Lt

On the amendments to the Law on Referendums

Case No. 18/94

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

R U L I N G

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

22 July 1994, Vilnius

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

The court reporter—Rolanda Stimbirytė

Seimas member Alfonsas Vaišnoras and Zenonas Juknevičius, acting as the representatives of a group of members of the Seimas, the petitioner

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

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to the 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 20 July 1994, considered case No. 18/94 subsequent to the petition submitted to the Court by a group of members of the Seimas requesting an investigation into whether the provisions of Items 1, 9, 12 and 39 of the Law “On Amending and Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Referendums”, adopted 15 June 1994, by which Articles 1, 9, 12 and 32 of the Law on Referendums have been amended or supplemented, are consistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania

The Constitutional Court

has established:

1.

The Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania on 15 June 1994 adopted the Law “On Amending and Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Referendums” (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1994, No. 47-870).

The petitioner requests an investigation into whether the part of Item 1 of this Law, by which Article 1 of the Law on Referendums has been amended; the part of Item 9, by which the first and the third paragraphs of Article of the Law on Referendums have been amended; the part of Item 12, by which Article 12 of the Law on Referendums has been supplemented with Paragraphs 2 and 3; and the part of Item 39, by which the second paragraph of Article 32 the Law on Referendums became Paragraph 5 after the new formulation of said Article of the Law on Referendums, are in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

2.

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

  1. The amendment to Article 1 of the Law on Referendums specifying that not the laws but only the provisions of the laws may be adopted by referendum meant violation of the substance of Articles 4, 9, 33 and the third paragraph of Article 71 of the Constitution, as they speak only about laws adopted by referendum.

Furthermore, the Seimas exceeded its powers by establishing in Article 1 in its new wording that “provisions of laws on economic issues may be adopted by referendum only after an economic examination of possible consequences”. Thus, the right to referendum is related to the economic examination, and, moreover, experts appointed by no one knows whom are entitled to the right to decide whether to permit or not to permit the Nation to exercise the supreme sovereign power, whether to permit or not to permit the direct participation in the government of their State. Therefore, not only Articles 4 and 33 of the Constitution have been violated but also Article 6 of the Constitution, stating that the Constitution shall be an integral and directly applicable statute, has been denied without any conclusions made by the experts.

  1. In the amendments to Article 9 of the law on Referendums it is required that a citizen while signing a list for initiating a referendum should indicate his passport number. This contradicts Article 4, the third paragraph of Article 9 and the first paragraph of Article 33 of the Constitution, because, while carrying out this provision, those citizens who due to their physical handicap or semi-literacy cannot write all the data, are deprived of the constitutional right to demand the calling of a referendum, and the right to directly participate in the government of their State. Moreover, a citizen has all the rights, irrespective of the fact, whether or not he has always a passport with him.
  2. Articles 9, 282 and 29 of the Law on Referendums are not co-ordinated among themselves and, therefore, restrict the constitutional rights of citizens to require the calling of a referendum, because in Articles 282 and 29 it is established that a voter may submit to the district electoral commission not only a passport but also another document confirming his personality or citizenship, or ask another person to fill in the ballot-paper in case he cannot do it himself.
  3. In the second paragraph of the newly formulated Article 12 of the Law on Referendums it is determined that the Seimas’ duty shall be to decide whether a draft of the provisions of the law submitted for referendum is in conformity with the Constitution. This provision violates Articles 67 and 102 of the Constitution. Said Articles of the Constitution do not provide the right for the Seimas to adopt decisions as to the conformity of the legal acts or their drafts with the Constitution. It is the prerogative of the Constitutional Court to decide whether the legal acts do not violate the Constitution.
  4. In the third paragraph of the newly formulated Article 12 of the Law on Referendums it is set forth that the calling of a referendum may be postponed provided that the Seimas decides to consider and adopt submitted provisions of the law, however, the referendum should be called at the same Seimas sitting in which the Seimas fails to adopt the submitted provisions of the law. This period of consideration until the adoption or non-adoption of the provisions of the law is not limited in any way. The consideration can be artificially prolonged, for example failing to write the issue under consideration on the agenda. This, however, contradicts Articles 4, 9 and 33 of the Constitution.
  5. In the fifth paragraph of the newly formulated Article 32 of the Law on Referendums it is established that the provisions of the law or other decisions shall be deemed adopted by referendum if more than half of citizens included in the lists of voters approve of them during referendum. This provision limits the implementation of the constitutional right of citizens to participate in the government of their State directly as compared to their participation in the government through their freely elected representatives, because, under the provisions of the Law on Elections to the Seimas (Articles 75 and 76) and Article 69 of the Constitution, laws shall be deemed adopted in the Seimas if at least 10 percent of democratically elected representatives of the Nation vote affirmatively. Such limitation on the right to directly participate in the government of the State is not stipulated in Article 33 of the Constitution.

