← Lietuva

Case No.2/95

Case No.2/95 Case No.2/95 THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA R U L I N G On the compliance of the provision of Part 7, Article 10 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property", as well as the provision of item 1.2, item 2.1 and its sub-items 1, 2 and 3 of the 26 January 1994 Resolution No 55 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania "On Partial Amending of the Procedure for Enforcement of the Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property", Confirmed by the 15 November 1991 Resolution No 470 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania" with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania Vilnius, 26 October 1995 The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court Algirdas Gailiûnas, Kæstutis Lapinskas, Zigmas Levickis, Vladas Pavilonis, Pranas Vytautas Rasimavièius, Stasys Staèiokas, Teodora Staugaitienë and Juozas Þilys, the secretary of the hearing - Rolanda Stimbirytë, the party concerned - the Seimas member Pranciðkus Vitkevièius, the representative of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the party concerned - Pranas Aleknavièius, Deputy Director of the State Agency of Organization of Land Exploitation and Geodesy under the Ministry of Agriculture and Benjaminas Dubickas, Director of Land Exploitation Department of the State Agency of Organization of Land Exploitation and Geodesy under the Ministry of Agriculture, the representatives of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to Part 1, Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Part 1, Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its public hearing of 18 October 1995 conducted the investigation of Case 2/95 subsequent to the petition submitted to the Court by the petitioner - the local court of Ignalina region - on 19 June 1995, requesting to investigate if the provision "under the conditions established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania" of Part 7, Article 10 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property", as well as the provision "under the conditions established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania" of item 1.2, as well as item 2.1 and its sub-items 1, 2 and 3 of the 26 January 1994 Resolution No 55 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania "On Partial Amending of the Procedure for Enforcement of the Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property", Confirmed by the 15 November 1991 Resolution No 470 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania" are in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. The Constitutional Court has established: I On 6 April 1995 the petitioner - the local court of Ignalina region - investigated the civil case No.2-97/95 according to the action brought in by E. Kazënienë against the board of Ignalina region, the agrarian reform agency of Dûkðtas area of Ignalina region, as well as J.Vitënas and K. Vitënas concerning the annulment of the decisions on the issues of the restoration of the ownership right to land and the recognition of the right of ownership. The court has passed the ruling to suspend the investigation of the case and appealed to the Constitutional Court requesting to investigate if the provision "under the conditions established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania" of Article 6 of the 15 July 1993 Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On Appending and Amending the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property" (Official Gazette "Valstybës Þinios", No.32-725, 1993), as well as the provision "under the conditions established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania" of item 1.2, as well as item 2.1 and its sub-items 1, 2 and 3 of the 26 January 1994 Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania "On Partial Amending of the Procedure for Enforcement of the Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property", Confirmed by the 15 November 1991 Resolution No 470 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania" ("Valstybës Þinios" No. 9-150, 1994) (hereinafter referred to as "The Resolution of the Government") are in compliance with Article 23 of the Constitution. By Article 6 of the 15 July 1993 Law, Article 10 of the Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property"(hereinafter referred to as "the Law"), adopted on 18 June 1991, was amended. Thus, the disputable provision indicated by the petitioner is in Part 7 of Article 10 of the Law, therefore Part 7 of Article 10 of the Law will be discussed in this ruling. It is established in Part 7, Article 10 of the Law: "Under the conditions established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania the right of ownership to land or forest shall be restored to the persons who have filed their petitions to restore the right of ownership not later than till 10 September 1993". In item 1.2 of the Resolution of the Government, besides, it is established that petitions for restoration of the rights of ownership to land within the boards of towns and urban-type settlements have to be filed by persons prior to 31 March 1992, petitions for restoration of the rights of ownership to land for agricultural purpose, residential houses together with their equipment which are within the boards of land for agricultural purpose or land of forest, as well as to forest areas have to be filed prior to 31 May 1992, and petitions for restoration of the ownership right to land and forest under the conditions established by the Government have to be filed prior to 10 September

  1. It is established in item 2.1 and its sub-items 1, 2 and 3 of the Resolution: "2.
  2. the right of ownership shall be restored to the persons who filed petitions for restoration of the ownership right to land or forest after 31 March 1992 (for the land and forest owned within the boards of towns and urban-type settlements) or after 31 May 1992 (for land and forest owned in rural localities), but not later than prior to 10 September 1993, provided that: 2.1.
