Lt

On the procedure for organising referendums

Case No. 23/94

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

R U L I N G

On the compliance of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law “On the Procedure for the Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law ‘On Amending and Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Referendums’” of 4 July 1994 and the Seimas Resolution “On the Referendum on the Promulgation of the Provisions of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law ‘On the Unlawful Privatisation, Devaluated Accounts and Shares, and Violations of Legal Protection’” of 12 July 1994 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania

1 December 1994, Vilnius

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed from the Justices of the Constitutional Court: Algirdas Gailiūnas, Kęstutis Lapinskas, Zigmas Levickis, Vladas Pavilonis, Pranas Vytautas Rasimavičius, Stasys Stačiokas, Teodora Staugaitienė, Stasys Šedbaras, and Juozas Žilys

The court reporter—Rolanda Stimbirytė

Seimas member Kęstutis Skrebys and Seimas member Vidmantas Žiemelis, acting as the representatives of a group of members of the Seimas, the petitioner

Deputy Seimas Speaker Juozas Bernatonis, acting as the representative of the Seimas, the party concerned

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its public hearing, on 29 November 1994, considered case No. 23/94 subsequent to the petition submitted to the Court by a group of Seimas members requesting an investigation into whether the Republic of Lithuania’s Law “On the Procedure for the Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law ‘On Amending and Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Referendums’” of 4 July 1994 and the Seimas Resolution “On the Referendum on the Promulgation of the Provisions of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law ‘On the Unlawful Privatisation, Devaluated Accounts and Shares, and Violations of Legal Protection’” of 12 July 1994 are in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

The Constitutional Court

has established:

I

On 4 July 1994, the Seimas adopted the Law “On the Procedure for the Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law ‘On Amending and Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Referendums’” (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1994, No. 51-953), and, on 12 July 1994, passed the Resolution “On the Referendum on the Promulgation of the Provisions of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law ‘On the Unlawful Privatisation, Devaluated Accounts and Shares, and Violations of Legal Protection’” (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1994, No. 54-1023).

A group of Seimas members, the petitioner, request that the Constitutional Court examine if the Law “On the Procedure for the Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law ‘On Amending and Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Referendums’” of 4 July 1994 and the Seimas Resolution “On the Referendum on the Promulgation of the Provisions of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law ‘On the Unlawful Privatisation, Devaluated Accounts and Shares, and Violations of Legal Protection’” of 12 July 1994 are in conformity with Articles 3, 9, 33 and 67 of the Constitution.

II

The petitioner’s request is based on the following arguments.

The initiative group of citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, conforming to then valid Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Referendums (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1989, No. 33-445; 1990, Nos. 4-86, 31-755; 1992, No. 18-515) and procedure and terms prescribed by this Law, realised the initiative right to call a referendum vested in citizens: filed the requisite documents for the submittal for a referendum on the Constitutional Law “On the Unlawful Privatisation, Devaluated Accounts and Shares, and Violations of Legal Protection” drafted by the Homeland Union (Lithuanian Conservatives). This had been done prior to the enforcement of the Law “On Amending and Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Referendums” of 15 June 1994 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1994, No. 47-870). This fact has been also confirmed in the operative part of the Decision “On the Conclusions Concerning the Documents of the Initiative Group for the Calling of a Referendum” adopted on 7 July 1994 by the Central Electoral Commission which had been commissioned to check the documents submitted by the initiative group under the Seimas Resolution “On the Documents for the Calling of a Referendum Submitted by the Initiative Group” of 21 June 1994 which reads: “to confirm the conclusion that the documents submitted by the initiative group containing the requirement to call a referendum on the Republic of Lithuania’s Constitutional Law ‘On the Unlawful Privatisation, Devaluated Accounts and Shares, and Violations of Legal Protection’, is consistent with the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Referendums <...>”.

The petitioner maintains that the Seimas by the Resolution “On the Referendum on the Promulgation of the Provisions of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law ‘On the Unlawful Privatisation, Devaluated Accounts and Shares, and Violations of Legal Protection’” of 12 July 1994 ignored the initiative right to call a referendum vested in the citizens by the first, third and fourth paragraphs of Article 9 of the Constitution, “<...> because, according to said resolution, the referendum was called on another issue than it had been requested by the citizens. Under Item 1 of the mentioned act, a referendum shall be called ‘On the Provisions of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law “On the Unlawful Privatisation, Devaluated Accounts and Shares, and Violations of Legal Protection”’, whereas in Item 3 thereof it is resolved ‘to submit for a referendum eight provisions of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law “On the Unlawful Privatisation, Devaluated Accounts and Shares, and Violations of Legal Protection”’”.

