the necessary, expeditious and as-fast-as-possible official publication of legal acts; the official public publication of the whole legal act is not an end in itself—it is necessary so that the subjects of law would know what the corresponding legal act is, would be able to familiarise themselves with the whole legal act and to follow it; the purpose and essence of the official public publication of an entire legal act is that it becomes accessible to the subjects of law and no doubts remain regarding the authenticity of its contents.

18. Alongside, it needs to be noted that the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 93 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas prescribes that the Central Electoral Commission shall first of all announce the final results in the Internet and in the next issue of the official gazette “Valstybės žinios” is in various aspects related to other provisions of the Law on Elections to the Seimas. Thus, in the aspect of the counting of the corresponding time periods, this provision is related to Paragraph 5 of Article 86 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas, under which the parties which have nominated candidates for members of the Seimas, as well as the candidates for members of the Seimas, may lodge complaints against the decisions of the Central Electoral Commission or against the refusal of the Central Electoral Commission to investigate complaints about the violations of the Law on Elections not later than within 24 hours after the official announcement of the election results, to the Seimas or the President of the Republic; in such cases, the Seimas or President of the Republic shall, not later than within 48 hours, apply to the Constitutional Court with the inquiry concerning the violation of the Law in Elections to the Seimas. The aforesaid provision is related with Paragraph 1 of Article 94 of the same law, under which, after the proclamation of election results the Central Electoral Commission shall issue the certificates of members of the Seimas to the elected candidates within 3 days, and it is also related with Paragraph 1 of Article 95 of the same law, under which, not later than within 3 days of the official announcement of the election results, the Seimas as well as the President of the Republic may apply to the Constitutional Court with the inquiry whether the Law on Elections to the Seimas has been violated. In the said aspect, the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 93 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas is related to Paragraph 1 of Article 77 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, under which the Seimas or the President of the Republic may apply to the Constitutional Court with inquiries concerning possible violations of electoral laws during an election of the President of the Republic or an election to the Seimas within 3 days of the publication of the official election results. In this context, Paragraph 4 of Article 95 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas should be mentioned, under which, on the grounds of the conclusions of the Constitutional Court, the Seimas shall adopt the final decision concerning the violation of the Law on Elections to the Seimas, as well as Paragraph 5 of the same article, under which, if the Constitutional Court makes the conclusion that the Law on Elections to the Seimas has been severely violated or election documents have been tampered and this has had an essential influence on the establishment of the election results, the Seimas may adopt one of the resolutions provided for in this law, while under Paragraph 6 of this article, the Seimas shall also pass a resolution on legally and illegally elected members of the Seimas. Paragraph 3 of Article 77 of the Law on the Constitutional Court should also be mentioned, whereby the inquiry concerning possible violations of electoral laws during an election of the President of the Republic or an election to the Seimas shall be examined within 72 hours of its filing with the Constitutional Court; the time periods specified in this article shall also include non-working days. Thus, while construing the said provisions of the Law on Elections to the Seimas and the Law on the Constitutional Court in the context of the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 93 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas that the Central Electoral Commission shall first of all announce the final results on the Internet and in the next issue of the official gazette “Valstybės žinios”, there may arise certain obscurities regarding the counting of the corresponding time periods, since it is possible that the announcement of the final results of elections on the Internet and the announcement thereof in the official gazette “Valstybės žinios” happen at a different time.

It needs to be mentioned that Decision of the Central Electoral Commission No. 191 “On the Final Results of the Election to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania of 12 October 2008” of 2 November 2008 was announced on the Internet on 2 November 2008, and in the official gazette “Valstybės žinios”—on 6 November 2008, even though after the announcement of this decision of the Central Electoral Commission on the Internet, the official gazette “Valstybės žinios” was issued on 4 November 2008.

