Lt

On the constitutionality of the Seimas resolution on citizenship matters

 THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

 R U L I N G

 On the compliance of the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania “On Amending Item 5 of the Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania ‘On the Procedure for Implementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Citizenship’” of 22 December 1993 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania

 13 April 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, and Juozas Žilys

The court reporter—Sigutė Brusovienė

Vilija Aleknaitė-Abramikienė, a member of the Seimas, acting as the representative of a group of members of the Seimas, the petitioner

Petras Papovas, a member of the Seimas, 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 8 April 1994, considered case No. 7/94 subsequent to the petition submitted to the Court by a group of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania members requesting an investigation into whether the Seimas Resolution “On Amending Item 5 of the Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania ‘On the Procedure for Implementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Citizenship’” of 22 December 1993 is in compliance with Articles 12, 28 and the first paragraph of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

The Constitutional Court

has established:

On 22 December 1993, the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania adopted the Resolution “On Amending Item 5 of the Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania ‘On the Procedure for Implementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Citizenship’” (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, No. 2-24, 1994).

A group of the Seimas members, the petitioner, requests that the Constitutional Court recognise that the Seimas Resolution “On Amending Item 5 of the Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania ‘On the Procedure for Implementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Citizenship’” of 22 December 1993 is in conflict with Article 12, Article 28 and Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

The petitioner grounds his request on the fact that said resolution establishes the norm that persons having served in the armed forces of the Soviet Union and having terminated their service within the period up to 1 march 1992 and up to 4 November 1994 having been issued a Citizen of the Republic of Lithuania Certification Card or a Certification Testifying to the (Person’s) Decision to acquire Citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania, have citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania and may be issued the passport of a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania. In the petitioner’s opinion, in Article 12 of the Constitution it is specified that citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania shall be acquired by birth or on other bases established by law and the procedure for the acquisition and loss of citizenship shall be established by law, whereas Seimas has resolved this issue by adopting said resolution.

The petitioner has stated that said resolution contradicts the second paragraph of Article 12 of the Constitution in which it is determined that, with the exception of cases established by law, no person may be a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania and another state at the same time. “Persons who served in the armed forces as well as another repressive structures of the Soviet Union, had to be and were citizen of the Soviet Union, therefore, documents to their decisions to acquire citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania, which they have been issued shall be invalid. Hereby, this resolution contradicts Article 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well. By said resolution, the Seimas legalises citizenship irrespective of the fact whether a person, has acquired it lawfully or not. The constitutional principle establishing that all persons shall be equal before the law, the court, and other state institutions, has also been violated (Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution).”

In the court hearing, the petitioner’s representative has submitted the following additional arguments.

The fact that the presence of the armed forces of the Soviet Union in Lithuania was unlawful is confirmed by a number of legal acts: the Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania “On the 1939 Treaties Between Germany and USSR and the Elimination (Liquidation) of Their Consequences to Lithuania” of 7 February 1990, the 13 March 1990 Address of the Supreme Council “To the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR”, the 19 March 1990 Statement of the Supreme Council “On the Status of the Soviet Armed Forces in Lithuania”, and, partly, the 24 December 1989 resolution passed in the congress of USSR People’s deputies. The Soviet army was unlawfully stationed in Lithuania, thus, there is no ground for maintaining that persons, who formed that army, had come to Lithuania lawfully. Hereford the conclusion is to be made that the factual presence of servicemen of the Soviet Union on the territory of Lithuania did not mean, however, that they had permanent place of residence in Lithuania, because:

  1. a) they could not choose their place of residence themselves;
  2. b) servicemen of the Soviet Union were registered in Lithuania according to the legal status of a foreign state.

The petitioners representative has maintained that Certification Testifying to the (Person’s) Decisions to Acquire Citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania may have been issued only for civilians as they were valid only along with soviet passport they possessed. At that time it was not the passport but military card (serviceman’s identity card) which confirmed the person’s identity and citizenship of Soviet servicemen, therefore, the certifications they have been issued are invalid (unlawful).

The representative of the party concerned has explained that the petitioner’s request is groundless and the adopted the Resolution “On Amending Item 5 of the Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania ‘On the Procedure for Implementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Citizenship’” does not contradict the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

The representative of the party concerned has submitted the following counterarguments:

“The goal (purpose) of the resolution adopted by the Seimas is to regulate equal application of laws and other legal acts that are in force now and were in effect earlier according to the principles of the equality of persons. The Seimas resolution of 22 December 1993 has regulated the meaning of Items 8, 5 and 4 of the resolution of 10 December 1991 and the provision thereof that no legal acts shall have retroactive power and, even more so, they are not valid with respect to the Law on Citizenship of 1989 which is no longer in force. Said resolution adopted by the Seimas provides the possibility for the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania to lawfully and validity be issued with passports of citizens of the Republic of Lithuania”.

