Lt

On accepting a petition of the petitioner

 

 

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

DECISION

ON ACCEPTING THE PETITION OF A GROUP OF MEMBERS OF THE SEIMAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, THE PETITIONER, REQUESTING TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER PROVISIONS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA LAW ON SCIENCE AND STUDIES (WORDING OF 30 APRIL 2009) ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

19 March 2010

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,

with the secretary of the hearing—Daiva Pitrėnaitė,

in the procedural sitting of the Constitutional Court considered a petition (No. 1B-3/2010) of a group of Members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision “The Lithuanian policy on science and studies guarantees <...> conditions for the best of them to conduct their research” of the Preamble, Item 6 of Paragraph 2 of Article 3, the provision “A state school of higher education shall be a public legal person functioning as a public establishment, possessing the autonomy guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and the special status defined by this and other laws” of Paragraph 4 of Article 6, Item 2 of Paragraph 3 of Article 7, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 8, Paragraph 3 of Article 9, Item 4 of Paragraph 1 and Item 2 of Paragraph 2 of Article 11, Paragraph 2 of Article 17, Paragraphs 1 and 6 and Items 1, 4, and 8 of Paragraph 12 of Article 18, Articles 19, 20, 21, 22, and 39, Paragraph 2 of Article 48, Paragraph 4 of Article 53, Paragraph 3 of Article 66, Paragraph 2 of Article 69, Paragraphs 2, 5, 7, and 11 of Article 70, Paragraph 4 of Article 76, Item 3 of Paragraph 2 of Article 86, Paragraph 4 of Article 90, Paragraph 3 of Article 91, Paragraphs 2, 4, 6, and 8 of Article 93, Article 94, Paragraph 5 of Article 95, and Article 96 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) are not in conflict with certain articles of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

The Constitutional Court

has established:

I

1. The petition of a group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether the provision “The Lithuanian policy on science and studies guarantees <...> conditions for the best of them to conduct their research” of the Preamble, Item 6 of Paragraph 2 of Article 3, the provision “A state school of higher education shall be a public legal person functioning as a public establishment, possessing the autonomy guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and the special status defined by this and other laws” of Paragraph 4 of Article 6, Item 2 of Paragraph 3 of Article 7, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 8, Paragraph 3 of Article 9, Item 4 of Paragraph 1 and Item 2 of Paragraph 2 of Article 11, Paragraph 2 of Article 17, Paragraphs 1 and 6 and Items 1, 4, and 8 of Paragraph 12 of Article 18, Articles 19, 20, 21, 22, and 39, Paragraph 2 of Article 48, Paragraph 4 of Article 53, Paragraph 3 of Article 66, Paragraph 2 of Article 69, Paragraphs 2, 5, 7, and 11 of Article 70, Paragraph 4 of Article 76, Item 3 of Paragraph 2 of Article 86, Paragraph 4 of Article 90, Paragraph 3 of Article 91, Paragraphs 2, 4, 6, and 8 of Article 93, Article 94, Paragraph 5 of Article 95, and Article 96 of the Law on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) (hereinafter also referred to as the Law) are not in conflict with certain articles of the Constitution, was received at the Constitutional Court.

2. The petition of the petitioner is grounded on the provisions of the official constitutional doctrine which construe the autonomy and funding of schools of higher education as well as the criteria enabling to establish which persons are to be regarded as being good at their studies. In the opinion of the petitioner, the most important provisions of the constitutional doctrine which substantiate its petition are the following:

according to the Constitution, the legislator, while not denying the principle of autonomy of schools of higher education, may establish by means of laws the bases of organisational and governance structure of schools of higher education;

governance institutions of schools of higher education that perform the functions of self-governance of the school of higher education are formed by the schools of higher education themselves; the ways and procedure of forming such institutions are established, according to the bases that are entrenched in laws, by the schools of higher education in their regulations or statutes;

as a rule, these institutions of schools of higher education are formed from members of their academic community; aautonomy of schools of higher education implies the right of schools of higher education to provide that not only members of academic community of the particular school of higher education could become members of such institution.