In the context of the constitutional justice case at issue, it needs to be noted that the provision “the Central Electoral Commission shall first of all announce the final results on the Internet and in the next issue of the official gazette ‘Valstybės žinios’” of Paragraph 2 of Article 93 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas is lex specialis with regard to the provisions of the Law on the Procedure of the Publication and Entry into Force of Laws and Other Legal Acts which establish the procedure of announcement of acts of the Central Electoral Commission.

The essence of the principle lex specialis derogat legi generali is that when there is a competition between general and special norms, the special norm shall be applied (the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 18 October 2000, 21 January 2008, and 15 March 2008).

It has been mentioned that under Item 7 (wording of 10 December 2002) of Paragraph 1 (wording of 16 January 2007) of Article 3 of the Law on the Procedure of the Publication and Entry into Force of Laws and Other Legal Acts, the decisions of the Central Electoral Commission regarding the final results of elections to the Seimas must be announced in the official gazette “Valstybės žinios”. Because of the fact that the provision “the Central Electoral Commission shall first of all announce the final results in the Internet and in the next issue of the official gazette ‘Valstybės žinios’” of Paragraph 2 of Article 93 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas is lex specialis with regard to the provisions of the Law on the Procedure of the Publication and Entry into Force of Laws and Other Legal Acts which consolidate the procedure of publication of acts of the Central Electoral Commission, therefore, while establishing the exact date of the announcement of the official results of elections, after such results were published either on the Internet or in the official gazette “Valstybės žinios”, one must follow lex specialis, i.e. the provisions of the Law on Elections to the Seimas.

19. Taking account of the arguments set forth, it should be held that the results of the election to the Seimas were officially announced on 2 November 2008, when they were published on the Internet. It also needs to be noted that the fact that when there is a competition between the general and special norms, the special norm is applied, does not deny the duty of the legislature to harmonise the provisions of the Law on the Procedure of the Publication and Entry into Force of Laws and Other Legal Acts with the legal regulation established in Paragraph 2 (wording of 11 May 2004) of Article 93 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas.

20. In this context, it needs to be noted that, as it has been mentioned, under Paragraph 1 of Article 95 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas, not later than within 3 days of the official announcement of the election results, the Seimas as well as the President of the Republic may apply to the Constitutional Court with an inquiry whether the Law on Elections to the Seimas has been violated, and under Paragraph 1 of Article 77 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the institutions specified in Article 74 of the same law apply to the Constitutional Court with inquiries concerning possible violations of electoral laws during an election of the President of the Republic or an election to the Seimas within 3 days of the publication of the official election results.

Thus, while construing Paragraph 2 of Article 93 and Paragraph 1 of Article 95 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas and Paragraph 1 of Article 77 of the Law on the Constitutional Court in a systemic manner, the conclusion should be drawn that the beginning of the time period established in Paragraph 5 of Article 86, Paragraph 1 of Article 95 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas and Article 77 of the Law on the Constitutional Court within which one must present an inquiry regarding violation of the Law on Elections to the Seimas is counted as from the announcement of the final results of elections to the Seimas on the Internet.

II

1. By his Decree (No. 1K-1564) “On the Inquiry to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania” of 5 November 2008 (hereinafter also referred to as the 5 November 2008 decree of the President of the Republic), the President of the Republic applied to the Constitutional Court with an inquiry regarding a conclusion whether the provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 77, Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 79, Paragraph 1 of Article 80, Paragraph 1 of Article 81 and Paragraph 2 of Article 82 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas were not violated during the 2008 election to the Seimas.

2. In the 5 November 2008 decree of the President of the Republic, it is specified: “By the Decision of the Central Electoral Commission (No. 198) ‘Regarding the Complaint of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party Requesting the Recognition of the Results of the Election as Invalid’ the complaint from J. Jurginis, the representative of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party at the Central Electoral Commission for elections, whereby it is requested to recognise the results of the initial counting of votes in Šeškinė Single-member Constituency No. 6 as final or to recognise the results of recounting as invalid and to call a repeat election, was rejected”. The circumstances specified in the said complaint, according to the President of the Republic, may be regarded as a violation of the provisions regarding the counting of votes and the record of ballot-papers of Paragraph 2 of Article 77 and Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 79 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas, as violation of the provision regarding recognition of ballot-papers as invalid of Paragraph 1 of Article 80 of the same law, and as violation of the provisions regarding presentation of ballot-papers and ensuring their security of Paragraph 2 of Article 82 of the same law.