3.

The petitioner’s representatives have explained that, while adopting the Law “On Amending and Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Referendums”, the Constitution was violated because the Seimas concentrated on the approaching referendum on the adoption of the Law “On Unlawful Privatisation, Devaluated Accounts and Shares as well as Transgressions of Legal Protection”. The petitioner’s representatives have submitted the following reasoning concerning the compliance of specific articles of the impugned Law with the Constitution.

  1. In Article 1 of the Law on Referendums it is prescribed that the provisions of laws may be submitted for referendum. A provision of a law is only a part of a law—its article or norm—and not the whole law, therefore, such narrowing of the citizens’ right to call a referendum contradicts Articles 4, 9, 33 and the third paragraph of Article 71 of the Constitution. The Seimas, while adopting this norm, conformed only to Article 69 of the Constitution and left out of account the third paragraph of Article 71, which runs about the signing and promulgation of laws adopted by the Seimas and says nothing about that of the provisions of laws. If the provisions of laws were adopted by referendum, the Seimas, by way of implementing them, would have to adopt a law distorting the will of the Nation.
  2. The norm of the Law on Referendums, having related the referendum on economic issues to the economic examination of possible consequences, implies that the citizens’ right to participate in the government of their State is related to additional procedures without specifying what institution shall carry out these procedures. The initiative group, while calling a referendum, shall perform official or non-official examination on its own responsibility.
  3. The requirement of amended Article 9 of the Law on Referendums that a citizen shall himself fill in a ballot-paper and indicate his passport number violates the constitutional civil right in cases when a person is semiliterate or has physical handicap, etc. While voting in referendum, he or she shall be able to invite another person into the ballot booth, to submit another document confirming person’s identity, whereas while implementing the right to call a referendum this right is restricted. The request that the passport number be indicated is some sort of compulsion, as a person is forced to have a passport with him all the time. This means a lack of confidence in a person. The truthfulness of signatures must be verified by an institution prescribed by law.
  4. The duty of the Seimas is to act in conformity with the Constitution while adopting laws. However, in cases when the initiative to call a referendum is expressed by the citizens, the Seimas may not prevent the citizens from the implementation of their initiative. While assuming the duty to verify the constitutionality of the issue submitted for referendum, the Seimas violates the Constitution. The citizens may directly amend the Constitution as well.
  5. The provision of the third paragraph of the amended Article 12 of the Law on Referendums, which provides the Seimas with the possibility of considering the draft law submitted for referendum, has not been finally regulated. It is obscure, how the initiative of the citizens shall be implemented, whether the calling of a referendum shall not be delayed for a long time ignoring the citizens’ will.
  6. The norm of the fifth paragraph of Article 32 of the Law on Referendums that the provisions of the law or another decision shall be deemed adopted by referendum if more than half of the citizens included in the lists of voters approve of them, is very different from the requirements set for the formation of the Seimas. Pursuant to the Constitution, the majority by which decisions shall be deemed adopted, should correspond to the majority by which the Nation shall delegate its rights to the representatives of the Nation.

The petitioner’s representatives request that the Constitutional Court recognise that Article 1, the amendments and supplements to the first and third paragraphs of Article 9, the second and third paragraphs of Article 12 and the fifth paragraph of Article 32 of the Law on Referendums, contradict the Constitution.

4.

The representative of the party concerned has expressed the opinion that the petitioner had submitted no grounded arguments proving the contradiction of the Law on Referendums to the Constitution, and proposed the following explanations.