The representative of the party concerned holds that the arguments submitted by the petitioner are not grounded, as:

“1. The Seimas resolution has not amended the provision of Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, but, on the contrary, has regulated that persons who have acquired citizenship on the bases prescribed by law be issued passports of a citizen.

  1. Said resolution is in conformity with Paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the Constitution, because the laws on Citizenship have provided for other separate cases when persons are considered to be citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, and Items 7 and 4 of the Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania ‘On the Procedure for Implementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Citizenship’ establish that the citizenship of the Soviet Union with regard to persons specified in Article 1 of the Law on Citizenship is null and void.
  2. The Seimas resolution cannot contradict Article 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well, as citizenship has been legalised not by said resolution but by above-mentioned Laws on Citizenship. The Seimas has regulated the application of legal laws in issuing passports for the citizen of the Republic of Lithuania. The formula ‘may be’ as established in said resolution allows for passport agencies to check whether a person has acquired his or her citizenship validly and lawfully.
  3. Said Seimas resolution has also not violated the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 28 of the Constitution, as the Seimas ‘has only regulated all the provisions of legal acts specifying that all citizens of the Republic of Lithuania must be issued passports of citizens, i.e. that the principle of all person’s equality before Laws on Citizenship and passport agencies be established’.”

The representative of the party concerned in his additional explanation (argumentation) on 7 April 1994 has also that Law on Citizenship did not forbid Soviet servicemen to be citizens of Lithuania and they, by the Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania “On the Procedure for Implementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Citizenship” were allowed to serve in military structures within the period up to 1 March 1992. Therefore, he maintains that, persons specified in Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Law on Citizenship may as well be servicemen, and they are not forbidden to be citizens of the Republic of Lithuania and may be issued with passports of a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania.

There may not be different explanations with regard to what is the permanent place of residence of servicemen or other persons. Besides, the permanent place of residence should be decided in accordance with permanent registration of residents which was in force at that time (at the time of their residence).

The Constitutional Court

holds that:

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. Laws on citizenship adopted by states precisely regulate conditions and procedure for acquiring citizenship, providing for the oath to the state and pledge of loyalty (with exception of cases when citizenship is acquired by birth), forbidding or strictly limiting dual citizenship. In modern contemporary international law international agreements concerning (on) dual citizenship between states concerned is considered a normal way of legalisation of dual citizenship.

The Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Citizenship, adopted 1989, did not provide for a possibility for a citizen of Lithuania to be at the same time a citizen of another state. This provision was also established in the Provisional Basic Law in Paragraph 2 of Article 13 of which it was promulgated: “As rule, a citizen of Lithuania may not be currently a citizen of another state”. The above-mentioned constitutional provision was later specified by the Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania “On the Procedure for the Application of Articles 7 and 35 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Citizenship” of 9 June 1990. In said resolution it was explained: “A citizen of the Republic of Lithuania may possess the citizenship of another state only in cases when, by way of exception, he is granted citizenship of the Republic of Lithuanian accordance with Article 7 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Citizenship”. Dual citizenship became subject to more stringent limitations after the adoption of the Law “On Amending Article 18 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Citizenship” of 16 April 1991 by which said Article establishing the cases of the loss of citizenship was supplemented with Item 4 providing for the loss of citizenship on the following basis: “upon acquisition of citizenship of another state”. It goes without saying, the provisions concerning the limitation on dual citizenship in Lithuania were later adjusted (amended) providing for additional ways of exception for this prohibition. It concerned, however, the persons of one category, i.e., persons who were citizens of the Republic of Lithuania prior to June 15 1940 and their descendants. Thus, there is no legal ground for maintaining that, with the exception of said prescribed by law cases, other persons acquiring citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania may currently be citizens of other states.

In Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Citizenship of 1989, it established that the following persons shall be citizens of Lithuania:

(1) Persons who were citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, children and grandchildren of such persons, as well as other persons who were permanent residents on the current territory of the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic (hereinafter—the Lithuanian SSR) prior to 15 July 1940, and their children and grandchildren who now are or have been permanent residents on the territory of the Lithuanian SSR;

(2) Persons who have a permanent place of residence in the Lithuanian SSR, provided they were born on the territory of the Lithuanian SSR, or have provided that at least one of their parents or grandparents was born on said territory, and provided that they are not citizens of another state;

(3) Other persons who, up to and including the date of entry into force of this Law, have been permanent residents on the territory of the Republic and have here a permanent place of employment or another constant legal source of support; such persons shall freely choose their citizenship during two years following the entry into force of this Law; and

(4) Persons who have acquired citizenship of the Lithuanian SSR under this law”.