3. The 5 November 2008 decree of the President of the Republic is substantiated by these doctrinal provisions formulated in the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 5 November 2004: in a constitutional democracy, special requirements are raised to the formation of political representative institutions; these institutions may not be formed in a way so that there might arise doubts as to their legitimacy and legality, inter alia, as to the fact whether the principles of a democratic state under the rule of law were not violated in the course of election of persons to political representative institutions; otherwise, people’s trust in the representative democracy, state institutions, and the state itself, would be undermined; democratic elections are an important form of citizens’ participation in the governance of the state, as well as it is a necessary element of the formation of state political representative institutions; elections may not be regarded as democratic, nor their results as legitimate and legal, if the elections are held by trampling on the principles of democratic elections established in the Constitution, and by violating democratic electoral procedures.

4. The following was attached to the 5 November 2008 decree of the President of the Republic: the 4 November 2008 complaint of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party, the Decision of the Central Electoral Commission (No. 198) “Regarding the Complaint of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party Requesting the Recognition of the Results of the Election as Invalid” of 2 November 2008 and the 1 November 2008 statement of the Local Prosecutor’s Office of the Vilnius City to the Chairperson of the Central Electoral Commission that after no criminal deeds had been established, a decision was adopted to dismiss the pre-trial investigation which had been instituted subsequent to the petitions of the Chairperson of the Central Electoral Commission Z. Vaigauskas and J. Jurginis, the representative of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party at the Central Electoral Commission for elections, in order to investigate whether in the course of counting the results of the election to the Seimas of the repeat voting in Šeškinė Single-member Constituency No. 6 there were not any criminal deeds provided for in Articles 173 and 174 of the Criminal Code.

5. Item 1 of Paragraph 3 of Article 105 of the Constitution provides that the Constitutional Court shall present conclusions whether there were violations of electoral laws during an election of the President of the Republic or an election of members of the Seimas.

In Paragraph 2 of Article 102 of the Constitution it is enshrined that the status of the Constitutional Court and the procedure for the execution of its powers shall be established by the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania.

Under Article 77 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court shall examine and assess only the decisions made by the Central Electoral Commission or the refusal thereof to examine complaints concerning the violation of electoral laws in cases when such decisions were adopted or other deeds were carried out by the said commission after the termination of voting in an election of members of the Seimas or the President of the Republic.

6. The Decree of the President of the Republic (No. 1K-1564) “On the Inquiry to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania” of 5 November 2008 requesting for a conclusion whether the provisions regarding the counting of votes and record of ballot-papers of Paragraph 2 of Article 77, Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 79 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas, whether the provisions regarding recognition of ballot-papers as invalid of Paragraph 1 of Article 80 of the same law, and whether the provisions regarding presentation of ballot-papers and ensuring their security of Paragraph 1 of Article 81 and Paragraph 2 of Article 82 of the same law were not violated during the 2008 election to the Seimas is related to the said 4 November 2008 complaint of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party and the Decision of the Central Electoral Commission (No. 198) “Regarding the Complaint of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party Requesting the Recognition of the Results of the Election as Invalid” of 2 November 2008, which rejected the complaint of J. Jurginis, the representative of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party at the Central Electoral Commission for elections, whereby it is requested “to recognise the results of the initial counting of votes (of the repeat voting of the election to the Seimas of 26 October 2008) as final or to call a repeat election in Šeškinė Single-member Constituency No. 6”.

7. It has been mentioned that under Article 77 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court shall examine and assess only the decisions made by the Central Electoral Commission or the refusal thereof to examine complaints concerning the violation of electoral laws in cases when such decisions were adopted or other deeds were carried out by the said commission after the termination of voting in an election of members of the Seimas or the President of the Republic.