  3. any claimant has not filed the petition to restore the ownership right to former land or forest property; 2.1.
  4. prior to the date of enforcement of this Resolution (inclusive) local agencies of agrarian reform have not drawn any conclusions concerning the restoration of the ownership right to land for agricultural purpose to other claimants; 2.1.
  5. prior to the date of enforcement of this Resolution (inclusive) local agencies of agrarian reform have drawn conclusions concerning the restoration of the ownership right to land for agricultural purpose or forest to other claimants, but the institutions authorized by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania have not passed any decisions related to the restoration of the right of ownership to land for agricultural purpose or forest to these claimants and they agree that conclusions of local agencies of agrarian reform would be amended according to mutual agreement of all the claimants to the land and forest property owned by them". II The petitioner grounds his petition requesting to investigate the compliance of these norms of law with the Constitution on the following legal motives. It is established in Article 23 of the Constitution that the rights of ownership are protected by law, property may only be seized for the needs of society according to the procedure established by law and must be adequately compensated for. It is indicated in Part 7, Article 10 of the Law that under the conditions established by the Government the right of ownership to land or forest are restored to the persons who have filed their petitions for restoration of the right of ownership not later than till 10 September 1993, while the rights of the parties of legal relations of ownership may be regulated only by the legislator who establishes the contents of these rights according to law. In this case the governing institution is entitled to establish the conditions of the restoration of rights of ownership, and the Government factually settles the issues of ownership. Legal acts adopted by the Government do not come up with law in their force, they cannot compete with law or substitute it. The petitioner points out that it is established in Article 1 of the Law: "This law shall legislate the procedure and conditions of the restoration of the right of ownership to the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania to the property which was nationalized under the laws of the USSR (Lithuanian SSR) or which was otherwise unlawfully made public." The petitioner bases himself on the provision of the 27 May 1994 Ruling of the Constitutional Court that the establishment of new conditions to be applied in the restoration of the right of ownership is within the competence of the legislator. Thus, in the opinion of the petitioner the delegating of such right to the Government is fallacious, and the provision "under the conditions established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania", Part 7, Article 10 of the Law, contradicts Article 23 of the Constitution. The petitioner grounds his doubt related to the compliance of the provision of item 1.2, as well as item 2.1 and its sub-items 1, 2 and 3 of the Resolution of the Government with the Constitution on that the conditions established in the Resolution restrict the restoration of ownership rights to land and forest to those claimants who have filed their petitions after the prolongation of the term. The restoration of the rights of ownership in the Resolution of the Government is linked with the petitions and will of other claimants and with decisions of the institutions executing agrarian reform. Contrary to what is established in the Constitution and Article 1 of the Law, not the conditions established by the Law but subjective actions or decisions decide the restoration of the rights of ownership. Such restriction of the restoration of ownership rights actually means the seizure of the property which in this case would be performed not according to the procedure established by law, not for the needs of society and without any compensation. III The representative of the party concerned - the Seimas, in the process of preparation of the case and in the court hearing has explained that in accordance with the provisions of the Law the right of ownership must be restored to the citizens who have filed the petitions not later than till 10 September 1993., i.e. by this norm the term of filing petitions has been prolonged. The provision "under the conditions established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania" is understood as a certain closer definition of existing procedure. It does not entitle the Government to the establishment of new conditions of the restoration of the ownership rights, which are not provided for by the law. In the affirmation of the representative of the Seimas therefore, Part 7, Article 10 of the Law does not contradict Article 23 of the Constitution. The Seimas has not authorized and has not been able to authorize the Government to establish new conditions of the restoration of the right of ownership. The Government, while establishing additional conditions of the restoration of ownership rights, has exceeded its authority granted to it in the Law. Thus, in the opinion of the representative of the Seimas, the disputable norms contradict Part 7 of Article 10 of the Law. IV The representative of the party concerned - the Government, while preparing the case