  1. Article 1 of the Law on Referendums contains the norms established in the first paragraph of Article 9 and the fourth paragraph of Article 69 of the Constitution. The third paragraph of Article 71 of the Constitution determines the procedure of the promulgation of laws and not of their adoption. Neither Constitution nor the Law on Referendums limits the number of provisions submitted for referendum; the provisions of the law ready for adoption may also be submitted for referendum. Upon adoption, signing and promulgation of these provisions in the established procedure, they acquire the power of a law. Therefore, in the opinion of the representative of the party concerned, the norm of Article 1 of the Law on Referendums that the provisions of the law may be submitted for referendum, does not contradict Constitution.
  2. The fourth paragraph of Article 9 of the Constitution determines that the procedure for the calling and conduct of a referendum shall be established by law, whereas Article 69 of the Constitution prescribes the main rules for the adoption of laws. Thus, the Seimas itself may establish the procedure for the calling and conduct of a referendum according to the Constitution. The Statute of the Seimas establishes what an initiator of a draft law must do while submitting the draft, whereas the Law on Referendums does not prescribe that exhaustive conclusions must be presented along with the draft submitted for referendum. Therefore, there was adopted the norm of Article 1 of the Law on Referendums, specifying that the provisions of the laws on economic issues may be adopted be referendum only after the economic examination of possible consequences. This shall be only an extra measure helping a citizen to make a decision. From the point of view of jurisprudence, this norm perhaps is not distinctly formulated, however, in practice this is no obstacle for the calling of a referendum.
  3. The Law on Referendums valid until now established the witnessing of citizens’ signatures by a notary. In such a case, a passport, or a document certifying the person’s identity had to be presented. After the procedure for the witnessing of citizens’ signatures by a notary had been given up, and seeking to prevent the cases when the citizens’ will might be distorted or falsified, the first paragraph of Article 9 of the Law on Referendums was amended establishing that, along with other data, a passport number must be specified while signing a list for initiating a referendum. It is possible to do so without carrying a passport all the time. This entirely conforms to the third paragraph of Article 9 of the Constitution that the calling of a referendum may be initiated only by the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania. It is not necessary to establish the citizenship of a person before his or her voting, as such data are written on the list of voters. It is sufficient only to establish the identity of a voter.
  4. The second paragraph of the supplemented Article 12 of the Law on Referendums is not a norm. It contains only the repetition of the appropriate Article of the Statute of the Seimas which prescribes the procedure for the co-ordination of the draft legal acts considered by structural units of the Seimas with the Constitution. The supplement to the Law on Referendums commission the whole Seimas to do this. In the fourth paragraph of Article 59 of the Constitution it is established that, in office, Seimas members shall act in accordance with the Constitution. If Seimas members were obliged to submit for referendum a draft law contradicting the Constitution, they would be compelled to break their oath. Neither Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution nor the Law on the Constitutional Court entitle the Constitutional Court to the right to decide whether draft legal acts are in conformity with the Constitution.
  5. In accordance with the provisions of the third paragraph of the amended Article 12 of the Law on Referendums, the adoption of the decision on the issue of the calling of a referendum may not be delayed, because the Statute of the Seimas establishes the possibility of considering draft laws in speed-up procedure. In the Statute of the Seimas it is also determined which issues shall be obligatorily put on the agenda of a plenary sitting.
  6. The norm of the fifth paragraph of Article 32 of the Law on Referendums that the decision in referendum shall be deemed adopted if more than half of the registered voters vote in the affirmative, does not contradict the Constitution, either. The Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania has been adopted conforming to this principle; other referendums have also been conducted in accordance with the same rule. The establishment of a vote principle other than the majority vote principle may not find the reasoning in the rules of the election of Seimas members, because an elected representative of the Nation represents the entire Nation and not the voters who voted in favour thereof.

The representative of the party concerned requests that the Constitutional Court recognise that said amendments and supplements to the Law on Referendums do not contradict the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

  1. Article 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania establishes that the Nation shall exercise the supreme sovereign power vested in them either directly or through their democratically elected representatives. Thus, the Constitution prescribes the possibility for the citizens of the State to implement the sovereignty of the Nation in the form of direct democracy, i.e. by referendum. In accordance with jurisprudence and constitutional traditions, a referendum is understood as the popular vote on the issues concerning the adoption of the Constitution, laws or provisions of laws, as well as home and foreign policy. The essence of this institution of democracy is defined by two main criteria: 1) direct definition of the sovereign powers of the nation (suprema potestas) and 2) the legal significance of the acts adopted in the process of implementation of direct democracy.

