its public court hearing of 13 December 1994 conducted the
vestigation of Case No 27/1994 subsequent to the petition submitted by a group of one-fifth of Seimas members requesting to examine if Article 2 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On the Establishment of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, Court of Appeal of Lithuania, District Courts; Determination of the Territories of Activity for District and Local Courts, also Reformation of the Procurator's Office of the Republic of Lithuania" of 15 June 1994 and the procedure for its adoption are
compliance with Articles 111, 115, 116 and Part 3, Article 69 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania The Constitutional Court has established: 1. On 15 June 1994 the Seimas adopted the Law "On the Establishment of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, Court of Appeal of Lithuania, District Courts; Determination of the Territories of Activity for District and Local Courts, also Reformation of the Procurator's Office of the Republic of Lithuania" (Official Gazette "Valstybës Þinios" No 50-932, 1994; hereinafter referred to as the Law
dispute). The norm of Article 2 of the Law
dispute has been formulated
the following way: "The present Supreme Court of Lithuania shall be liquidated and its activity and the powers of the judges of this Court shall be terminated on 31 December 1994. The Supreme Court of Lithuania shall be established on 1 January 1995 for the implementation of other functions prescribed by laws." The petitioner - a group of Seimas members request the Constitutional Court to examine if Article 2 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On the Establishment of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, Court of Appeal of Lithuania, District Courts; Determination of the Territories of Activity for District and Local Courts, also Reformation of the Procurator's Office of the Republic of Lithuania" of 15 June 1994 is
conformity with Articles 111, 115 and 116 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and, according to the procedure for the adoption of the Law
dispute, with the third part of Article 69 of the Constitution. 2. The petitioner
his request and his representative during the court hearing of the case submitted the following arguments.
dependent State of Lithuania, there was adopted the Law "On the Provisional Basic Law of the Republic of Lithuania" Article 2 of which approved the Provisional Basic Law of the Republic of Lithuania. Article 14 of this Law contains the underlying principles of the legal system and administration of justice, whereas the second part of Article 113 prescribes: "The courts of the Republic of Lithuania shall be the Supreme Court of Lithuania and district (town) courts." The Supreme Council, conforming to the Law on the Court System and Status of Judges of 13 February 1990 (Official Gazette "Valstybës Þinios" No 8-185, 1990), on 2-3 April 1990 elected the Chairman and two deputy Chairmen of the Supreme Court, whereas on 3 May appointed judges and formed the Presidium of the Supreme Court. Taking all this
to consideration, the petitioner maintains that the Supreme Court and local courts have been established
the
dependent Republic of Lithuania.
the third part of Article 113 of the Provisional Basic Law it was determined: "The procedures for the organization and functioning of the courts of Lithuania shall be established by law." The legislator presumed that courts, conforming to democratic principles established
new laws, would not be able to administer justice
compliance with the Law on the Court System and Status of Judges adopted before the restoration of the
dependent State of Lithuania and this would necessitate the implementation of court reform. 2. The petitioner specifies, that on 16 January 1992 the Supreme Council adopted the Law "On Amending and Appending Some Articles of Provisional Basic Law", and formulated the second part of Article 113
the following way: "The courts of the Republic of Lithuania shall be the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, district and local courts."
the fifth part of Article 114 it was determined that "the judges of the courts of the Republic of Lithuania shall be elected for a term of five years. Upon the termination of this period, they shall be appointed: women - until they are 60 years of age, men - until they are 65 years of age". This Law entered
to force on 1 February 1992.
the petitioner's opinion, judges of courts of Lithuania had been elected or appointed for a term of ten years prior to 1 February 1992, and for a term of five years - after the mentioned date. On 6 February 1992 the Supreme Council adopted the Law on Courts of the Republic of Lithuania, and on 12 March 1992 passed the Law on the Establishment of Local Courts of the Republic of Lithuania, under which established local courts
stead of district (town) courts.
