Annual Report 2014

The CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF Lithuania

Annual Report Annual2014 Report 2014

Vilnius 2015 The CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF Lithuania

Annual Report 2014

Vilnius 2015 ISSN 2424-404X

General Information about the Constitutional Court 5 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania 17 FOREWORD BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA 18 1. THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT IN 2014: THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENTS AND NUMBERS 22 2. THE COMPOSITION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT 28 3. THE PETITIONS AND INQUIRIES RECEIVED AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT 31 3.1. Refusals to consider petitions 33 3.1.1. The refusal to investigate a petition filed by an institution or a person who does not have the right to apply to the Constitutional Court 33 3.1.2. The refusal to investigate a petition whose consideration does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court 34 3.1.3. The refusal to investigate a petition indicating a legal act whose compliance with the Constitution has been investigated and the relevant ruling of the Constitutional Court passed on this issue is still in force 36 3.2. Returning petitions to petitioners 36 3.2.1. The requirement to substantiate a petition on legal arguments 37 3.2.2. Other shortcomings of petitions 41 3.3. The admissibility of inquiries 41 3.4. Summarising the practice of the admissibility of petitions and inquiries in 2014 43 4. A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT 44 4.1. Fundamental constitutional values and alteration of the Constitution 47 4.1.1. The procedure of and limitations on the alteration of the Constitution 47 4.1.2. The organising and calling of referendums 56 4.2. Criminal liability for international crimes 65 4.3. Higher education 73 4.4. Social rights 78 4.4.1. The reduction of the size of the pension contributions accumulated in pension funds 78 4.4.2. The reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries of prosecutors and some other state officials 80 4.4.3. Compensation for the losses incurred due to the reduction of old age pensions 82 4.4.4. Compensation for the losses incurred due to the disproportionate reduction of the remuneration of state servants and judges 83 4.4.5. The method of paying unemployment insurance payments 84 4.4.6. The allocation of payments from the Guarantee Fund for employees of insolvent enterprises 86 4.4.7. The right to the state annuity of the widow(er) of the President of the Republic 87 4.4.8. The funding of healthcare services 89 4.5. The independence of the Judiciary 91 4.5.1. The remuneration of judges 91 4.5.2. The disciplinary liability of judges 94 4.6. Elections 96 4.6.1. The changing of the final results of the election to the Seimas 97 4.6.2. The right of election committees to choose their name 99 4.7. The restoration of the rights of ownership 101 4.7.1. The right of heirs of former owners to restore the rights of ownership 102 4.7.2. The restoration of the rights of ownership to urban land 103 Contents

4.8. Other constitutional justice cases 104 4.8.1. The constitutional status of prosecutors 104 4.8.2. The writing of names and family names in the passports of citizens 106 4.8.3. The powers of the Minister of Finance to establish the amount of late payment interest 109 4.8.4. On the obligation to manage oil waste 110 4.8.5. The selling of state-owned land without an auction 112 4.8.6. Constitutional liability (impeachment) 113 5. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT 117 5.1. Not implemented rulings of the Constitutional Court for the implementation of which the adoption of a legal act (legal acts) establishing a new legal regulation is necessary 119 5.1.1. Not implemented rulings of the Constitutional Court adopted prior to 2014 119 5.1.2. Not implemented rulings of the Constitutional Court adopted in 2014 122 5.2. Rulings of the Constitutional Court for the implementation of which the repeal of legal regulation conflicting with the Constitution is necessary 125 5.3. The argumentation presented in acts of the Constitutional Court which should be taken into consideration in the process of law-making 126 6. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION 129 6.1. Activity in international organisations 129 6.1.1. Membership in the World Conference on Constitutional Justice 129 6.1.2. Membership in the Conference of European Constitutional Courts 131 6.1.3. Cooperation with the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) 132 6.2. Cooperation with foreign constitutional courts and ties with international courts 134 6.2.1. Cooperation with the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland 134 6.2.2. Cooperation with the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia 136 6.2.3. Cooperation with the Constitutional Court of Ukraine 137 6.2.4. Ties with other constitutional courts and international courts 139 6.2.5. Participation in international conferences 140 7. THE RELATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT WITH THE PUBLIC 142 ANNEXES 146 Annex 1. PETITIONS AND INQUIRIES FILED WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT 146 1.1. Petitions and inquiries filed in 2014, their admissibility and consideration 146 1.2. Subjects filing petitions and inquiries in 2014, a subject matter of these petitions and inquiries 148 1.3. Petitions and inquiries filed with the Constitutional Court in 1993–2014 149 Annex 2. THE ACTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT 151 2.1. The acts of the Constitutional Court adopted in 2014 151 2.2. The acts of the Constitutional Court by which the petitions were considered in substance in 1993–2014 152 2.3. The rulings of the Constitutional Court adopted in 2014 153 2.4. The Constitutional Court’s decisions requesting construction adopted in 2014 157 2.5. The conclusion presented by the Constitutional Court in 2014 163 2.6. International and EU law in the Constitutional Court’s acts adopted in 2014 163 Annex 3. PENDING CASES (31 December 2014) 168 Annex 4. NOT IMPLEMENTED RULINGS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF WHICH THE ADOPTION OF A LEGAL ACT (LEGAL ACTS) ESTABLISHING A NEW LEGAL REGULATION IS NECESSARY 178 General Information about the Constitutional Court The CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF Lithuania

he Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania adopted by the 25 October 1992 referendum Tstipulates that in Lithuania the constitutional control is carried out by the Constitutional Court. The activities of the Constitutional Court are regulated by the Law on the Constitutional Court passed on 3 February 1993. The Constitutional Court was formed and began its activities in 1993. In 1997, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania was admitted to Full Membership in the Conference of the European Constitutional Courts. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania held chairmanship of the Conference of European Constitutional Courts from 2005 until 2008. 7 General Information about the Constitutional Court

Functions and Powers

he Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania ensures the supremacy of the TConstitution within the legal system as well as constitutional justice by deciding whether the laws and other legal acts adopted by the Seimas are in conformity with the Constitution, and whether the acts adopted by the President of the Republic or the Government are in compliance with the Constitution and laws. The Constitutional Court does not perform any preliminary judicial review of laws. The Constitutional Court decides the constitutionality issues of enacted laws and other legal acts (a posteriori control). The Constitutional Court examines a case only when the entities prescribed by the Constitution address the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting for the determination of the conformity of a law or a legal act with the Constitution. The right to file a petition with the Constitutional Court concerning the constitutionality of a legal act is vested in: (1) the Government, groups consisting of at least 1/5 of all members of the Seimas, and the courts for cases concerning a law or other act adopted by the Seimas; (2) groups consisting of at least 1/5 of all members of the Seimas and the courts for cases concerning an act of the President of the Republic; and (3) groups consisting of at least 1/5 of all members of the Seimas, the courts, and the President of the Republic for cases concerning governmental acts. The Constitutional Court gives rulings on these issues. The case for a hearing of the Constitutional Court is prepared by the justice-rapporteur appointed by the President of the Court. At the beginning of Constitutional Court’s hearing the Court announces which of the summoned persons are present, informs parties to the case of their rights and duties, hears and settles requests of parties to the case. The justice-rapporteur delivers their report in which the substance of the case is presented. After this, the statements of the parties to the case are heard, the evidence is examined and court pleadings take place. The ruling must be made within one month after the end of the investigation of the case. After the Court’s hearing the Constitutional Court retires to the deliberation room to make a ruling. Rulings of the Constitutional Court are pronounced in the name of the Republic of Lithuania. The decisions of the Constitutional Court ascribed to its competence by the Constitution are final and not subject to appeal. Rulings of the Constitutional Court have the power of law and are obligatory for all institutions of authority, courts, all enterprises, establishments and organisations, officials and citizens (erga omnes). Under the Constitution, laws of the Republic of Lithuania (or a part thereof) or other Seimas acts (or a part thereof), acts of the President of the Republic, or acts of the Government (or a part 8 General Information about the Constitutional Court

thereof) shall not be applicable from the day that a ruling of the Constitutional Court stating that the appropriate act (or a part thereof) conflicts with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania is officially published (ex nunc). The force of a ruling of the Constitutional Court recognising a legal act (or a part thereof) unconstitutional may not be overcome by repeated enactment of an equivalent legal act (or a part thereof). The Constitutional Court also gives the following conclusions: (1) whether there were violations of election laws during elections of the President of the Republic or elections of members of the Seimas; (2) whether the state of health of the President of the Republic allows him to continue to hold office; (3) whether international treaties of the Republic of Lithuania are not in conflict with the Constitution; (4) whether concrete actions of members of the Seimas and State officials against whom an impeachment case has been instituted are in conflict with the Constitution. The Seimas may request that the Constitutional Court give a conclusion. The President of the Republic may address the Constitutional Court for a conclusion concerning the election of members of the Seimas and regarding international treaties. The conclusion concerning international treaties may be requested already prior to its ratification in the Seimas. The Seimas, conforming to conclusions of the Constitutional Court, adopts the final decision. The Constitutional Court considers cases and arrives at conclusions collectively, provided that not less than two-thirds of all the justices of the Constitutional Court are participating. Rulings and decisions are made by majority vote of at least half of the justices participating in the sitting. In the case of a tie, the vote of the Chairperson of the sitting is decisive. The Constitutional Court’s hearings are open. The Constitutional Court investigates and decides only legal issues and refuses to consider petitions for the examination of the constitutionality of a legal act if the petition is grounded upon non-legal reasoning. 9 General Information about the Constitutional Court

Justices

he Constitutional Court consists of 9 justices appointed for a nine-year unrenewable term of office. TThe Seimas appoints an equal number of justices to the Constitutional Court from the candidates nominated by the President of the Republic of Lithuania, the Speaker of the Seimas, and the President of the Supreme Court. The Seimas appoints the President of the Constitutional Court from among the justices thereof upon the nomination by the President of the Republic. Upon the initial appointment of Constitutional Court justices, three of them were appointed for a three-year term of office, three for a six-year term of office, and three for a nine-year term of office. Every three years, one-third of the Constitutional Court is reconstituted. The justices of the Constitutional Court, who were appointed for three- or six-year terms of office, may hold the same office for one more term following an interval of at least three years. Citizens of the Republic of Lithuania who have an impeccable reputation, who are trained in law, and who have served for at least 10 years in the legal profession, or in an area of education related to their qualifications as a lawyer, are eligible for appointment as a justice of the Constitutional Court.

The composition of the Constitutional Court of the 2014–2017 term of office. Sitting from left: Vytautas Greičius, Elvyra Baltutytė, Dainius Žalimas (President), Danutė Jočienė, and Vytas Milius. Standing from left: Algirdas Taminskas, Gediminas Mesonis, Pranas Kuconis, and Egidijus Šileikis 10 General Information about the Constitutional Court

Justices of the Constitutional Court, when in office, are independent from any state institution, person or organisation, and obey only the Constitution. Before taking office, the persons appointed as Constitutional Court justices swear, in the Seimas, to be faithful to the Republic of Lithuania and the Constitution. The activities of the Constitutional Court justices are subject to restrictions regarding work and political activities: they may not hold any other elective or appointive office, and may not be employed in any business, commercial or other private establishment or company apart from educational and creative work. They may not receive any remuneration other than the salary established for justices and payment for educational or creative activities. The Constitutional Court justices may not participate in the activities of political parties or other political organisations. The person of a Constitutional Court justice is inviolable—Constitutional Court justices may not be found criminally or administratively responsible, may not be arrested, and may not be subjected to any other restriction of personal freedom without the consent of the Constitutional Court. The powers of a Constitutional Court justice are terminated: on the expiration of his or her term of office; upon the death of the justice; upon voluntary resignation; if the justice is incapable of fulfilling his or her duties for reasons of health; upon being removed from office by the Seimas, according to the procedure for impeachment proceedings. 11 General Information about the Constitutional Court

Dainius ŽALIMAS President of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

Justice Dainius Žalimas was born on 22 May 1973 in Vilnius. In January–August 1991, he took part in the defence of the Supreme Council and the independence of the Republic of Lithuania against the Soviet aggression. In 1996, he graduated from the Faculty of Law of Vilnius University. Since 1996 he has been a lecturer at Vilnius University, in 2002–2005 he was a lecturer at the Law University of Lithuania (at present Mykolas Romeris University), and in 2001– 2003—at the Military Academy of Lithuania. In 2001, he defended his PhD thesis at Vilnius University. From 1998 until 2011 he was a legal adviser to the Minister of National Defence. In 2005–2011, he was a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. In 2005–2011, he was a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Since 2011, he has been a professor of international and European Union law at the Faculty of Law of Vilnius University. He is an author of several books as well as of numerous articles dealing with the issues of public international law and constitutional law. On an individual basis as well as while taking part in various working groups, he was engaged in preparation of a number of draft laws of the Republic of Lithuania. He is a professor, holds a PhD in law. In March 2011, Mr Dainius Žalimas was appointed a justice of the Constitutional Court. On 11 July 2014, the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania appointed him President of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania. 12 General Information about the Constitutional Court

Justice Elvyra Baltutytė was born on 6 December 1954 in the Šilutė district. In 1977, she graduated cum laude from the Faculty of Law of Vilnius University. In 1977–1991, she worked at the Ministry of Social Security and Labour as a jurisconsult, whilst, in 1991–1995, she worked as a consultant at the Division for Drafting Laws, and later—as a consultant at the International Relations Division of the same ministry. In 1995– 2003, she was a legal consultant of the Lithuanian Centre for Human Rights, in 2003–2005—Ombudsman of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, in 2005–2014—the representative of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania at the European Court of Human Rights. In 1998– 2012, she was a lecturer at the Department of International and European Elvyra BALTUTYTĖ Union Law of the Faculty of Law of Mykolas Romeris University. She has been on internship and raised her qualification at various international Justice of the Constitutional Court organisations, foreign institutions, and academic establishments. She is of the Republic of Lithuania an author of several articles published in various legal publications and a co-author of several monographs and teaching aids. In March 2014, Ms Elvyra Baltutytė was appointed a justice of the Constitutional Court.

Justice Vytautas Greičius was born on 9 May 1949 in the Tauragė district. In 1975, he graduated from the Faculty of Law of Vilnius University. In 1975–1976, he was an intern at the Klaipėda City Local Court, in 1976–1990—a judge at the Ukmergė Local Court, in 1990– 2014—a justice at the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Lithuania. In 1995–1998, he held the office of the Chairperson of the Criminal Division, whereas, in 1998–2009, he held the office of the President of the Supreme Court of Lithuania. In 2002–2006, he was the Chairperson of the Judicial Council. He was a member of the working groups for the preparation of a draft Criminal Code, a draft Code of Criminal Procedure, a draft Law on Courts, and other draft laws. He has taken part in a number of national and international academic and Vytautas GREIČIUS practical conferences, seminars and other events. He has published Justice several articles on the issues of the application of law and the activities of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania of courts, and has written reviews about academic works. In March 2014, Mr Vytautas Greičius was appointed a justice of the Constitutional Court. 13 General Information about the Constitutional Court

Justice Danutė Jočienė was born in 1970. In 1994 she graduated cum laude from the Faculty of Law of Vilnius University. In 1999, she defended her PhD thesis at Vilnius University. In 1994–2003, she was an assistant, an associate professor, and a vice-dean of the Faculty of Law of Vilnius University. In 1997–2001, she worked as an expert at the European Law Department under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania. In 1997–2001, she was on internship at various foreign and international institutions. In 2003–2004, she was a representative of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania at the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations. In 2004–2013, she was a judge of the European Court of Human Rights; Danutė JOČIENĖ in 2011–2013—Vice-President of Section II of the European Court of Human Rights. She is an author of several books as well as of numerous Justice articles dealing with the issues of human rights. She is an associate of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania professor at Mykolas Romeris University and holds a PhD in law. In March 2014, Ms Danutė Jočienė was appointed a justice of the Constitutional Court.