for the hearing, and the representative of the party concerned in the court hearing have explained that the disputable provision of Part 7, Article 10 of the Law means that the Government establishes the procedure how the institutions restoring the rights of ownership must adopt the decisions. This procedure is necessary for regulating the whole process of land reform and the restoration of the ownership right to land, which may be established in detail not by laws but by resolutions of the Government. For instance, in the procedure of the application of the Law, certain conditions of the restoration of the ownership rights to land in the rural localities are established: conclusions of the agency of agrarian reform, and, when necessary, conclusions of the commission of experts must be presented, the land shall be reclaimed only after forming rational land areas of economic significance in the project of agrarian reform and organization of land exploitation and etc. The representatives of the Government have emphasized that, after the 15 July 1993 prolongation of the term of the filing petitions for the restoration of the ownership right, the established process of the restoration of the ownership right to land would have to be changed because new claimants appeared. It is therefore specified in Part 7, Article 10 of the Law that the Government should include additional conditions into the resolutions adopted by it. The establishment of the aforementioned conditions does not mean that provisions of laws are amended by the Resolution of the Government. Judging from the text of item 2.1 of the Resolution of the Government, it is prepared without violating the laws regulating land reform or any other laws. In the provision "under the conditions established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania" of the Law the word "conditions" is used improperly because the Law establishes conditions. However, in the opinion of the representatives of the Government, the norms of the Resolution of the Government adopted on the basis of the Law do not violate the constitutional rights of citizens, as pursuant to them the rights of ownership are being restored. In case the institution authorized by the Government has already adopted the decision concerning the restoration of the rights of ownership, the ownership rights to the same property may not be restored to other entities and disputes arising due to that should be considered in court. The condition included into the Resolution of the Government, as if restricting the rights of citizens, does not violate them because it is indicated in the Law that in the event when the claimants do not agree, the dispute shall be considered in court. In the opinion of the representatives of the Government, the provision of item 1.2, as well as item 2.1 and its sub-items 1, 2 and 3 of Resolution No 55 of the Government, 26 January 1994, do not contradict Article 23 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court holds that:
  6. On the compliance of Part 7, Article 10 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property" with Part 2, Article 23 of the Constitution. The answer to the question whether the Seimas could delegate the Government the right to establish the conditions of the restoration of ownership rights should be related with the principle of the division of the State power, which is consolidated in Article 5 of the Constitution. This principle means that legislative, executive and legal powers must be separated, sufficiently independent, but at the same time the balance must be among them. The competence answering their purpose is conceded to every body of power, the concrete contents of which depends on the place of that body among other bodies of power and on the relation of its authorizations with authorizations of other bodies. It is consolidated in items 1 and 2 of Article 67 of the Constitution that laws are enacted by the Seimas. In the system of the sources of law of a country, law is a primary legal act having the supreme legal force. This force is based on that in the law, adopted by the legislator authorized by the people - the Seimas, the will of the people on main problems of social life is expressed. Rules of general character are established in norms of laws, and they can be particularized, as well as the procedure of their execution can be regulated in executive legal acts. It is usually difficult to fulfil the aim of consolidating all main rules in laws. The practice of many democratic States concerning the establishment of law undoubtedly proves the significant role of executive power bodies while establishing national law - they pass executive legal acts. In some States (Italy, France, etc.), so-called delegated legislation exists when under the commission of the legislator the Government may issue legal acts which have the force of law. For instance, it is established in Article 76 of the Constitution of the Republic of Italy that the execution of the function of legislation may be delegated to the Government only after pointing out main principles and criteria, only for the limited time, and on certain subjects. Thus, if the delegating of legislature is allowed, relevant limits and other constitutional guarantees are set and determined. The delegating of the right of legislation to the Government must be legitimate, i.e. based on the provisions consolidated in the Constitution of the State. In