Furthermore, by Item 2 of said resolution, the Seimas “also resolved to hold that the proposal of the initiative group concerning a constitutional law or constitutional provisions was not in conformity with Article 69 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania”. Although this question was not considered at a sitting, the Seimas decided that “provisions of the law of the Republic of Lithuania shall be submitted for a referendum”. In the petitioner’s opinion, this “limits the sovereign right of the Nation to directly participate in the government of their State, established in Article 33 of the Constitution which forbids any limitation on the sovereign powers of the Nation. It should also be noted that legal acts enumerated in Article 150 of the Constitution have already been ascribed to constitutional laws by the direct manifestation of the will of the Nation <...>”.

The above-mentioned Seimas resolution “<...> has established additional conditions for conducting a referendum—Item 3 of said resolution has determined that the provisions of the law shall be submitted for a referendum ‘unless these provisions of the law are adopted by the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania until the referendum day’”.

The petitioner also maintains that the Seimas, “while adopting Items 2 and 3 of said resolution, violated the provisions of the second and third paragraphs of Article 12 of the specified in the preamble Law on Referendums to which the Seimas members had conformed in the adoption of this act and which regulated the procedure for the adoption of a Seimas resolution on the requirement to call a referendum”.

On 15 June 1994 the Seimas adopted the Law “On Amending and Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Referendums”, which entered into force on 22 June 1994. Following the petitioner, “upon the enforcement of new legal norms regulating the procedure for realisation of the initiative right to call a referendum, also the procedure for calling and conducting a referendum, the legal fact had already occurred—the citizens’ initiative right to call a referendum had already been realised in the procedure prescribed by the law. Therefore, the application of newly adopted legal norms to the citizens’ demands to call a referendum which had been already been realised, implies their application to facts and legal consequences that had appeared prior to the enforcement of a normative act.”

In the petitioner’s opinion, the Law “On the Procedure for the Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law ‘On Amending and Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Referendums’” of 4 July 1994, “<...> according to the scope of regulation, contradicts Articles 3 and 9 of the Constitution as it limits the sovereign powers of the Nation to call a referendum. The above-mentioned Law prescribes that the provisions of the first, second, third and fourth paragraphs of Article 9 as well as third paragraph of Article 11 of said Law shall not be applied for the citizens’ initiatives to call a referendum the realisation of which had been started prior to the enforcement of the 15 June 1994 Law ‘On Amending and Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Referendums’. However, the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 1, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 3, Paragraph 4 of Article 4, Paragraph 1 of Article 7, Article 8, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 9, Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 10, and Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the then valid Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Referendums had already been realised until the specified date, therefore, the preliminary consideration of the citizens’ proposal had to be started in the procedure prescribed by Article 11 of the mentioned Law and the referendum had to be called in the procedure established in Articles 12 and 13 of the same Law.”

During the court hearing the petitioner’s representatives actually repeated the reasoning specified in the petition.

On the grounds of the above-mentioned reasoning, the petitioner and his representatives request that the Constitutional Court examine if the Law “On the Procedure for the Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law ‘On Amending and Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Referendums’” of 4 July 1994 and the Seimas Resolution “On the Referendum on the Promulgation of the Provisions of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law ‘On the Unlawful Privatisation, Devaluated Accounts and Shares, and Violations of Legal Protection’” of 12 July 1994 are in compliance with Articles 3, 9, 33 and 67 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

III

During the court hearing, a representative of the party concerned explained that, in his opinion, the petitioner’s request is not justified.

By way of answering to the petitioner’s statement that the Law according to the scope of regulation contradicts Articles 3 and 9 of the Constitution he submitted the following arguments.

First, the impugned Law was not adopted for one particular referendum because signatures for the referendum on a pre-term election to the Seimas were already being collected at that time.

Second, the Law specified that these amendments concerning the collection of signatures and their verification would not be applied to already started initiatives for referendums.

Third, although the Constitutional Court had already investigated the petition of Seimas members and on 22 July 1994 passed the ruling on the compliance of the 15 June 1994 Law “On Amending and Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Referendums” with the Constitution, the petitioner however has doubts as to the constitutionality of the application of this Law.

Fourth, the legislation process concerning the adoption of laws in the Seimas as well as by referendum consists of several stages the main of which are as follows: the realisation of the initiative right of legislation, consideration of a draft, adoption of a draft, promulgation and enforcement of the adopted law. The Law on Referendums not only establishes the procedure for expressing initiative, collection of signatures and their presentation, but also the procedure for calling a referendum, consideration of the submitted draft and its adoption as well as the enforcement of an act adopted by referendum. That is why the Seimas passed the impugned Law—in order that the new norms would not be applied to the stage of the expression of the initiative.