Justice Pranas Kuconis was born on 6 June 1961 in the Kaišiadorys district. In 1984 he graduated from the Faculty of Law of Vilnius University. In 1984–1986, he lectured at the Faculty of Law. In 1991– 1993, he worked as an investigator of the Investigation Department under the Ministry of the Interior, whereas, in 1993–1997, he worked as the head of a division and Deputy Director and Director of the Forensic Science Centre of Lithuania. From December 1997 he worked as a justice of the Supreme Court of Lithuania. He was a member of working groups for drafting the Code of Criminal Procedure and other laws. He is an author of numerous articles on criminal law and criminal procedure and a co-author of several monographs and teaching aids. He is an associate Pranas KUCONIS professor, holds a PhD in law. In March 2008, Mr Pranas Kuconis was appointed a justice of the Justice Constitutional Court. of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania 14 General Information about the Constitutional Court

Justice Gediminas Mesonis was born on 9 November 1968 in Vilnius. In 1991, he graduated from the Faculty of Physics of Vilnius Pedagogical Institute (single-stage studies). In 1996, he obtained a Bachelor’s Degree in Law, and in 1998—a Master’s Degree in Law. In 2000, he did academic work in Philadelphia (USA) within the Fulbright Program. In 2000, he defended his PhD thesis in social sciences (legal field). In 2002–2004, he was the Director of the Centre for Studies of the Law University of Lithuania (at present Mykolas Romeris University). In 2007–2011, he was the Head of the Department of Constitutional Law of Mykolas Romeris University. In 1998–2010, he was on internship and lectured in various foreign universities (Czech Republic, Italy, the Netherlands). He Gediminas MESONIS is a professor at Mykolas Romeris University, holds a PhD in law. Since 2014, he has been serving as an individual member of the European Justice of the Constitutional Court Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) of the Republic of Lithuania delegated by the Republic of Lithuania.He has written several books and a number of articles on constitutional law. In March 2011, Mr Gediminas Mesonis was appointed a justice of the Constitutional Court.

Justice Vytas Milius was born in 1949 in the Varėna district. In 1977, he graduated from the Faculty of Law of Vilnius University. In 1980–1990, he worked as a judge of the Šilutė District Local Court and as the President of that court, in 1990–1992—as a justice of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, in 1992–1994—as the President of the Druskininkai City Local Court, in 1995–2010—as the President of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, and in 2010–2013—as a judge of the latter court. He was on internship in the courts of appeal of Bordeaux and Metz (France), the Court of Cassation of France, and several courts of the USA. In December 2013, Mr Vytas Milius was appointed a justice of the Constitutional Court. Vytas MILIUS Justice of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania 15 General Information about the Constitutional Court

Justice Egidijus Šileikis was born on 8 May 1967 in the Zarasai district. In 1990, he graduated from the Faculty of Law of Vilnius University. He worked as an intern in the same faculty. In 1991, he finished master’s studies at Frankfurt University (Federal Republic of Germany), and, in 1994, he finished post-graduate studies at the same university and received the degree of doctor of legal science. In 1994– 1997, he worked as an assistant, senior assistant of the Faculty of Law of Vilnius University. He also became the dean of this faculty. As from 1996, he was an advisor of the Legal Division of the Office of the Seimas, while as from 1998—an advisor of the Office of the Government on issues of public administration. In 1997–1998, he was on internship at Frankfurt Egidijus ŠILEIKIS University, and in 2004—at the Humboldt University of Berlin. In 2002–2005, he was an associate professor at the Faculty of Law of Vilnius Justice of the Constitutional Court University, and since 2005 he has been professor at the same faculty. He of the Republic of Lithuania has written several books and articles on constitutional law. In March 2008, Mr Egidijus Šileikis was appointed a justice of the Constitutional Court.

Justice Algirdas Taminskas was born on 9 February 1962 in Biržai. In 1986, he graduated from the Faculty of Law of Vilnius University. From September 1986 he worked as an assistant, senior assistant, associate professor at the Faculty of Law of Vilnius University. From May 1993 until December 1994, he was an advisor of the Seimas Committee on the State and Law Issues, from December 1994 until February 1999, he was Seimas Ombudsman, the Head of the Seimas Ombudsmen’s Office. From June 1999 until 20 June 2007, he worked as a judge of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania. From June 2007 he worked as a justice at the Supreme Court of Lithuania. In 2002–2006, he was a member of the Commission for Ethics and Discipline of Judges, and Algirdas TAMINSKAS from July 2006 he was a member of the Judicial Court of Honour. He is an author of numerous articles on civil law and a co-author of several Justice monographs and teaching aids. He holds a PhD in law. of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania In March 2008, Mr Algirdas Taminskas was appointed a justice of the Constitutional Court.

Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania 18 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

FOREWORD BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

s aptly noted by one of the most eminent legal authorities Aharon Barak, courts discharge two Afunctions in a democratic state: they bring closer law and society; they protect the constitution and democracy. There must be several preconditions for the implementation of both these functions, one of them being the trust of the public in courts. The publicity of the activity of courts may be regarded as one of the main factors determining the level of trust of the public in courts. Namely the striving for increasing the publicity of the activity of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania and the imparting of the information about it was the inducement of a new initiative—the publication of an annual report about its activity in 2014, surveying the considered cases, the practice of the admissibility of petitions received, the problems of the implementation of acts of the Constitutional Court, the international cooperation and other issues. It should be noted that annual surveys of activity have become a tradition of Lithuanian courts in the communication with the public. Such surveys are also characteristic of the activity of a number of foreign constitutional courts. While invoking such good experience, by means of this annual report, the Constitutional Court also starts a tradition to annually present its work done during a previous year in a comprehensible and matter-of-fact manner. I hope that this tradition will contribute the openness of the Constitutional Court, the increase of its authority and the fostering of the legal culture of society. Only on the condition that the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and respect for the values protected by it are implemented in reality, it is possible to guarantee the supremacy of law and the stability of the constitutional order. In this area, an important role and responsibility fall on the Constitutional Court, since the constitutional review exercised by it is the main instrument ensuring the efficiency of the Constitution. However, how efficiently this instrument is used depends not on the Constitutional Court, but on the initiative of petitioners—the subjects empowered by the Constitution to apply to the Constitutional Court. Thus, the Constitutional Court’s agenda is determined by the petitions of these subjects, dictated by the topicalities of a concrete period, giving rise to concrete constitutional justice cases. For instance, the first decade of the activity of the Constitutional Court may be described as a 19 FOREWORD BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

period of the consolidation of the model of constitutional judicial review, which had never existed in Lithuania, in the Lithuanian legal system. During this period the number of petitions filed with the Constitutional Court and that of the cases considered by it were constantly increasing. The Constitutional Court also had to form the concept of the legal system and the protection of human rights based on the Constitution that had theretofore been unfamiliar. The last five years have seen the dominance of the topicalities of the economic crisis in the cases considered by the Constitutional Court. If someone asked to define 2014 in the activity of the Constitutional Court, this year could be described as the year of the strengthening of statehood. In 2014, several essential cases related to the provisions of the Constitution consolidating the fundamental constitutional values of the State of Lithuania should be distinguished. For instance, in its ruling of 24 January 2014, the Constitutional Court formulated the doctrine of amendments to the Constitution, by disclosing the limitations on the alteration of the Constitution that arise out of the Constitution itself, the content of the geopolitical orientation of the State of Lithuania, and the constitutional fundamentals of membership of the Republic of Lithuania in the European Union. Later, these doctrinal provisions were developed in the ruling of 11 July 2014 by interpreting the constitutional institute of referendums, the concept of the Constitution as supreme law and the legal basis of the life of the Nation, and by disclosing the principles of the independence of the State of Lithuania and democracy as non-amendable fundamental constitutional provisions. In its ruling of 18 March 2014, the Constitutional Court interpreted the relation of the international and national legal norms defining international crimes, formulated the principle of international law as the minimum standard of the constitutional protection of human rights, and more comprehensively disclosed the following questions important to the statehood of Lithuania: the continuity and identity of the Republic of Lithuania that restored its independence on 11 March 1990 with the State of Lithuania against which the aggression by the USSR was launched on 15 June 1940, the legal status of the institutions and participants of Lithuania’s resistance to the Soviet occupation, and the international, legal, historical and political context related to international crimes committed by the occupation totalitarian regimes. The Constitutional Court is not only a caretaker of national constitutional traditions, but also applies the most advanced international and European legal standards. As it is clear from the information presented in this annual report, the Constitutional Court, while considering constitutional justice cases, takes into consideration a wide spectrum of sources of international and EU law, i.e. it pays heed to the international and European context of considered questions. In 2014, the issue of the number of cases and the length of their consideration at the Constitutional Court was traditionally relevant. The pleasant fact is the Constitutional Court has not lost the former pace of its work, the conditions for the speed-up of which were created at the end of 2011 upon the amendment of the Law on the Constitutional Court (by allowing the Constitutional Court to consider several constitutional justice cases at the same time and by introducing the possibility of written procedure). In 2014, the Constitutional Court solved 24 cases by paying most attention to the 20 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

cases subsequent to the petitions received in 2010–2012. According to the data of 5 March 2015, the Constitutional Court has still three pending cases subsequent to the petitions received in 2012, the total number of pending petitions being 52, whilst, after joining the petitions according to their content (petitions on the compliance of the same or related legal acts with the Constitution), the total number of pending cases would be 24. In view of the above statistics, it is possible to expect that, in 2015, the Constitutional Court will succeed in reducing the length of the consideration of cases so that such consideration will not exceed a year and a half. 2014 was an exceptional year for the Constitutional Court, since, under the procedure established in the Constitution, one-third of the Court’s composition was renewed: the Constitutional Court was joined by former Lithuania’s Supreme Court President Vytautas Greičius, former judge of the European Court of Human Rights Danutė Jočienė, and Elvyra Baltutytė, a former representative of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania at the European Court of Human Rights. Upon the appointment of these experienced legal professionals to the Constitutional Court, the continuity and good quality of its activity were ensured. 2014 was also an exceptional year for the Constitutional Court from the point of view of the strengthening of its international authority. It extended its membership in the Bureau of the World Conference on Constitutional Justice (WCCJ), which is the executive institution of this world organisation of constitutional courts and other institutions exercising constitutional jurisdiction: at the 3rd Congress of the WCCJ that took place in September 2014, the Constitutional Court, together with the Constitutional Courts of Austria and Turkey, was elected by majority vote for the Bureau for the next three-year term of office (the Constitutional Court has been a member of the Bureau since its very establishment in 2008). In November 2014, the Constitutional Court filed an application for arranging the 4th Congress of the WCCJ in Lithuania in 2017. On 21 March 2015, this application was granted and, in 2017, when the 25th anniversary of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania will be celebrated, the congress of the representatives of the constitutional courts all over the world will take place in Vilnius. In 2014, the Constitutional Court succeeded in giving more impetus to the cooperation of the Constitutional Courts of Ukraine and Moldova, the states that have recently signed association treaties with the European Union. In July 2014, on the initiative of the Constitutional Court, a visit of the Presidents of the Constitutional Courts of Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland to Ukraine took place in an attempt to express a solidarity with the latter country and to provide support for Ukraine in creating a state under the rule of law. In addition, two four-party round-table meetings of the Constitutional Courts of Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine were held. 2014 saw dynamic experience sharing with the Constitutional Court of Moldova in the area of the jurisprudential activity; the first joint conference of the Constitutional Courts of Lithuania, Moldova, and Romania is planned to be held in 2015. In 2014, the traditional bilateral conferences with the Constitutional Courts of Latvia and Poland took place as well. 21 FOREWORD BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

In general, the results of the activity of the Constitutional Court in 2014 give grounds for optimism. It is possible to expect that, in 2015, the length of the consideration of cases at the Constitutional Court will decrease considerably without affecting the quality of adopted final acts and that the Constitutional Court will remain an active and noticeable participant in the international cooperation of constitutional courts. Looking to the future, it is possible to remember the initiative of an individual constitutional complaint, which was forgotten during the economic crisis. It should be noted that the consolidation of the institute of an individual constitutional complaint is a European tendency and it provides more opportunities to defend human rights at the national level. The significance of this institute is not limited by the protection of individual interests, but it also helps to implement the supremacy of the Constitution in a more efficient manner and to protect the public interest and the entire constitutional order. The most important thing is that, if persons are granted the right to apply to the Constitutional Court on certain conditions, the public would become more integrated to the process of the constitutionalisation of the national legal system. It goes without saying, the implementation of an individual constitutional complaint could be an excellent topic for a future discussion. Whishing the readers to find much useful and interesting information in this report of the Constitutional Court,

Dainius Žalimas President of the Constitutional Court 22 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT IN 2014: 1. THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENTS AND NUMBERS

n 2014, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania began the third decade of its activity. IIt was founded under the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that was adopted by referendum on 25 October 1992. The Constitution consolidated the institute of constitutional judicial review for the first time in the history of the State of Lithuania. The Constitutional Court was formed in April 1993 upon the appointment of its nine justices by the Seimas. On 5 September 1993, the first public hearing of the Constitutional Court took place, whilst, on 17 September, the first ruling of the Constitutional Court was pronounced. In assessing the compliance of the compliance of legal acts with legal acts of higher legal force, first of all, with the Constitution, and exercising its other constitutional powers, the Constitutional Court—an autonomous and independent judicial institution—administers constitutional justice and guarantees the supremacy of the Constitution in the legal system. In the period of the strengthening of statehood, the creation and development of the legal system, the joining of the European Union and NATO, the Constitutional Court became established as a guarantor of the state constitutional order, of human rights and other fundamentals of a state under the rule of law. Constitutional imperatives have become an inseparable part of the legal reality of Lithuania and the influence of constitutional values on all areas of law is unquestionable. The constitutional review carried out by the Constitutional Court is deemed the most effective form of the protection of the democratic order consolidated in the Constitution. The competence of the Constitutional Court, the procedure of its formation, the status of justices, the legal force of legal acts adopted by it, and other grounds of its activity are consolidated in Chapter VIII of the Constitution. Under Paragraph 2 of Article 102 of the Constitution, the status of the Constitutional Court and the procedure for the execution of its powers are established by the Law on the Constitutional Court. The internal questions of the Constitutional Court, the rules of professional conduct of justices, the structure of the Court apparatus, clerical work, and other issues are regulated by the Rules of the Constitutional Court, as approved by the Constitutional Court (Article 3 of the Law on the Constitutional Court). 23 THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT IN 2014: THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENTS AND NUMBERS

Under the Constitution, the Constitutional Court decides whether the laws and other acts of the Seimas are not in conflict with the Constitution and whether the acts of the President of the Republic and the Government are not in conflict with the Constitution or laws (Paragraph 1 of Article 102, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 105). Rulings are passed on these issues. The Constitutional Court also gives conclusions: whether there were violations of election laws during an election of the President of the Republic or an election of members of the Seimas; whether the state of health of the President of the Republic allows him to continue to hold office; whether international treaties of the Republic of Lithuania are not in conflict with the Constitution; whether concrete actions of members of the Seimas and State officials against whom an impeachment case has been instituted are in conflict with the Constitution (Paragraph 3 of Article 105). The Constitutional Court also has the powers to put the construction on provisions of its own final acts so that their content and meaning would be disclosed in a more comprehensive manner and their proper execution would be ensured. As a rule, it does so at the request of the persons empowered by law. This report provides a survey of the activity of the Constitutional Court in 2014: the practice of the admissibility of received petitions, the considered cases, the problems of the implementation of acts, and the topicalities of international cooperation and those of other activity. Rotation of justices. From the organisational point of view, the previous year was special for the Constitutional Court, because the rotation of justices took place and three newly appointed justices replaced the three justices of the Constitutional Court whose term of office had expired. A new President of the Constitutional Court was also appointed. Received petitions. Last year, the Constitutional Court was addressed 79 times:1 75 petitions were received requesting an investigation into the constitutionality of legal acts, one inquiry was received requesting a conclusion and three petitions were received requesting the construction of the provisions of the final acts of the Constitutional Court that had been adopted before. The number of these petitions is bigger than usual, since many of them were filed in order to impugn the compliance of the same legal acts with the Constitution: 21 petitions were submitted regarding the legal acts by which the coefficients of the positional salaries of prosecutors and other state officials had been reduced, 16 were submitted regarding the law postponing the establishment of the mechanism for compensation for the losses incurred due to the disproportionate reduction of the remuneration of state servants and judges. 62 petitions (78 percent) out of all the petitions received were accepted. The Constitutional Court most often refused to consider the petitions because the petitioners had raised not the issues of the compliance of legal acts with the Constitution, but those of the interpretation and application of legal acts, or because some courts submitting their petitions had impugned the legal acts that were not applicable in the cases that they were considering (three petitions regarding each). The main reason for the returning of the petitions back to the petitioners was the petitioners’ failure to submit relevant legal arguments or such arguments were not sufficient for substantiating the doubts of the petitioners. 1 See Annex 1 to this report. 24 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