8. Taking account of the fact that by his decree of 5 November 2008, the President of the Republic requests the Constitutional Court to give a conclusion on whether during the election to the Seimas one did not violate the provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 77 and Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 79 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas regarding the counting of votes and the record of ballot-papers, the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 80 of the same law regarding recognition of ballot-papers as invalid and the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 80 and Paragraph 2 of Article 82 of the same law regarding presentation and ensuring the security of ballot-papers, as well as taking account of the fact that this decree is related to the said complaint of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party of 4 November 2008 and the Decision of the Central Electoral Commission (No. 198) “Regarding the Complaint of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party Requesting the Recognition of the Results of the Election as Invalid” of 2 November 2008, it needs to be held that the President of the Republic requests the Constitutional Court to give a conclusion on whether by its Decision (No. 198) “Regarding the Complaint of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party Requesting the Recognition of the Results of the Election as Invalid” of 2 November 2008, the Central Electoral Commission lawfully refused to grant the complaint of J. Jurginis, the representative of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party at the Central Electoral Commission for elections, whereby it is requested “to recognise the results of the initial counting of votes (of the repeat voting of the election to the Seimas of 26 October 2008) as final or to call a repeat election in Šeškinė Single-member Constituency No. 6”.

9. In this case subsequent to the 5 November 2008 decree of the President of the Republic, the Constitutional Court will investigate and assess whether the Decision of the Central Electoral Commission (No. 198) “Regarding the Complaint of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party Requesting the Recognition of the Results of the Election as Invalid” of 2 November 2008 lawfully refused to grant the complaint of J. Jurginis, the representative of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party at the Central Electoral Commission for elections, whereby it is requested “to recognise the results of the initial counting of votes (of the repeat voting of the election to the Seimas of 26 October 2008) as final or to call a repeat election in Šeškinė Single-member Constituency No. 6”.

III

1. Article 2 of the Constitution enshrines that sovereignty shall belong to the Nation. The Nation shall execute its supreme sovereign power either directly or through its democratically elected representatives (Article 4 of the Constitution). Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that citizens shall have the right to participate in the governance of their state both directly and through their democratically elected representatives. One of fundamental characteristics of a democratic state is democratic elections of representative institutions of state power. It is through elections that every citizen accomplishes his right to participate in running his country along with the other citizens (the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 23 November 1996), in the formation of the institution representing the Nation—the Seimas.

The constitutional requirement that the Lithuanian state power would be organised democratically and that there would be a democratic political regime in the state, as well as the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Constitution that citizens shall have the right to participate in the governance of their state both directly and through their democratically elected representatives are inseparable from Paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Constitution that state institutions shall serve the people, as well as from the provision of Paragraph 2 of this article that the scope of powers shall be limited by the Constitution. The Constitutional Court has more than once held that the responsibility of authority to society is one of elements of the principle of the state under the rule of law which is established by the Constitution, upon prescribing that state institutions will serve the people, that the citizens shall have the right to run the country either directly or through democratically elected representatives, to criticise the work of state institutions or that of their officials, to lodge complaints against their decisions, as well as by guaranteeing an opportunity for citizens to defend their rights in court, the right of petition, by regulating the procedure for investigation of requests and complaints of citizens, etc.

2. While emphasising the importance of elections to the representative institutions, the Constitutional Court has more than once held that in a constitutional democracy, special requirements are raised to the formation of political representative institutions. These institutions may not be formed in a way so that there might arise doubts as to their legitimacy and lawfulness, inter alia, as to the fact whether the principles of a democratic state under the rule of law were not violated in the course of election of persons to political representative institutions. Otherwise, people’s trust in the representative democracy, state institutions, and the state itself, would be undermined. Democratic elections are an important form of citizens’ participation in the governance of the state and a necessary element of the formation of state political representative institutions. Elections may not be regarded as democratic, nor their results as legitimate and lawful, if the elections are held by trampling on the principles of democratic elections established in the Constitution, and by violating democratic electoral procedures (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 18 December 2004, its conclusion of 5 November 2004, and its ruling of 1 October 2008).

