Case No 10/94

Case No 10/94 Case No 10/94 THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA R U L I N G On the compliance of item

1. 1, item
2. 4 and item 7 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "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" ", adopted 11 January 1994 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania 19 October 1994, Vilnius The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed from the Justices of the Constitutional Court Kæstutis Lapinskas, Zigmas Levickis, Vladas Pavilonis, Pranas Vytautas Rasimavièius, Stasys Staèiokas, Teodora Staugaitienë, Stasys Ðedbaras and Juozas Þilys, the secretary of the hearing - Rolanda Stimbirytë, representatives of the party concerned - Seimas member Pranciðkus Vitkevièius and Algirdas Taminskas, State and Law Committee Counsellor of the Seimas, 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 court hearing of 6 October 1994 conducted the investigation of Case No 10/94 subsequent to the petition submitted by Ðirvintos District Court requesting to examine if item
3. 4 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "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" ", adopted 11 January 1994, which has appended the second part of Article 8 of the Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property" of 18 June 1991 by item 4, is in compliance with Articles 23, 28 and the provisions of Part 2, Article 29 of the Constitution, also if items 1 and 7 of the same Law, by which the 18 June 1991 Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property" has been amended and appended, are consistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. The Constitutional Court has established:
4. On 18 June 1991 the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania adopted the Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property" (Official Gazette "Valstybës Þinios", No 21-545) along with amendments and supplements (Official Gazette "Valstybës Þinios", No 3-40, 1992; No 7-155, 1992; No 11-278, 1992; No 15-405, 1992; No 5-83, 1993; No 32-725, 1993; hereinafter it shall be referred to as the 18 June 1991 Law), which on 11 January 1994 was amended and appended by the 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" " (Official Gazette "Valstybës Þinios", No 7-100, 1994; hereinafter it shall be referred to as the Law in dispute). Under item
5. 1 of the Law in dispute, the first part of Article 1 of the 18 June 1991 Law has been amended and formulated in the following way: "This Law shall legislate the procedure and conditions of the restoration of ownership rights to the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania to real property which was nationalized under the laws of the USSR (Lithuanian SSR), or which was otherwise unlawfully socialized, 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 which has been transferred by said organizations into the ownership of natural persons". Under item
6. 4 of the Law in dispute, the second part of Article 8 of the 18 June 1991 Law has been appended by item
7. The new norm reads: "The procedure and time limits for the restoration of residential houses (or portions thereof) shall be established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to the provision that the residential houses shall be returned in the case that: 4) natural persons, having acquired ownership rights of the houses (or portions thereof) subject to being returned, consent, at their own will, to move into other residential premises allotted to them." Furthermore, under item 7 of the Law in dispute, the 18 June 1991 Law has been appended by the Article 191 entitled "Court investigation of petitions for the restoration of ownership rights" the provision of the second part of which "while investigating such a case, the court shall conform to this Law" is in dispute.
8. The petitioner - Ðirvintos District Court on 2 March 1994 investigated the case pursuant to the suit brought by O. Bagdonavièienë and J. Simonavièienë pertaining to the returning of residential house from unlawful management. The Court by its ruling suspended the investigation of a civil case and addressed the Constitutional Court with the request to examine the conformity of the below mentioned amendments and supplements to the Law in dispute with the Constitution. The petitioner's request is based on the following legal motives.
9. Item
10. 1 of the Law in dispute has appended the first part of Article 1 of the 18 June 1991 Law by the following provision: "or has been transferred by said organizations into the ownership of natural persons". The petitioner considers that such a supplement extends the scope of the application of said Law in returning real property, i. e. at present it is applicable in the restoration to former owners not only of the property of the state, public, co-operative organizations (enterprises), or collective farms, but also of the property which has been transferred by said organizations into the ownership of natural persons, regardless of the way (with or without compensation) and the date of its transferral. In the petitioner's opinion, this is a violation of the provision established in the first part of Article 23 of the Constitution specifying that "property shall be inviolable" and the provision determined in the second part of said Article that "the rights of ownership shall be protected by law".