Fifth, the petitioner’s statement that the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 1, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 3, Paragraph 4 of Article 4, Paragraph 1 of Article 7, Article 8, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 9, Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 10, and Paragraph 2 of Article 13 could not be applied is not justified in any way because said provisions had already been realised.

The representative of the party concerned has also explained the essence of the amendments to the Law on Referendums;

The first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 only echoes the constitutional norms that were valid already prior to its amendment;

Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 3 establish the procedure for a referendum campaign. These norms have been particularised by specifying that the procedure for the campaign in mass media shall be determined by the Central Electoral Commission;

The norms of the fourth paragraph of Article 4 are not related to the realisation of the initiative right vested in the citizens, they only prescribe rights and duties for mass media during referendum;

It has been recognised that Article 7 is null and void, whereas the norm of the first paragraph of Article 7 mentioned by the petitioner has been repeated in Article 1;

Only two notions from Article 8 have undergone amending, namely: the notion “for the deputies of the Supreme Council” has been replaced by “for Seimas members” and the notion “for citizens” has been used instead of “for the people”;

In the first paragraph of Article 10 the non-existing institution “Supreme Council” was superseded by the notion “Speaker of the Seimas”, whereas the second paragraph was subjected to no changes; in the third paragraph the notion “Presidium of the Supreme Council” was substituted by the “Central Electoral Commission”;

The second paragraph of Article 13 establishes that initiators of a referendum shall make amendments to the draft and shall publicise them within 15 days before referendum. Under the earlier valid norm, the signatures could be collected in support of one draft whereas another draft could be called, which was not in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

Sixth, the situation was such that some norms of the earlier Law on Referendums were no longer valid and could no longer be applied. Realising that, the legislature adopted amendments to the Law on Referendums.

In the opinion of the representative of the party concerned, many of the petitioner’s statements concerning the Seimas Resolution “On the Referendum on the Promulgation of the Provisions of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law ‘On the Unlawful Privatisation, Devaluated Accounts and Shares, and Violations of Legal Protection’” of 12 July 1994 are also not justified.

On 22 June 1994, the initiative group submitted the last draft to the Seimas. The initiators proposed to submit for a referendum a draft constitutional law, however it would have contradicted Article 69 of the Constitution, in the third paragraph of which it is established: “The Seimas shall establish a list of constitutional laws by a three-fifths majority vote of the Seimas members”. In its Ruling “On the Compliance of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law ‘On a Partial Amendment and Supplement to the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Elections to the Seimas’ of 16 March 1993 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania” of 8 November 1993, the Constitutional Court stated that “the constituent parts of the Constitution shall primarily be the laws established in Article 150 of the Constitution. Only the Seimas is empowered with enumerating other constitutional laws.”

Since such a list did not exist at the moment when the draft was submitted, the legislature could not call the draft submitted for a referendum a constitutional law. The Seimas, conforming to the second paragraph of Article 12 of the Law on Referendums, maintained that “the proposal of the initiative group concerning the constitutional law of the Republic of Lithuania or constitutional provisions was not consistent with Article 69 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania”. Such a right of the Seimas was also recognised by the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 22 July 1994. Therefore, the petitioner’s statement that another question was submitted for a referendum, does not fit to reality.

The representative of the party concerned has also acknowledged that the provision of Item 3 of the impugned Seimas resolution stating that the provisions shall be proposed for a referendum “unless they are adopted by the Seimas until the referendum day”, is not in compliance with the Constitution.

On the grounds of these arguments, the representative of the party concerned requests that the Constitutional Court recognise that the Republic of Lithuania’s Law “On the Procedure for the Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law ‘On Amending and Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Referendums’” of 4 July 1994 and the Seimas Resolution “On the Referendum on the Promulgation of the Provisions of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law ‘On the Unlawful Privatisation, Devaluated Accounts and Shares, and Violations of Legal Protection’” of 12 July 1994 are consistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

  1. On the compliance of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law “On the Procedure for the Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law ‘On Amending and Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Referendums’” of 4 July 1994 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

The Constitutional Court in its ruling of 16 March 1994 stated that “in the sphere of legal regulation a general rule is valid: a law has no retroactive validity. The essence of this rule is that laws, except some particular cases, normally ‘do not go to the past’, i.e. they are not applied to legal facts that have already occurred, and legal consequences that existed prior to the enforcement of the newly adopted normative act” (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1994, No. 22-366). This provision was once again repeated in the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 15 July 1994 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1994, No. 56-1103).