judges of town and district courts, that have been elected until now, shall perform their functions within 5 years from their election day." On 29 October 1992 the Supreme Council adopted the Law "On the Establishment of District Courts, the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, the Supreme Court of Lithuania and Appending Article 15 of the Law on Courts of the Republic of Lithuania." The petitioner draws the conclusion that the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, and concrete district courts have been established, however the Court of Appeal and district courts have not been formed yet. The petitioner, complying with the provision of the first part of Article 111 of the Constitution that "The court system of the Republic of Lithuania shall consist of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, district courts, and local courts", the petititioner maintains that, the Constitution itself presupposes the establishment and existence of said courts (e. g. the Constitutional Court, President, Government and other
stitutions, the establishment of which was not based on the adoption of any separate laws as it was not necessary to do so), until the Constitution is amended or prescribes otherwise. Furthermore, the petitioner specifies that "the procedure for the formation of all these courts and above mentioned
stitutions as well as their competence (but not their establishment, however) shall be provided by separate laws". For
stance, the formation and competence of courts shall be established by the Law on Courts of the Republic of Lithuania of 31 May 1994, those of the Constitutional Court - by the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania of 3 February 1993, of the President of the Republic - by the Law on the President of the Republic of 26 January 1993, of the Government - by the Law on the Government of the Republic of Lithuania of 19 May 1994. Besides,
the petitioner's opinion, such conclusion is also confirmed by the second part of Article 111 of the Constitution which provides that specialized courts may be established along with the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, district and local courts that are prescribed by the Constitution itself. This constitutional norm was realized on 12 April 1994 by adopting the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on Economic Court under which the Economic Court was established
stead of the State Arbitration. Pursuant to what has been said above, the petitioner draws the conclusion that there has been no and there is no basis
law for liquidating the present Supreme Court . 2. Concerning the powers of the Supreme Court judges. The petitioner specifies that, under the Provisional Basic Law and its amendment of 16 January 1992,
the period from 1990 to 1 February 1992 the Supreme Court judges were elected for a term of 10 years and after 1 February 1992 - for a term of 5 years. Therefore, the powers of all the judges will be still valid on 31 December 1994, i. e. on the day of the liquidation of the present Supreme Court. The petitioner specifies that the Supreme Court judges, pursuant to the laws that were
force at the time they were elected or appointed, have been lawfully elected or appointed, therefore they may be dismissed from office only
the cases determined
Articles 115 and 116 of the Constitution, that may not be given more extensive
terpretation as the list of the enumerated cases is exhausted. According to the petitioner, the definitness of the validity of powers of judges established
the Constitution as well as the prohibition to determine the powers on other basis than provided by the law shall be one of the underlying guarantees for the
dependence of judges. Court judges of the Republic of Lithuania shall be dismissed from office according to the procedure established by law
the following cases: 1) at their own will; 2) upon expiration of their powers or upon reaching pensionable age as determined by law; 3) for reasons of health; 4) upon appointment to another office or upon voluntary transference to another place or office; 5) if the behavior discredits their position as judge; and 6) when judgement imposed on them by court comes
to force. If the Chairperson or judges of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal grossly violate the Constitution, break their oath, or are found guilty of an offence, the Seimas may remove them from office according to impeachment proceedings. Furthermore, the petitioner
the court hearing of the case emphasized that the Republic of Lithuania is a member of the United Nations. The General Assembly,
its resolution 40/146 of 13 December 1985 welcomed the Basic principles on the
dependence of the Judiciary, and
vited Governments to respect them and to take them
to account within the framework of their national legislation and practice. Article 12 of said Principles runs: "Judges whether appointed or elected, shall have guaranteed tenure until a mandatory retirement age or the expiry of their term of office, where such exists." Pursuant to what has been said before, the petitioner holds that the cases when court judges shall be dismissed from office have been enumerated
Articles 115 and 116 of the Constitution and may not be subjected to broader
terpretation, therefore the provision of Article 2 of the Law
dispute that "the powers of the judges of this Court shall be terminated on 31 December 1994" contradicts Articles 115 and 116 of the Constitution. 3. Concerning the procedure for the adoption of the Law of 15 June 1994 "On the Establishment of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, District Courts; Determination of the Territories of Activity for District and Local Courts, also Reformation of the Procurator's Office of the Republic of Lithuania". The petitioner maintains that, though the third part of Article 69 of the Constitution prescribes that "the Seimas shall establish a list of constitutional laws by a three-fifths majority vote of the Seimas members", this has not been done yet. Following the petitioner, the Law
