Material No 33/94

Material No 33/94 Material No 33/94 THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA D E C I S I O N On the refusal to investigate and on the return of the petition submitted by Vilnius 2nd District Court requesting to examine if item

1. 2 of the Procedure for the Establishment of Investment Joint-Stock Companies, confirmed by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution No 30 of 21 January 1992, is in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 16 of the Law on Initial Privatization of State Property of the Republic of Lithuania, also if item 14 of the 2 February 1993 Law "On Appending and Amending the Law on Initial Privatization of State Property of the Republic of Lithuania" conforms to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania 10 November 1994, Vilnius The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed from the Justices of the Constitutional Court Algirdas Gailiûnas, Zigmas Levickis, Vladas Pavilonis, Pranas Vytautas Rasimavièius, Teodora Staugaitienë, Stasys Ðedbaras and Juozas Þilys, the secretary of the hearing - Rolanda Stimbirytë, in the procedural sitting considered the report made by Justice Stasys Ðedbaras pertaining to the results of preliminary investigation of the material, and has established: The petitioner - Vilnius 2nd District Court by its ruling suspended the investigation of the civil case concerning the restoration of infringed rights and addressed the Constitutional Court requesting to examine if item
2. 2 of the Procedure for the Establishment of Investment Joint-Stock Companies, approved by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania Resolution of 21 January 1992, is consistent with the Constitution and Article 16 of the Law on Initial Privatization of State Property valid then, also if item 14 of the 2 February 1993 Law "On Appending and Amending the Law on Initial Privatization of State Property of the Republic of Lithuania" complies with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania The Constitutional Court holds that:
3. In Articles 63 and 64 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania it is established that the grounds for the examination of a case concerning the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution shall be a legally justified doubt that the entire legal act or part thereof contradicts the Constitution or laws. The petitioner, while requesting to examine the compliance of item
4. 2 of the Procedure for the Establishment of Investment Joint-Stock Companies with the Constitution, did not submit any arguments to justify the opinion on non-conformity of this norm with the Constitution. Under Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, this shall be grounds for the return of the petition to the petitioner.
5. The petitioner also requests to examine the compliance of item
6. 2 of the Procedure for the Establishment of Investment Joint-Stock Companies with Article 16 of the Law on Initial Privatization of State Property which was in force earlier. The Procedure for the Establishment of Investment Joint-Stock Companies was approved by the Government Resolution of 21 January
7. The second part of Article 16 of then valid Law on Initial Privatization of State Property was amended by the Law of 2 February
8. Thus, the petitioner requests to investigate the conformity of the legal act to the invalid norm of the law. Article 102 of the Constitution and Article 63 of the Law on the Constitutional Court do not prescribe that the Constitutional Court shall examine cases concerning the compliance of legal acts with invalid laws. According to item 2 of the first part of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, this shall be grounds for refusal to consider a petition.
9. Besides, the petitioner requests to investigate the constitutionality of item 14 of the 2 February 1993 Law "On Appending and Amending the Law on Initial Privatization of State Property of the Republic of Lithuania", which has amended Article 16 of the Law on Initial Privatization of State Property. The petitioner raises the question on what grounds said norm of the Law has been amended. The petition does not contain any arguments presenting the opinion on non-conformity of the amended norm of the Law with the Constitution, as it is prescribed by item 5 of the second part of Article 67 of the Law on the Constitutional Court. The petitioner's argument may not be considered as a legal motive, this being the grounds for refusal to consider the petition (Law on the Constitutional Court, Article 69, Part 1, item 5). Conforming to Articles 25 and 28 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court has taken the following decision:
10. To return the petition to examine the constitutionality of item
11. 2 of the Procedure for the Establishment of Investment Joint-Stock Companies to the petitioner.
12. To refuse to consider the petition requesting to examine the compliance of item
13. 2 of the Procedure for the Establishment of Investment Joint-Stock Companies with Article 16 of the earlier valid Law on Initial Privatization of State Property.
14. To refuse to consider the petition requesting to examine the constitutionality of item 14 of the 2 February 1993 Law "On Appending and Amending the Law on Initial Privatization of State Property of the Republic of Lithuania". Justices of the Constitutional Court: Algirdas Gailiûnas Zigmas Levickis Vladas Pavilonis Pranas Vytautas Rasimavièius Teodora Staugaitienë Stasys Ðedbaras Juozas Þilys