3. It needs to be noted that the principles of election of the Representation of the Nation—the Seimas are enshrined in the Constitution, they may not be denied, deviated from or restricted by any legal act of lower legal force. Under Paragraph 1 of Article 55 of the Constitution, members of the Seimas shall be elected on the basis of universal, equal, and direct suffrage by secret ballot.

4. While construing the provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 55 of the Constitution that the procedure for election of members of the Seimas shall be established by law, in its conclusion of 5 November 2004 the Constitutional Court held that this constitutional provision means that the legislature has the duty to consolidate, by means of a law, a system of election of members of the Seimas, to establish the grounds and procedure of arrangement of elections, inter alia, including the nomination of candidates to members of the Seimas, electoral campaigning, procedure of voting, establishment of the results of election, procedures of settling electoral disputes, as well as regulation of other relations of election of members of the Seimas. While doing so, the legislature must pay heed to the Constitution; it may neither itself deny, distort or restrict the universal, equal and direct electoral right and secret ballot, nor create any legal preconditions for other subjects to do so, since, otherwise, this would mean that the supreme sovereign power of the Nation through the representation of the Nation, the Seimas, is denied altogether.

In the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 5 November 2004, it was also emphasised that the duty stems from the Constitution for the legislature to establish, by means of a law, the legal regulation ensuring honesty and transparency of the election process to the Seimas, i.e. necessary preconditions for the trust in the representation of the Nation; in case the legislature disregards the said requirements arising from the Constitution, if it does not establish a mechanism ensuring democratic, free and honest elections, then there always might arise some doubts about the legality of election of members of the Seimas.

IV

1. It has been mentioned that in his Decree of 5 November 2008, the President of the Republic requests the Constitutional Court to give a conclusion on whether during the 2008 election to the Seimas one did not violate the provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 77 and Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 79 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas regarding the counting of votes and the record of ballot-papers, the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 80 of the same law regarding recognition of ballot-papers as invalid and the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 80 and Paragraph 2 of Article 82 of the same law regarding presentation and ensuring the security of ballot-papers.

1.1. Paragraph 2 of Article 77 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas provides:

2. Having ascertained that the ballot box has not been tampered with, in the presence of at least 3/5 of the members of the polling district commission as well as observers, it shall be opened, all ballot-papers shall be placed on tables on which there are no other documents and writing materials (except black lead pencils), and the commission shall start counting votes. Ballot-papers shall be sorted out according to constituencies (single-member and multi-member), then—into valid and invalid ballot-papers. Valid ballot-papers shall be divided into groups according to the marks made in them by voters. Each group of ballot-papers must be recounted at least two times. For the second time ballot-papers must be counted by other members of the commission. Ballot-papers which do not hold necessary attributes (irregular ballot-papers, unsealed or sealed with a seal of another electoral commission, etc.) must, if found, be separated from the rest of the ballot-papers. The constituency electoral commission shall be immediately informed about such ballot-papers and such a fact must be entered on the vote counting record of the polling district. Counting results must be announced and entered on the record, counted ballot-papers put into a special envelope (envelopes) which is sealed and safeguarded. After the electoral commission establishes how many votes have been cast by voters who voted in the polling station of the polling district for lists of candidates in the multi-member constituency and for candidates in single-member constituencies, the counting of votes received by post shall commence.”