representatives of the institutions of the executive power of the state may be appointed to the institutions of schools of higher education which perform functions of control and supervision and the purpose of which is to ensure responsibility and accountability of the school of higher education before society; the legislator, while not denying the principle of autonomy of schools of higher education, may establish, by means of laws, the ways and procedure of forming such institutions;

free-of-charge education is guaranteed at state schools of higher education to the citizens who study subsequent to the requisition by the state in order to meet the demand of specialists of corresponding areas (fields), which is established by the state, providing their learning corresponds to the criteria of good learning established by law;

the criteria enabling to establish which students are good at their studies and which would, consequently, as prescribed by the Constitution, have the right that their education in state higher schools be financed by the state, must be established only by law;

higher education tuition of citizens who are good at their studies cannot be imposed on these persons themselves in whatever form;

the assessment of the results of learning (according to the criteria of good learning established by law) of the citizens who study in state schools of higher education subsequent to the requisition by the state (i.e. in order to meet the demand of specialists of corresponding areas (fields), which is established by the state) must be conducted on a regular basis after checking the knowledge of the studied subjects after each period of academic learning;

the citizens who were admitted in state schools of higher education to study subsequent to the requisition by the state (i.e. in order to meet the demand of specialists of corresponding areas (fields), which is established by the state) must be guaranteed the education free of charge till the first basic checking of the knowledge of the subjects studied by them;

the Constitution does not contain a prohibition for the state to undertake higher financial obligations, in accordance with its possibilities, to students of higher schools;
the undertaking of higher financial obligations than implied in the constitutional provision stipulating that citizens who are good at their studies shall be guaranteed education free of charge in state higher schools should not deny the striving for a just and harmonious society enshrined in the Constitution;

upon assessing the needs of society and the state and the financial capabilities of the state, in cases when specialists of particular areas (fields) cannot be prepared in state schools of higher education due to objective circumstances, they may be prepared also in non-state schools of higher education upon requisition of the state and from funds of the State Budget; in such a case the state must guarantee that the expenses of learning (studies) of such specialists will be covered by state funds, in cases the learning of the said individuals will meet the criteria of good learning established by law.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

1. The group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, has requested to investigate whether the provision “The Lithuanian policy on science and studies guarantees <...> conditions for the best of them to conduct their research” of the Preamble, Item 6 of Paragraph 2 of Article 3, the provision “A state school of higher education shall be a public legal person functioning as a public establishment, possessing the autonomy guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and the special status defined by this and other laws” of Paragraph 4 of Article 6, Item 2 of Paragraph 3 of Article 7, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 8, Paragraph 3 of Article 9, Item 4 of Paragraph 1 and Item 2 of Paragraph 2 of Article 11, Paragraph 2 of Article 17, Paragraphs 1 and 6 and Items 1, 4, and 8 of Paragraph 12 of Article 18, Articles 19, 20, 21, 22, and 39, Paragraph 2 of Article 48, Paragraph 4 of Article 53, Paragraph 3 of Article 66, Paragraph 2 of Article 69, Paragraphs 2, 5, 7, and 11 of Article 70, Paragraph 4 of Article 76, Item 3 of Paragraph 2 of Article 86, Paragraph 4 of Article 90, Paragraph 3 of Article 91, Paragraphs 2, 4, 6, and 8 of Article 93, Article 94, Paragraph 5 of Article 95, and Article 96 of the Law are not in conflict with certain articles of the Constitution.

The petition was submitted by the group of Members of the Seimas. Under Paragraph 1 of Article 106 of the Constitution and Item 1 of Article 65 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, a group of Members of the Seimas has the right to apply to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting to investigate whether laws of the Republic of Lithuania are not in conflict with the Constitution. Under Paragraph 1 of Article 102 and Paragraph 1 of Article 105 of the Constitution and Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 63 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, this petition falls within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.