Traditionally, most of the petitions received by the Constitutional Court were submitted by courts (85 percent). It has been noticed that the number of petitions received from the Seimas or groups of members of the Seimas (12 percent of all petitions) has been decreasing year by year. The general tendency of the decreasing of the overall number of petitions (especially, as regards non-identical topics) can also be seen. Acts passed. In 2014, the Constitutional Court pronounced 51 acts,2 from among them, 24 acts by which the petitions of petitioners were considered in substance (17 rulings, six decisions on the construction of the provisions of the Constitutional Court’s rulings, and one conclusion), eight decisions on the refusal to consider a petition, four decisions on dismissing a case or initiated legal proceedings, and 15 other decisions.3 By its final acts, the Constitutional Court solved 60 petitions and inquiries. 15 legal acts (parts thereof) were ruled in conflict with the Constitution. On 31 December 2014, the list of the pending petitions contained 57 petitions, which, after joining according to their content (petitions on the compliance of the same or related legal acts with the Constitution), would constitute 32 pending cases.4 The average length of the consideration of cases at the Constitutional Court has been from two to three years in recent years; it is expected to reduce it so that it would take from a year and a half to two years. The range of problems of the constitutional justice cases considered by the Constitutional Court in 2014 was very much varied. Out of the 24 cases in which the petitions of the petitioners were considered in substance, eight cases dealt with the issues related to ensuring the economic and social rights: the Constitutional Court considered the problems related to the reduction of pensions, the reduction of the contributions to pension funds and the reduction of remuneration due to an economic crisis, the granting and payment of social maintenance, the right to fair pay for work and the securing of the right to healthcare (five rulings were passed, as well as three decisions were adopted on the construction of the relevant rulings of the Constitutional Court). In these cases, the Constitutional Court virtually invoked the provisions of the official constitutional doctrine that had been formulated before. In recent years, the Constitutional Court had to decide a number of cases connected with election law. 2014 saw the consideration of two such cases: on the right of election committees to participate in elections to the European Parliament under the name that they have chosen and on the powers of the Seimas to change the final results of an election. Two rulings have been adopted on the issues of the restoration of the rights of ownership; they were grounded on the recognition of a wide discretion of the legislature to regulate the conditions of the restoration of the rights of ownership. The Constitutional Court also adopted two acts on the independence of the judiciary. 2 See Annex 2 to this report. 3 One decision refusing to construe the provisions of a ruling of the Constitutional Court, five decisions on the returning of the petition back to the petitioner, eight decisions on the dismissing of a part of the case, and one decision on accepting the petition. 4 See Annex 3 to this report. According to the data of 5 March 2015, the number of the pending petitions at the Constitutional Court was 52, which, if joined according to their content, would constitute 24 pending cases in total. 25 THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT IN 2014: THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENTS AND NUMBERS

Some cases considered in 2014 were especially important—the Constitutional Court decided certain cardinal issues connected with the constitutional fundamentals of the life of society and the state and interpreted the provisions of the Constitution consolidating the fundamental constitutional values of the State of Lithuania. In one of such cases (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 24 January 2014), the Constitutional Court assessed whether a law amending the Constitution was not in conflict with the latter. In that constitutional justice case, the Constitutional Court formulated the doctrine of amendments to the Constitution for the first time, by disclosing the limitations on the alteration of the Constitution that arise out of the Constitution itself, the content of the geopolitical orientation of the State of Lithuania, and the constitutional fundamentals of membership of the Republic of Lithuania in the European Union. These issues were also of essential importance in the case in which the compliance of the law regulating organising and calling referendums with the Constitution was considered (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 11 July 2014). In that case the Constitutional Court construed the constitutional institute of referendums and the requirements for referendums stemming from the Constitution, disclosed the concept of the Constitution as supreme law and the legal basis for the common life of the Nation, and the principles of the independence of the State of Lithuania and democracy as fundamental and non-amendable constitutional provisions. Another very important case decided in 2014 was that on criminal liability for genocide and other international crimes (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 18 March 2014). In this case, the Constitutional Court construed the relation between the norms of international and national law defining international crimes and formulated the principle of international law as the minimum constitutional standard of the protection of human rights. The Constitutional Court also disclosed the issues important for the statehood of Lithuania in more detail: the continuity and identity of the Republic of Lithuania that restored its independence on 11 March 1990 with the State of Lithuania against which the aggression by the USSR was launched on 15 June 1940, the legal status of the institutions and participants of Lithuania’s resistance to the Soviet occupation, and the international, legal, historical and political context related to international crimes committed by the occupation totalitarian regimes. While considering cases, the Constitutional Court also takes into consideration the acts of international and EU law that are relevant in a particular case and the decisions of international courts interpreting and applying those acts. Acts of the Constitutional Court most often mention provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (the ECtHR) which, as a source of interpretation of law, is important for the interpretation and application of Lithuanian law. Reference was made to sources of international law in more than a half of the rulings adopted by the Constitutional Court in 2014, whilst, in the aforementioned ruling of 18 March 2014 on criminal liability for genocide, the international-legal context of the considered case was disclosed in a very comprehensive manner. In the said ruling, the Constitutional Court also invoked the acts of international law and judgments of various international courts that had not been mentioned in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court before.5 5 See Annex 2.6 to this report. 26 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

In 2014, the Constitutional Court received two inquiries from the Seimas regarding conclusions. The Constitutional Court gave its conclusion on the compliance of the actions of a member of the Seimas, against whom an impeachment case had been instituted, with the Constitution, but refused to consider an inquiry regarding the lawfulness of an election of members of the Seimas. The passage of acts of the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court collectively investigates cases and issues rulings, adopts decisions or conclusions provided that not less than two-thirds of all the justices of the Constitutional Court are participating. Acts of the Constitutional Court are adopted by majority vote of at least half of the justices participating in the sitting. A justice of the Constitutional Court, who has a different opinion about an act adopted by the Constitutional Court, has the right to set forth in writing their reasoned dissenting opinion within five working days from the pronouncement of the corresponding act in the courtroom. One dissenting opinion was expressed last year. The implementation of acts of the Constitutional Court. The decisions of the Constitutional Court on the issues assigned to its competence by the Constitution are final and not subject to appeal. If the Constitutional Court rules a legal act in conflict with the Constitution (with another legal act of higher legal force), such an act may not be applied as from the day that this decision of the Constitutional Court was officially published. Such a legal act is removed from the legal system of Lithuania for good. The constitutional duty arises for the law-making subject that adopted this legal act either to recognise it as no longer valid, or to respectively amend or change it, and to fill the existing legal gap. Rulings of the Constitutional Court are implemented in an effective manner: at the end of 2014, there were 13 non-implemented rulings (around 8 percent of all rulings by which certain legal acts were ruled in conflict with the Constitution), for the implementation of which the adoption of legal acts establishing new legal regulation is necessary. Out of the above 13 rulings, five were passed in 2014.6 International cooperation. The Constitutional Court cooperates with constitutional justice institutions of foreign states, and takes an active participation in international conferences and in the activity of international organisations uniting constitutional courts. At the 3rd Congress of the World Conference on Constitutional Justice (WCCJ) that took place in September 2014, the Constitutional Court, together with the Constitutional Courts of Austria and Turkey, was re-elected as a member of the Bureau—the executive institution of this organisation, whilst, in November 2014, the Constitutional Court filed an application for arranging the 4th Congress of the WCCJ in Lithuania in 2017. On 21 March 2015, this application was granted. The Constitutional Court also continued its close cooperation with the constitutional courts of neighbouring countries: traditional bilateral conferences with justices of the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland and the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia were organised. In 2014, the Constitutional Court also succeeded in giving more impetus to the cooperation with the Constitutional Courts of Ukraine and Moldova, the states that have recently signed association treaties with the European Union. In July 2014, on the initiative of the Constitutional Court, a visit of the 6 See Annex 4 to this report. 27 THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT IN 2014: THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENTS AND NUMBERS

Presidents of the Constitutional Courts of Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland to Ukraine took place and two four-party round-table meetings of the Constitutional Courts of Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine were held. The first joint conference of the Constitutional Courts of Lithuania, Moldova, and Romania is planned to be held soon. Relations with the public. In 2014, the tradition to invite prominent speakers from abroad to the official celebration of the Day of the Constitution was renewed. On 24 October 2014, Yurii Baulin, Chairman of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, read a report at such a celebration. In an attempt to make its activity clearer and more understandable for the public, in 2014, the Constitutional Court implemented several initiatives enhancing the accessibility and imparting of the information about its activity. The construction of a new Internet website of the Constitutional Court began, which would facilitate both the finding of necessary information and familiarising oneself with the news of the Constitutional Court. The continuation of the book “Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinio Teismo oficialiosios konstitucinės doktrinos nuostatos, 1993–2009 [The Provisions of the Official Constitutional Doctrine of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania in 1993–2009]”—a collection of the doctrinal provisions including 2010–2013—was published. The Apparatus of the Constitutional Court. The staff of the apparatus of the Constitutional Court helps to ensure smooth and effective work of the Constitutional Court. The apparatus is composed of these structural units: the President’s Secretariat, the Law Department, the Division of Information and Technologies, the General Division, the Finance Division, and the Economy Divisions. 37 state servants worked at the Constitutional Court in 2014. 28 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

THE COMPOSITION 2. OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

he composition of the Constitutional Court and the procedure of the appointment of justices is Testablished in the Constitution. The Constitutional Court consists of 9 justices, each appointed for a single nine-year term of office. Every three years, the Constitutional Court is renewed by one- third: three justices whose term of office has expired are replaced by newly appointed ones. The rotation of justices ensures a continual renewal of the composition and the continuity of activity of the Constitutional Court. Only the state officials specified in the Constitution as well as the Seimas itself enjoy the powers in the appointment of justices of the Constitutional Court. Such state officials present candidates for justices, whilst the Seimas adopts a decision on the appointment of such candidates as justices. The representatives of all three branches of power participate in the formation of the Constitutional Court: the Seimas appoints justices to the Constitutional Court from the candidates presented by the President of the Republic, the Speaker of the Seimas, and the President of the Supreme Court. The candidatures for justices of the Constitutional Court must be submitted to the Seimas not later than three months prior to the expiry of the particular term of office of justices. Under the Constitution, citizens of the Republic of Lithuania who have an impeccable reputation, who have higher education in law, and who have not less than a 10-year work record in the field of law or in a branch of science and education as a lawyer, may be appointed as justices of the Constitutional Court. While in office, justices are independent of any other institution, person or organisation, and follow only the Constitution. They may not hold any other elective or appointive office, may not work in any business, commercial, or other private establishments or enterprises, nor may they receive any other remuneration with the exception of the payment for educational or creative work. They may not participate in the activities of political parties and other political organisations, either. In 2014, a rotation of justices of the Constitutional Court took place. 20 March of the same year was the day of the expiry of the term of office of Justice Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis, who was also the President of the Constitutional Court in 2011–2014, and of Justice Toma Birmontienė and Justice Ramutė 29 THE COMPOSITION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

The composition of the Constitutional Court of the 2014–2017 term of office.

Ruškytė. On the same day, new justices of the Constitutional Court took an oath at the Seimas: Elvyra Baltutytė, who until then had been the representative of the Government at the European Court of Human Rights (she was appointed a justice of the Constitutional Court on the proposal of the President of the Republic), Vytautas Greičius, a former justice and President of the Supreme Court (he was appointed a justice of the Constitutional Court on the proposal of the Speaker of the Seimas), and Danutė Jočienė, a former judge of the European Court of Human Rights (she was appointed a justice of the Constitutional Court on the proposal of the President of the Supreme Court). The event dedicated to the rotation of justices of the Constitutional Court, in which the justices whose term of office had expired were bid farewell and the justices whose term of office had just begun were welcomed, was visited by representatives of state institutions, former justices of the Constitutional Court, other members of the community of lawyers, as well as by representatives of the Constitutional Courts of Latvia and Poland, whose participation at such events had already become traditional—Andrzej Rzepliński, President of the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland, Aija Branta, the then President of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia, and Gunārs Kūtris, former President of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia. In 2014, in addition to the newly appointed justices of the Constitutional Court, the following justices worked at the Constitutional Court: Pranas Kuconis, Egidijus Šileikis and Algirdas Taminskas who were appointed in 2008, Gediminas Mesonis and Dainius Žalimas who were appointed in 2011, and Vytas Milius, a former judge and President of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, who was appointed at the end of 2013 replacing Justice Egidijus Bieliūnas whose powers had expired ahead of time after he had been appointed a judge of the General Court of the European Union (Justice Vytas Milius was appointed for the remaining term of the office of Justice Egidijus Bieliūnas until the rotation that will take place in March 2020). As from 21 March 2014, the Constitutional Court was temporarily headed by Justice Dainius Žalimas. Upon a proposal by the President of the Republic, by its resolution of 10 July 2014, the Seimas appointed him President of the Constitutional Court. 30 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

The next rotation of justices of the Constitutional Court will take place in March 2017. Justices of the Constitutional Court are lawyers of highest qualification. Six out of nine justices are also professors or associated professors of law (three out of them work in Vilnius University and the other three work in Mykolas Romeris University). The areas of the professional interests of the justices are varied: Justices Mesonis and Šileikis specialise in constitutional law, Justice Žalimas—in international law, Justice Jočienė—in international law and human rights, Justice Taminskas—in civil and administrative law, Justices Kuconis, Greičius and Milius—in criminal law (Justice Milius has also worked for some time in the area of civil law), and Justice Baltutytė—in human rights. The following justices have worked at the Constitutional Court from the very beginning of its foundation: Algirdas Gailiūnas (1993–1996), Kęstutis Lapinskas (1993–1999, 2002–2011; President of the Constitutional Court—in 2008–2011), Zigmas Levickis (1993–2002), Vladas Pavilonis (1993–2002; President of the Constitutional Court—in 1999–2002; †2003), Pranas Vytautas Rasimavičius (1993–1999, †2002), Teodora Staugaitienė (1993–2002), Stasys Stačiokas (1993–1996, 1999–2008), Stasys Šedbaras (1993–1996), Juozas Žilys (1993–1999; President of the Constitutional Court—in 1993–1999), Egidijus Jarašiūnas (1996–2005), Augustinas Normantas (1996–2005), Jonas Prapiestis (1996–2005), Egidijus Kūris (1999–2008; President of the Constitutional Court—in 2002–2008), Vytautas Sinkevičius (1999– 2008), Armanas Abramavičius (2002–2011), Zenonas Namavičius (2002–2011), Toma Birmontienė (2005–2014), Ramutė Ruškytė (2005–2014), Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis (2005–2014; President of the Constitutional Court—in 2011–2014), Egidijus Bieliūnas (2011–2013). The Constitutional Court maintains ties with its former justices: they are informed about current activity of the Constitutional Court and are invited to participate in various events. Former justices have a separate office assigned to their work.