1.2. Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 79 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas provide:

2. The vote counting record of the single-member constituency shall include the following:

1) the number of voters in the polling district;

2) the number of ballot-papers of the single-member constituency received from the constituency electoral commission;

3) the number of ballot-papers delivered to each member of the commission, the number of ballot-papers delivered to voters, the number of voters’ signatures, the number of voter certificates, the number of arrival cards, and the number of unused and spoiled ballot-papers;

4) the number of annulled ballot-papers;

5) the number of voters who have voted in the polling station of the polling district;

6) the time of the opening of the ballot box;

7) the number of invalid ballot-papers found in the ballot box;

8) the number of valid ballot-papers found in the ballot box;

9) the number of votes found in the ballot box which have been separately cast for each candidate for a Seimas member;

10) the number of postal voting envelopes of voters who have voted at home, the number of postal voting envelopes received by post, the total number of postal voting envelopes received by post and at home, and the number of sealed ballot-paper envelopes;

11) the number of invalid ballot-papers received by post (ballot-papers which are in unsealed and unopened envelopes shall not be counted and shall not be indicated as invalid);

12) the number of valid ballot-papers received by post;

13) the number of votes received by post for each candidate for a Seimas member;

14) the total number of voters who participated in the election in the polling district;

15) the total number of invalid ballot-papers in the polling district; and

16) the total number of votes cast for each candidate for a Seimas member. <...>

4. The number of the voters of the polling district shall be established according to the electoral rolls of the polling district. The number of the voters who have been delivered the ballot-papers shall be established according to the voters’ signatures proving that the ballot-papers have been received. The number of the voters who have voted in the polling district shall be established according to the number of the ballot-papers lawfully delivered to voters by the electoral commission of that polling district and found in the ballot box of the polling station. The total number of the voters who have participated in the election in the polling district shall be established by adding the number of the ballot-papers found in the ballot boxes to the number of the ballot-papers received by post and counted.”

1.3. Paragraph 1 of Article 80 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas provides:

1. Invalid ballot-papers shall be:

1) non-standard ballot-papers;

2) ballot-papers sealed with the seal of the electoral commission of the wrong polling district (ballot-papers received by post—without the seal of the constituency electoral commission);

3) ballot-papers of the wrong constituency;

4) in a single-member constituency, those ballot-papers on which the voter has marked more than one candidate for a Seimas member, or has not marked any candidate, or it is impossible to ascertain the voter’s will from the mark made thereon; and

5) in the multi-member constituency, the ballot-papers on which the voter has marked more than one list of candidates or has not marked any list of candidates, or it is impossible to ascertain the voter’s will from the mark made thereon.”

1.4. Paragraph 1 of Article 81 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas provides:

1. The polling district commission shall put all ballot-papers, as well as invalid and unused ballot-papers, other election documents into packages, inventory them and affix the seal to them in the manner prescribed by the Central Electoral Commission. The packages shall be delivered together with the vote counting record and its annexes, electoral rolls, records of the polling district commission and financial documentation for the whole period of its work to the constituency electoral commission within 12 hours of the closing of the polls, unless the Central Electoral Commission provides otherwise.”

1.5. Paragraph 2 of Article 82 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas prescribes:

2. The constituency electoral commission shall immediately report the data of the vote counting record, its comments concerning the documents submitted by the polling district commission to the Central Electoral Commission in the manner prescribed by it, and shall ensure the safety of submitted documents.”

2. In the context of this constitutional justice case at issue, other provisions of the Law on Elections to the Seimas should also be mentioned, i.e. the provisions of Paragraph 6 of Article 82 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas regarding the duty to recount the ballot-papers, the provisions of Article 91 of the same law regarding the recognition of an election as null and void, and those of Article 92 regarding a repeat election.

2.1. Paragraph 6 of Article 82 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas provides:

6. The constituency electoral commission must adopt a decision to recount ballot-papers of all the polling districts of a single-member constituency when, prior to the signing of the vote counting record, this has been requested by at least one member of the commission, a representative of a party or a candidate, and when the difference between the votes for the candidates who came first or second in this single-member constituency in accordance with the preliminary election results, is less than 50.”

