its public hearing of 21 April 1994 conducted
vestigation of Case No 6/94 subsequent to the petition submitted to the Court by Plungė District Court requesting to
vestigate if Part 2 of Article 6, Article 11, and Part 2 of Article 12 of Matrimonial and Family Code are
compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. The Constitutional Court has established: The petitioner - Plungė District Court on 5 January 1994 conducted the
vestigation of the civil case upon the complaint lodged by Elena Razmienė pertaining to the refusal of Plungė district notary to issue a certificate of the right of succession under law. Plungė District Court by its ruling has suspended the
vestigation of the civil case and is requesting the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania to establish whether Part 2 of Article 6, Article 11, and Part 2 of Article 12 of Matrimonial and Family Code are
conformity with Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. The Court bases its request on the fact that
the fourth part of Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania it is specified that: "The State shall also recognize marriages registered
church". Whereas
the second part of Article 6 of the Matrimonial and Family Code it is established that only marriages contracted
State civil registry offices shall be recognized, and religious ceremony of marriage as well other religious rituals shall have no legal effect.
of the Matrimonial and Family Code it is set forth that marriage shall be contracted
State civil registry offices, and
the second part of Article 12 of same Code it is declared that rights and duties of spouses shall be created only by marriages contracted
State civil registry offices. These rights and duties appear from the day the marriage is registered
civil registry offices. During preliminary
vestigation of the case, a representative of the party concerned explained:
of the Constitution the following provision is established: "This Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania shall become effective the day following the official promulgation of the results of the Referendum...". Thus, the Constitution entered
to force only at the end of 1992.
the opinion of the representative of the party concerned, considering that said norms of the Matrimonial and Family Code contradict Article 38 of the Constitution, the validity of the Constitution should be transferred back to 15 August 1987, i.e. back to the time when those factual matrimonial relations appeared. The representative of the party concerned also reasons that if church wedding had been contracted
1945, it would not mean, however, that the validity of Article 38 of the Constitution would be possible to transfer several decades back.
property and personal relations.
the opinion of the representative of the party concerned, cases are possible when at first marriage is contracted
church with one person and then -
the office of civil registration - with another one. It becomes unclear
that case, which from the two marriages shall be certain and valid and which shall be not. Sometimes polygamy may be artificially created
such manner, which is by no means permissible. Therefore, the representative of the party concerned maintains that said norms of the Matrimonial and Family Code contradict Article 38 of the Constitution only
cases when church wedding has been contracted only after the enforcement of the new Constitution. The Government of the Republic of Lithuania has explained that the provision of the fourth part of Article 38 of the Constitution specifying that "the State shall also recognize marriages registered
church" is applicable only to church weddings which have been contracted after the enforcement of 1992 Constitution. At present, when Church is not properly prepared yet for the registration of marriages (i.e. is not ready to make records of marriage, to send second copies to the Department of Statistics and Lithuanian State Civil Registers' Archives, to issue certificates of uniform pattern of church wedding, to put stamps certifying marriage
citizens' passports, etc.), church wedding shall be re-registered
civil registry offices. While re- registering church wedding, civil registry offices do not apply requirements of Article 13 of Matrimonial and Family Code (Term, upon expiration of which the marriage is registered) and Article 14 (Solemnity of contracting marriage). The Constitutional Court holds that: Jurisprudence and legal traditions allow us to draw the conclusion that
the sphere of legal regulation a general rule is valid: a law has no retroactive validity. That means that normative acts are generally not applied to such facts and legal consequences that had appeared before the enforcement of said normative acts (The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania Ruling of 16 March 1994 ÖOn the compliance of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania resolution No 872 ÕOn partial amendment to the Government of the Republic of Lithuania resolution No 773 of 16 October 1992ÕÕ, adopted 23 November 1993, with the second part of Article 14 of the Law on Enterprises and the Law "On the Procedure for Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws and Other Legal Acts of the Republic of Lithuania". (Official Gazette "Valstybės žinios" No 22-366). Legal relations appear only on the grounds prescribed by valid laws.
legislation, adoption of retroactive norms of laws is an exception. This occurs only when the law itself specifies its retroactive validity, or when laws nullifying the punishability for acts or administrative responsibility, or mitigating the punishment or administrative penalty.
other spheres of law, adoption of a retroactive law can have a negative impact on persons' rights. A retroactive law
trudes
to the sphere of regulation of the law which was earlier
effect and changes persons' rights and duties prescribed by a previous law. Due to this, legal consequences appear which may be favourable for one party and unfavourable for another. Thus it would be wrong to consider that a law improving the status of a person (except criminal and administrative responsibility) has always retroactive validity, because
ownership law, upon improving the status of one party of legal relation, the status of the other one can become worse. The Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania was adopted on 25 October 1992 by referendum of all citizens of the Republic, and came
to force the following day after the promulgation of the results of the referendum, i.e. on 2 November 1992. Neither the Constitution itself nor the Law "On the Procedure for the Enforcement of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania" provides for the retroactive validity of the constitutional norms.