First of all, it must be noted that, at the time of the adoption of the impugned Law, the legal relations concerning initiation and organisation had not finished yet, therefore, there were no grounds for speaking about the legal consequences that appeared then. This is concerned with the fact that the relations regarding the organization of a referendum are continuous legal relations. Besides, in the case in question, certain amendments to the Law on Referendums had to be made in order to ensure the positive run, i.e. continuity, of said relations. Such objective necessity was preconditioned by the Constitution and new structure of the Parliament. Consequently, the adoption of such amendments by itself did not imply the retroactive validity of new norms, because at the moment in question concrete legal consequences did not actually exist yet.

Secondly, the statement that making one’s initiative to organise a referendum already implies the beginning of a referendum, is not justified. The formation of an initiative group, the collection of citizen’s signatures for organising a referendum, the filing of documents and their verification and consideration—these are only obligatory actions in the process of referendum organisation. The Seimas resolution to call a referendum may be adopted only after the above-mentioned actions have been performed (with the exception of cases when a referendum is called on the Seimas initiative). It should be noted that failing to perform the most important preliminary actions (e. g. failing to collect the necessary number of citizens’ signatures within the established period of time) would mean a breach of the organisational process of a referendum. After the Seimas passes a resolution to call a referendum, direct preparation for a referendum shall start—referendum commissions and polling districts shall be formed, voter lists shall be verified, referendum campaign shall take place. Referendum (i.e. citizens’ vote) shall be conducted on the day specified in the Seimas resolution and at the time prescribed by the law. Only in cases and procedure provided by law when voting takes place by post, citizens shall participate in referendum earlier than the appointed day.

Thirdly, the impugned Law itself prescribed that the norms which might change already existing legal relations concerning referendum organisation could not be applied. Namely, it was established that “the provisions of Paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Article 9, also Paragraph 3 of Article 11 of this Law would not be applied to the citizens’ initiatives to call a referendum the implementation of which had been started before the enforcement of amendments to the Law on Referendums”. It should be noted that this is all the contents of the impugned Law. Therefore, the petitioner’s statement that “this Law, according to the scope of regulation, contradicts Articles 3 and 9 of the Constitution as it limits the power of the Nation to call a referendum” is not grounded on legal reasoning. By the impugned Law the Seimas only realised the right vested therein to establish the procedure for the enforcement of the already adopted law. Therefore, the Law “On the Procedure for the Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law ‘On Amending and Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Referendums’” of 4 July 1994 is in conformity with the Constitution.

  1. On the compliance of the Seimas Resolution “On the Referendum on the Promulgation of the Provisions of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law ‘On the Unlawful Privatisation, Devaluated Accounts and Shares, and Violations of Legal Protection’” of 12 July 1994 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania

2.1. The petitioner maintains that under Items 1 and 3 of said resolution “the referendum was called on another than required by the citizens issue”. The petitioner bases his statement on the fact that the title of the draft law was specified by adding the word “provisions” (i.e. “provisions <...> of the law”). The representative of the party concerned explained that the concretisation of the title of the law conformed to the norm of the fourth paragraph of Article 69 of the Constitution which reads that “provisions of the laws <...> may also be adopted by referendum”. This question has already been resolved in the Constitutional Court’s Ruling “On the Compliance of the Provisions of Items 1, 9, 12 and 39 of the Law ‘On Amending and Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Referendums’ of 15 June 1994, by which Articles 1, 9, 12 and 32 of the Law on Referendums have been Amended or Supplemented, with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania” of 22 July 1994 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1994, No. 57-1120). The second paragraph of Item 2 of the reasoning of said Ruling runs: “<...> the notion ‘provisions of laws’ used in the Constitution may be understood equally as an integral law as well as separate norms of a law. A law as well as its constituent parts always consist of certain provisions that become legal norms only in the process of legislation. However, it does not mean that a law and provisions of laws have different legal power in the stage of their submittal for a referendum as well as after their adoption by referendum”. The Constitutional Court did not establish that the Seimas had changed the contents of the draft law submitted for a referendum, i.e. concrete norms of said draft law. Thus, the petitioner’s statement that “referendum was called on another than required by the citizens’ question” is not justified.

2.2. The petitioner argues that Item 2 of the impugned resolution has unlawfully changed the form of the act proposed for a referendum: i.e. “provisions of the laws of the Republic of Lithuania were submitted” for a referendum instead of a constitutional law (or constitutional provisions).