2.2. Article 91 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas provides:

1. The Central Electoral Commission may declare the election results in the constituency null and void, if it has established that severe violations of Paragraph 1 of Article 51 of this Law or other laws which were committed in the constituency or polling district, the falsification of documents or the loss thereof had an essential influence on the election results, and the following essential results cannot be determined from the vote counting records or other election documents:

1) in a single-member constituency—the candidate who gets the mandate, or the candidates who participate in the repeat voting;

2) in the multi-member constituency—the lists of candidates which take part in the distribution of mandates, or the number of mandates due to the list of candidates can be determined at the exactness of only more than one mandate.

2. The election cannot be declared invalid if the indisputably determined election results allow determining essential election results.”

2.3. Article 92 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas provides:

1. A repeat election shall be held in constituencies in which an election did not take place or was declared invalid.

2. A repeat election shall be held not later than within half a year, and after a repeat elections which have not been held—not later than within a year.

3. The concrete procedure for holding a repeat election or a repeat voting to the Seimas according to the requirements and terms set in this Law shall be established by the Central Electoral Commission taking into consideration the fact that a repeat election or a repeat voting is held in one of the single-member constituencies. When establishing the procedure for holding a repeat election, the Central Electoral Commission cannot change the boundaries of constituencies. The citizens, permanently residing on the territory of a constituency who are aged 18 or over on the day of a repeat election shall be additionally entered on the electoral roll of this constituency, and only the persons who have lost the right to vote shall be crossed out. The voting shall not be conducted abroad, on ships (with the exception of the case when the voters residing abroad or the crews of ships are entered on the electoral rolls of the constituency in which a repeat election shall be held), in the post offices which are not located on the territory of this constituency (except the central post offices of towns, regions).

4. A repeat election shall not be held if the election date planned to be announced falls within the period when less than a year remains before the date of the next election to the Seimas, as counted in compliance with the Constitution.”

V

1. It has been mentioned that in this case subsequent to the 5 November 2008 decree of the President of the Republic, the Constitutional Court will investigate and assess whether the Decision of the Central Electoral Commission (No. 198) “Regarding the Complaint of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party Requesting the Recognition of the Results of the Election as Invalid” of 2 November 2008 lawfully refused to grant the complaint of J. Jurginis, the representative of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party at the Central Electoral Commission for elections, whereby it is requested “to recognise the results of the initial counting of votes (of the repeat voting of the election to the Seimas of 26 October 2008) as final or to call a repeat election in Šeškinė Single-member Constituency No. 6”.

2. It has been mentioned that on 29 October 2008, the Central Electoral Commission received a complaint from Julius Jurginis, the representative of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party at the Central Electoral Commission for elections, whereby it is requested to recognise “the results (of the repeat voting of the election to the Seimas of 26 October 2008) as final or to call a repeat election to the Seimas in Šeškinė Constituency No. 6”. It has been also mentioned that this complaint is grounded on the fact that, according to J. Jurginis, the results of the counting of the repeat voting could be determined by the deeds provided for in Articles 173 and 174 of the Criminal Code.

The commission of the said deeds, according to J. Jurginis, is confirmed by such circumstances: the seal of the bag with ballot-papers received from Ozo Polling District No. 251 was not fully tightened; according to him, the uncounted ballot-papers which had been cast for A. Ažubalis and which were found when recounting the votes, could be put in the bags already after counting the votes on the day of election.

3. It has been mentioned that the Central Electoral Commission decided to reject the 29 October 2008 complaint from J. Jurginis, the representative of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party at the Central Electoral Commission for elections, whereby it is requested to recognise “the results (of the repeat voting of the election to the Seimas of 26 October 2008) as final or to call a repeat election to the Seimas in Šeškinė Constituency No. 6”.

It has also been mentioned that the Central Electoral Commission has grounded its decision on the fact that all the feasible possibilities have been used to verify and make sure that during the time period between the counting of the results of voting and their recounting no unlawful actions were committed in trying to swap the ballot-papers.

