Case No 2/94

Case No 2/94 Case No 2/94 THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA R U L I N G On the compliance of the norms of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania On Privatization of Apartments, establishing the privatization of hostel rooms in the institutions of higher education, with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania 27 June 1994, Vilnius The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed from the Justices of the Constitutional Court Algirdas Gailiûnas, Kæstutis Lapinskas, Zigmas Levickis, Vladas Pavilonis, Pranas Vytautas Rasimavièius, Stasys Staèiokas, Teodora Staugaitienë, Stasys Ðedbaras and Juozas Þilys, the secretary of the hearing - Sigutë Brusovienë, the party concerned - Seimas members Julius Beinortas, Gediminas Adolfas Pavirþis, representatives of Seimas, advocate Kazimieras Motieka and Algirdas Taminskas, pursuant to Part 1, Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic and Part 1, Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its public hearing of 16 June 1994 conducted the investigation of Case No 2/94 subsequent to the petition submitted to the Court by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Lithuania requesting to investigate if the norms of the Law On Privatization of Apartments, establishing the privatization of hostel rooms of the institutions of higher education, are in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania The Constitutional Court has established:

1. Vilnius 2nd District Court by the decision, adopted on 6 October 1993, complied with the suit brought to the Court by the plaintiffs G. Aleksonis and R. Aleksonienë against the defendant - Vilnius University - pertaining to the privatization of a dwelling, and commissioned the University to sell for the plaintiffs their leasehold in Èiurlionio str. 1/2-15, Vilnius. The Court decision was passed pursuant to the Law On Privatization of Apartments, establishing the procedure of purchase-sale of the state and public housing fund to the tenants leasing dwellings. In the first part of Article 2 of the Law On Privatization of Apartments, it is set forth that "the object of purchase- sale is residential houses belonging to the state and public housing fund, apartments in many-flat houses, apartments and rooms in hostels". In the second part of Article 3 of this Law it is specified that "rooms in hostels, which are allotted to the students, graduates and post-graduates of the institutions of secondary, vocational, further and higher education in the procedure prescribed by the Government, as well as rooms in the hostels belonging to the Union of the Blind and Weak-sighted of Lithuania, Society for the Deaf and Society of the Disabled of Lithuania, shall not be subject to privatization" (Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Privatization of Apartments, edition adopted on 15 July 1993, Official Gazette "Valstybës Þinios" No 32-722, 1993). The Panel of Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of Lithuania by the ruling of 18 November 1993 left the court decision unchanged. The deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court appealed by protest in order of supervision to the Presidium of the Supreme Court requesting to nullify the court decision and the College ruling, to adopt a new decision and to dismiss a suit. While considering this protest, the Presidium of the Supreme Court by its resolution suspended the investigation of the civil case and addressed the Constitutional Court with the request to investigate if the Law on Privatization of Apartments, while applying it with respect to the hostel of Vilnius University, is in conformity with the third part of Article 40 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
2. The Presidium of the Supreme Court bases the request on the following arguments. In the third part of Article 40 of the Constitution it is established that institutions of higher learning shall be granted autonomy. Under the statute of Vilnius University, this institution of higher education having autonomy exercises the right of inviolability of its territory and buildings. Only the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania may change the boundaries of University territory and give over the buildings, taking the opinion of the University Council into consideration. The University Council and Senate, while resolving G. Aleksonis' request to be permitted to privatize the dwelling, and expressing the opinion that the hostel in Èiurlionio str. 1/2 was not subject to privatization, relied on said constitutional provision and Vilnius University Statute. Vilnius 2nd District Court justifies its decision maintaining that the Law on Privatization of Apartments is a special law, adopted later than the statute of Vilnius University. In the opinion of the Court, in case of the competition of laws, the norms of the Law on Privatization of Apartments are applied. The Panel of Civil Cases consented to such conclusions made by the Court and stated that premises under dispute are not specified on the list of premises not subject to privatisation. In the protest in order of supervision it is argued that the dispute had to be resolved in conformity with the statute of Vilnius University, which is a special norm for this University, whereas the Law on Privatization of Apartments is a general one, applied in the privatization of the state and public housing fund of all the Republic. Without the consent of University Council to privatize the premises under dispute, and without the adoption of the Seimas decision on this issue, the Court could not possibly comply with the suit.
3. J. Beinortas and G. A. Pavirþis, representatives of the party concerned, explained in the Constitutional Court hearing that the Law on Privatization of Apartments came into being while realizing the idea that state-owned property, accumulated in the housing fund, should be transferred to the citizens. By virtue of this Law, 60 per cent of the residents of Lithuania under preferential conditions acquired the ownership right to residential premises leased by them from the state and public housing fund. Taking the status of the citizens of Lithuania residing in hostels into account, the Seimas adopted the amendment, permitting to privatize rooms in hostels as well. The representatives of the party concerned have maintained, that the University, as state institution of science and studies, must abide by the Law on Science and Studies, in Article 19 of which it is specified that institutions of science and studies shall use State property in the procedure established by the laws of the Republic of Lithuania. The Law on Privatization of Apartments prescribes the procedure of the disposition of this property irrespective of the jurisdictional dependence thereof. It is applied with respect to all the housing fund, formed by the contributions of the citizens of Lithuania, i. e. independently from the organization to which it has been ascribed and which disposes of it. In the opinion of the representatives of the party concerned, the Law on Privatization of Apartments is in conformity with the Constitution. In the opinion of A. Taminskas, representative of the party concerned, the Law on Privatization of Apartments does not contradict the third part of Article 40 also due to the following motives:
4. The Law on Privatization of Apartments was adopted later than the statute of Vilnius University. Therefore, in case of the competition of laws, a law which is enacted later shall be in force, because it expresses the latest will of the legislator. Furthermore, the Law on Privatization of Apartments is special as it regulates only specific (not general) legal relations of privatization ensuing from the management, use and disposal of property.