2. Under Item 8 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, a petition for the investigation of the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution, whereby one applies to the Constitutional Court, must contain the position of the petitioner concerning the compliance of an appropriate act with the Constitution and legal support of such position containing reference to laws.

While construing the said item of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court has held more than once that “the position of the petitioner concerning the compliance of a legal act (part thereof) with the Constitution according to the content of the norms and/or the scope of regulation must be indicated clearly and unambiguously, the petition must contain the arguments and reasoning grounding the doubt of the petitioner that the legal act (part thereof) is in conflict with the Constitution. Thus, the petition requesting to investigate the compliance of a legal act (part thereof) with the Constitution according to the content of norms and/or the scope of regulation must clearly indicate concrete articles (parts thereof), items of the legal act the compliance of which with the Constitution is doubtful from the petitioner’s viewpoint, also concrete provisions—norms and/or principles—of the Constitution, to which, in the opinion of the petitioner, the concretely indicated articles or items of the disputed legal act contradict. The petition requesting to investigate the compliance of a legal act (part thereof) with the Constitution according to the content of norms and/or the scope of regulation must also clearly indicate the legal arguments grounding the doubt of the petitioner as regards every concretely indicated article (part thereof) or item of the disputed legal act (part thereof), the compliance of which with the concretely indicated provisions of the Constitution is doubtful to the petitioner. Otherwise, the request to investigate the compliance of a legal act (part thereof) with the Constitution according to the content of norms and/or the scope of regulation must be considered to be not in line with the requirements of Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court”.

It also needs to be noted that if, in the petition, one does not indicate concrete articles (parts thereof), items of the legal act, the compliance of which with the Constitution is doubtful to the petitioner, nor concrete provisions—norms and/or principles—of the Constitution to which, in the opinion of the petitioner, the concretely indicated articles (parts thereof) or items of the disputed legal act contradict according to the content of the norms and/or scope of regulation, nor the legal arguments grounding the doubt of the petitioner concerning each concretely indicated article (part thereof) or item of the disputed legal act (part thereof), the compliance of which with the concretely indicated provisions of the Constitution according to the content of norms and/or scope of regulation is doubtful to the petitioner, and in case such a request was accepted at the Constitutional Court and a case was commenced subsequent to it, one would also restrict the rights of the party concerned, the state institution that has passed the disputed legal act, since it would be more difficult for the person concerned to present explanations concerning the arguments of the petitioner and to prepare for the judicial consideration (Constitutional Court ruling of 16 April 2004).

3. The petitioner requests to investigate whether Item 6 of Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Law, wherein it is established that studies shall be grounded on the principle of fair competition of higher education institutions and students, is not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. The petitioner quotes the provisions of the constitutional doctrine regarding the autonomy of schools of higher education and the guarantee of free-of-charge education in state schools of higher education, however, he does not substantiate in what way the said provisions are related with the disputed legal regulation, which is established in Item 6 of Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Law, and why they are in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

4. The petitioner has doubts as to whether the provisions “1. The supervisor of academic ethics and procedures (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Supervisor’) shall be a state officer who examines complaints and initiates investigation regarding the violation of academic ethics and procedures. <...> 12. Upon having examined the complaint or completed the investigation, the Supervisor shall take a decision: 1) to inform institutions of science and studies and the Ministry of Education and Science about the persons who have violated the academic ethics and procedures; <...> 4) to recommend to an employee to refuse participating in an ongoing project of research and experimental (social, cultural) development; <...> 8) to make public the cases about the violation of academic ethics and procedures; <...>” of Paragraph 1 and Items 1, 4, and 8 of Paragraph 12 of Article 18 of the Law are not in conflict with Paragraph 3 (“Schools of higher education shall be granted autonomy”) of Article 40 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. While disputing the compliance of the aforesaid provisions with the Constitution, the petitioner provides the quotation from the Constitutional Court rulings: “Traditionally, the autonomy of a school of higher education is conceived as the right to independently determine and establish in the regulations or statute its organisational and governance structure, its relations with other partners, the procedure of research and studies, academic syllabi, the procedure of students’ enrolment, to resolve other related questions, as well as that there are certain spheres of activities, independent from the control of the executive power” (Constitutional Court rulings of 27 June 1994, 14 January 2002, 5 February 2002, and 20 February 2008). However, the petitioner does not substantiate in what way his quoted provisions of the Constitutional Court rulings are related with the legal regulation (disputed by the petitioner), which is established in Paragraph 1 and Items 1, 4, and 8 of Paragraph 12 of Article 18 of the Law, and does not provide any legal reasoning why the legal regulation, established in this law, according to the petitioner, is in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 40 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