It is obvious that completely different groups of persons , which have had specific relations with the Republic of Lithuania, are specified in every item of said Article, therefore, not only general requirements for them have been established by law, but also different procedures for granting citizenship for separate groups of persons or additional conditions necessary to acquire citizenship.

The general requirements and conditions for persons of all groups were as follows: at first they were considered only as potential citizens as they were guaranteed the right to freely decide on their citizenship; the prerequisite for becoming citizens of Lithuania was permanent residence on the territory of Lithuania; having accepted citizenship of Lithuania they all had to take the pledge of loyalty to the Republic of Lithuania.

The citizens specified in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 1 of the Law on Citizenship by virtue of their previous right have become citizens of the Republic of Lithuania—they had only to provide evidence for (about) appropriate circumstances and to apply for the issuance of citizens’ documents. Their right to decide on citizenship actually meant the right to renounce citizenship of Lithuania. In this respect, the status of the persons of other groups was completely different. Persons mentioned in Paragraph 4 of said Article could acquire citizenship only in accordance with other Articles of the Law on Citizenship: Article 7 (granting citizenship by way of exception), Article 15 (granting citizenship by naturalisation), etc. The conditions and procedure for granting citizenship for persons specified in Paragraph 3 of Article 1 were also different. These persons were different from persons specified in Items 1 and 2 of Article 1 as earlier they had never had firm permanent legal relations with Lithuania. As matter of fact, they were immigrants (settlers), who have come from places that are beyond the borders of Lithuania. As a rule, they had citizenship of the Soviet Union. After restoration of independent state of Lithuania they became here foreigners. In other states, citizenship for such persons is generally granted by naturalisation. In Lithuania, citizenship for them was granted in a rather simplified procedure. It was required from them to be permanent residents on the territory of Lithuania and have here a permanent place of employment or another constant legal source of support. They had the right within 2 years following the enforcement of the Law on Citizenship to freely decide on citizenship, i.e. could either retain citizenship of the Soviet Union or become citizens of Lithuania. This case may be interpreted as acquisition of citizenship by voicing one’s option, because, upon the restoration of the independent state and the end of the occupation, part of residents, who had not have firm legal relations with former State of Lithuania, were entitled to the right to choose citizenship.

Voicing one’s option as a way of acquiring citizenship is normally provided for by bilateral international treaties with the Republic of Lithuania. This opportunity of choosing one’s citizenship (i.e. by voicing one’s option, in fact) which had been unilaterally promulgated by Lithuania, was later recognised by Russia as the successor of the Soviet Union. On international level this principle of option was actually de jure registered (included) in the Treaty between Lithuania and Russia “On the Basis of the Relations Between the Two States” which was signed on 29 July 1991 in Moscow.

In accordance with the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Citizenship, adopted 1989, the prerequisite for acquiring citizenship for persons who were born beyond the borders of the Republic of Lithuania (with exception of those cases, when at least one of his or her parents or grandparents was born on the territory of Lithuania) was permanent residence on the territory of Lithuania and a permanent place of employment or another constant legal source of support in Lithuania. Only those persons in conformity with Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Law on Citizenship, were entitled to the right to freely decide on citizenship within 2 years following the enforcement of the Law, i.e. until 4 November 1991.

The conditions prescribed by said Law had relevant significance in resolving issues on citizenship. They have priority with regard to person’s decision on citizenship of Lithuania, i.e. only a person who meets these conditions is entitled to the right to decide on citizenship of Lithuania. And, conversely, when a person fails to meet the above-mentioned conditions for acquiring citizenship, his wish to become a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania does not bring any legal consequences, and if on this ground thereof he or she has been issued a Citizen of the Republic of Lithuania Certification Card or a Certification testifying to the [Person’s] Decision to Acquire Citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania, they must be deemed invalid.

Therefore, the interpretation of the above-mentioned concepts “permanent residence on the territory of Lithuania” and “permanent place of employment constant legal source of support” acquires special importance. In the Law, these concepts were not fully defined, thus, their interpretation was formed while practically applying norms of the law, their contents was certainly specified (particularised) in resolutions of the Supreme Council. Said concepts were clearly enough defined in Item 3 of the Supreme Council Resolution “On the Procedure for Implementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Citizenship” adopted 10 December 1991, which specified that “a person shall be considered as permanently residing in Lithuania if he or she:

– has been registered in the register of permanent residents of the Republic of Lithuania;

– and has acquired living quarters in Lithuania by the right to ownership or leased same for an indefinite period, or is the owner’s or tenant’s family member;

– and is employed in Lithuania under employment contract or has another paid occupation in Lithuania, is somebody’s dependant or is paid a pension legally due to him or her in Lithuania;

– and pays on the territory of Lithuania the income tax, and other taxes established by means of laws of the Republic of Lithuania, or is exempt therefrom in the manner established by law.”