The ceremony held in the honour of the Constitutional Court’s justices whose term of powers has expired and of the justices who have just taken office. Vilnius, 20 March 2014 31 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

THE PETITIONS AND INQUIRIES RECEIVED 3. AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

he Constitutional Court, as a judicial institution, does not initiate the constitutional justice cases Tthat it considers—such cases are commenced only subsequent to petitions and inquiries of the subjects that are specified in the Constitution and have the right to apply to the Constitutional Court. Namely the doubts raised and issues formulated by petitioners determine the problematic range of constitutional justice cases, the corresponding aspects of the required interpretation of the Constitution, the removal of legal acts ruled by the Constitutional Court in conflict with the Constitution from the legal system, thus, affirming the validity of such doubts, and other changes in the legal system. Thus, applications to the Constitutional Court have a direct and significant influence on the situation of the legal system, on the ensuring of human rights and freedoms, and on the development of entire constitutional law. However, this influence and the effectiveness of the work of the Constitutional Court also very much depend on the quality of applications—the ability of petitioners to perceive and raise important constitutional issues, meeting the requirements raised for petitions and inquires, the clarity and persuasiveness of arguments. Courts, the Seimas in corpore, a group of not less than 1/5 of all members of the Seimas (not less than 29 members of the Seimas), the President of the Republic and the Government may apply to the Constitutional Court. Under the Constitution, individual persons or their groups are not allowed to directly apply to the Constitutional Court—in the Lithuanian legal system, there is no institute of an individual constitutional complaint. Under the Constitution, individual persons or their groups are not allowed to directly apply to the Constitutional Court—in the Lithuanian legal system, there is no institute of an individual constitutional complaint. However, an indirect complaint for the Constitutional Court is possible: every person while defending their violated rights and freedoms in a court of general jurisdiction or in an administrative court may request that court to apply to the Constitutional Court regarding the compliance of a legal act applicable in their case with the Constitution. For many years, namely courts have filed, as a rule, on the initiative of the parties of cases considered by them, most of the petitions with the Constitutional Court. 32 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

In 2014, the Constitutional Court was addressed 79 times: 75 petitions were received requesting an investigation into the constitutionality of legal acts, one inquiry was received requesting a conclusion and three petitions were received requesting the construction of the provisions of the final acts of the Constitutional Court that had been adopted before. Courts filed 67 petitions requesting an investigation into the compliance of legal acts with the Constitution or laws (85 percent of all applications); 59 of such petitions were filed subsequent to a doubt about the constitutionality of certain laws, whereas eight petitions—about the compliance of legal acts adopted by the Government with the Constitution and laws. The number of the applications filed by courts was bigger than usual, since most of them were filed in order to impugn the compliance of the same legal acts with the Constitution: in 21 petitions, courts raised the issue of the constitutionality of the laws that, upon the occurrence of an especially difficult economic and financial situation in the state, had reduced the coefficients of the positional salaries of prosecutors and some other state officials, whilst 16 petitions were filed regarding the constitutionality of the law postponing the establishment of the mechanism of compensation for the losses incurred due to the disproportionate reduction of the remuneration of state servants and judges. By means of its resolutions, the Seimas applied to the Constitutional Court three times. Two times it requested an investigation into the compliance of particular laws with the Constitution and filed one inquiry requesting the conclusion on the issue of the lawfulness of the election to the Seimas. Groups of members of the Seimas also applied to the Constitutional Court several times: they filed six petitions: five out of them regarding the constitutionality of particular laws, and one out of them regarding the constitutionality of an international treaty. The Constitutional Court also received three petitions requesting the construction of provisions of its rulings: two of such petitions were filed by the President of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, and one petition was filed by the member of the Seimas who had acted as the representative of a group of members of the Seimas in the case in which the ruling, the construction of which was requested, had been passed. The Constitutional Court considers not all received petitions and inquiries, but only those that are in line with the requirements established in the Law on the Constitutional Court. In 2014, the Constitutional Court accepted 78 percent of the received applications for consideration: 60 petitions (or parts thereof) requesting an investigation into the compliance of legal acts with the Constitution and/ or laws, as well as two petitions requesting the construction of provisions of formerly passed rulings of the Constitutional Court. On the grounds established in the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court refused to consider eight petitions requesting an investigation into the compliance of legal acts with the Constitution or laws,1 refused to consider one inquiry requesting a conclusion, and refused to consider

1 The consideration of one of the petitions received in 2014 was refused in 2015 (by the Constitutional Court’s decision of 15 January 2015). Attention should be paid to the fact that two petitions raised questions which could be a matter for an inquiry, but not for a petition (as regards the refusal to consider those petitions, see Section 3.3). 33 THE PETITIONS AND INQUIRIES RECEIVED AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

one petition requesting construction. 34 petitions or parts thereof (seven petitions out of this number—to the full extent) were returned back to the petitioners on the grounds that they had failed to meet the requirements established in the Law on the Constitutional Court as to their content and form.

3.1. Refusals to consider petitions

Under Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court, by its reasoned decision, refuses to consider petitions requesting an investigation into the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution if: 1) the petition was filed by an institution or person who does not have the right to apply to the Constitutional Court; 2) the consideration of the petition does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court; 3) the compliance of the legal act with the Constitution specified in the petition has already been investigated by the Constitutional Court and the ruling on this issue given by the Constitutional Court is still in force; 4) the Constitutional Court has already commenced the consideration of a case concerning the same issue; 5) the petition is grounded on non-legal reasoning. As regards the received petitions requesting an investigation into the compliance of legal acts with the Constitution, the Constitutional Court refused to consider: two petitions as falling outside its jurisdiction; one petition as having been filed by a subject that did not have the right to apply to the Constitutional Court; two petitions on the basis of both above-mentioned grounds; and one petition on the grounds that the compliance of the impugned legal act with the Constitution had already been investigated by the Constitutional Court. It should be noted that, last year, as well as in previous years, the Constitutional Court refused to consider a relatively small part of the petitions received (13 percent). The mistakes most often made by the petitioners, which had determined the refusal by the Constitutional Court to consider particular petitions, were the ones where the petitioners did not have the locus standi (courts had impugned the legal acts that were not applicable in the cases considered by them) or had raised the issues of application of law. 3.1.1. The refusal to investigate a petition filed by an institution or a person who does not have the right to apply to the Constitutional Court This ground for refusing to consider a petition is established in Item 1 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court. Under the Constitution, courts, the Seimas in corpore by means of its resolution, and a group of not less than 1/5 of all members of the Seimas (not less than 29 members of the Seimas) have the right to apply to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting an investigation into whether laws and other acts adopted by the Seimas are not in conflict with the Constitution, as well as whether acts of the President of the Republic and the Government are not in conflict with the Constitution and/or laws; also, the Government may apply to the Constitutional Court regarding the compliance of laws and other acts adopted by the Seimas with the Constitution, and the 34 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

President of the Republic—regarding the compliance of acts of the Government with the Constitution and/or laws. In the practice of the Constitutional Court there have been situations where too small groups of members of the Seimas have filed their petitions. However, as a rule, the Constitutional Court refuses to consider petitions filed by courts on the grounds that a subject that has no right to apply to the Constitutional Court has filed a petition in cases where the Constitutional Court finds out that an impugned legal act should not be applied in the case considered by a court applying to the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court has held that the applications by courts to the Constitutional Court are special, among other things, because of the fact that courts, if they face doubts about the compliance of a particular legal act with the Constitution or another legal act of higher legal force, not only may, but must apply to the Constitutional Court. However, the application by a court to the Constitutional Court is not an end in itself. The purpose of such an application is to ensure that justice will be administered. In view of this fact, the Constitutional Court has formulated the locus standi doctrine. It held that, under the Constitution and the Law on the Constitutional Court, a court may apply to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting an investigation into whether not any law (part thereof) or other legal act (part thereof) is not in conflict with the Constitution, but only such a law (part thereof) or other legal act (part thereof) that must be applied in the corresponding case considered by that court. No court has locus standi to apply to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting an investigation into whether a law (part thereof) or another legal act (part thereof), which should (could) not be applied in the case considered by the said court, is not in conflict with the Constitution. In 2014, arguing that a particular court, having filed a petition, had no locus standi, i.e. it had impugned a legal act that could not be applied in the case considered by it, the Constitutional Court refused to consider three petitions.2 3.1.2. The refusal to investigate a petition whose consideration does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court This ground for refusing to consider a petition is established in Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court. In the practice of the Constitutional Court, the following

2 See the Constitutional Court’s decision No. KT32-S23/2014 of 17 June 2014, its decision No. KT35-S25/2014 of 7 July 2014, and its decision No. KT39-S28/2014 of 29 August 2014. For example, the Vilnius Regional Court, having suspended the civil case considered by it in which it was deciding an issue of the establishment of and compensation for the value of the apple-tree planting stock of a commercial garden, applied to the Constitutional Court regarding the compliance of the legal acts regulating the restoration of the rights of ownership to the existing real property with the Constitution. The case considered by the petitioner made it clear that the dispute in that case had emerged between the claimant—an agricultural company to which the commercial gardens belonged by right of ownership, and the respondent, to whom the land plot (within a part of which the said commercial gardens were situated) had been given as a gift, after another person had restored their rights to this land plot under procedure established by law. In its decision No. KT32-S23/2014 of 17 June 2014, having invoked the practice of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court noted that the social relations relevant for the petitioner were regulated by the Civil Code. Thus, while deciding the issue of compensation for the value of the apple-tree planting stock, the petitioner did not have to apply the legal acts challenged before the Constitutional Court. 35 THE PETITIONS AND INQUIRIES RECEIVED AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

petitions are considered not within its jurisdiction: 1) petitions impugning the legal acts the assessment of whose compliance with acts of higher legal force is not categorised as belonging to the competence of the Constitutional Court (e.g., legal acts adopted by municipal institutions, ministries, other governance institutions, and structural units of the Seimas); 2) petitions requesting a decision on the issues of the compatibility and competition of norms of legal acts of the same legal force; 3) petitions requesting an interpretation of how provisions of certain laws (or other legal acts) should be interpreted and applied (the Constitutional Court has held on more than one occasion that, under the Constitution and the Law on the Constitutional Court, it does not decide the questions concerning the application of legal acts, and that such questions are decided by the institution that has the powers to apply legal acts; if laws contain unclearness, ambiguities, and gaps, the removal of such unclearness, ambiguities, and gaps is a duty of the legislature, whilst the issues of application of law that have not been solved by the legislature is a matter of the judicial practice3); 4) petitions requesting an assessment of inaction of law-making subjects (failure to adopt law-making decisions); 5) petitions in which a matter for investigation is absent (i.e., when the provision of a legal act impugned by the petitioner does not establish what the petitioner states it establishes); 6) fictitious petitions (based not on the reasoning explicitly pointed out by the petitioner); 7) petitions that are an end in itself, etc. Out of the petitions received in 2014, the Constitutional Court refused to consider the following petitions as falling outside its jurisdiction—three petitions requesting a decision on the issues of the interpretation and application of legal acts4 and one petition in which a matter of investigation was absent.5 The provision of Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, according to which the consideration of petitions falling outside the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court is refused, is also applicable mutatis mutandis to the petitions, provided for in Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, requesting the construction of final acts of the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court may not construe what it did not investigate in the constitutional justice case in which the ruling, the construction of which is requested, was adopted; this would imply a matter for a separate investigation. The Constitutional Court has also emphasised that the purpose of the construction of a final act of the Constitutional Court is to explain more comprehensively those provisions and formulations of that final act due to the meaning of which there have been some uncertainties, but

3 For instance, while refusing to consider the petition of the Vilnius Regional Court requesting an investigation into the constitutionality of the legal acts regulating the restoration of the rights of ownership to the existing real property, in its decision of 17 June 2014, the Constitutional Court held that the petitioner had faced doubts about the interpretation and application of the legal regulation and pointed out that the issues relevant for the petitioner had been solved in a particular ruling of the Supreme Court of Lithuania. In its decision of 13 March 2014, the Constitutional Court held that a group of members of the Seimas, while substantiating its doubts about the constitutionality of provisions of the Law on Environmental Protection, was virtually seeking clarification on the content of such provisions and on uncertainties in the application thereof. 4 See the Constitutional Court’s decision No. KT10-S7/2014 of 13 March 2014, its decision No. KT32-S23/2014 of 17 June 2014, and its decision No. KT4-S3/2015 of 15 January 2015. 5 See the Constitutional Court’s decision No. KT39-S28/2014 of 29 August 2014. 36 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

not to explain how to implement the said ruling or another final act in a concrete situation, inter alia, in the area of the application of law. In 2014, while invoking these arguments, the Constitutional Court refused to accept one petition requesting the construction of the provisions of its rulings6 and in one of its decisions on the construction of its ruling it refused to construe it from certain aspects specified by the petitioner.7 3.1.3. The refusal to investigate a petition indicating a legal act whose compliance with the Constitution has been investigated and the relevant ruling of the Constitutional Court passed on this issue is still in force This ground for refusing to consider a petition is established in Item 3 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court. In 2014, on this ground, the Constitutional Court refused to consider one petition, namely, the petition of the Seimas requesting an investigation into whether the provision of the Law on the Presidential Elections that a person who has grossly violated the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania or breached the oath and who has been removed from office or whose mandate of a member of the Seimas has been revoked by the Seimas in accordance with the procedure for impeachment proceedings may not stand for election as President of the Republic. The Constitutional Court held that it had already investigated such legal regulation and it had been ruled not in conflict with Constitution.8

3.2. Returning petitions to petitioners

Under Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, in the case that a petition (or annexes thereto) fails to comply with the requirements set forth in Articles 66 and 67 of the same law, the petition is returned to the petitioner. Article 67 of the Law on the Constitutional Court establishes the requirements for the petitions filed by courts, whilst Article 66 thereof—for the petitions filed by other subjects that have the right to apply to the Constitutional Court. The returning of petitions to petitioners does not take away the right to apply to the Constitutional Court according to the general procedure after the removal of the deficiencies thereof. It should be noted that the amount of the petitions returned to the petitioners in 2014 remained similar to the average annual amount of returned petitions: seven petitions (around 9 percent) were

6 See the Constitutional Court’s decision No. KT37-S26/2014 of 27 August 2014. 7 See the Constitutional Court’s decision No. KT6-S3/2014 of 26 February 2014. 8 In its decision No. KT12-S8/2014 of 20 March 2014, the Constitutional Court held that the legal regulation, impugned by the petitioner, in the aspect that it establishes a prohibition for a person to stand for election as President of the Republic if such a person has been removed from office or their mandate of a member of the Seimas has been revoked by the Seimas in accordance with the procedure for impeachment proceedings, was identical to the one that had been assessed by the Constitutional Court in its ruling of 25 May 2004; thus, the Constitutional Court had already assessed the compliance of the said legal regulation with the Constitution in that regard. By the said ruling, the Constitutional Court ruled such legal regulation not in conflict with the Constitution; the latter ruling of the Constitutional Court is still in force. 37 THE PETITIONS AND INQUIRIES RECEIVED AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

returned to petitioners to the full extent, whereas, the Constitutional Court more often used to return petitions’ certain parts not complying with the requirements established in the Law on the Constitutional Court. Almost all such petitions or parts thereof were returned to the petitioners due to the fact that the latter had failed to submit particular legal arguments or such arguments had been insufficient in order to substantiate their doubts. 3.2.1. The requirement to substantiate a petition on legal arguments Under Item 8 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 and Item 5 of Paragraph 2 of Article 67 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, a petitioner must provide legal arguments in the petition filed with the Constitutional Court in order to substantiate their position (the doubts about the compliance of an impugned legal act with the Constitution). Failure to heed the requirement for substantiating a petition by legal arguments was the most common shortcoming of the petitions filed in 2014. While construing the provisions of Item 8 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 and Item 5 of Paragraph 2 of Article 67 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court has held on more than one occasion that the position of a petitioner concerning the compliance of a legal act (part thereof) with the Constitution must be indicated clearly and unambiguously, the petition must contain the arguments and reasoning grounding the doubt of the petitioner concerning the compliance of each concretely indicated article (part thereof) or item of the impugned legal act (part thereof) with the concretely indicated provisions of the Constitution. If such a petition were accepted at the Constitutional Court and a case were commenced subsequent to it, one would also restrict the rights of the party concerned, the state institution that has passed the impugned legal act, since it would be more difficult for the party concerned to present explanations concerning the arguments of the petitioner and to prepare for judicial consideration. It is regarded that the following petitions fail to meet the requirement established in the Law on the Constitutional Court to substantiate a petition with legal arguments: 1) petitions failing to submit arguments on the compliance of the impugned legal regulation with legal acts of higher legal force; 2) petitions whose statements fail to substantiate the position of the petitioner and fail to submit constitutional arguments; 3) petitions failing to disclose the content of an impugned provision; 4) petitions whose argumentation fail to take into consideration important provisions of the official constitutional doctrine or which invoke such provisions in an improper manner; 5) petitions containing other shortcomings in argumentation. Due to these reasons, petitions (parts thereof) used to be returned to the petitioners in 2014 as well. Petitions failing to submit arguments on the compliance of the impugned legal regulation with legal acts of higher legal force. The Constitutional Court often receives petitions in which the petitioners point out or cite certain provisions of the Constitution, however, they neither explain nor argue their position on why and how the impugned legal regulation, in their opinion, is in conflict with such provisions of the Constitution. Such shortcomings were noticed more than once in petitions filed by 38 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

administrative courts requesting an investigation into the compliance of the legal regulation postponing the establishment of the mechanism for compensation for the losses incurred due to the disproportionate reduction of work remuneration with the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Constitution that everyone may defend his rights by invoking the Constitution (this part of the petitions was returned to the petitioners9). Such shortcomings were noticed in the course of the deciding on the issue of the admissibility of other petitions.10 Statements set forth in petitions fail to substantiate the position of the petitioner on the compliance of the impugned legal regulation with legal acts of higher legal force. Petitions (parts thereof) are also returned in cases where it was not clear from the statements set forth therein by which arguments the position of the petitioner was substantiated regarding the conflict of each impugned provision with a concrete provision of the Constitution: when the petitioners, while substantiating their position, provided statements of a general character,11 their statements were inconsistent and conflicting,12 were abstract and based on assumptions.13