5. The petitioner doubts whether the provision “A person of the good repute, having a scientific degree and experience in management shall be appointed to the office of the Supervisor” of Paragraph 6 of Article 18 of the Law is not in conflict with the provision “Citizens shall have the right to participate in the governance of their State both directly and through their democratically elected representatives as well as the right to enter on equal terms in the State service of the Republic of Lithuania” of Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Constitution, the provision “Each human being may freely choose a job or business” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

The petitioner maintains that grounded requirements must be set for persons willing to hold any office and does not see any “grounded legal reasoning requiring a scientific degree and experience in management” of candidates who seek to be admitted to the office of the supervisor of academic ethics and procedures. The petition of the petitioner presents no arguments why the legal regulation, established by the disputed provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 18 of the Law, according to the petitioner, is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 33 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. The petitioner also does not substantiate why the disputed provision of Paragraph 6 of Article 18 of the Law limits the constitutional right of persons to enter on equal terms in the state service of the Republic of Lithuania.

6. The petitioner also has doubts whether the provisions “The term of office of the rector (director) shall be five years. The same person may be elected rector (director) of the same school of higher education for not more than two terms of office in succession and not earlier than after the lapse of five years since the end of the last term of office, if the last term of office was consecutively second” of Paragraph 8 of Article 22 of the Law are not in conflict with certain articles of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. In the opinion of the petitioner, the law must set out grounded requirements for persons willing to hold certain office, however, the petitioner does not provide any legal reasoning why the disputed provision of Paragraph 8 of Article 22 of the Law is in conflict with Paragraph 3 (“Schools of higher education shall be granted autonomy”) of Article 40 of the Constitution, the provision “Each human being may freely choose a job or business” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 thereof and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

7. It has been mentioned that the petition requesting to investigate the compliance of a legal act (part thereof) with the Constitution must clearly indicate the legal reasoning grounding the doubt of the petitioner as regards every concretely indicated article (part thereof) or item of the disputed legal act (part thereof), the compliance of which with the concretely indicated provisions of the Constitution is doubtful to the petitioner.

It needs to be held that the petition of the group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, to the extent that it requests to investigate the compliance of Item 6 of Paragraph 2 of Article 3, Paragraphs 1 and 6 and Items 1, 4, and 8 of Paragraph 12 of Article 18, and Paragraph 8 of Article 22 of the Law with certain articles of the Constitution, is not in line with the requirements of Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court.

If a petition (part thereof) fails to comply with the requirements set forth in Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, under Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, such petition shall be returned to the petitioner. The return of a petition shall not take away the right to apply to the Constitutional Court according to the common procedure after removal of the deficiencies thereof.