of said Law it is established that Laws, other legal acts, or parts thereof which were
effect on the territory of the Republic of Lithuania prior to the adoption of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, shall be effective provided that they do not contradict the Constitution and this law, and shall remain effective until they are either declared null and void or co-ordinated with the provision of the Constitution. Therefore, the provision of the fourth part of Article 38 of the Constitution that "The State shall also recognize marriages registered
church" may not be applied to legalization of church wedding contracted prior to the enforcement of the Constitution, i.e. until 2 November 1992, either. If until this date marriage had not been registered
civil registry offices as it is prescribed by the norms of the Matrimonial and Family Code it did not become a juridical fact and did not cause any legal consequences because it could not cause them under laws that had been
effect earlier. If the norms of the Constitution comprised the facts that had appeared earlier and had no legal effect, that would mean the expansion of the sphere of legal regulation - i.e. the validity of legal norms would be referred back. This, however, would contradict a general legal principle, that "a law has no retroactive validity". The provision of the fourth part of Article 38 that "The State shall also recognize marriages registered
church" entered
to force along with the Constitution and has no retroactive validity. This provision of the Constitution shall regulate present and future legal relations i.e. shall recognize marriages registered
church only after 2 November 1992.
accordance with the procedure of official registration of church weddings, the latter must be re-registered
civil registry offices. It should be noted, that the so-called "re-registration" may be evaluated only as temporary official record of marriages, but not as a legal fact of marriage registration. It is not "re-registration" but registration of marriage (either performed by State or by Church) which is the beginning of legal relations of marriage and related to them rights and duties. Such procedure for recording of church weddings may be evaluated only as temporary measure because the State should determine by law a clear and fixed procedure for official recording of church weddings, realization of legal consequences ensuing from marriages, resolving of disputes thereof.
the fourth part of Article 38 of the Constitution it is established: "The State shall also recognize marriages registered
church".
the second part of Article 6 of the Matrimonial and Family Code, however, it is promulgated that only marriage contracted
State civil registry offices shall be recognized, whereas religious ceremony of marriage just like other religious rituals shall have no legal effect. This norm by itself (ipso) contradicts said norm of the Constitution.
of the Matrimonial and Family Code it is set forth that marriages shall be contracted
State civil registry offices. This norm does not contradict the provision of the fourth part of Article 38 of the Constitution that "The State shall register marriages, births and deaths", as this norm only specifies which
stitutions shall perform state registration of marriages. Matrimonial and Family Code was adopted at the time
force also recognizes state registration of marriages, therefore, the legal norm establishing one of the
stitutions that would perform said registration, does not contradict the Constitution. The fact that the law fails to mention church registration of marriage should be
terpreted as a flaw
the law.
the second part of Article 12 of the Matrimonial and Family Code it is determined that rights and duties of spouses shall arise only from marriages that are contracted
State civil registry offices. These rights and duties shall appear from the day when marriages are registered
civil registry offices.
said part, two provisions having
dependent legal effect are specified, therefore, their
terpretation must also be different. The first provision, that rights and duties of spouses shall arise only from marriages contracted
State civil registry offices, contradicts the statement of the fourth part of Article 38 of the Constitution that "The State shall also recognize marriages registered
church". The contents of said constitutional provision permits to draw the conclusion that rights and duties of spouses shall arise also from the day when marriages are registered
church. The second provision, that rights and duties of spouses shall arise from the day marriages are registered
civil registry offices, actually establishes the beginning of marriage and connected with it legal relations. Civil registry office, performing said registration,
compliance with the context of this norm, means that not the subject but legal fact of registration of marriage contract is emphasized here, i.e. under the contents of this norm, it is important not who shall register marriages but the fact that rights and duties of spouses shall appear from the day of marriage registration. Therefore, failing to mention the subjects of marriage registration
said norm and Article 11, must be
terpreted as a flaw of law but not as a norm which contradicts the Constitution. The Constitutional Court does not resolve issues concerning flaws of law. This is the prerogative of legislators. Thus, the second part of Article 12 of Matrimonial and Family Code only partly contradicts the statement of the fourth part of Article 38 of the Constitution that "The State shall also recognize marriages registered
church". 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 has passed the following ruling:
State civil registry offices, contradicts the fourth part of Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. This Constitutional Court ruling is final and not subject to appeal. The ruling is promulgated on behalf 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 Stasys Šedbaras Juozas Žilys
DI paaiškinimas pagal oficialų įstatymo tekstą. Orientacinis, nepakeičia teisinės konsultacijos.