Referendums are divided into decisive, consultative and ratifying. Decisive referendums, when the nation adopts laws by popular vote, as a political legal institute are rarely met in countries with democratic traditions. Consultative referendums, when the most important issues concerning the life of the state are submitted for consideration, are more widely spread, as well as ratifying referendums, when the nation expresses its approval or disapproval of the law adopted by the parliament.

Article 9 of the Constitution establish that the most important issues concerning the life of the State and the Nation shall be decided by referendum; the procedure for the calling and conduct of a referendum shall be established by law. The implementation of the principles of referendums determined in the Constitution is particularised in the Law on Referendums, adopted 3 November 1989; and on 15 June 1994 the Seimas enacted the Law “On Amending and Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Referendums”.

  1. Item 1 of the impugned Law has amended Article 1 of the Law on Referendums. It sets forth that “the most significant issues concerning the life of the State and the Nation shall be decided, and the provisions of laws may be adopted by referendum”. According to this Article in its former wording, it was established that only laws might be adopted by referendum.

Article 69 of the Constitution prescribes the fundamental rules of legislation. In the fourth paragraph of said Article it is established that the provisions of laws may be adopted by referendum. In the Constitution and the Law on Referendums, while regulating the right of the initiative to call a referendum, the number of provisions to be submitted for referendum is not determined. Therefore, 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 referendum as well as after their adoption by referendum.

A law is a primary legal act passed in the procedure prescribed by the Constitution and other laws. Citizens, while exercising their right established in the Constitution to participate directly in the government of their State, shall be legislators of laws adopted by referendum (Article 33 of the Constitution). In the third and fourth paragraph of Article 71 of the Constitution it is stipulated that the President of the Republic must, within five days, sign and officially promulgate laws and other acts adopted by referendum; in the event that the President of the Republic does not sign and promulgate such laws within the established period, said laws shall become effective upon being signed and officially promulgated by the Chairperson of the Seimas.

Thus, provisions of laws acquire the supreme legal power and the status of law only upon their adoption by referendum. They must be signed and promulgated as laws in the procedure prescribed by the Constitution. Therefore, the amendment to Article 1 of the Law on Referendums, establishing that “provisions of laws” may be adopted by referendum, is consistent with the Constitution.

  1. Item 1 of the impugned Law has also amended Article 1 of the Law on Referendums supplementing it with the norm that “provisions of laws on economic issues may be adopted by referendum only after an economic examination of possible consequences”.

By way of implementing the right vested in citizens to participate in the government of their State, it is prescribed in the Constitution that, in cases established by law, referendums shall be called by the Seimas (Article 9). Thus, the Constitution does not provide for the possibility of relating the implementation of this norm to any additional conditions or decisions by any persons. In the first paragraph of Article 3 of the Constitution it is established that no one may restrict or limit the sovereignty of the Nation. Without denying the citizens their right to be informed about economic and other consequences of the laws and other provisions adopted by referendum, various interpretations of issues submitted for referendum may be given during election campaign, however, these may not predetermine the calling and conduct of a referendum. Therefore, while relating the right to call and conduct a referendum on economic issues to the economic examination of possible consequences, the sovereign powers of the Nation are limited, which contradicts Articles 3, 4, 9 and 33 of the Constitution.

  1. Item 9 of the impugned Law has amended the first paragraph of Article 9 of the Law on Referendums by establishing that a citizen, while signing a list for initiating a referendum, must specify, among other data, the number of a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania passport.

In the third paragraph of Article 9 of the Constitution it is determined that a referendum shall be called if no less than 300,000 of the electorate so request.

Citizenship is a permanent political-legal relationship of a person with a specific state, based on mutual rights and duties as well as trust, loyalty and protection (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 April 1994). No one may enjoy civil and political rights and duties prescribed by the Constitution, except the citizens of their State. In this case it implies the citizen’s constitutional right to directly participate in the government of their State and the duty of State institutions to ensure the implementation of this right.