8. The petition of the group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, to the extent that it requests to investigate whether the provision “The Lithuanian policy on science and studies guarantees <...> conditions for the best of them to conduct their research” of the Preamble, the provision “A state school of higher education shall be a public legal person functioning as a public establishment, possessing the autonomy guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and the special status defined by this and other laws” of Paragraph 4 of Article 6, Item 2 of Paragraph 3 of Article 7, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 8, Paragraph 3 of Article 9, Item 4 of Paragraph 1 and Item 2 of Paragraph 2 of Article 11, Paragraph 2 of Article 17, Articles 19, 20, 21, 22 (except Paragraph 8 of Article 22), and 39, Paragraph 2 of Article 48, Paragraph 4 of Article 53, Paragraph 3 of Article 66, Paragraph 2 of Article 69, Paragraphs 2, 5, 7, and 11 of Article 70, Paragraph 4 of Article 76, Item 3 of Paragraph 2 of Article 86, Paragraph 4 of Article 90, Paragraph 3 of Article 91, Paragraphs 2, 4, 6, and 8 of Article 93, Article 94, Paragraph 5 of Article 95, and Article 96 of the Law are not in conflict with certain articles of the Constitution, is grounded on legal reasoning and is also virtually in line with the requirements established in the Law on the Constitutional Court, therefore, to this extent, the petition is to be accepted for the consideration at the Constitutional Court.

9. The decision of the Constitutional Court on accepting the petition neither approves of nor denies the arguments upon which the group of Members of the Seimas, the petitioner, grounds its position; when adopting such decision, the fact of essential significance is whether the petition of the petitioner is grounded on legal reasoning (Constitutional Court decisions of 15 December 2006, 8 January 2008, 8 October 2008, 3 April 2009, and 14 May 2009).

Conforming to Paragraph 1 of Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, Paragraph 3 of Article 22 and Articles 25, 28, 66, and 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has passed the following

decision:

1. To accept the petition of the group of Members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether:

the provision “The Lithuanian policy on science and studies guarantees <...> conditions for the best of them to conduct their research” of the Preamble of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 25, Paragraph 1 of Article 42, Paragraph 1 of Article 46, and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

the provision “A state school of higher education shall be a public legal person functioning as a public establishment, possessing the autonomy guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and the special status defined by this and other laws” of Paragraph 4 of Article 6, Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 8, Paragraph 3 of Article 9, Articles 19, 20, 21, and 22 (except Paragraph 8 of Article 22), Paragraph 4 of Article 53, Item 3 of Paragraph 2 of Article 86, Paragraph 4 of Article 90, and Paragraph 3 of Article 91 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) are not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 40 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

Item 2 of Paragraph 3 of Article 7 and Item 2 of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) are not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and that one of equality of persons;

Item 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 42, Paragraph 1 of Article 46, and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

Paragraph 2 of Article 17 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 33, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 35, and Paragraph 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

Article 39 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) is not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 40 and Paragraph 1 of Article 42 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

Paragraph 2 of Article 48 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) is not in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 40, Paragraph 1 of Article 42, and Paragraphs 3 and 7 of Article 43 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

Paragraph 3 of Article 66 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) is not in conflict with Article 18, Paragraph 1 of Article 25, Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Article 26, and Paragraphs 3 and 7 of Article 43 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;

Paragraph 2 of Article 69 and Paragraph 4 of Article 76 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) are not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 41 and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

Paragraphs 2, 5, 7, and 11 of Article 70 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) are not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

Paragraphs 2, 4, 6, and 8 of Article 93 (“Implementation of the Law”), Article 94 (“Entry into force and application of the provisions of Chapter VII of the Law”), and Article 96 (“Restructuring of state schools of higher education from budgetary establishments into public establishments”) of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) are not in conflict with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law, legitimate expectations, legal certainty, and legal security, as well as whether Paragraph 4 of Article 96 of this law is not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 40 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;

Paragraph 5 of Article 94 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) is not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 40 and Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

Paragraph 5 of Article 95 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

2. To return the petition of the group of Members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, requesting to investigate whether:

Item 6 of Paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) is not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

Paragraph 1 and Items 1, 4, and 8 of Paragraph 12 of Article 18 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) are not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 40 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

Paragraph 6 of Article 18 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 33 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;

Paragraph 8 of Article 22 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on Science and Studies (wording of 30 April 2009) is not in conflict with Paragraph 3 of Article 40 and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

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

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

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