9 See the 15 December 2014 ordinances (Nos. 2B-175, 2B-177, 2B-179 etc.) of the President of the Constitutional Court. 10 See the 29 April 2014 ordinance (No. 2B-103) of the President of the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court’s decision No. KT38-S27/2014 of 28 August 2014, and the 21 October 2014 ordinance (No. 2B-148) of the President of the Constitutional Court. For instance, a group of members of the Seimas requested an investigation into the compliance of the legal regulation regulating the financing of the road maintenance and development programme with Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees the inviolability of the person and dignity of a human being, however, it had not provided any arguments regarding the conflict of the impugned legal regulation with the said provision of the Constitution and in the reasoning part of the petition even failed to mention it at all (the Constitutional Court’s decision No. KT38-S27/2014 of 28 August 2014). In its petition, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court failed to explain how the regulation established in Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Law on the Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal, while “consolidating a compulsory payment without establishing all essential elements of such payment”, violates Paragraph 2 of Article 127 of the Constitution in which the sources of state budget revenue are pointed out (the 21 October 2014 ordinance (No. 2B-148) of the President of the Constitutional Court). 11 See the Constitutional Court’s decision No. KT16-S11/2014 of 2 May 2014 and the 21 October 2014 ordinance (No. 2B-148) of the President of the Constitutional Court. A group of members of the Seimas, doubting about the compliance of the Law Amending the Law on Healthcare Establishments with Paragraph 1 (“[a]ll persons shall be equal before the law, the court, and other State institutions and officials”) of Article 29 of the Constitution, submitted a general statement that the work record of the heads of the establishments of the National Health System of Lithuania had determined different impugned legal regulation, however, it provided no legal arguments why the different work record of the heads of such establishments cannot objectively justify such differentiated legal regulation (the Constitutional Court’s decision No. KT16-S11/2014 of 2 May 2014). In its petition, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court maintained that, by means of the legal regulation established in Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Law on the Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal, the property of the payers of the tax called the Liquefied Natural Gas Supplement is expropriated, without providing any fair compensation for it, however, it failed to explain why fair compensation should be established for the paying of taxes (the petitioner had categorised the said Liquefied Natural Gas Supplement as a tax) and why, in general, the paying of taxes should be regarded as expropriation (the 21 October 2014 ordinance (No. 2B-148) of the President of the Constitutional Court). 12 See the Constitutional Court’s decision No. KT38-S27/2015 of 28 August 2014 and the 12 January 2014 ordinance (No. 2B-58) of the President of the Constitutional Court. 13 See the 9 January 2014 ordinance (No. 2B-5) of the President of the Constitutional Court. 39 THE PETITIONS AND INQUIRIES RECEIVED AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

The content of impugned or related legal regulation was disclosed in an improper manner. The petitions whose argumentation did not take into consideration the content of impugned provisions,14 where the interpretation of the impugned provisions presented by the petitioners was insufficiently grounded,15 or failed to take into consideration the legal regulation, inter alia, consolidated in legal acts of higher legal force, related to the impugned legal regulation,16 were returned to the petitioners. Petitions failing to take into consideration important provisions of the official constitutional doctrine or which invoke such doctrine in an improper manner. When deciding on the admissibility of a petition, the important thing is also whether the petitioner has taken into consideration the official constitutional doctrine relevant to the filed petition.17 The petitions failing to indicate and/or analyse the provisions of the official constitutional doctrine related to the legal regulation specified in the petition are regarded as failing to meet the requirement consolidated in the Law on the Constitutional Court to present legal arguments.18 Attention should be paid to the fact that, when a law or another legal act is impugned due to the fact that, in the opinion of the petitioner, they contain a gap in the legal regulation, it is necessary to take into account how the official constitutional doctrine has disclosed the concept of legislative omission—a legal gap prohibited by the Constitution.19 The petition of the petitioner substantiated by

14 See the Constitutional Court’s decision No. KT16-S11/2014 of 2 May 2014, in which it was held that the group of members of the Seimas had not substantiated how the requirement, arising for the legislature, that the retroactive validity of law must not be allowed, which stems from the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, had been violated, since it was clear from the impugned and related legal regulation that the heads of the establishments of the National Health System of Lithuania are dismissed from work not earlier than upon the expiration of one year as from the entry into force of the said law. 15 See the Constitutional Court’s decision No. KT40-S29/2014 of 2 September 2014 and its decision No. KT41-S30/2014 of 5 September 2014. In the Constitutional Court’s decision of 2 September 2014, it was held that, in its petition, the Klaipėda City Local Court had not substantiated as to why the solution, which was established in the territorial planning document—a provision of the Management Plan of the Curonian Spit National Park—for building up a certain territory should be treated as a measure for the elimination of the consequences of the construction carried out pursuant to an unlawfully issued document authorising the construction and why specifically by means of this solution (rather than decisions adopted by competent institutions while invoking not only territorial planning documents but also other legal acts, inter alia, laws) the demolition of a certain structure is required. 16 See the 23 June 2014 ordinance (No. 2B-129) of the President of the Constitutional Court, in which it was held that the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court maintained that the balancing of electricity generated from renewable resources was categorised, in violation of provisions of the Law on Electricity, as a service meeting public interests by a provision of the Description of the Procedure for Rendering Services Meeting Public Interests in the Electricity Sector as approved by government resolution, however, the petitioner had failed to take into consideration the provisions of the Law on Energy from Renewable Sources which had categorised this type of activity as a service meeting public interests. 17 See the Constitutional Court’s decision No. KT33-S24/2014 of 18 June 2014, its decision No. KT40-S29/2014 of 2 September 2014, and its decision No. KT41-S30/2014 of 5 September 2014. 18 For instance, the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, while impugning the compliance of Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Law on the Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal with Item 15 of Article 67 and Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 127 of the Constitution and with the constitutional principles of the separation of powers and a state under the rule of law, maintained that the Liquefied Natural Gas Supplement is a tax, however, in its petition, it had failed to indicate and analyse the features characteristic of taxes and other compulsory payments disclosed in this official constitutional doctrine and had failed to assess whether the said Liquefied Natural Gas Supplement complied with those features (the Constitutional Court’s decision No. KT41-S30/2014 of 5 September 2014). 19 See the 9 January 2014 ordinance (No. 2B-5) of the President of the Constitutional Court. 40 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

a certain existing legislative omission as presumed by the petitioner may be accepted and a case may be commenced subsequent to such a petition only when the petitioner presents the arguments and reasoning substantiating the fact that, under the Constitution, the non-established legal regulation must be established namely in the legal act (part thereof) that is specified by the petitioner.20 There have also been cases where petitioners only cited certain provisions of the official constitutional doctrine, but failed to present any arguments of why this doctrine was relevant in deciding on the compliance of the impugned legal regulation with the Constitution.21 It is also possible to single out such cases where the petitioners unreasonably invoked the official constitutional doctrine or the legal position formulated by the Constitutional Court, i.e. they failed to take into consideration the issue or the context leading to the formulation of this doctrine.22 Other shortcomings of petitions related to legal argumentation. A petition of a group of members of the Seimas was returned on the grounds that it had failed to present any arguments on why the Constitutional Court was requested to investigate the constitutionality of a legal regulation that was no longer in force.23 By returning a petition to another petitioner, the Constitutional Court

20 In its petition, a group of members of the Seimas maintained that the legal regulation consolidated in Paragraph 2 of Article 33 of the Law on Environmental Protection is not in line with the clarity requirements raid for it, since it “fails to define the relation between this norm and the norms of the Civil Code regulating the statutory limitation on claims”. It was held in the 9 January 2014 ordinance (No. 2B-5) of the President of the Constitutional Court that, from the arguments of the petitioner, it was not clear in general as to why namely the specified law and Paragraph 2 of Article 33 thereof in particular should have defined the relation between the norm of the said law and the norms of the Civil Code regulating the statutory limitation on claims and as to whether that relation should have been defined at all. 21 See the Constitutional Court’s decision No. KT33-S24/2014 of 18 June 2014 and its decision No. KT38-S27/2014 of 28 August 2014. For instance, in its petition, a group of members of the Seimas that requested an investigation into the compliance of a certain government-established legal regulation with Article 94 of the Constitution, had cited the official constitutional doctrine on the powers of the Government in the adoption of legal acts, and had noted, while invoking particular rulings of the Constitutional Court, that the Government must follow laws in the course of the adoption of substatutory legal acts, however, it had not related, in any way, the said provisions of the official constitutional doctrine to the impugned legal regulation, and had not explained which laws or other legal acts were not complied by the Government in establishing the impugned legal regulation (the Constitutional Court’s decision No. KT38-S27/2014 of 28 August 2014). 22 See the Constitutional Court’s decision No. KT16-S11/2014 of 2 May 2014 and its decision No. KT40-S29/2014 of 2 September 2014. For instance, a group of members of the Seimas, while impugning the Law Amending the Law on Healthcare Establishments, had invoked the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 13 May 2005, in which the issues of the constitutionality of the legal regulation governing hunting as economic activity had been resolved, and had pointed out the provisions of the official constitutional doctrine that had been formulated in the context of the said constitutional justice case. The Constitutional Court noted that the legal provisions, impugned by the petitioner, regulating the relations of the dismissal from office of the heads of the establishments of the National Health System of Lithuania were of a character different from hunting and that such relations were related to employment but not to economic activity, therefore, the petitioner had had no grounds for invoking the legal position set forth in the said Constitutional Court’s ruling as the one having the significance of a precedent. The group of members of the Seimas had also invoked the provisions of the official constitutional doctrine on the constitutional protection of acquired rights and legitimate expectations in the process of the restructuring of the system of pensionary maintenance, however, it had not provided any grounds how they were related to the provisions of the impugned law that regulated not the restructuring of the system of pensionary maintenance, but the changing of one of the conditions—the term of the validity—of an employment contract (the Constitutional Court’s decision No. KT16-S11/2014 of 2 May 2014). 23 See the Constitutional Court’s decision No. KT38-S27/2014 of 28 August 2014, which recalled the situations where subjects other than courts, specified in Article 106 of the Constitution, inter alia, a group of not less than 1/5 of all the members of the Seimas, apply 41 THE PETITIONS AND INQUIRIES RECEIVED AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

held that the petitioner had invoked a legal act of the European Union, but had failed to analyse its content.24 3.2.2. Other shortcomings of petitions Although, as mentioned before, in almost all cases the shortcomings of argumentation constituted the grounds for returning the petitions to petitioners, however, while deciding on the admissibility of the petitions, the Constitutional Court also pointed out their other shortcomings. Out of such shortcomings, cases should be mentioned where the petitioners failed to meet the requirement consolidated in Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court connected with the representation by law or by proxy regarding a group of members of the Seimas as a petitioner (Item 3 of Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 of Article 66),25 as well as the requirement to formulate a petition for the Constitutional Court (Item 6 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66), as, for instance, to specify the wording of the legal act establishing the impugned legal regulation.26

3.3. The admissibility of inquiries

Under Paragraph 3 of Article 105 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court presents conclusions on these issues: 1) whether there were violations of election laws during an election of the President of the Republic or an election of members of the Seimas; 2) whether the state of health of the President of the Republic allows him to continue to hold office; 3) whether international treaties of the Republic of Lithuania are not in conflict with the Constitution; 4) whether concrete actions of members of the Seimas and state officials against whom an impeachment case has been instituted are in conflict with the Constitution. the Seimas may request a conclusion and, in cases concerning an election to the Seimas and international treaties, the President of the Republic may also request a conclusion (Paragraph 5 of Article 106 of the Constitution).

to the Constitutional Court, and the impugned legal act (part thereof) is no longer in force, the Constitutional Court has the right to dismiss the instituted legal proceedings after taking account of the circumstances of the case under consideration; it was held that the group of members of the Seimas, the petitioner, had failed to submit any argument why it requested an investigation into the legal regulation that was no longer in force. 24 See the Constitutional Court’s decision No. KT41-S30/2014 of 5 September 2014. In its petition requesting an investigation into the compliance of a provision of the Law on the Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal with the Constitution, the Court of Appeal of Lithuania maintained that the fact that the Liquefied Natural Gas Supplement is a tax rather than remuneration for the services rendered was also upheld by the European Commission in its decision No. SA.36740 of 20 November 2013. The Constitutional Court held that the petitioner had failed to consider the content of the said document of the European Commission and had failed to provide any arguments of the European Commission on the grounds of which it would be possible to assert that the Liquefied Natural Gas Supplement was a tax. 25 The petition of a group of members of the Seimas had failed to specify the member of the Seimas who had to be its representative by law. In addition, even though the petition had indicated an advocate as the representative of the petitioner, however, the document certifying the powers of the advocate—the warrant of attorney—had not been submitted, i.e., the data regarding the powers of the representative of the petitioner had not been presented (the 9 January 2014 ordinance (No. 2B-5) of the President of the Constitutional Court). 26 See the Constitutional Court’s decision No. KT38-S27/2014 of 28 August 2014. 42 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

The Law on the Constitutional Court establishes the requirements for the content and form of inquiries. If inquiries fail to meet such requirements, they are returned to petitioners (Articles 76 and 81). The same law also consolidates the grounds for refusing to consider an inquiry (Article 80). The Constitutional Court refuses to examine an inquiry in the following cases: 1) when it has been filed by an institution or person who does not have the right to apply to the Constitutional Court; 2) when the inquiry is grounded on non-legal reasoning; 3) when the consideration of a concrete issue does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court; 4) in the absence of an action or decision whose compliance with the Constitution must be verified; 5) when the issue raised in the inquiry, with the exception of the issue regarding the state of health of the President of the Republic, has already been investigated in the Constitutional Court and the conclusion adopted by the Constitutional Court concerning this issue is still in force. In contrast to the number of petitions requesting an investigation into the compliance of legal acts with legal acts of higher legal force, the Constitutional Court has received very few inquiries. In 2014, one inquiry of the Seimas was received regarding the lawfulness of the election to the Seimas. Having held that the issues raised in the inquiry fall outside the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court or have already been investigated by it, the Constitutional Court refused to consider that inquiry.27 The Constitutional Court also received two petitions raising the issue of the compliance of the provision of an international treaty with the Constitution, i.e. the issue that could be the matter of an inquiry, but not that of a petition. In view of the fact that the subjects—a group of members of the Seimas and a court—that had no right to file an inquiry with the Constitutional Court had filed it, the consideration of the petitions was refused.28