dispute should be considered constitutional, because it is concerned with the establishment of constitutional bodies. It was adopted by 54 votes of Seimas members
favour thereof, i. e. by less than a half of all the Seimas members. Thus,
the petitioner's opinion, the procedure of its adoption has been violated and the Law may not be considered lawful. The petitioner's representative, during the court hearing of the case having presented the above mentioned arguments and having summarized them, requests to recognize that Article 2 of the 15 June 1994 Law and the procedure for its adoption contradict Articles 111, 115 and 116 as well as the third part of Article 69 of the Constitution. 3. The representative of the party concerned explained during the preliminary
vestigation and court hearing of the case that,
their opinion, the petitioner's request is not justified. By way of answering to the petitioner's statement that the Supreme Court has been liquidated and the new Supreme Court has been established unlawfully, they submitted the following arguments. 1. The first part of Article 111 of the Constitution runs that "the court system of the Republic of Lithuania shall consist of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, district courts, and local courts." This Article of the Constitution provides for the court system and court reform actually different from the existing one. The Supreme Court until now has worked
compliance with the soviet Law on the Court System and Status of Judges, whereas, upon the establishment of the Court of Appeal and district courts, the Supreme Court loses some of its functions, e. g. it loses its right to
vestigate cases as the first
stance, also to reconsider non-effective court decisions and judgements. Besides, the new Supreme Court will have a different cassation procedure. It may be started not by
dividual persons but by panels of three judges. Apart from the functions, the structure of the Supreme Court shall change too: the Presidium and Plenary Meeting shall be superseded by the Judges' Senate the structure and functions of which shall be changed as well: it will comprise all the Supreme Court judges likewise the Plenary Meeting, whereas all the other judges of the Republic may participate therein by the right of deliberative vote. According to the representative of the party concerned, Article 18 of the Law on Courts defining the competence of the Supreme Court prescribes that "the Supreme Court shall proclaim court decisions approved by the Judges' Senate. Courts, state and other
stitutions, also other persons, while applying the same laws must take
to consideration
terpretations of the application of laws proposed
said court decisions. "This proves that the Supreme Court, the Judges' senate shall be entitled to the powers that the present Supreme Court may not enjoy. Representatives of the party concerned maintain that the present Supreme Court must be liquidated and replaced by a new Supreme Court with different competence, other functions performed while administering justice
the country. 2. By way of answering to the petitioner's statement that the powers of judges have been terminated before the expiration of the term of office, the party concerned pointed out that
the fourth part of Article 111 of the Constitution it is set forth that: "... the formation and competence of courts shall be determined by the Law on Courts of the Republic of Lithuania." This Law, which was adopted on 31 May 1994,
essence provided for a completely new Supreme Court. Upon the enforcement of this Law, all the other earlier valid laws concerning this issue, among them the laws that foresaw the duration of the powers of the Supreme Court judges, members of Presidium and Plenary Meeting, shall become null and void.
contrary case, not only the liquidation but even reorganization of the Supreme Court would not be possible. Articles 115 and 116 prescribe the procedure for dismissal from office of judges of existing courts. Otherwise, it would go counter to Article 111 of the Constitution and, on the whole, no reform of the courts and procurator's office would be possible Neither the Law on Courts, nor Article 2 of the 15 June 1994 Law providing for the procedure for the enforcement of the aforesaid Law, nor the procedure for the adoption of said Article contradict Articles 111, 115 and 116 of the Constitution, because the Supreme Court is liquidated and on its basis a new Supreme Court with new structure and functions shall be formed. The representatives of the party concerned argued that the judges of the present Supreme Court had been elected to other courts, i. e. to the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, district courts, and they would be able to continue their work as a judge. 3. The representatives of the party concerned maintained that the laws of 31 May 1994 and of 15 July 1994 were not constitutional. They were adopted by the simple majority vote of Seimas members participating
the sitting, therefore they may not be ascribed to constitutional laws that shall be deemed adopted if more than half of all the members of the Seimas vote
the affirmative. Thus, it may not be stated, that the third part of Article 69 of the Constitution has been violated. The Constitutional Court holds that:
dependence) of courts was left. 16 January 1992 may be considered the beginning of the reform of Lithuania's court system, because on that day the Supreme Council adopted the Law "On Amending and Appending Some Articles of the Provisional Basic Law" which provided the following wording for the second part of Article 113 of the Provisional Basic Law : "The Court of the Republic of Lithuania shall be the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, district and local courts." The new court system had to be created on the basis of constitutional norms. On 6 February 1992 the Supreme Council adopted the Law on Courts of the Republic of Lithuania and Resolution "On the enforcement of the Law on Courts of the Republic of Lithuania." Under item 3 of this Resolution the Ministry of Justice of Lithuania was authorized,