11. Item
12. 4 of the Law in dispute has appended Article 8 of the 18 June 1991 Law by such a norm: "The procedure and time limits for the restoration of residential houses (or portions thereof) shall be established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to the provision that the residential houses shall be returned in the case that: ...4) natural persons, having acquired ownership rights of the houses (or portions thereof) subject to being returned, consent, at their own will, to move into other residential premises allotted to them". In the petitioner's opinion, this norm is a violation of the constitutional principle of the inviolability of property and the provision of Article 28 of the Constitution that while exercising their rights and freedoms, persons must observe the Constitution and the laws of the Republic of Lithuania, and must not impair the rights and interests of other people. Besides, the principle that all the people shall be equal before the law, the court, and other State institutions and officers, established in the first part of Article 29 of the Constitution, has been violated too. The petitioner draws the conclusion that "while interpreting the said supplement to the Law, one can get an impression that subjective will of one person restricts the possibility of another person to exercise the right vested in him by law, the principle of people's equality, inviolability and protection of private property is given different interpretations".
13. Item 7 of the Law in dispute has appended the 18 June 1991 Law by Article 191, the second part of which stating that "while investigating such a case, the Court shall conform to this Law," in the petitioner's opinion, contradicts the provisions of the first and second parts of Article 5, the second part of Article 109 and the first part of Article 110 of the Constitution, because the court is commissioned to conform to the Law referred to by said norm while investigating specific cases of certain categories. This is a violation of the independence of court, as a state authority, from other state authorities as well as the independence of judges and courts while administering justice.
14. The representatives of the party concerned explained in the court hearing that the supplement to the first part of Article 1 of the Law in dispute provided the possibility to restitute the ownership rights under the 18 June 1991 Law also to those citizens of the Republic of Lithuania whose real property which had been nationalized under the laws of the USSR (Lithuanian SSR), or which had been otherwise unlawfully socialized, was the ownership of natural persons on the day of the enactment of this Law. The representatives of the party concerned have specified that the Constitutional Court by the Ruling of 15 June 1994 recognised that: the provision of item
15. 4 of the Republic of Lithuania 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"", adopted 11 January 1994, that the residential houses shall be returned "in the case that natural persons, having acquired ownership rights of the houses (or portions thereof) subject to being returned, consent, at their own will, to move into other residential premises allotted to them", conforms to the Constitution. Thus, the petitioner's request pertaining to item
16. 4 is decided. The representatives of the party concerned have also explained that the provision of the second part of Article 191 which on 11 January 1994 appended the 18 June 1991 Law implies that the Court should, along with the Law in dispute, necessarily abide by the Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property", taking into account all the amendments and supplements. Said norm does not create a collision of laws as it is a special norm, which must be applied only in the restoration of ownership rights according to the 18 June 1991 Law which establishes a special procedure and conditions for the restoration of ownership rights different from general legal norms determined in the Civil Code that regulate the protection of the ownership rights. The representatives of the party concerned think that the petitioner groundlessly questions the compliance of the provision of the second part of Article 191 with the principle of the independence of courts while administering justice, which is established in the second part of Article 109 of the Constitution. In the third part of Article 109 of the Constitution it is requested that, while investigating cases, judges shall obey only the laws, and the legislator by the provision of the second part of Article 191 of the Law echoes the requirement of the third part of Article 109 of the Constitution that, while investigating cases, judges shall obey only the laws, and emphasizes that the 18 June 1991 Law prescribes special procedure and conditions for the restoration of the rights of ownership, therefore special legal norms set forth in this Law and not the ones of general nature must be applied. By adopting the Law in dispute, including the provision that "while investigating such a case, the court shall conform to this Law", the Seimas only realized the right vested in it by item 2, Article 67 of the Constitution as well as its duty to enact laws, and did not violate Article 5 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court holds that: After the restoration of independent State of Lithuania, the right of private ownership was returned by constitutional provisions to the state legal system. By way of implementing these provisions, on 18 June 1991 the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania adopted special Law " On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property".