There is no much doubt expressed about the interpretation of these concepts (the interpretation of these concepts is not is not questioned a lot), only it is maintained that such resolution and provisions thereof are applicable solely to the new Law on Citizenship (1991). Thus, it is stated that, in order to prove permanent residence on the territory of Lithuania under 1989 Law on Citizenship, it should be necessary to refer to former registration of residents. This is a doubtful statement because previous temporary as well as permanent registration of residents was, in essence, an administrative measure which restricted one of the fundamental human rights—the right to freely move on the territory of the state and to freely choose one’s place of residence. It should also be noted that such a procedure for registration was obviously of discriminative nature as restrictions of registration were not applied to servicemen of the occupation army and other officials of the occupation regime (they enjoyed exceptions and privileges). It is also important that servicemen could not freely choose place of their residence themselves as they were stationed and periodically dislocated under the orders of high military authority.

The issue concerning the status of the Soviet army troops stationed on the territory of Lithuania emerged in the process of the preparation for the 1990 election to the Supreme Council and the 1990 elections to municipal councils. At the beginning, the Supreme Council by its resolutions of 29 September 1989 and 7 December 1989 has elucidated that servicemen of the Soviet army troops shall participate in elections general (i.e. former occupation) procedure: separate electoral committees shall be formed and lists of voters shall be established in submits, candidates to the posts of deputies shall be nominated in the meetings of soldiers. Later, however, when, on the initiative of citizens of Lithuania, a referendum on the possibility for Soviet servicemen to participate in elections was called, the Supreme Council by its resolution of 15 January 1990 recognised that said interpretations were no longer valid and established that only those servicemen who under Article 1 of the Law on Citizenship may be citizens of Lithuania could participate in elections. Thus, already prior to the restoration of independent state of Lithuania it had been established that servicemen of the occupation army were not entitled to the right to participate in elections organised in Lithuania, with exception of those persons who under 1989 Law on Citizenship could be recognised as citizens of Lithuania. These were the persons who were recognised as citizens of Republic of Lithuania in accordance with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 1 of Law on Citizenship, as well as other persons who in established judicial procedure had already become citizens of the Republic of Lithuania.

Lithuania’s standpoint (point of view) to armed forces of the Soviet Union stationed on its territory as to the occupation army was officially expressed (stated) in the Supreme Council Resolution “On 1939 Treaties Between Germany and the USSR and the Elimination (Liquidation) of Their Consequences to Lithuania” of 7 February 1990, the Supreme Council Declaration “On the Status of the Soviet Armed Forces in Lithuania” of 19 March 1990 as well as in many other documents of the Supreme Council. The activities of KGB, internal troops and other repressive structures of the Soviet Union operating in Lithuania were appropriately (accordingly) evaluated. It should be noted that the fact of the 1940 annexation and occupation of Lithuania was recognised by many states of the world. The same recognition was expressed in the preamble to the Treaty between Lithuania and Russia “On the Basis of the Relations Between the Two States” which was signed on 29 July 1991 in Moscow.

Therefore, the provisions of the Supreme Council Resolution “On the Procedure for Implementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Citizenship” of 10 December 1991 are actually based on the same interpretation of the illegal stationing of the occupation army on the territory of another state together with (along with) other legal consequences therefrom. It should be noted that former (previous) Item 5 of said resolution could be applied only to former servicemen of the occupation army of a foreign state as well as persons who had served in repressive structures of a foreign state. The statement that “persons serving in the armed forces, internal troops and state security structures, as well as other law enforcement and repressive structures of the Soviet Union which have been unlawfully stationed and operating in Lithuania since 15 June 1940, may not be considered as permanently residing or employed in Lithuania”, was logically related to said official declarations (statements) of the Seimas of Lithuania on (pertaining to) the presence of the occupation army in Lithuania and may not be evaluated as a new interpretation of the provisions of Law in Citizenship of 1989. The explanation that an evaluation of the occupation army can be different with regard to time may not be admitted, either. It is obvious that irrespective of time:

1) neither the occupation army (along with its soldiers) or repressive structures (along with its officers) of a foreign state, which had been in Lithuania without free-will consent of Lithuania’s authorities, could be interpreted (considered) as being in Lithuania lawfully;

2) the service in the occupation army or repressive structures of a foreign state could not be considered as legal permanent employment on the territory of Lithuania;

3) unlawful, i.e. without free-will consent of official authorities of the Republic of Lithuania, residence on the territory of Lithuania irrespective of its duration, could not be considered as lawful and permanent one on the territory of Lithuania.