co-ordination with the Supreme Court, to draft and submit for the Supreme Council certain draft laws and draft resolutions. It was also determined that chapters of the Law on Courts which regulated the activity of the new court system had to come
to force on 1 November 1992. On 12 March 1992 the Supreme Council adopted the Law on the Establishment of Local Courts of the Republic of Lithuania under which new local courts were established
stead of then existing town and district courts. On 29 October 1992 the Supreme Council adopted the Law "On the Establishment of District Courts, the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, the Supreme Court of Lithuania and Appending of Article 15 of the Law on Courts of the Republic of Lithuania" item 5 of which prescribed that "the courts provided by this Law must be formed until the adoption of appropriate laws on amending and appending the codes of civil and criminal procedure that would mark the enforcement of Articles 3-5, 8-13, 18, 19, 49, 60, 62 of the Law on Courts of the Republic of Lithuania." The implementation of the provisions of this Law has been prolonged because said amendments and supplements of procedural laws were not adopted. Taking all the chronological run of the implementation of Lithuania's court reform and the essence of the contents of the adopted legal acts
to consideration, the following two conclusions can be made: first, local courts were established on 12 March 1992 and have been functioning according to 6 February 1992 Law on the Courts of the Republic of Lithuania; second, other courts, the Supreme Court
cluded, had to be formed conforming to the 29 October 1992 Law until the adoption of amendments and supplements to the codes of civil and criminal procedure. Thus, the reform of the court system has actually been a long continuous process the run and duration of which has been determined by the material and financial abilities of the State as well as the creation of the system of appropriate laws. 2. After the enforcement of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania on 2 November 1992, the contents of court reform had to be co-ordinated with the constitutional norms concerning the legal power, court system and the status of courts. The Seimas is commissioned to do this by the Constitution and the Law "On the Procedure for the Enforcement of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania."
of this Law it is established that laws, other legal acts, or parts thereof which where
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 provisions of the Constitution. By way of further implementing the reform of court system, the Seimas on 31 May 1994 adopted a new Law on Courts of the Republic of Lithuania and on 15 June 1994 - the Law "On the Establishment of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, Court of Appeal of Lithuania, District Courts; Determination of the Territories of Activity for District and Local Courts, also Reformation of the Procurator's Office of the Republic of Lithuania". The petitioner's statement, that the norm of the first part of Article 111 of the Constitution itself establishes that "the court system of the Republic of Lithuania shall consist of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, district courts, and local courts", therefore the adoption of a separate law on their establishment (e. g. the establishment of the Constitutional Court, President of the Republic, the Government, etc.) is unnecessary, is not justified. The fourth part of Article 111 directly prescribes that "the formation and competence of courts shall be determined by the Law on Courts of the Republic of Lithuania." Therefore, the legislator, implementing this constitutional provision, exercised the prerogative to enact laws provided by the Constitution. The Constitution and the Law "On the Procedure for the Enforcement of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania" does not determine the way and methods the Seimas should employ
the implementation of the court reform. Thus, the Seimas is free to choose the ways and procedure for the implementation of this reform provided that they do not contradict the Constitution. The functions and competence of the Supreme Court
the new four-level court system
essence differs from the functions and competence of the Supreme Court
the previous two-level system. The function of the previous Supreme Court to examine cases at the first
stance and to reconsider non-effective court decisions and judgements was delegated to the newly formed district courts and the Court of Appeal.
the new court system, the Supreme Court became exceptionally only the supreme
stance of cassation. Besides, the law commissioned it to perform one more function - to form unique practice of courts applying laws. Taking all the above mentioned circumstances
to consideration, there are grounds to maintain that,
the new court system, the Supreme Court became an
stitution with a qualitatively new competence. Namely
this light the provisions of Article 2 of the 15 June 1994 Law that "the present Supreme Court of Lithuania shall be liquidated" and "the Supreme Court of Lithuania shall be established on 1 January 1994 for the implementation of other functions prescribed by laws" should be evaluated. The notion "to establish" used by the legislator etymologically means "to give a start", "to set up". The term "shall be established", however is
separable from the words "for the implementation of other functions prescribed by laws", which implies that the legislator presumed that new powers of the Supreme Court were determined. The Constitutional Court also holds that the statement of the Law
dispute "the present Supreme Court of Lithuania shall be liquidated" may be understood ambiguously, i. e. it may be stated that it implies encroachment upon an
dependent
stitution of state power.