17. On the compliance of items
18. 1 and
19. 4 of the Republic of Lithuania Law "On Amending and Appending the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property"", adopted 11 January 1994, by which the first part of Article 1 and Article 8 of the 18 June 1991 Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property" have been adequately amended and appended, with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. The Seimas by the 11 January 1994 Law has appended the norm of the first part of Article 1 of the 18 June 1994 Law specifying that "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 socialized, 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" by the provision "or has been transferred by said organizations into the ownership of natural persons". This implies that under this Law the ownership rights are restored to the former owners not only to real property which is considered the property of the state, public, cooperative organizations (enterprises), or collective farms, but also which has been transferred by said organizations into the ownership of natural persons. The procedure for the implementation of said provision concerning the returning of residential houses (or portions thereof) is determined in item
20. 4 of Article 8 of the Law in dispute: "The procedure and time limits for the restoration of residential houses (or portions thereof) shall be established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to the provision that the residential houses shall be returned in the case that: ...4) natural persons, having acquired ownership rights of the houses (or portions thereof) subject to being returned, consent, at their own will, to move into other residential premises allotted to them". The Constitutional Court in its Ruling of 15 June 1994 stated that natural persons, while acquiring residential houses (or portions thereof) on the contract, conformed to the rules of conclusion of contracts established by normative acts that were in force at that time, exercised the rights and performed ensuing from such contracts obligations of the party. Upon denial of ownership rights which appeared on the basis of such unlawful contracts, the contents of existing legal relations would be changed. Until the property is returned or due compensation is paid, the subjective rights of the former owner to specific property are not restored yet, however the law entitles such a person to the right to bring an action in court so that the latter should resolve in civil procedure the petition to restore a residential house (or portion thereof) which has been transferred into the ownership of natural persons. Such provision of the Law provides the possibility to verify in court procedure the legality of the contract on which a natural person has acquired real property because, upon restoration of the ownership rights to the former owner, the rights of the present owner may not be denied in non-judicial procedure. The Constitutional Court has recognized that the provision "providing that there is no possibility to grant 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 the restoration of property ownership rights (Constitutional Court Ruling of 27 May 1994). While restoring ownership rights, not only the rights of former owners but also those of natural persons who have acquired residential houses (or portions thereof) on lawful contracts are protected. This is in conformity with the provision of the first part of Article 29 of the Constitution that "all people shall be equal before the law, the court, and other state institutions and officers" and the provision of Article 28 of the Constitution that "while exercising their rights and freedoms, persons must observe the Constitution and the laws of the Republic of Lithuania, and must not impair the rights and interests of other people". Therefore, the disputable provision "or has been transferred by said organizations into the ownership of natural persons" is in compliance with the Constitution. The Constitutional Court by its ruling of 15 June 1994 has recognized that item
21. 4 of the 11 January 1994 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" ", which has appended the second part of Article 8 of the 18 June 1991 Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property" by item 4, does not contradict the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. Taking this into consideration, pursuant to item 3, Part 1, Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the legal proceedings of this case concerning item
22. 4 should be dismissed.
23. On the compliance of the second part of item 7 of the 11 January 1994 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" ", which has appended the 18 June 1991 Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property" by Article 191, with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. In the second part of Article 5 of the Constitution it is established that the scope of powers shall be defined by the Constitution. The status of the Court, as one of the state authorities, is determined in Chapter 9 of the Constitution. The first part of Article 109 of the Constitution prescribes that the courts shall have the exclusive right to administer justice, the second part of said Article runs that while administering justice judges and courts shall be independent, and the third part thereof determines that while investigating cases judges shall obey only the law. Anyone shall be prohibited from interfering with the activities of a judge or the court. The provision of the Law in dispute "while investigating such a case, the court shall conform to this Law" may be evaluated as the possible way to settle the collision of laws or separate legal norms. This provision implies that, with regard to the relations of the restoration of ownership rights, a special Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property" should be applied, and not the norms of Civil Code which regulate the protection of ownership rights. Also, it should be stated, that the provision of the Law in dispute that "while investigating such a case, the court shall conform to this Law" is ambiguous as it can be interpreted as an interference with the independence of the judicial authority. However, such precondition may not serve as a basis for recognition that said provision contradicts the Constitution. Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as Articles 53, 54, 55, 56 and the third part of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court has taken the following ruling:
24. To recognize that the provision of item
25. 1 of the 11 January 1994 Law of the Republic of Lithuania "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" " stating that "or has been transferred by said organizations into the ownership of natural persons", which has appended the first part of Article 1 of the 18 June 1991 Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property", does not contradict the Constitution.
26. To dismiss the legal proceedings of the case concerning the compliance of item
27. 4 of the 11 January 1994 Law of the Republic of Lithuania "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" " with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
28. To recognize that the provision "while investigating such a case the court shall conform to this Law" of the second part of item 7 of the 11 January 1994 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" ", which has appended the 18 June 1991 Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property" by Article 191, does not contradict 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: Kæstutis Lapinskas Zigmas Levickis Vladas Pavilonis Pranas Vytautas Rasimavièius Stasys Staèiokas Teodora Staugaitienë Juozas Þilys