the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania the delegation of legislation is not provided for, only executive legal acts therefore may be adopted by the Government. The regulation limits of laws and executive acts depend on many factors - traditions of law, level of political and legal culture of the society, however, from the standpoint of both the theory of law and the practice of legislation, certain priority matters of a society must be regulated only by laws. In a democratic society the priority is given to an individual, therefore, everything that is related to the fundamental human rights and freedoms is regulated by laws. That comprises the confirmation of human rights and freedoms, determination of the contents thereof, legal guarantees of protection and defence, their permissible limitation, and etc. The provision of a legal democratic State that the rights and freedoms of an individual are protected by laws is consolidated in Chapter of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania "The Individual and the State": the right of life of individuals is protected by law (Article 19), human dignity is protected by law (Article 21), and etc. It is established in Part 2, Article 23 of the Constitution that "The right of ownership shall be protected by law." This constitutional provision conforms to that the restoration of the rights of private ownership violated during the period of the Soviet occupation is regulated by the Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property", and not by an executive act. For instance, it is established in Part 1 of Article 1 of the Law: "This law shall legislate the procedure and conditions of the restoration of the right of ownership to the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania to the real property which was nationalized under the laws of the USSR (Lithuanian SSR), or which was otherwise unlawfully made public and which, on the day of enactment of this law, is considered the property of the state, of the public, of cooperative organizations (enterprises), or of collective farms, or is transferred by these organizations to the ownership of natural persons." Pursuant to the Law, the conditions of the restoration of ownership rights are such legal facts, on which it depends whether the rights of ownership will be restored. That includes demands made of an entity (Article 2), determined kinds of remained real property (Article 3), as well as the circumstances stipulating the ways of the restoration of ownership rights: the property is restored by giving over the actual property, the equivalent of such property, or by otherwise compensating (Articles 4-6 and 8), and etc. In the norms regulating the procedure of the restoration of ownership rights, the terms of filing petitions (Article 10), the State institutions authorized to consider petitions for the restoration of ownership rights and to adopt decisions (Article 18 and Article 191), the procedure and terms to appeal decisions (Articles 19 and 20), and etc. Thus, in the norms of the Law concerning the procedure and conditions of the restoration of the rights of ownership, legal prerequisites and time of the origin of subjective rights of ownership, the contents of subjective rights of ownership subject to restoration, juridical remedies and other essential matters are stated. It is established in Parts 1 and 2 of Article 10 "Procedure for Filing Petitions to Reclaim Property" of the Law, that persons who have the right to the restoration of ownership rights may file petitions for restoration of the ownership right to land existing within the boards of towns and urban-type settlements prior to 31 March 1992, and to land for agricultural purpose, as well as to forest - prior to 31 May
  7. It is established in Part 4 that persons who fail to file petitions within this period shall lose their right to the restoration of the ownership rights under this Law, with the exception of persons having no permanent place of residence in the Republic of Lithuania because of deportation or imprisonment as a result of resistance to occupational regime. Pursuant to Part 7 of Article 10 of the Law, by which, as it has been already mentioned in this ruling of the Constitutional Court, it was appended on 15 July 1993, "Under the conditions established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania the right of ownership to land or forest shall be restored to persons who have filed their petitions to restore the right of ownership not later than till 10 September 1993." There are two related norms in this part of Article 10: 1) persons are allowed to file petitions for the restoration of the ownership right to land or forest prior to 10 September 1993; 2) to the persons who have performed this the rights of ownership are restored under the conditions established by the Government. The petitioner motivates his doubt related to the compliance of said norm with the Constitution by that the commission to the Government to establish the conditions of the restoration of ownership rights contradicts the Constitution. In the affirmation of the representative of the Seimas, Part 7 of Article 10 of the Law ("Under the conditions established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania the right of ownership to land or forest shall be restored to persons who have filed their petitions for restoration of the right of ownership not later than till 10 September 1993.") should be interpreted otherwise: the Seimas by the said provisions "has prolonged the term of the petitions for the restoration of ownership rights up to 10 September 1993 and has authorized the Government to establish the procedure for acceptance and consideration of such petitions, however it has not authorized and has not been able to authorize the Government to establish new conditions of the restoration of ownership rights". So the problem of interpreting the disputable norm of the Law has arisen. It should be noted that the necessity to interpret norms or provisions of law usually arises in such case when the law does not completely comply with the requirements (integrity of the contents of the act, logicality of exposition, absence of contradictions, determination of legal regulation, accurate application of legal terms, distinct distinguishing of norms and various provisions in the act, and etc.), raised for it as a structurally integral and complete document. While interpreting norms of a law, the intentions of the legislator due to which the law has been adopted are considered to be a significant factor, the interpretation of a norm however must be determined by the rules of both the establishment and interpretation of legal norms, which enable to uniformly understand and apply thereof. In conformity with the word-for-word and notional interpretation of the provision "under the conditions established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania" of the Law, the conclusion should be made that the conditions of the restoration of the ownership right for the mentioned group of persons are spoken about and that the Government is commissioned to establish them. By the way, the Government has executed this provision of the Law exactly like that. However, legal acts adopted by the Government are executive acts, and as it has been mentioned in this ruling of the Constitutional Court the conditions of the restoration of ownership rights belong to the regulation subject of the Law. The Constitutional Court in its 19 January 1994 ruling has held that: "norms of the law are realized by an executive act, however, such legal act may not replace the law itself and create new legal rules of general nature that in their power would compete with the norms of law. It is an act of application of norms of law irrespective of the fact whether this act is of temporary (ad hoc) or permanent validity" ("Valstybës Þinios", No 7-116, 1994). The conclusion therefore should be made that the provision, by which the Government is commissioned to establish by an executive act the conditions for the restoration of ownership rights, contradicts Part 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution.
  8. On the compliance of the provision of item 1.2, as well as item 2.1 and its sub-items 1, 2 and 3 of the 26 January 1994 Ruling No 55 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania with Part 2, Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. On 15 November 1991 the Government adopted Resolution No 470 "On the Enforcement of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property", by which "The Procedure for Enforcement of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property" was confirmed. It should be noted that many norms of the Law were transferred into said executive act, without indicating the source of law. Such practice of establishing law should be considered as fallacious. It can arouse obscurity, what is the real source of relevant legal regulation - a law or an executive act, and otherwise cause difficulty for applying norms of law. For instance, it is established in the Chapter of the Procedure of Enforcement of the Law, named "Filing and Consideration of Petitions for the Restorations of Ownership Rights", which is newly set forth in item 1.2 of the 26 January 1994 Resolution No 55 of the Government, as well as in Parts 1 and 2 of Article 10 of the Law, that petitions for the restoration of ownership rights to land within the boards of towns and urban-type settlements have to be filed by persons prior to 31 March 1992, petitions for the restoration of ownership rights to land for agricultural purpose, to residential houses together with their equipment which are within the boards of land for agricultural purpose or land of forest, as well as to forest areas, have to be filed prior to 31 May 1992, and petitions for the restoration of the right of ownership to land and forest under the conditions established by the Government have to be filed prior to 10 September
  9. Pursuant to the direction of Part 7, Article 10 of the Law, in said norm the provision is established that the Government will establish the conditions of the restoration of ownership rights. That means, that it has been passed from the legitimate regulation to the regulation of the same subject in the executive act. The disputable provision "under the conditions established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania" of item 1.2 of the Resolution of the Government is developed in sub-items of item 2.1 of the Resolution of the Government: "the right of ownership shall be restored to the persons who have filed petitions for the restoration of ownership rights to land or forest after 31 March 1992 (for the land and forest owned within the boards of towns and urban-type settlements) or after 31 May 1992 (for the land and forest owned in rural localities), but not later than prior to 10 September 1993, provided that: 2.1.