27 See the Constitutional Court’s decision No. KT21-S12/2014 of 8 June 2014. It was held therein that the Seimas, while requesting in its inquiry a conclusion on whether a decision of the Central Electoral Commission had not violated the provisions of the Law on Elections to the Seimas, in substance, was questioning not the Central Electoral Commission’s decision on the appointment of the first ranking candidate, having not received a mandate of a member of the Seimas from the list of the candidates of the Labour Party, to an available vacant seat of a member of the Seimas, but rather the final order of candidates on the list of the candidates of the Labour Party for members of the Seimas, which had been approved by the Seimas resolution of 14 November 2012. The Seimas had adopted the said resolution by invoking the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012 wherein it had been stated that the Law on Elections to the Seimas during the 2012 election to the Seimas was violated. Thus, the inquiry of the Seimas could be treated as a petition requesting a review of the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012. In addition, it was clear from the petitioner’s inquiry that it was also questioning the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 27 May 2014 by which the amendment to the aforementioned Seimas resolution of 14 November 2012 had been ruled in conflict with the Constitution. The Constitutional Court noted that the purpose of conclusions of the Constitutional Court is to establish whether election laws have not been violated, but not to review rulings of the Constitutional Court, therefore, the inquiry of the petitioner was not within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. In addition, the question raised in the Seimas inquiry whether the genuine will of the voters had not been violated by the Seimas resolution of 14 November 2012 was judged not within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court noted that an inquiry regarding a conclusion on whether there were any violations of election laws during the elections of the President of the Republic or elections of members of the Seimas may be referred to the Constitutional Court by the Seimas only in relation to the decisions of the Central Electoral Commission or its refusals to examine complaints. The Constitutional Court has no powers to give conclusions on whether election laws were not violated during elections of the President of the Republic or members of the Seimas through other legal acts, inter alia, resolutions of the Seimas. 28 See the Constitutional Court’s decision No. KT5-S2/2014 of 18 February 2014 and its decision No. KT47-S32/2014 of 4 November 2014. A group of members of the Seimas requested an investigation into the constitutionality of Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of 43 THE PETITIONS AND INQUIRIES RECEIVED AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

3.4. Summarising the practice of the admissibility of petitions and inquiries in 2014

Summarising this survey of the practice of the admissibility of petitions and inquiries filed with the Constitutional Court in 2014, it should be noted that the total number of non-accepted applications to the Constitutional Court was not a small one—17 out of 79, i.e. more than one-fifth (around 22 percent), whilst, in case 27 petitions were added to the said number, in which there were certain deficiencies, the amount of the applications to the Constitutional Court having certain deficiencies would constitute the majority of the applications (56 percent). As mentioned before, the quality of applications is very influential on the effectiveness of the work of the Constitutional Court, also, the result of the applications and their potential impact on the legal system depend on the ability of petitioners to detect and raise important constitutional issues and to provide clear and convincing arguments. Unfortunately, the number of the petitions and inquiries received at the Constitutional Court, which are prepared not attentively and carefully enough, remains too big. The main reason for which petitions are returned to petitioners is shortcomings of legal argumentation. In view of this fact and in order to draw the attention of petitioners to the requirements raised for petitions and inquiries and common shortcomings of the received applications due to which the consideration of the latter was refused, a survey of the practice of the admissibility of petitions and inquiries including several recent years is under preparation and will appear shortly on the Internet website of the Constitutional Court.

the Agreement Between the Republic of Lithuania and Ukraine on Social Security, whilst the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court—into the compliance of this international agreement with the Constitution and laws. The Constitutional Court noted that, under the Constitution and the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court gives conclusions on the compliance of the international treaties of the Republic of Lithuania with the Constitution; such conclusions may be requested by the Seimas in corpore, by filing an inquiry set forth in or approved by the Seimas resolution, as well as by the President of the Republic. As regards the petition of the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, it was also noted that the issue of the consideration whether an international treaty is in compliance with a law is not within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. 44 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY 4. OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

he assessment of the compliance of legal acts with legal acts of higher legal force. Under the T Constitution, the Constitutional Court decides whether the laws and other acts of the Seimas are not in conflict with the Constitution and whether the acts of the President of the Republic and the Government are not in conflict with the Constitution and laws. This means that the Constitutional Court has the exceptional competence to investigate and decide whether any legal act (part thereof) passed by the Seimas, the President of the Republic, or the Government, or adopted by referendum, is not in conflict with any legal act of higher legal force, namely: – whether any constitutional law (part thereof) is not in conflict with the Constitution; – whether any law (part thereof), as well as the Statute of the Seimas (part thereof) is not in conflict with Constitution and constitutional laws; – whether any substatutory legal act (part thereof) of the Seimas is not in conflict with the Constitution, constitutional laws and laws, and the Statute of the Seimas; – whether any act (part thereof) of the President of the Republic is not in conflict with the Constitution, constitutional laws and laws; – whether any act (part thereof) of the Government is not in conflict with the Constitution, constitutional laws and laws. The Constitutional Court passes rulings in the constitutional justice cases in which the compliance of legal acts with the Constitution (other legal acts of higher legal force) is assessed. In 2014, the Constitutional Court passed 17 rulings by which it solved 47 petitions of petitioners. Most of the rulings were passed upon the consideration of the petitions filed by courts (12 rulings subsequent to 40 petitions received from courts), and several rulings—subsequent to petitions of the Seimas or groups of members of the Seimas (2 and 5 rulings respectively).1 The Constitutional Court assessed the compliance of impugned legal acts with 28 provisions (or principles) of the Constitution;

1 Two rulings were adopted in the cases subsequent to the petitions of courts and of a group of members of the Seimas or of the Seimas that had been joined into one case. 45 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

the compliance of legal acts with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and the equality of persons were most often investigated. In its 11 rulings, the Constitutional Court recognised that the investigated legal act (part thereof) was in conflict with the Constitution. The Constitutional Court assessed the compliance of 18 laws, three government resolutions and one resolution of the Seimas with the Constitution; out of the above-mentioned legal acts, 14 laws (parts thereof) and the resolution of the Seimas were ruled in conflict with the Constitution. Presenting conclusions. Under the Constitution, the Constitutional Court is also granted the powers to present conclusions: – whether there were violations of election laws during an election of the President of the Republic or an election of members of the Seimas; – whether the state of health of the President of the Republic allows him to continue to hold office; – whether international treaties of the Republic of Lithuania are not in conflict with the Constitution; – whether concrete actions of members of the Seimas and state officials against whom an impeachment case has been instituted are in conflict with the Constitution (Paragraph 3 of Article 105). After the Constitutional Court presents a conclusion on any of the specified issues, the Seimas takes a final decision on the grounds of such a conclusion (Paragraph 3 of Article 107 of the Constitution). In 2014, the Constitutional Court presented one conclusion—subsequent to an inquiry by the Seimas, it assessed the compliance of the actions of a member of the Seimas, against whom an impeachment case had been instituted, with the Constitution. Construing final acts of the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court enjoys the powers to construe its own rulings and other final acts at the request of the persons that participated in the case, of other institutions or persons to whom the respective act was sent, and on its own initiative. These powers of the Constitutional Court arise out of the Constitution, such powers are determined by the constitutional purpose of the Constitutional Court to administer constitutional justice and to guarantee the supremacy of the Constitution in the legal system; such powers are consolidated in Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court. Final acts of the Constitutional Court are construed in an attempt to disclose their content and meaning more broadly and in more detail, if it is necessary, so as to ensure the proper execution of those acts in order that they could be followed. The construction of a final act of the Constitutional Court could be significant not only in order to ensure the proper implementation of the decision consolidated in the operative part of that act, but also to ensure the fact that in the law-making process one would properly take account of the official constitutional doctrine formed by the Constitutional Court. When it performs the construction of its final acts, the Constitutional Court may not change their content, it may not construe what it did not investigate in the case in which the act, the construction of which is requested, was adopted. The purpose of the construction of final acts of the Constitutional 46 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

Court is to explain more comprehensively those provisions and formulations due to the meaning of which there have been some uncertainties, but not to explain how to implement such acts in a concrete situation (also as regards a particular area of the application of law). Petitions requesting the construction of an implemented final act of the Constitutional Court may not seek the assessment of the compliance of a legal act, by which the said act of the Constitutional Court was implemented, with the Constitution (other acts of higher legal force). The consideration of petitions requesting the construction of final acts of the Constitutional Court is normally hastened, i.e., such petitions are not considered according to the sequence established on the grounds of the date when petitions are received. Last year, the Constitutional Court adopted even six (an unusually big number) decisions on construing certain provisions of its rulings (it normally used to adopt either one or two such decisions or did not adopt any such decisions during a year). These decisions were adopted subsequent to the petitions of the President of the Republic, the Minister of Justice, and the President of the Supreme Court (they are among the persons to whom, under the Law on the Constitutional Court, rulings of the Constitutional Court are sent) and the petitions of representatives of the persons that had participated in particular cases—a group of members of the Seimas acting as the petitioner, and the Government acting as the party concerned. The formation of the official constitutional doctrine. While discharging the functions established for it, the Constitutional Court performs the construction of the Constitution—presents the official concept of provisions of the Constitution, i.e. forms the official constitutional doctrine. While investigating the compliance of laws and other legal acts with the Constitution, the Constitutional Court develops the concept of provisions of the Constitution presented in its previous rulings and other acts, and discloses new aspects of the legal regulation established in the Constitution that are necessary for the consideration of a concrete constitutional justice case. The formation of the official constitutional doctrine is not a one-off act, but rather a gradual and consistent process. The necessity for construing particular provisions of the Constitution in concrete cases depends on the issues raised in the petitions of petitioners. In some of the rulings adopted in 2014, the Constitutional Court developed the interpretation of provisions of the Constitution and disclosed certain new aspects of constitutional regulation. For example, in its ruling of 24 January 2014 on the law amending Article 125 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court provided a broader interpretation of the geopolitical orientation of the State of Lithuania that is consolidated in the Constitution, disclosed the constitutional foundations of membership of the Republic of Lithuania in the European Union, and formed the doctrine of amendments to the Constitution; in its ruling of 18 March 2014 on criminal liability for genocide, the Constitutional Court further disclosed important aspects of the constitutional principle of respect for international law and aspects of Lithuanian statehood; the ruling of 11 July 2014 on organising and calling referendums provided a more comprehensive interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution consolidating the fundamental 47 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

principles of the State of Lithuania and developed the doctrine of the institute of referendums that is entrenched in the Constitution. Some other cases were solved by invoking the provisions of the official constitutional doctrine that had been formulated in previous acts of the Constitutional Court. For instance, no new doctrine was formed in the cases in which the rulings of 19 December 2014 and 22 December 2014 on the reduction of the size of cumulative pension contributions paid to pension funds and on the reduction of the coefficients of positional salaries of prosecutors and other state officials, respectively, were adopted. Due to the fact that the problems raised by the petitioners in those cases were analogous to those comprehensively considered by the Constitutional Court in its ruling of 29 June 2012 on the reduction of the size of cumulative pension contributions paid to pension funds and in its ruling of 1 July 2013 on the reduction of the remuneration of state servants and judges, therefore, in order to solve the above- mentioned cases the constitutional arguments formulated before were sufficient. In the survey, presented below, of acts of the Constitutional Court passed in 2014 by which the petitions of petitioners were decided in substance, these acts are grouped according to the topics of the decided issues: 1) fundamental constitutional values and alteration of the Constitution; 2) criminal liability for international crimes; 3) higher education; 4) social rights; 5) the independence of the judiciary; 6) elections; 7) the restoration of the rights of ownership; 8) other constitutional justice cases.

4.1. Fundamental constitutional values and alteration of the Constitution

4.1.1. The procedure of and limitations on the alteration of the Constitution One of the most important rulings adopted by the Constitutional Court in 2014 is the ruling of 24 January 2014, by which it was recognised that the Law Amending Article 125 of the Constitution, in view of the procedure of its adoption, was in conflict with the Constitution. In addition, Article 170 of the Statute of the Seimas, insofar as it had not established the prohibition against any substantial changes made by the Seimas Committee on Legal Affairs to draft laws amending the Constitution that have been submitted by the subjects that have the right to make a motion to amend the Constitution and had not established the prohibition against the first vote on the substantially changed text of a draft law amending the Constitution, was ruled in conflict with the Constitution as well. The doctrine of amendments to the Constitution: limitations on amending the Constitution are determined by the Constitution itself. In this ruling, the Constitutional Court comprehensively formulated, for the first time, the doctrine of the amendments to the Constitution by disclosing the limitations on its alteration that arise out of the Constitution itself. First of all, the Constitutional Court recalled its former doctrinal provisions of the concept, nature, and purpose of the Constitution: the Constitution is the supreme law and it reflects the social contract— the commitment democratically assumed to the present and future generations by all the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania to live in observance of the fundamental rules consolidated in the Constitution 48 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

and to obey these rules; the Constitution is based on universal and unquestionable values, which are the belonging of the sovereignty to the Nation, democracy, the recognition of human rights and freedoms and respect for them, respect for law and the rule of law, limitation of the scope of powers, the duty of state institutions to serve the people and their responsibility to society, public spirit, justice, and the striving for an open, just, and harmonious civil society and state under the rule of law. The Constitutional Court also emphasised the importance of the stability, harmony, and supremacy of the Constitution. The stability of the Constitution is a legal value of utmost importance and is one of the preconditions for securing the continuity of the state and respect for the constitutional order and law as well as ensuring the implementation of the objectives declared in the Constitution by the Lithuanian nation, upon which the Constitution itself is founded. The stability of the Constitution constitutes such a property of the Constitution that in conjunction with other properties (primarily in conjunction with a special, supreme, legal force of the Constitution) distinguishes the constitutional regulation from the (ordinary) regulation laid down by the legal acts of lower legal force; the Constitution is an integral act, its provisions constitute a single harmonious system, the content of some provisions of the Constitution determines the content of other provisions thereof, and no provision of the Constitution can oppose its other provisions; the nature of the Constitution as an act of the supreme legal force itself and the idea of constitutionality imply that the Constitution may not have nor does it have any gaps or internal contradictions. The Constitutional Court also disclosed the purpose of amendments to the Constitution: any amendments to the Constitution change the content of the provisions of the Constitution and the interrelations between those provisions, also, the balance of the values consolidated in the Constitution might be changed; in case some provisions of the Constitution are amended, there might be changes in the content of the other provisions thereof, as well as that of the overall constitutional legal regulation. The Constitutional Court emphasised that, when amendments to the Constitution are being made, the imperative that the Constitution is an integral act must be heeded—an imperative stems from Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Constitution to the effect that no amendments to the Constitution may violate the harmony of the provisions of the Constitution or the harmony of the values consolidated by them: no amendments to the Constitution may oppose any provisions of the Constitution, or values consolidated in those provisions, against one another, inter alia, the legal regulation established in the chapters and articles of the Constitution may not be opposed against the constitutional legal regulation established in the constituent parts of the Constitution; no amendment to the Constitution may create any such new constitutional regulation under which one provision of the Constitution would deny or contradict another provision of the Constitution, so that it would make impossible to construe such provisions as being in harmony. In view of the disclosed concept, nature and purpose of the Constitution, the value of the stability of the Constitution and the imperative of the harmony of the provisions of the Constitution, it is possible to distinguish two types of the limitations on the alteration of the Constitution: substantive and procedural. 49 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Substantive limitations on the alteration of the Constitution. The substantive limitations on the alteration of the Constitution are the limitations consolidated in the Constitution regarding the adoption of the constitutional amendments of certain content. These limitations stem from the overall constitutional regulation; and they are designed to defend the universal values upon which the Constitution, as supreme law and as a social contract, and the state, as the common good of the entire society, are based, as well as to protect the harmony of these values and the harmony of the provisions of the Constitution. Under the Constitution, five substantive limitations on the alteration of the Constitution are distinguished: 1. The prohibition on denying the constitutional values constituting the foundation of the State of Lithuania: the Constitution does not permit any such amendments thereto that would deny at least one of the constitutional values lying at the foundations of the State of Lithuania—the independence of the state, democracy, the republic, and the innate character of human rights and freedoms, with the exception of the cases where Article 1 of the Constitution would be altered in the manner prescribed by Paragraph 1 of Article 148 of the Constitution, or Article 1 of the Constitutional Law “On the State of Lithuania”, which is a constituent part of the Constitution, would be altered in the manner prescribed by Article 2 of the latter law (i.e. only by referendum, if not less than 3/4 of the citizens of Lithuania with the electoral right vote in favour thereof). The Constitutional Court noted that the values consolidated in Article 1 of the Constitution—the independence of the state, democracy and the republic—form the foundation of the State of Lithuania, therefore, they must not be negated under any circumstances; the principle of recognition of the innate character of human rights and freedoms, inseparably related to the above-mentioned values, is also a fundamental constitutional value; the innate character of human rights and freedom may not be negated, either. 2. The prohibition on denying the geopolitical orientation of the State of Lithuania consolidated in in the Constitution—the prohibition on joining any post-Soviet Eastern unions: under the Constitution, no amendments may be made to the Constitution that would deny the provisions of the Constitutional Act “On the Non-Alignment of the Republic of Lithuania to Post-Soviet Eastern Unions”, with the exception of the cases where certain provisions of this constitutional act would be altered in the same manner as provided for in Article 2 of the Constitutional Law “On the State of Lithuania” (i.e. only by referendum, if not less than 3/4 of the citizens of Lithuania with the electoral right vote in favour thereof). The Constitutional Court noted that it is clear from the Preamble to the Constitutional Act “On the Non-Alignment of the Republic of Lithuania to Post-Soviet Eastern Unions” that one adopted it by invoking “the 16 February 1918 and 11 March 1990 Acts on the Restoration of the Independent State of Lithuania, as well as the will of the entire Nation as expressed on 9 February 1991”, thus, the basis of the provisions of this Constitutional Act is the same fundamental principle of the state founded upon the declaration of the sovereign will of the Nation as consolidated in Article 1 of the Constitutional Law “On the State of Lithuania”—the State of Lithuania shall be an independent democratic republic. 50 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

