Case No. 13/98 the CONSTITUTIONAL COURT of THE
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case No. 13/98 THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA R U L I N G On the compliance of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 647) “On the Consent for Carrying Out a Public Purchase by Way of a Closed-Type Competitive Tender and the Consent for Allocation of Funds” of 1 June 1998 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 8 of the Law on the Government of the Republic of Lithuania Vilnius, 20 April 1999 The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court: Egidijus Jarašiūnas, Egidijus Kūris, Zigmas Levickis, Augustinas Normantas, Vladas Pavilonis, Jonas Prapiestis, Vytautas Sinkevičius, Stasys Stačiokas, and Teodora Staugaitienė The court reporter—Daiva Pitrėnaitė Seimas members Česlovas Juršėnas and Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis, acting as the representatives of a group of Seimas members, the petitioner Ramutė Ruškytė, Head of the Division for Legal Affairs and Law and Order at the Office of the Government, acting as the representative of the Government, the party concerned The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, on 30 March 1999, in its public hearing, considered case No. 13/98 subsequent to the petition submitted to the Court by a group of Seimas members, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 647) “On the Consent for Carrying Out a Public Purchase by Way of a Closed-Type Competitive Tender and the Consent for Allocation of Funds” of 1 June 1998 was in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 8 of the Law on the 2 Government of the Republic of Lithuania. The Constitutional Court has established: I On 1 June 1998, the Government adopted the Resolution (No. 647) “On the Consent for Carrying Out a Public Purchase by Way of a Closed-Type Competitive Tender and the Consent for Allocation of Funds” (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 1998, No. 52-1427). A group of Seimas members, the petitioner, requests an investigation into whether the said resolution is in compliance with Paragraph 2 of Article 101 of the Constitution and Paragraph 4 of Article 8 of the Law on the Government. II The request of the petitioner is based on the following arguments. On 27 November 1996, after the 1996 Seimas election, Algirdas Brazauskas, the President of the Republic, submitted to the Seimas the candidature of Gediminas Vagnorius for the office of the Prime Minister for consideration. On 28 November 1996, the Seimas approved of this candidature. On the same day, the President of the Republic appointed G. Vagnorius Prime Minister and commissioned him to form the Government. On 4 December 1996, the President of the Republic confirmed the Government where there were 17 ministers. On 10 December 1996, the Seimas approved of the Programme of the Government submitted by the Prime Minster. On the same day, the members of the Government were sworn in at the Seimas. After the 1997 election of the President of the Republic, the Government headed by G. Vagnorius returned its powers to the President of the Republic Valdas Adamkus. In the opinion of the petitioner, on 10 March 1998, the Seimas anew approved of the candidature of G. Vagnorius submitted by the President of the Republic, therefore, this Government and that implementing its programme approved by the Seimas on 10 December 1996 should be deemed to be the same. According to the petitioner, however, in 1996–1998, not less than 9 ministers, i.e. more than half of all the ministers, were changed in the Government. Taking account of this, the petitioner draws the conclusion that the Government, as provided for by Paragraph 2 of Article 101 of the Constitution and Paragraph 4 of Article 8 of the Law on the Government, had to be re-invested with authority by the Seimas. For this purpose, a new programme of the Government should have been submitted to the Seimas for approval. By the Statute of the Seimas, the Government should have done this within 7 days, however, not any corresponding document has been registered at the secretariat of the Seimas. Thus, the petitioner believes that, as from 31 May 1998, the present Government should to 3 be deemed to be lacking the authorisation by the Seimas, and its acts should be regarded as unlawful. III In the course of the preparation of the case for the judicial hearing, the representative of the party concerned R. Ruškytė noted that, after the 1997 election of the President of the Republic, the Government had been approved in its all composition, all necessary procedures were performed which meant that the Government was “anew empowered to exercise its functions” as pointed out in Item 3.3 of the statement part of the Constitutional Court’s Ruling “On the compliance of the Seimas Resolution ‘On the Programme of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania’ of 10 December 1996 with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania” of 10 January 1998. In its Decision “On the Construction of the 10 January 1998 Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania” of 17 December 1998, the Constitutional Court held that the statement “the Government is empowered anew to exercise its functions” means that a new period of the powers of the Government begins, therefore, the change of ministers in the Government should be calculated from the beginning of this period. The representative of the party concerned also explained that after the President of the Republic approved the composition of the Government submitted by the Prime Minister, until the date of 31 May 1998 as indicated by the petitioner, only the minister of the interior had been changed. Thus, until 31 May 1998 the Government did not have to be re-invested with authority by the Seimas and all the acts adopted by the Government, including that impugned by the petitioner, are lawful and are in compliance with the Constitution and the Law on the Government. IV During the judicial hearing the representative of the petitioner Č. Juršėnas explained the position of the petitioner as for the wording of Paragraph 2 of Article 101 of the Constitution by which “the Government must be re-invested with authority by the Seimas”. Paragraph 2 of Article 101 of the Constitution must be linked with Paragraph 5 of Article 92 of the Constitution which prescribes: “A new Government shall be empowered to act after the Seimas approves its programme by majority vote of the Seimas members participating in the sitting.” In the opinion of the petitioner, the programme of the Government must be submitted to the Seimas not only after an election of the Seimas, but also after an election of the President of the Republic, as the legal form of the empowerment is voting in the Seimas by approving of the programme of the Government. The representative of the petitioner also expressed his opinion as to how changes of ministers should be calculated. Individual articles of the Constitution mention particular ministers but not ministers in general. Every change of the area headed by a minister, even though the 4 personality of the minister remains the same, means that a minister is changed in the Government. Therefore, the petitioner draws the conclusion that, until 1 May 1998, when the Law on the Government in its new wording came into force, more than half of the ministers had been changed in the Government. In the judicial hearing the representative of the petitioner V. P. Andriukaitis explained that changes of ministers in the Government must be linked with the administration area of the ministry. Establishing, abolishing or reorganising ministries, the Seimas, alongside, forms a new area of administration which should be headed by a minister. One ought to follow this criterion in calculating changes of ministers. In case when a member of the Government, no matter whether he was previously appointed or a new one, performs new functions, it should be presumed that this is a new function of the minister and the minister himself is a new one. V At the judicial hearing, the representative of the party concerned, impugning the opinion of the petitioner, according to which, after an election of the President of the Republic, the programme of the Government must be confirmed anew, explained that the Seimas, by approving of the programme of the Government, expresses its confidence in the Government for the whole term of its (i.e. the Seimas) powers. Therefore, until the present Seimas performs its functions the programme submitted by the Prime Minister for the Seimas as well as the 10 December 1996 Seimas Resolution by which the Programme of the Government was approved of remains in force. The representative of the party concerned also noted that the President of the Republic who was elected during the 1997 election, before confirming a new composition of the Government, dismissed all the ministers who were temporarily performing their functions. It is evident that in such a case 7 ministers from the list of the ministers presented by the petitioner did not have to be re-invested with authority by the Seimas. In addition, the petitioner also entered the ministers of abolished ministries on the list even though those ministers were merely provisionally performing their functions, too. The representative of the party concerned is of the opinion that only in cases when another minister replaces a minister who is empowered to act is it possible to recognise that the minister was changed.