5. The University manages, uses and disposes of property given over thereto not by the rights of ownership but property entrust. The rights of the state, as the only owner of the property, are implemented by the body of highest state power while adopting laws, executive acts, and - in this particular case - ratifying the statute of Vilnius University. Thus, the University must manage, use and dispose of state property (hostels among them) under the statute thereof, although without violation of the laws of the Republic of Lithuania. The Law on Privatization of Apartments is binding to all the subjects, the University among them, because the latter disposes of its property only in the procedure prescribed by laws.
6. Pursuant to the statute of Vilnius University, this institution of higher education, having autonomy, exercises the right of the inviolability of its territory and buildings, and only the Supreme Council (Seimas, at present) may change the boundaries of its territory and seize the buildings, taking the opinion of the University Council into account. On the assertion of the representative of the party concerned, the University's autonomy does not include the right to inviolability of buildings and territory, because in item
9. of the statute of Vilnius University these concepts are definitely separated. The opinion of the University Council with respect to the change of the territory and management of houses, may not restrict the Seimas' implementation of the ownership rights of the state - the owner of the property. Only in the event that the issue concerning the transferral of state property, given over to the University, to other state enterprises, institutions, organizations or institutions of higher education is resolved, this provision should be binding. In the case of privatization of dwellings (hostels among them), when the form of property is changed, the supreme body of state power expresses its will on the issue of disposal of state property by adopting a law thereof.
10. The Law on Privatization of Apartments has provided the possibility for the residents of Lithuania to acquire for private ownership under preferential conditions residential houses, apartments and rooms in hostels leased from the state ant public housing fund. The groundless deprivation of the right, possessed by the employees of institutions of higher education, to privatize the leased room in the employees' hostels, would restrict the rights of the employees of the institutions of higher education and, actually, would legalize discrimination on the bases of his or her occupation or social status (Article 29, Constitution). K. Motieka, representative of the party concerned has explained that, according to the Constitution, the State does not regulate the issues concerning the management and disposal of property given over to the institution of higher education. Buildings, hostels of the institution of higher education among them, are within the scope of higher school autonomy. Autonomy - is some sort of self-government, established by law which must be observed. The University's autonomy and the right to dispose of buildings is strictly defined by the statute of Vilnius University, under which the issues must be resolved only by the University Council and Senate. The State, having delegated to the University the right to dispose of property, may seize it only in the procedure prescribed by laws and without violation of the statute of the University. Institutions of science and studies use the property belonging to them in the procedure established by the laws of the Republic of Lithuania. All laws are binding to the University, with the exception of those which determine special procedure of their implementation. While privatizing the University hostels, the statute of Vilnius University, which has the power of law, must be applied, because the Law on Privatization of Dwelling is applied to the whole state housing fund, with exception of autonomous institutions of higher education. In the opinion of K. Motieka, representative of the party concerned, neither the statute of Vilnius University, affirmed by law, nor the Law on Privatization of Apartments, contradict the Constitution. Both laws are in effect and have different clearly defined spheres of their validity, thus, the norms of University's autonomy may not be regulated by the norms of the Law on Privatization of Apartments. The Constitutional Court holds that:
11. In the third part of Article 40 it is established that: "Institutions of higher learning shall be granted autonomy". Historically, the idea of the autonomy of the institution of higher learning came into being in the Middle Ages, when universities originated as establishments of science and studies. The autonomy meant that the university, to a certain extent, was independent from the state, striving to dissociate itself from the influence of political power, to create an independent system of regulation of internal activities within the institution of higher education. The purpose of such dissociation from the state power was to safeguard the freedom of science, research and teaching, to protect researchers and professors from political influence. The development of the academic autonomy has always been predetermined by the understanding that science and teaching may normally exist and induce progress only when they are free and independent. Thus appeared the principle of academic freedom, which expressed the striving to protect the researchers' and teachers' freedom of scientific thought and its expression from outward influence. Traditionally, the autonomy of the institution of higher learning is conceived as the right to independently determine and establish in the regulations or statute the organizational and governmental structure, relations with other partners, the order of research and studies, academic syllabus, the order of student enrolment, to resolve other related questions, to use the property given over by the state as well as newly acquired, to possess the territory and buildings as well as other property, allotted for the needs of research and studies, to have the guarantee of inviolability. For this purpose, the institution of higher learning is guaranteed the institutional autonomy, i. e. certain status, which means that there are certain spheres of activities, independent from the control of the executive power.
12. The Magna Charta