Therefore, under the Constitution, the provisions of this constitutional act should enjoy the same protection as the provision “[t]he State of Lithuania shall be an independent democratic republic”, which is stipulated in Article 1 of the Constitution and Article 1 of the Constitutional Law “On the State of Lithuania”—they may be amended in the same manner as the alteration of this provision is allowed, i.e. under the same procedure as established in Article 2 of the Constitutional Law “On the State of Lithuania”. 3. The prohibition on denying the geopolitical orientation of the State of Lithuania consolidated in in the Constitution—membership of the Republic of Lithuania in the European Union: under the Constitution, as long as the constitutional grounds for membership in the European Union, which are consolidated in Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitutional Act “On Membership of the Republic of Lithuania in the European Union”, have not been annulled by referendum, it is not permitted to make any such amendments to the Constitution that would deny the commitments of the Republic of Lithuania arising from its membership in the European Union. The Constitutional Court emphasised that the constitutional grounds of the membership of the Republic of Lithuania in the European Union were consolidated in Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitutional Act “On Membership of the Republic of Lithuania in the European Union” so as to execute the will of the Nation that the Republic of Lithuania could be a member of the European Union; the aforesaid grounds themselves and the expression of the sovereign will of the Nation, as the source of these grounds, determine the requirement that the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitutional Act “On Membership of the Republic of Lithuania in the European Union” may be altered or annulled only by referendum. 4. The prohibition on denying the constitutional principle of respect for international law (pacta sunt servanda): the Constitution does not permit any such amendments to the Constitution that would deny the international obligations of the Republic of Lithuania (among them the obligations of the Republic of Lithuania arising from its membership in NATO) and at the same time—the constitutional principle pacta sunt servanda, as long as the said international obligations have not been renounced in accordance with the norms of international law. 5. The prohibition on denying the provisions of the Constitution that enjoy bigger protection: under the Constitution, the Seimas is not permitted to make any such amendments to the Constitution that would deny the provisions of Chapters I and XIV of the Constitution; it is also not permitted to introduce by referendum any such amendments to the Constitution that would, without correspondingly amending the provisions of Chapters I and XIV of the Constitution, lay down the constitutional regulation contradicting the provisions of Chapters I and XIV of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court noted that, according to Paragraph 2 of Article 148 of the Constitution, the provisions of Chapter I “The State of Lithuania” of the Constitution as well as of those of Chapter XIV “Alteration of the Constitution” may be altered only by referendum, thus, the values and principles consolidated in these provisions of the Constitution enjoy bigger protection in comparison with those consolidated in other provisions of the Constitution that can also be amended by the Seimas. 51 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Procedural limitations on the alteration of the Constitution. The procedural limitations on the alteration of the Constitution are related to the special procedure for the alteration of the Constitution that is consolidated therein. This procedure is established in Chapter XIV “Alteration of the Constitution” of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court emphasised that the special procedure for the alteration of the Constitution may not be identified with the passage of laws (inter alia, constitutional ones): the provisions of Chapter XIV “Alteration of the Constitution” enjoy bigger protection in order to ensure that the Constitution would be amended only when it is necessary and that any rash amendments to the Constitution could be prevented. The special procedure for the making amendments to the Constitution, which is established in the Constitution, includes the following special requirements, which are not applied to the passage of ordinary (and constitutional) laws: 1. The Constitution may not be amended during a state of emergency or martial law (Paragraph 2 of Article 147 of the Constitution). 2. The powers of the Seimas to amend the Constitution are limited: the provisions of Article 1 of the Constitution and those of Chapter I “The State of Lithuania” and Chapter XIV “Alteration of the Constitution” thereof may only be altered by referendum (Paragraph 2 of Article 148 of the Constitution). 3. Only special subjects enjoy the right to submit a motion to alter or supplement the Constitution to the Seimas: a group of not less than 1/4 of all the members of the Seimas or not less than 300,000 voters (Paragraph 1 of Article 147 of the Constitution). The said subjects are different in substance from the subjects of legislative initiative—members of the Seimas, the President of the Republic, the Government, and 50 thousand citizens. 4. There is a special procedure for the adoption of amendments to the Constitution at the Seimas: such amendments must be considered and voted at the Seimas twice; there must be a break of not less than three months between the votes (Paragraph 3 of Article 147 of the Constitution). 5. In order to adopt a law amending the Constitution, a qualified majority of votes of members of the Seimas is necessary: a draft law on the alteration of the Constitution shall be deemed adopted by the Seimas if, during each of the votes, not less than 2/3 of all the members of the Seimas vote in favour thereof (Paragraph 3 of Article 148 of the Constitution). 6. A special limitation is established on the submitting of an amendment to the Constitution that has not been adopted to the Seimas for reconsideration: it may be submitted not earlier than after one year (Paragraph 4 of Article 148 of the Constitution). 7. There is a special procedure for the promulgation of laws amending the Constitution: the President of the Republic does not have the right of delaying veto in connection with laws amending the Constitution; the President of the Republic must sign the adopted law on the alteration of the Constitution and officially promulgate it within five days, whilst, if the President of the Republic does not sign and promulgate such a law within the specified time, this law shall come into force 52 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

when the Speaker of the Seimas signs and promulgates it (Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 149 of the Constitution). 8. There is a special procedure for the entry into force of a law amending the Constitution: such a law comes into force not earlier than one month after its adoption (Paragraph 3 of Article 149 of the Constitution). The geopolitical orientation of the State of Lithuania. The ruling of 24 January 2014 is also notable because the Constitutional Court developed the doctrine of the geopolitical orientation of the state, which is related to the substantive limitations on the alteration of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court noted that the fundamental constitutional values consolidated in Article 1 of the Constitution—the independence of the state, democracy, the republic—are closely interrelated with the geopolitical orientation of the State of Lithuania, which is consolidated in the Constitution and implies European and transatlantic integration pursued by the Republic of Lithuania. The geopolitical orientation of the State of Lithuania means the membership of the Republic of Lithuania in the EU and NATO as well as the necessity to fulfil the corresponding international commitments related with the said membership. The geopolitical orientation of the State of Lithuania is based upon the universal constitutional values which are common with the values of other European and North American states. The geopolitical orientation of the State of Lithuania is expressed in the text of the Constitution both in the negative and positive aspects. The negative aspect is expressed in the Constitutional Act “On the Non-Alignment of the Republic of Lithuania to Post-Soviet Eastern Unions”, whereas the positive aspect—in the Constitutional Act “On Membership of the Republic of Lithuania in the European Union”. The Constitutional Act “On the Non-Alignment of the Republic of Lithuania to Post-Soviet Eastern Unions” lays down the limits that may not be overstepped by the Republic of Lithuania in the processes of its participation in international integration and consolidates the prohibition on joining any new political, military, economic, or other unions or commonwealths of states formed on the basis of the former USSR. The Constitutional Act “On Membership of the Republic of Lithuania in the European Union”, by which the membership of the Republic of Lithuania in the European Union was constitutionally approved, was adopted in order to execute the will of the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania expressed in the referendum. Therefore, the full participation of the Republic of Lithuania, as a Member of the European Union, in the European Union is a constitutional imperative grounded in the expression of the sovereign will of the Nation and the full membership of the Republic of Lithuania in the European Union is a constitutional value. The Constitutional Court emphasised that the Constitutional Act “On Membership of the Republic of Lithuania in the European Union” establishes the constitutional grounds of the membership of the Republic of Lithuania in the European Union. In case such constitutional grounds were not consolidated in the Constitution, the Republic of Lithuania would not be able to be a full member of the European 53 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Union: 1) the Republic of Lithuania as a Member State of the European Union shall share with or confer on the European Union the competences of its state institutions in the areas provided for in the founding Treaties of the European Union and to the extent it would, together with the other Member States of the European Union, jointly meet its membership commitments in those areas as well as enjoy the membership rights (Article 1); 2) the norms of European Union law shall be a constituent part of the legal system of the Republic of Lithuania; where it concerns the founding Treaties of the European Union, the norms of European Union law shall be applied directly, while in the event of collision of legal norms, they shall have supremacy over the laws and other legal acts of the Republic of Lithuania (Article 2). The respect for international law, which is also a constitutional value, is related to the geopolitical orientation of the State of Lithuania that is consolidated in the Constitution. The constitutional principle of the respect for international law, as consolidated in Paragraph 1 of Article 135 of the Constitution, i.e. the principle pacta sunt servanda, means the imperative of fulfilling in good faith the obligations assumed by the Republic of Lithuania under international law, inter alia, international treaties. The observance of international obligations undertaken of its own free will and the respect of the universally recognised principles of international law (as well as the principle pacta sunt servanda) are a legal tradition and a constitutional principle of the restored independent State of Lithuania; respect for international law is an inseparable part of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, whose essence is the rule of law. The constitutional obligation to participate in the economic and monetary union and the constitutional status of the Bank of Lithuania. The law amending Article 125 of the Constitution that was ruled in conflict with the Constitution in view of the procedure of its adoption had been related to the constitutional institute of the Bank of Lithuania. The Constitutional Court’s ruling of 24 January 2014 makes it clear that Article 1 of the Constitutional Act “On Membership of the Republic of Lithuania in the European Union” may be regarded as the basis for the openness of the Constitution to EU law: this is obvious from the interpretation of the issues of the participation of the Republic of Lithuania in the economic and monetary union and the status of the Bank of Lithuania. The Constitutional Court noted that one of the areas where, under Article 1 of the Constitutional Act “On Membership of the Republic of Lithuania in the European Union”, the Republic of Lithuania, as a Member State of the European Union, shares with and confers on the European Union the competences of its state institutions is the economic and monetary union, the currency of which is the euro. The constitutional imperative of the full participation of the Republic of Lithuania in the European Union determines the constitutional obligation of the Republic of Lithuania as a full member to participate in the integration of the member states into the economic and monetary union—to adopt a common currency of this union—the euro—and to confer on the European Union the exclusive competence in the area of monetary policy. Such a constitutional obligation of the State of Lithuania is concurrently an 54 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

obligation arising from its membership in the European Union, which the State of Lithuania is obliged to fulfil while observing its geopolitical orientation consolidated in the Constitution and the constitutional principle pacta sunt servanda. In view of this fact, upon the adoption of the Constitutional Act “On Membership of the Republic of Lithuania in the European Union”, the content of the legal regulation of the constitutional institute of the Bank of Lithuania also changed. Under the Constitution, in order to implement the obligation of the Republic of Lithuania to confer on the European Union the exclusive competence in the area of monetary policy, the competence of the Bank of Lithuania in this area, thus, also in the issuing of currency, must be conferred on the European Central Bank. In view of this fact, the constitutional status of the Bank of Lithuania should be defined as that of the central bank of the Republic of Lithuania, part of the competence of which has been conferred on the European Central Bank, and which is a constituent part of the system of the European central banks. Therefore, under the Constitution, the respective guarantees are also applied to independence of the Bank of Lithuania. In view of this fact, the Constitutional Court noted that the legislature, when regulating the activities of the Bank of Lithuania, must pay heed to the constitutional status and the respective independence guarantees of the Bank of Lithuania and the Chairperson of its Board, as of an integral part of the European System of Central Banks. This means, among other things, that one is not allowed to establish any such legal regulation to the effect that the preconditions would be created for the legislature and the executive to exert influence on the Bank of Lithuania, and that the established grounds for the dismissal of the Chairperson of the Board of the Bank of Lithuania before the expiration of the term of his or her powers would not be related to the non-fulfilment of the law-established conditions required for the performance of his or her duties or to the fact that he or she has been guilty of serious misconduct (i.e. the grounds for the dismissal of the Chairperson of the Board of the Bank of Lithuania by expressing political no-confidence). The subjects that have the right to make a motion to amend the Constitution and the procedure for making such a motion. While deciding whether the Constitution had not been violated in the course of the adoption of the law amending Article 125 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court had to thoroughly investigate the procedural limitation on the alteration of the Constitution related to the subjects that have the right to make a motion to amend the Constitution, which are established in Paragraph 1 of Article 147 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court, while providing the construction of the notion “[a] motion to alter or supplement the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania”, as employed in Paragraph 1 of Article 147 of the Constitution, noted that it should not be understood literally as meaning an abstract proposal or idea lacking in clarity and concreteness to alter or supplement the Constitution; this notion means a draft amendment to the Constitution—a draft law amending the Constitution. The right to make a motion for the Seimas to alter or supplement the Constitution that is enjoyed by the subjects of this right as specified in Paragraph 1 of Article 147 of the Constitution, i.e. a group 55 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

of not less than 1/4 of all the members of the Seimas or not less than 300,000 voters, is an exceptional right, i.e. only these subjects have the right to submit to the Seimas a concrete draft amendment to the Constitution, i.e. a concrete draft law amending the Constitution. The said right is not conferred on any other subjects. Under the Constitution, only the draft laws amending the Constitution that have been submitted by a group of not less than 1/4 of all the members of the Seimas or not less than 300,000 voters may be considered and voted upon in the Seimas; the Seimas may not consider and vote upon any such motion to alter or supplement the Constitution that would be proposed by subjects other than the subjects specified in Paragraph 1 of Article 147 of the Constitution. In view of this fact it was noted in the Constitutional Court’s ruling that Paragraph 1 of Article 147 of the Constitution gives rise to the prohibition on changing in substance, during the consideration in the Seimas, the content of a proposed draft law amending the Constitution, submitted by a group of not less than 1/4 of all the members of the Seimas or not less than 300,000 voters, in such a way that would distort the objective of the proposed constitutional regulation, would alter the scope of the proposed constitutional regulation, would introduce essentially different means to achieve the objective sought by the proposed constitutional regulation, or would propose that a different provision of the Constitution be altered. Any draft law amending the Constitution that has been subject to amendments of an essential character should be deemed a new draft law—a new motion to alter or supplement the Constitution, which may be submitted only by the subjects specified in Paragraph 1 of Article 147 of the Constitution. In the course of the consideration of a draft law amending the Constitution in the Seimas, structural subdivisions of the Seimas and individual members of the Seimas have, under the Constitution, the right to propose for the Seimas only such modifications of the draft under consideration that do not affect the draft in substance, or the right to propose that the draft under consideration would be rejected or that the subject who has submitted the draft for consideration would submit a new, essentially changed, draft law. The Constitutional Court held that, in the course of the adoption of the law amending Article 125 of the Constitution, one had disregarded the prohibition, stemming from Paragraph 1 of Article 147 of the Constitution, against the consideration of a draft law amending the Constitution that is submitted by structural subunits of the Seimas and individual members of the Seimas, whose content would differ in substance from the draft law amending the Constitution that was submitted by a group of not less than 1/4 of all the members of the Seimas. In view of the overall constitutional legal regulation, inter alia, the aforesaid constitutional status of the Bank of Lithuania, it was emphasised in the Constitutional Court’s ruling that the recognition that the Law Amending Article 125 of the Constitution is in conflict with the Constitution did not mean that the wording of Article 125 of the Constitution that was valid prior to the entry into force of the said law would become effective again (it meant that the Constitution did not establish any exclusive right of the Bank of Lithuania to issue currency). 56 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