Constitutional laws are mentioned in Articles 69 and 72 of the Constitution. Said laws differ from other laws primarily by the procedure of their adoption and amendment. Constitutional laws shall be deemed adopted if more than half of all the members of the Seimas vote in the affirmative; they shall be amended by at least a three-fifths majority vote of all the Seimas members. Meanwhile, other laws (including their amendments) shall be deemed adopted if the majority of the Seimas members participating in the sitting vote in the affirmative. Furthermore, said procedure for the adoption and amendment of laws is concerned with the peculiar place these laws occupy in the legal system and specific relations the norms of constitutional laws are in with constitutional norms.

Article 69 of the Constitution prescribes: “The Seimas shall establish a list of constitutional laws by a three-fifths majority vote of the Seimas members.” The Constitution does not prescribe another procedure for the establishment of constitutional laws than the above-mentioned one and the procedure for making amendments to the Constitution. Constitutional norms are equally binding on all legal persons, including groups for initiating a referendum as well as citizens’ groups of any size. The latter may not be either identified with the Nation or speak on behalf of the Nation. The Nation normally expresses its will directly by referendum or during direct general elections, i.e. only after a referendum or a direct general election the will of the Nation with regard to concrete issues becomes known. The parliament—the democratically elected representation of the Nation—indirectly expresses the will of the Nation.

Thus, according to the Constitution, only the Seimas shall establish a list of constitutional laws. Consequently, in the above-mentioned case, the Seimas, while crossing out the word “constitutional” from the title of the draft law proposed for a referendum, acted in compliance with the powers vested therein. This fact has already been stated in the Constitutional Court Ruling “On the Compliance of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law ‘On a Partial Amendment and Supplement to the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Elections to the Seimas’ of 16 March 1993 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania” of 8 November 1993.

2.3. The petitioner maintains that the provision “unless the provisions of this Law are adopted by the Seimas until the referendum day” of Item 3 of the impugned resolution implies the establishment of additional conditions for conducting a referendum, which contradicts the Constitution.

This question has been resolved on its merits in the Constitutional Court’s Ruling “On the Compliance of the Provisions of Items 1, 9, 12 and 39 of the Law ‘On Amending and Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Referendums’ of 15 June 1994, by Which Articles 1, 9, 12 and 32 of the Law on Referendums have been Amended or Supplemented, with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania” of 22 July 1994. Under Item 7 of that ruling it was recognised that “the norm of Item 12 which supplemented Article 12 of the Law on Referendums with the third paragraph”, contradicted the Constitution. In said Constitutional Court ruling it was noted that “the Constitution, however, does not prescribe that the Seimas may do any other activities or accept for consideration the draft legal act submitted for a referendum, thus, limiting the citizens’ right to initiate a referendum and voice their will with regard to the submitted draft law or a draft of any other legal act”. The impugned provision of the Seimas resolution in essence echoed the norm of the 15 June 1994 Law “On Amending and Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Referendums” which by the said Constitutional Court ruling was ruled to be contradicting the Constitution. According to Article 72 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, this provision is null and void and may not be applied.

On the grounds of the arguments mentioned above, the Constitutional Court has drawn the conclusion that the Seimas Resolution “On the Referendum on the Promulgation of the Provisions of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law ‘On the Unlawful Privatisation, Devaluated Accounts and Shares, and Violations of Legal Protection’” of 12 July 1994, with the exception of the provision of Item 3 “unless these provisions of the law are adopted by the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania until the referendum day”, which, under the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 22 July 1994, is null and void, does not contradict the Constitution.

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

ruling:

  1. To recognise that the Republic of Lithuania’s Law “On the Procedure for the Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law ‘On Amending and Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Referendums’” of 4 July 1994 is in conformity with the Constitution.
  2. To recognise that the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania “On the Referendum on the Promulgation of the Provisions of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law ‘On the Unlawful Privatisation, Devaluated Accounts and Shares, and Violations of Legal Protection’” of 12 July 1994, with the exception of the provision of Item 3 “unless these provisions of the law are adopted by the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania until the referendum day”, which, under the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 22 July 1994, is null and void, does not contradict the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

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

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

Justices of the Constitutional Court:

Algirdas Gailiūnas                           Kęstutis Lapinskas                           Zigmas Levickis

Vladas Pavilonis                              Pranas Vytautas Rasimavičius         Teodora Staugaitienė

Stasys Šedbaras                               Juozas Žilys