4. While deciding whether the Decision of the Central Electoral Commission (No. 198) “Regarding the Complaint of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party Requesting the Recognition of the Results of the Election as Invalid” of 2 November 2008 lawfully refused to grant the complaint of J. Jurginis, the representative of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party at the Central Electoral Commission for elections, it needs to be held that, as it is obvious from the material of the case:

on 29 October 2008, a working group composed of the Chairperson of the Central Electoral Commission Z. Vaigauskas, Deputy Chairperson P. Kujalis, as well as its members V. Vaičaitis and Ž. Verbylaitė, checked the bags of the ballot-papers of Šeškinė Single-member Constituency No. 6, Šeškinės Polling District No. 258 and Statybininkų Polling District No. 305 and it drew up two verification acts. In these acts it was held that in both polling districts the number of ballot-papers sealed with the seal of the constituency is not bigger than specified in the protocol of the counting of votes and that no ballot-papers sealed with the seals of electoral commissions of other polling districts were found. The 30 October 2008 verification would not essentially change the recounting results of 29 October 2008;

the seals and envelopes of the bags with the ballot-papers of the election at Šeškinė Single-member Constituency No. 6 were undamaged; a side of one of the envelopes with invalid ballot-papers which was in the bag received from in Statybininkų Polling District No. 305 was torn, however, the ballot-papers were in the envelope;

the seal of the bag received from Ozo Polling District No. 251 of Šeškinė Single-member Constituency No. 6 was not fully tightened (therefore, it was easy to take it off, even though it had to be taken off only after breaking it), however, after having recounted the ballot-papers of the said polling district and having compared them with the results of the initial counting of votes, no discrepancies were found;

the premises where the ballot-papers were kept had always been locked; no traces of break-in were found in the lock.

In this context, it needs to be noted that, as it has been mentioned, by the 1 November 2008 decision of the Chief Prosecutor of the Second Division of Organised Crimes Investigation of the Local Prosecutor’s Office of the Vilnius City, pre-trial investigation No. 01-2-150-08 was dismissed and it was held that no criminal deed provided for in Paragraph 1 of Article 173 and Paragraph 1 of Article 174 of the Criminal Code had been committed.

5. Having assessed the said circumstances, it needs to be held that there are no legal grounds for stating that the Decision of the Central Electoral Commission (No. 198) “Regarding the Complaint of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party Requesting the Recognition of the Results of the Election as Invalid” of 2 November 2008 unlawfully refused to grant the complaint of J. Jurginis, the representative of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party at the Central Electoral Commission for elections.

Therefore, the conclusion should be drawn that the Decision of the Central Electoral Commission (No. 198) “Regarding the Complaint of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party Requesting the Recognition of the Results of the Election as Invalid” of 2 November 2008, whereby it was refused to grant the complaint of J. Jurginis, the representative of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party at the Central Electoral Commission for elections, regarding the results of the repeat voting of the Election to the Seimas of Šeškinė Single-member Constituency No. 6, did not violate the Law on Elections to the Seimas.

Conforming to Paragraph 3 of Article 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Paragraph 2 of Article 1, Item 1 of Article 73, Article 77 and Article 83 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania gives the following

conclusion:

The Decision of the Central Electoral Commission of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 198) “Regarding the Complaint of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party Requesting the Recognition of the Results of the Election as Invalid” of 2 November 2008 whereby it was refused to grant the complaint of J. Jurginis, the representative of the Lithuanian Social Democratic Party at the Central Electoral Commission for elections, regarding the results of the repeat voting of the Election to the Seimas of Šeškinė Single-member Constituency No. 6, did not violate the Law on Elections to the Seimas.

This conclusion of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania is final and not subject to appeal.

Justices of the Constitutional Court: Armanas Abramavičius
                                                                      Toma Birmontienė
                                                                      Pranas Kuconis
                                                                      Kęstutis Lapinskas
                                                                      Zenonas Namavičius
                                                                      Ramutė Ruškytė
                                                                      Egidijus Šileikis
                                                                      Algirdas Taminskas
                                                                      Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis