The essence of the aforesaid amendment is that returning of illegally disseized property depends on providing the tenants with some other dwelling place. The aforementioned amendment of the Law signifies that illegally disseized property shall not be returned. The Constitutional Court in its 15 June 1994 ruling noted that new requirements may not be applied to the existing legal relations with the same contents, as it would mean violation of person's equality before law. Having adopted the aforesaid amendment of the Law, the Seimas violated this equality, as certain persons have restored residential houses, whereas now some other persons have to face harder requirements. In the opinion of the petitioner, getting back residential houses becomes dependent on individual local governments. If a local government is able to allot tenants who occupy residential houses subject to being returned some other dwelling place, then the aforesaid houses will be returned, but if some other local government has no such possibilities, residential houses may not be returned in kind. Hereby it is confirmed by the Seimas, which set forth Part 4, Article 8 of the Law as follows: "In all other cases, not specified in Part 2 of this Article, the ownership right to residential houses (or portions thereof), to apartments shall be restored by buying them out /.../”. This norm restricts the freedom of choice of the former owners, which was established in the Law until its amendment and appending. Buying out, and later on privatisation will signify that a tenant becomes a new owner (and that cannot be treated as "public needs"), but first of all the true owner is being deprived of his property. Therefore the aforesaid amendments of the Law violate the principle of inviolability of property, as well as the equality of rights of citizens which are protected by the Constitution. II Replying the Constitutional Court paper to the party concerned, when the case was being prepared for the Court hearing, Pranciðkus Vitkevièius, the Chairman of the Seimas Committee of State and Law, explained in writing that the Constitutional Court had investigated the compliance of appending and amendment of individual Articles or norms of the Law with Article 23 of the Constitution for many a time. Taking into consideration all historical and social circumstances, in the rulings of the Constitutional Court the main provisions of the continuity of private ownership rights and the restoration of them were formulated. One of the most important provisions is that the Suprerme Concil of the Republic of Lithuania by the 11 March 1990 Law "On the Reinstatement of the 12 May 1938 Constitution of Lithuania" renewed the validity of the 1938 Constitution of Lithuania within the total territory of Lithuania, suspended the validity of the Articles regulating the state governing, retained to be in force Chapter 8 "National Economy", and thereby it signified the restitution of the institute of the right of private ownership and in fact its continuity. The Constitutional Court in its 27 May 1994 ruling noted that "it is impossible to impartially reconstruct the complete former system of property relations which existed in Lithuania in 1940". In its 8 March 1995 ruling the Constitutional Court held that "One of the main goals of law, in the regard as the way of regulation of social life, is justice. It is impossible to attain justice by satisfying interests of only one group or one person and by denying interests of others. While behaving one-sidedly, the humane purpose of law would be disregarded and probability of social conflicts would increase". When solving the ownership right restoration problems, one should pursue the provision of the preamble of the Constitution which states that the Lithuanian nation strives for "an open, just, and harmonions civil society and law-governed State". The initial norm of item 2 of Part 2, Article 8, that residential houses shall be returned in the case that "tenants, occupying houses subject to being returned, and which are occupied by more than one family, are familiar with all of the laws guaranteeing their rights, and with their option to move under the conditions proposed by the local government and set forth in Article 21 of this law, or under other conditions guaranteed by the former owner of the house", was not concrete. It satisfied neither house owners, nor the tenants who resided in the houses subject to being returned. The House Owner Associations claim that the tenants who reside in houses belonging to former owners should be evicted unconditionally and without delay, as former owners desire to freely possess, use and dispose of their property. But presently the state is not economically capable during a short period of time to provide all the tenants who reside in houses subject to being returned with a dwelling place. The chairman of the committee points out that the tenants who have rallied the Society of the Homeless, are not satisfied with being" familiar with all of the laws guaranteeing rights”, as the owners, having got back their houses, take measures (among them illegal ones as well) to evict tenants. Hence conflict situations arise. The provision of Article 8 of the disputable Law is more accurate, there is no vagueness of the previous norm: "Residential houses (or portions thereof), apartments shall be returned in kind in the case that: /.../ 4) the tenants who live in houses (or portions thereof), apartments subject to being returned are provided with a dwelling place
The aforementioned norm has established that houses (or portions thereof) shall be returned to the owners by providing the tenants with some other dwelling place, into which they may be moved by legal procedures, and not" at their own free will", as it had been established by the initial norm. In the paper it is noted that the Constitutional Court indicated in its previous rulings that "the provision that, providing there is no possibility to restore property in kind, it must be adequately compensated for, does not contradict the principles of inviolability of property and protection of property ownership rights, because fair compensation also ensures restoration of property ownership rights". Under such circumstances, the new wording of Article 8 of the Law does not contradict Article 23 of the Constitution. According to the Chairman of the Committee, the motive of a group of the Seimas members that "new requirements may not be applied to the existing legal relations with the same contents, as it would mean violation of person's equality before law", cannot serve as the basis to recognize that the legal norms under investigation contradict Articles 23 and 29 of the Constitution for as long as the ownership rights have not been restored, persons, claiming the restoration of the aforesaid rights, are not the owners. If some of its shortcomings come to light when implementing a law, or there appear some changes in economy, the legislator may change legal norms to the interests of society, thereby hardening conditions of some groups and facilitating those of other groups of individuals. Otherwise there would be no progress in regulations of existing legal relations.However, newly adopted legal norms do not possess retroactive validity. Item 4 of Part 2 and Part 4 of Article 8 of the Law are in compliance with Article 29 of the Constitution as they do not violate the provisions of equality of persons: the owners, as well as the tenants, are treated equally, disregarding their sex, reace, nationality, origin, social status, religion, convictions, or options. III In the process of judicial investigation Andrius Kubilius and Vidmantas Þiemelis, representatives of the petitioner, confirmed the motives set forth in the request of a group of the Seimas members. They have also indicated that when passing the law on the restoration of the rights of ownership, the priority was given to restore property in kind. Initial wording of the Law provided the possibility to return houses in kind, whereas after the 3 July 1995 amendment of the Law had been adopted, to do it became impossible. The Law passed on 18 June 1991, as well as the Government 15 November 1991 Resolution No 470 on enacting the Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property" of the Republic of Lithuania, and the Government 27 October 1992 Resolution No 805 "On Programmes to Provide Tenants Who Live in Houses Subject to Being Returned to Former Owners with Apartments”, established a system which reconciled both the interests of former owners and of the tenants who live in the houses subject to being returned. That programme was being carried out successfully. The aforesaid Government Resolutions have been valid up to the present, they have not been abrogated, nevertheless the Government is not carrying them into effect, and the budget does not provide finance for the programme. The present disputable wording of item 4 of Part 2, Article 8 of the Law hardens returning residential houses in kind. The restoration of the ownership rights thus becomes dependent on an individual local government and its ecomonical capacity. According to Article 19 of the Law a local government shall pass the decision concerning the returning of property in three month's time. It cannot pass decision to return property in kind, as at first it has to provide a tenant with a dwelling place. Alongside the part of 27 October 1992 the Government Resolution No 805 which was provided in the programme to supply tenants who live in houses subject to being returned with apartments that the tenants shall be provided with apartments in ten year's time, is no longer being carried into effect. In the opinion of the representatives of the petitioner, the new amendment of Article 8 contradicts Article 23 of the Constitution. They have also pointed out, that many former owners have been restored the ownership rights to houses pursuant to the initial wording of the Law, they receive rent, whereas the conditions of other former owners, after the Seimas had amended the Law on 3 July 1995, became graver. Thus the principle of people's equality before the law, granted in Article 29 of the Constitution, is violated. IV Alfonsas Vileita, a representative of the party concerned, in the process of judicial investigation explained that during the last 50 years complex socio-economical relations have arisen, which must be taken into account. There is no precise decision of how to return residential houses, therefore while adopting normative acts it is necessary to endevour to co-ordinate the interests of all groups of society, as well as to consider public needs. There exist two groups of persons concerned: former owners and tenants who live in houses subject to being returned. The initial wording of the Law did not provide the co-ordination of interests of the aforesaid groups. The former owners are dissatisfied with Article 21 of the Law which provides guaranties for the tenants and limits the ownership right of the owner to freely dispose of their property. They are dissatisfied with the rent rate amount which was established by the state as well. On the other hand, the tenants would become like the homeless. Besides, there was a situation when the tenants were not able to get apartments in new houses. It is difficult for the state to co-ordinate the interests of the aforesaid groups. If the conditions of one group of persons are getting better, when coordinating the interests, consequently the conditions of the other group is getting graver. The Constitutional Court has held that until the ownership right is not restored, persons, claiming houses and apartments, shall not be considered as owners, whereas Article 23 of the Constitution in all its extent protects only the rights of the owner. Initially the Law had no provision that property shall be unconditionally returned in kind. The Law established that whenever the property is not being returned in kind, the former owners shall be able to choose the manner of compensation, which ensures restoration of the ownership rights as well, provided by the Law. The Constitutional Court has held so. When assessing the Law, two problems arise: that of conformity of the amendments with the Constitution and that of the quality of the Law. The Constitutional Court does not solve the Law quality problems, as it is the competence of the Seimas. In the opinion of the representative of the party concerned, the 3 July 1995 amendment of the Law is in compliance with Article 23 of the Constitution. The representative of the party concerned maintained that the aforesaid amendment of the Law is in compliance with Article 29 of the Constitution. This Article provides that all people shall be equal before the law disregarding their sex, race, nationality, origin, social status, religion, convictions, or options. Former owners, as well as tenants, are treated equally on that basis. The motive of the petitioner, that a person's equality before law is violated, as the initial wording of the Law was applied to one group of persons, whereas the Law establishing stricter prescriptions will be applied to some other persons, is groundless. In the opinion of the party concerned, when adopting normative acts, the interests of certain groups of society are being co-ordinated. In the process of enacting the law passed, some of its merits and negativities come to the fore. Social relations having changed, the legislator may change legal norms, otherwise it would be impossible to regulate them and there would be total legal stagnation. The restoration of property relations are continuous, therefore they may be regulated, the only principle being that newly adopted legal norms have no retroactive validity. In the initial wording of Article 8 the concept of "free will" signified total impossibility to evict tenants in legal form. If compared to the initial wording, now the possibilities of former owners to restore the ownership rights are not being diminished. After a tenant is provided with some other dwelling place,
of the Civil Code, the property shall be returned to the former owner, and the tenant may be evicted in legal form. If the residential houses were returned together with the tenants who live in the houses subject to being returned, there would emerge the problem of compliance of Article 21 of the Law with Article 23 of the Constitution. The question would also arise, if the state is competent to establish the amount of rent rate and restrict the right of the owner to use and dispose of his property. On the grounds of the aforementioned motives, the representative of the party concerned requested not to comply with the request of the petitioner. The Constitutional Court holds that: The Seimas in Article 2 of the 3 July 1995 Law "On Amending and Appending 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"" set forth anew Article 8 of the Law under amendment. The Seimas in item 4 of Part 2 of the aforesaid Article established that residential houses (or portions thereof), apartments shall be returned in kind in the case that "tenants who occupy houses subject to being returned, are provided with a dwelling place
It was established in Part 4 of the aforesaid Article that ”in all other cases, not specified in Part 2 of this Article, the ownership rights to residential houses (or portions thereof), to apartments shall be restored by bying them out from persons specified in Article 2 of this law on the basis of the option of the aforesaid persons /.../". The petitioner requests to submit that the aforementioned norms of the Law contradict Articles 23 and 29 of the Constitution.
DI paaiškinimas pagal oficialų įstatymo tekstą. Orientacinis, nepakeičia teisinės konsultacijos.