The initiative right to call a referendum is one of the guarantees for the implementation of the sovereignty of the Nation, therefore, the legislature establishes the rules that would ensure the realisation of this constitutional guarantee only for the electorate. A citizen’s passport is a document confirming his or her citizenship and the personality of the owner.

Thus, the provision of the second paragraph of Article 9 of the Law on Referendums that a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania while signing a list for initiating a referendum, must, among other data, indicate his or her passport number, is one of the guarantees that the signature is by a proper person. Therefore, this norm of the Law on Referendums is in compliance with the Constitution.

  1. Item 5 of the impugned Law has amended the third paragraph of Article 9 of the Law on Referendums which specified that “a citizen himself shall write all the data while signing a list for initiating a referendum”.

By way of implementing the constitutional right vested in the citizens to participate in the government of their State (Article 33 of the Constitution), the laws should establish the guarantees for the implementation of this right.

In cases established by law, referendums shall be called by the Seimas. Referendums shall be called if no less than 300,000 of the electorate so request (Paragraph 3 of Article 9).

In accordance with Paragraphs 1 and 3, Article 34 of the Constitution, only citizens who are under 18 on the day of election or those who are declared legally incapable by court shall not have the right to vote in the election (nor the right to request that a referendum be called). The Constitution does not prescribe any other limitations on the suffrage and its implementation.

The provision of the impugned Law that a citizen himself shall write all the data while signing a list for initiating a referendum, is a deprivation of the right to call a referendum for those citizens who, due to their physical handicap, cannot fill in that list. Thereby, the citizen’s constitutional right to participate in the government of their State is denied, which contradicts Articles 4, 9 and 33 of the Constitution.

  1. Item 12 of the impugned Law has supplemented Article 12 of the Law on Referendums with the second paragraph which prescribes: “In cases when, according to the Seimas, the draft of the provisions of a law submitted for referendum does not conform to the Constitution, the question of amending the Constitution must be primarily considered”.

In Article 6 of the Constitution it is determined that the Constitution shall be an integral and directly applicable statute, whereas Article 7 thereof prescribes the principled provision that any law or other statute which contradicts the Constitution shall be invalid. The Constitutional Court shall decide whether the laws and other legal acts adopted by the Seimas are in conformity with the Constitution and legal acts adopted by the President and the Government, do not violate the Constitution or laws (Constitution, Article 102).

However, the Constitution does not prescribe the prerogative to the Constitutional Court to decide the compliance of draft laws or other draft legal acts with the Constitution. The Seimas, as well as other participants of legislation process, must draft and adopt legal acts in conformity with the Constitution. This is one of the main measures ensuring the constitutional order and one of the basic principles of a State under the rule of law. A group of citizens, while expressing their initiative to call a referendum, must also keep to this rule. Therefore, a draft law or a draft of the provisions of law submitted for referendum should also be co-ordinated with the Constitution.

The Seimas, as the representative of the Nation and the legislature, may voice its opinion on the compliance of a draft law or a draft of the provisions of law, submitted for referendum, with the Constitution. Therefore, the provision of the second paragraph of Article 12 of the supplemented Law on Referendums that the Seimas may state the contradiction of the draft of the provisions of law to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, is consistent with the Constitution.

In cases when the draft of the provisions of law is submitted for referendum, the Nation becomes the legislator. In Article 3 of the Constitution it is established that no one may restrict or limit the sovereignty of the Nation or make claims to the sovereign powers of the Nation. The adoption of any preliminary decisions not provided for by the Constitution and stipulating the calling of a referendum would limit the supreme sovereign power of the Nation. The provision of the second paragraph of Article 12 of the amended Law on Referendums that upon the establishment of the contradiction of the draft legal act submitted for referendum to the Constitution “the question of amending the Constitution must be primarily considered”, relates the calling of a referendum to the condition not prescribed by the Constitution—the consideration of the issue concerning the amendment to the Constitution. This provision is flawed also due to the fact that the issue of amending the Constitution would be considered being unaware of the will of the Nation to be stated during vote on the draft legal act submitted for referendum. Therefore, this provision contradicts Articles 3, 4 and 9 of the Constitution.