the process of court reform when new courts are being established, the competence of the Supreme Court is subjected to changes, and the judicial authority is undergoing reorganization, all this situation should be defined using other linguistic-legal concepts that would enable to precisely and clearly describe the dynamics and consequences of the legal relations emerging during this reform. The notion "liquidation" is usually employed
cases when an enterprise,
stitution or organization is being liquidated
the procedure prescribed by laws. Such cases are related to other legal consequences. The notion "establishment" used
of the Law
dispute may be understood only
the sense of the determination of additional or adjusted spheres of competence of the Supreme Court and changing its
ner structure, and not
the sense of establishing a new legal
stitution. This is confirmed by the norms of the 15 June 1994 Law 'On the Enforcement of the Law on Courts of the Republic of Lithuania and the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On the Establishment of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, Court of Appeal of Lithuania, District Courts; Determination of the Territories of Activity for District and Local Courts, also Reformation of the Procurator's Office of the Republic of Lithuania"'. Striving to ensure permanent implementation of the functions of the supreme judicial authority,
of the Law it was set forth how non-examined cases would be handed over to other courts according to their jurisdiction, how cases
which adopted court decisions, judgements, rulings and resolutions are appealed against
supervision order would be further
vestigated. Said Law has resolved also other issues concerning the new powers of the Supreme Court as a supreme judicial authority. 3.
of the Constitution it is determined: "Court judges of the Republic of Lithuania shall be dismissed from office according to the procedure established by law
the following cases: 1) at their own will; 2) upon expiration of their powers or upon reaching personable age as determined by laws; 3) for reasons of health; 4) upon appointment to another office or upon voluntary transference to another place of office; 5) if their behaviour discredits their position as judge; and 6) when judgement imposed on them by court comes
to force." Furthermore,
of the Constitution it is set forth that if the Chairperson or judges of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal grossly violate the Constitution, break their oath, or are found guilty of an offence, the Seimas may remove them from office according to impeachment proceedings. Consequently, the powers of judges may not be terminated prior to the expiration of their term of office, with the exception of cases provided by the Constitution. Such provision is also present
the United Nations General Assembly resolution 40/146 of 13 December 1985 which welcomed the Basic Principles on
dependence of the Judiciary, and
vited Governments to respect them and to take
to account within the framework of their national legislation and practice.
of said Principles it is specified that judges, whether appointed or elected, shall have guaranteed tenure until a mandatory retirement age or the expiry of their term of office, where such exists.
the second part of Article 109 it is established: "While administering justice, judges and courts shall be
dependent." This means that
dependence of judges as well as courts shall be safeguarded by constitutional provisions. The judge's
dependence must be actually guaranteed together with the guarantees for the judge's tenure. Judges of the Supreme Court of Lithuania appointed
compliance with the Provisional Basic Law, also judges appointed under the Constitution, were designated for a concrete term of office. Their powers will still be valid on 31 December 1994. The Seimas, taking
to consideration the delegation of part of the competence of the previous Supreme Court to the Court of Appeal and district courts also the change of its procedural functions, could establish another than earlier number of Supreme Court judges. However, the termination of the powers of judges was possible only conforming to the principles determined
Therefore, the provision of Article 2 of the Law
dispute that the Supreme Court judges shall be dismissed from office on 31 December 1994 contradicts item 2 of Article 115 of the Constitution. 2. Concerning the compliance of the 15 June 1994 Law "On the Establishment of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, District Courts; Determination of the Territories of Activity for District and Local Courts, also Reformation of the Procurator's Office of the Republic of Lithuania" with the third part of Article 69 of the Constitution according to the procedure of its adoption.
the third part of Article 69 of the Constitution it is set forth: "The Seimas shall establish a list of constitutional laws by a three-fifths majority vote of the Seimas members." The Constitution does not prescribe another than said procedure for the establishment of constitutional laws. Consequently, only the laws
cluded
the list of constitutional laws approved
this procedure may be
terpreted as constitutional laws and only to these laws the procedure for their adoption and amendment provided by the Constitution shall be applied. This was stated
the Constitutional Court Ruling of 8 November 1993 'Concerning the compliance of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On Partial Amending and Appending of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Elections to the Seimas", 16 March, 1993, with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania' and once again confirmed
the Constitutional Court Ruling of 1 December 1994. The Seimas, while adopting the Law
dispute, did not violate the procedure of its adoption. Taking
to consideration the
terpretation of notions
question presented
the argumentation of this ruling, and 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 has passed the following ruling: 1. To recognize that concerning the Law of 15 June 1994 "On the Establishment of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, Court of Appeal of Lithuania, District Courts; Determination of the Territories of Activity for District and Local Courts, also Reformation of the Procurator's Office of the Republic of Lithuania":
compliance with 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 Gailiûnas Kæstutis Lapinskas ZIgmas Levickis Vladas Pavilonis Pranas Vytautas Rasimavièius Stasys Staèiokas Teodora Staugaitienë Stasys Ðedbaras Juozas Þilys
DI paaiškinimas pagal oficialų įstatymo tekstą. Orientacinis, nepakeičia teisinės konsultacijos.