Reservations should also be made about explanations that laws of the Republic of Lithuania allowed servicemen of the Soviet Union to be citizens of the Republic of Lithuania and that the latter were permitted to stay in said services until 1 March 1992. In this case, different ways of acquiring citizenship are mixed, thus, providing conditions for evading prohibitions for soldiers of occupation troops to become citizens of Lithuania. In cases when in legal acts mention is made of citizens of the Republic of Lithuania who serve in the army troops of the Soviet Union, it is meant persons who acquired citizenship under Paragraph 1 or 2 of Article 1 of the Law on Citizenship of 1989. They could be in the occupation army for different reasons, however, the citizenship of Lithuania that they acquired is lawful because they are either descendants of former citizens of Lithuania or they themselves (or their parents, grandparents) were born in Lithuania. Namely for such persons, i.e. lawful citizens of Lithuania, Item 4 of the Supreme Council Resolution “On the Procedure for Implementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Citizenship” of 10 December 1991 was meant, which set the terms (until 1 March 1992) for the termination of military or another service in institutions of a foreign state.

The above-mentioned as well as other persons who had lawfully acquired citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania were considered as having lost citizenship of the Soviet Union. With regard to said persons, citizenship of the Soviet Union was declared null and void. Such decision meant that consequences of occupation and annexation with regard to citizens of Lithuania who had been enforced citizenship of the Soviet Union against their will, were being eliminated (overcome). It goes without saying, such a decision on the part of the state could be adopted only with regard to its citizens, and the state, by no means, could resolve issues concerning citizenship of another state.

In accordance with laws of the Soviet Union, only citizens of the Soviet Union, only citizens of the Soviet Union were allowed to serve in the armed forces of that state. Therefore, in cases when servicemen of the Soviet Union upon issuance of Citizens of the Republic of Lithuania certification Card or Certification Testifying to the [Persons’] Decision to Acquire Citizenship Republic of Lithuania (with exception of persons stipulated in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Citizenship of 1989), continued their military service, laws were violated twice: 1) they unlawfully acquired a Citizen of the Republic of Lithuania Certification Card, as said servicemen could not become citizens of the Republic of Lithuania under Paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Law on Citizenship; 2) they unlawfully acquired dual citizenship, as laws of the Republic of Lithuania do not provide for dual citizenship for this category of persons.

The provisions of Item 5 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Citizenship of 10 December 1991 are in compliance with the main principles of international law. In Article 49 of the 12 August 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War it is promulgated (declared) that deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited. Therefore, if such limitations are imposed with regard to civil residents (civilians), it is inappropriate even to talk about the right of servicemen of the occupation army and officials of other repressive structures to citizenship of the occupied state.

The representative of the party concerned has maintained that the Item 5 of the Supreme Council Resolution “On the Procedure for Implementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Citizenship” of 10 December 1991 may not be applied to the 1989 Law on Citizenship which is no longer in force. Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court is requested to recognise that the amendment to said resolution by which Item 5 was supplemented with new Paragraph 2 is lawful, since the representative of the party concerned believes that the latter paragraph may be applied retroactively, i.e. applied to the legal consequences ensuing from the law which is no longer in effect with the purpose of revising those consequences.

The first and second paragraphs of Item 5 of the Seimas Resolution “On the Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania ‘On the Procedure for Implementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Citizenship’” contradict each other and even deny each other. Furthermore, in the second paragraph attempts are made to legalise documents conforming citizenship of Lithuania which have been unlawfully obtained by some servicemen, thus this paragraph contradicts the provisions of 1989 Law on Citizenship. In this case, by said resolution provisions of the law which has already been realised and is no longer in effect are revised, and attempts are made to achieve the result which was not stipulated either in the Law on Citizenship of 1989 nor in the Law on Citizenship of 1991 which is now in force. Therefore, the impugned resolution in view of its contents conflicts with the citizenship laws of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and, according to its form, with Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

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 the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania “On Amending Item 5 of the Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania ‘On the Procedure for Implementing the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Citizenship’” of 22 December 1993, in view of its contents, conflicts with the citizenship laws of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and, according its form, with Article 12 of 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         Stasys Stačiokas

Teodora Staugaitienė                       Juozas Žilys