  1. Item 12 of the impugned Law has supplemented Article 12 of the Law on Referendums with Paragraph 3, which reads: “In cases that the Seimas decides to consider and adopt submitted provisions of the law, the calling of a referendum may be postponed, however, the referendum must be called in the same sitting which fails to adopt the submitted provisions of the law”.

The Seimas is the representation of the Nation, whose prerogative is to enact laws and decide other issues concerning State power. The Seimas may adopt any law in the procedure prescribed by the Constitution and the Statute of the Seimas and without violation of the laws in force. In Article 9 and the third item of Article 67 of the Constitution it is determined that the Seimas shall adopt resolutions for the organisation of a referendums if no less than 300,000 of the electorate so request. The Constitution, however, does not prescribe that the Seimas may do any other activities or accept for consideration the draft legal act submitted for referendum, thus, limiting the citizen’s right to initiate a referendum and voice their will with regard to the submitted draft law or a draft of any other legal act. Therefore, the third paragraph of the amended Article 12 of the Law on Referendums contradicts Articles 4, 9 and Item 3 of Article 67 of the Constitution.

  1. Under Item 39 of the impugned Law, Article 32 of the Law on Referendums has been newly formulated and paragraph 2 has become Paragraph 5. The latter prescribes: “Provisions of laws of the Republic of Lithuania or any other decision shall be deemed adopted by referendum if more than half of registered voters vote in the affirmative”.

The Constitution establishes that sovereignty shall be vested in the Nation (Article 2). Citizens shall have the right to participate in the government of their State both directly and through their freely elected representatives (Article 33). The direct participation of citizens in the government of their state is a very important expression of the supreme sovereign power, therefore, referendum shall be a testimony of the real will of the Nation.

In Article 1 of the Constitution it is established that the State of Lithuania shall be an independent and democratic republic. One of the democratic principles in the adoption of decisions is the majority principle. This principle is also determined in the Constitution establishing the procedures for the activity and law enactment carried out by the Seimas and other authorised institutions, also regulating other questions.

All referendums up to now, including those when the present Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional provision “the State of Lithuania shall be an independent and democratic republic” were adopted, have been organised under this principle and following the democratic legal traditions of the Lithuanian State.

Therefore, the provision of the law that decisions shall be deemed adopted by referendum if more than half of the registered voters vote in the affirmative, 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:

To recognise that in the 15 June 1994 Law “On Amending and Supplementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Referendums”:

1) the norm of Item 1 that “provisions of laws of the Republic of Lithuania may be adopted by referendum”, does not contradict the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;

2) the norm of Item 1 that “provisions of laws on economic issues may be adopted by referendum only after an economic examination of possible consequences”, contradicts Articles 3, 4, 9 and 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;

3) the norm of Item 9 which amended the first paragraph of Article of the Law on Referendums by establishing that “the passport number of a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania” shall be indicated while signing a list for initiating a referendum, does not contradict the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;

4) the norm of Item 9 which amended the third paragraph of Article 9 of the Law on Referendums by establishing that “a citizen himself shall write all the necessary data while signing a list for initiating a referendum”, contradicts Articles 4, 9 and 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;

5) the provision of Item 12 which has supplemented Article 12 of the Law on Referendums with the second paragraph establishing that the Seimas may state that the draft of the provisions of laws submitted for referendum is not in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, conforms to the Constitution;

6) the provision of Item 12 which has supplemented Article 12 of the Law on Referendums with the second paragraph that “the question of amending the Constitution must be primarily considered”, contradicts Articles 3, 4 and 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;

7) the norm of Item 12 which has supplemented Article 12 of the Law on Referendums with the third paragraph, contradicts Articles 4 and 9 as well as Item 3 of Article 67 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;

8) the provision of Item 39, which provided a new wording for Article 32 of the Law on Referendums and upon which the second paragraph of said Article has become Paragraph 5, 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                           Zigmas Levickis                            Pranas Vytautas Rasimavičius

Stasys Stačiokas                              Teodora Staugaitienė                    Stasys Šedbaras

Juozas Žilys