  10. any claimant has not filed the petition to restore the ownership right to former land or forest property; 2.1.
  11. prior to the date of enforcement of this Resolution (inclusive) local agencies of agrarian reform have not drawn any conclusions concerning the restoration of the ownership right to land for agricultural purpose to other claimants; 2.1.
  12. prior to the date of enforcement of this Resolution (inclusive) local agencies of agrarian reform have drawn conclusions concerning the restoration of the ownership right to land for agricultural purpose or forest to other claimants, but the institutions authorized by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania have not passed any decisions related to restoration of the right of ownership to land for agricultural purpose or forest to these claimants and they agree that conclusions of local agencies of agrarian reform would be amended according to mutual agreement of all the claimants to the land and forest property owned by them". The proposition of the representative of the Government that those are the norms of the law of procedure is only partly right. As such should be considered the norms, in which it is established what decision must be taken by an appropriate institution in one or another case. There are legal norms of two kinds in item 2.1 of the Resolution of the Government: procedural and substantive. The first ones establish what decision must be - to restore the rights of ownership or not to restore them. However, the decision is settled by the norms of substantive law, the contents of which is as follows: "the rights of ownership shall be restored to the persons, who have filed their petitions after the prolongation of the term till 10 September 1993, only under conditions provided for in sub-items 1, 2 and 3 of item 2.
  13. These conditions are related not to a person seeking to restore the ownership rights, or to a kind of property, as it is in the Law, but to other factors of subjective character: to petitions and will of other persons seeking to restore the ownership rights to the same property, decisions adopted by the institutions executing agrarian reform. Thus, the additional conditions of the restoration of the ownership rights, which are not established in the Law, are provided for in the Resolution of the Government. The circumstance that former owners have appeared who have filed petitions for the restoration of ownership rights to land or forest after the prolongation of the term may have influence on the initiated process of the restoration of ownership rights. However, legal relations being formed due to this, subjective rights of the parties thereof should be regulated by laws, and possible individual disputes should be settled in courts. The Government may not intrude by an executive act into the sphere of the regulation of law, to establish additional conditions of the restoration of ownership rights. The disputable provision of the Law has not been amended or appended by the 3 October 1995 Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On Amending and Appending of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property", the disputable norms of the Resolution of the Government are still in force. On the ground of the mentioned above, the conclusion should be made that the provision "under the conditions established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania" of item 1.2 of the Resolution of the Government, as well as item 2.1 and its sub-items 1, 2 and 3 contradict Part 2, Article 23 of the Constitution. Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 53, 54, 55 and 56 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court has passed the following ruling
  14. To recognize that the provision "under the conditions established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania" of Part 7, Article 10 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property" contradicts Part 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
  15. To recognize that the provision "under the conditions established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania" of item 1.2, as well as item 2.1 and its sub-items 1, 2 and 3 of the 26 January 1994 Resolution No 55 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania "On Partial Amending of the Procedure for Enforcement of the Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property" Confirmed by the 15 November 1991 Resolution No 470 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania" contradict Part 2, Article 23 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 Gailiûnas Kæstutis Lapinskas Zigmas Levickis Vladas Pavilonis Pranas Vytautas Rasimavièius Stasys Staèiokas Teodora Staugaitienë Juozas Þilys

🔗 Į oficialų šaltinį

DI paaiškinimas pagal oficialų įstatymo tekstą. Orientacinis, nepakeičia teisinės konsultacijos.