4.1.2. The organising and calling of referendums Another very significant ruling of the Constitutional Court adopted in 2014 is its ruling of 11 July 2014 that was adopted in the constitutional justice case in which the issues connected with the organising and calling of referendums were decided. In this ruling, the Constitutional Court continued the development of the doctrine of amendments to the Constitution that was formulated in its ruling of 24 January 2014 and considered other fundamental issues as well: the relation between the sovereignty of the Nation and the Constitution, the character of the provisions of the Constitution consolidating the fundamental constitutional values (the eternal or non-amendable constitutional provisions). The Constitutional Court also provided the thorough construction regarding the content of the constitutional institute of referendum, by disclosing many new aspects, not considered until then, of the constitutional regulation of the organising and calling of referendums and by developing the concept of this constitutional institute that was presented in its previous jurisprudence, inter alia, in its ruling of 22 July 1994. By the ruling of 11 July 2014, it was recognised that: – the Law on Referendums insofar as it explicitly provides for neither the powers of the Central Electoral Commission to assess whether a draft law amending the Constitution complies with the Constitution in the cases where such a draft law is proposed to be put to a referendum, nor the powers of this commission to preclude an initiative to adopt by referendum such a draft law amending the Constitution that would disregard the requirements stemming from the Constitution was not in conflict with the Constitution since such powers of this commissions had been established implicitly; – Article 6 of the Law on Referendums, insofar as it had not established the requirement that several issues unrelated by their content and nature, or several unrelated amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, or several unrelated provisions of laws may not be submitted as a single issue in a decision proposed to be put to a referendum, and Article 14 of the same law, insofar as it had provided that the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania is obliged to adopt a resolution on calling a referendum where the decision proposed to be put to the referendum may not be in line with the requirements stemming from the Constitution, were in conflict with the Constitution. The Constitutional Court also drew attention to the fact that the Seimas had undertaken the obligation to adopt the Constitutional Law on Referendums—such a law is indicated in the Constitutional Law on the List of Constitutional Laws that was adopted in 2012. This constitutional law could rectify the existing shortcomings of the Law on Referendums. The sovereignty of the Nation and the Constitution: the Constitution is also binding on the national community—the civil Nation itself. The sovereignty of the Nation is a source of the statehood and of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court held that that there are two forms of the implementation of the sovereignty of the nation—direct and indirect (“the Nation executes its supreme sovereign power directly through two main organisational forms: national elections and referendums”). Under the Constitution, a referendum is a form of the direct execution of the supreme sovereign power of the 57 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Nation; the Nation may also execute its supreme sovereign power indirectly—through its democratically elected representatives (representatives of the Nation—members of the Seimas). It needs to be emphasised that no other subjects may implement the sovereignty of the Nation. As noted by the Constitutional Court, there are not any such subjects that may be equated, or may equate themselves, with the Nation, which enjoys sovereignty and executes its supreme sovereign power either directly or through its democratically elected representatives; in this context, the Constitutional Court recalled the provision of its ruling of 1 December 1994 that no citizens’ initiative group for a referendum may be equated with the Nation or speak on behalf of the Nation, either. The Constitutional Court emphasised the importance of the Seimas as the representation of the Nation in the implementation of the sovereignty of the Nation: the Seimas is the representation of the Nation, through which the Nation executes its supreme sovereign power. Under the Constitution, there may not be and there is no confrontation between the supreme sovereign power executed by the Nation directly and the supreme sovereign power executed by the Nation through its democratically elected representatives—members of the Seimas; therefore, when the Constitution is construed, the direct (through a referendum) and indirect (through the representation of the Nation—the Seimas) forms of the execution of the supreme sovereign power of the Nation may not be opposed to each other. In this context, it should be noted that Item 3 of Article 67 of the Constitution implies not only the powers of the institution calling referendums—the Seimas—to adopt a resolution on calling a referendum but also its powers to adopt a resolution on refusing to call a referendum on the grounds provided for by law and arising out of the Constitution; such powers of the Seimas as the representation of the Nation may not be treated as ones restricting the sovereignty of the Nation. As mentioned before, the sovereignty of the Nation is a source of the Constitution. In this respect, the Constitutional Court recalled the statements of the official constitutional doctrine that had been formed before about the nature and purpose of the Constitution: the Constitution is supreme law; it is the legal foundation for the common life of the Nation as the national community; the Constitution reflects the social contract and the obligation of the national community—the civil Nation to create and reinforce the state by following the fundamental rules consolidated in the Constitution. In view of the fact that the Constitution is the fundamental rules of the common life of the Nation approved by the will of the Nation and the obligation of Nation to live according to such rules, the Constitutional Court drew the conclusion that the Constitution is binding on the state community, i.e., on the civil Nation itself. Therefore, the supreme sovereign power of the Nation may also be executed directly (by referendum), only in observance of the Constitution. Consequently, referendums may be organised and called only by following the procedure established in the Constitution, including the requirements arising out of the Constitution regarding the alteration of the Constitution. In this context, the Constitutional Court also disclosed the content of the provisions of Article 3 of the Constitution (according to such provisions, no one may restrict or limit the sovereignty of the Nation or make claims to the sovereign powers belonging to the entire Nation; also, they consolidate the 58 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

right of the Nation and each citizen to resist anyone who encroaches on the independence, territorial integrity, and constitutional order of the State of Lithuania by force): the provisions of Article 3 of the Constitution may not be construed in such a way that, purportedly, they imply the right of the Nation to disregard the Constitution, which has been adopted by the Nation itself, i.e. Article 3 of the Constitution may not be invoked in order to justify anticonstitutional sanctions of certain persons. As noted by the Constitutional Court, the purpose of the provisions of Article 3 of the Constitution is to protect the constitutional values referred to in this article (the sovereignty of the Nation, the independence of the State of Lithuania, its territorial integrity and constitutional order); therefore, these provisions may not be invoked for the purpose of denying the said constitutional values. In view of this fact, the requirement that the Constitution must be observed when the Nation, inter alia, directly (by referendum), executes its supreme sovereign power may not be assessed as a restriction or limitation, referred to in Article 3 of the Constitution, on the sovereignty of the Nation, or as the taking over of the sovereign powers belonging to the entire Nation. In this context, the Constitutional Court emphasised the importance of the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution: the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution is a fundamental requirement for a democratic state under the rule of law; this principle means that the Constitution occupies an exceptional—the highest—place in the hierarchy of legal acts; no legal act may be in conflict with the Constitution; no one is permitted to violate the Constitution; the constitutional order must be defended; the Constitution is the measure of the lawfulness and legitimacy of all the other legal acts; the discretion of all law-making subjects is limited by the supreme law—the Constitution: all legal acts as well as the decisions of all state and municipal institutions and officials must comply with and not contradict the Constitution; the Seimas, as well as other participants of the legislation process, while drafting and adopting legal acts, must bring them into line with the Constitution. In the context of the considered case, it was emphasised that the Constitutional Court noted in its ruling of 22 July 1994 that this rule arising out of the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution to bring legal acts into line with the Constitution must equally be observed by any group of citizens expressing an initiative to call a referendum—a draft law proposed to be put to a referendum must be brought into line with the Constitution. While summarising, it was held in the ruling of 11 July 2014 that all legal subjects, including law-making subjects, the institutions organising elections (referendums), initiative groups for referendums and other groups of citizens, are bound by the Constitution, they must observe it and must not violate it. Thus, the constitutional imperative arises out of the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution not to put to a referendum any such possible decisions that would not be in line with the requirements arising out of the Constitution. In this respect, the Constitutional Court developed the interpretation of the provisions of Article 9 of the Constitution that was presented in its ruling of 22 July 1994 (that the Constitution does not provide that the implementation of Article 9 of the Constitution, under which a referendum is called by the Seimas in the cases provided for by law as well as where a referendum is requested by not less than 59 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

300,000 citizens with the electoral right, may be bound by any additional conditions or decisions of any subjects). It was emphasised in the ruling of 11 July 2014 that the requirement that the Constitution be observed may not be regarded as an additional condition, not provided for in the Constitution, for calling a referendum, which would be binding in the event of implementing Article 9 of the Constitution. Such a requirement arises out of the Constitution itself: the Constitution is also binding on the national community—the civil Nation itself, meanwhile, when the Constitution is construed, the direct (through a referendum) and indirect (through the representation of the Nation—the Seimas) forms of the execution of the supreme sovereign power of the Nation may not be opposed to each other. Thus, the duty of the Seimas, stemming from the Constitution, not to call a referendum where the decision proposed to be put to the referendum would not comply with the requirements stemming from the Constitution may not be regarded as the power of the Seimas to adopt a preliminary decision that is not provided for in the Constitution but determines the calling of a referendum, i.e., which limits the supreme sovereign power of the Nation. The provision “[s]overeignty shall belong to the Nation” of Article 2 of the Constitution, the provision “[t]he Nation shall execute its supreme sovereign power <...> directly” of Article 4, as well as the provision “[t]he most significant issues concerning the life of the State and the Nation shall be decided by referendum” of Article 9 of the Constitution, do not mean that the Nation may, by referendum, establish, also in the Constitution itself, any legal regulation it requests, including a legal regulation not complying with the requirements stemming from the Constitution. Eternal (non-amendable) fundamental constitutional provisions. Since the Constitution gives a meaning to the sovereignty of the Nation and is binding on the civil Nation itself, in the course of the organising and calling of referendums on altering the Constitution the substantive limitations on its alteration arising out of the Constitution must be followed. The Constitutional Court recalled the substantive limitations on the alteration of the Constitution that were disclosed in its ruling of 24 January 2014—the limitations, arising out of the Constitution, on adopting amendments of certain content to the Constitution in order to defend the universal values upon which the Constitution and the state are based and to protect the harmony of those values and provisions of the Constitution. These limitations on the alteration of the Constitution are related to the special protection of the constitutional values that constitute the foundation of the State of Lithuania, the geopolitical orientation of the State of Lithuania that is consolidated in the Constitution (the membership in the European Union and the prohibition on joining any post-Soviet Eastern unions), the constitutional principle of the respect for international law, and the constitutional requirement that the provisions of Chapters I and XIV of the Constitution may be changed only by referendum. While defining the first of the above-mentioned limitations, it was noted in the ruling of 24 January 2014 that the Constitution does not permit any such amendments thereto that would deny at least one of the constitutional values lying at the foundations of the State of Lithuania—the independence of the state, democracy, the republic, and the innate character of human rights and freedoms, with the exception of the cases where Article 1 of the Constitution would be altered in the manner prescribed by 60 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

Paragraph 1 of Article 148 of the Constitution, or Article 1 of the Constitutional Law “On the State of Lithuania”, which is a constituent part of the Constitution, would be altered in the manner prescribed by Article 2 of the latter law (i.e. only by referendum, if not less than 3/4 of the citizens of Lithuania with the electoral right vote in favour thereof). Further interpreting the content of this limitation on the alteration of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court singled out the non-amendable fundamental constitutional provisions that stem from the Independence Act of the Council of Lithuania of 16 February 1918 having the supra- constitutional force2 and whose repeal would mean the abolition of the sovereignty of the Nation itself (i.e. the destruction of the Nation and the State of Lithuania). It is clear from the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 11 July 2014 that it is not permitted to invoke the Constitution in order to repeal the Act of Independence of 16 February 1918 and the sovereignty of the Nation. The Constitutional Court emphasised that the innate character of human rights and freedoms, democracy, and the independence of the state are such constitutional values that constitute the foundation for the Constitution, as a social contract, as well as the foundation for the Nation’s common life, which is based on the Constitution, and for the State of Lithuania itself. No one may deny the provisions of the Constitution consolidating these fundamental constitutional values, since doing so would amount to the denial of the essence of the Constitution itself. Therefore, even where regard is paid to the limitations on the alteration of the Constitution, which stem from the Constitution itself, it is not permitted to adopt any such amendments to the Constitution that would destroy the innate nature of human rights and freedoms, democracy, or the independence of the state; if the Constitution were construed in a different way, it would be understood as creating preconditions for putting an end to the restored “independent State of Lithuania, founded on democratic principles”, as proclaimed by the Act of Independence of 16 February 1918. The constitutional institute of referendums. This ruling developed the official constitutional doctrine disclosing the content of Article 9 of the Constitution and of the other constitutional provisions related to organising and calling referendums. According to Article 9 of the Constitution, the most significant issues concerning the life of the State and the Nation are decided by referendum (Paragraph 1); in the cases established by law, the Seimas shall call a referendum (Paragraph 2); a referendum shall also be called if not less than 300,000 citizens with the electoral right so request (Paragraph 3); the procedure for calling and conducting referendums shall be established by law (Paragraph 4). In the Constitutional Court’s ruling it was noted that, according to the theory of law and constitutional traditions, the referendum is understood as the universal popular vote on the adoption of the Constitution, a law, or separate provisions of a law, as well as on the issues of the domestic and foreign policy. It was

2 As noted by the prominent émigré lawyer Konstantinas Račkauskas, “the Act of 16 February is a supra-constitutional document with which no Constitution or law may be in conflict” (Račkauskas K. Lietuvos konstitucinės teisės klausimais [On Issues of Constitutional Law of Lithuania]. New York, 1967, p. 15). 61 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

underlined that, under the Constitution, a referendum is a form of the direct execution of the supreme sovereign power of the Nation, therefore, decisions on the most significant issues concerning the life of the State and the Nation, once they are adopted by referendum, are mandatory. However, the provision of Paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the Constitution does not preclude the possibility of holding an advisory referendum where namely such a referendum is initiated. While construing the provisions of Article 9 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court exhaustively disclosed the concept of the most significant issues concerning the life of the State and the Nation that are decided by referendum. It noted that the most significant issues concerning the life of the State and the Nation are, first of all, the issues of altering the provisions of the Constitution, which, under the Constitution, may be decided only by referendum: – the provision “[t]he State of Lithuania shall be an independent democratic republic” consolidated in Article 1 of the Constitution and in Article 1 of the Constitutional Law “On the State of Lithuania” may be altered only by referendum if not less than 3/4 of the citizens of Lithuania with the electoral right vote in favour thereof (Paragraph 1 of Article 148 of the Constitution and Article 2 of the Constitutional Law “On the State of Lithuania”); – the provisions of the Constitutional Act “On the Non-Alignment of the Republic of Lithuania to Post-Soviet Eastern Unions” may be altered in the same manner (i.e., only by referendum if not less than 3/4 of the citizens of Lithuania with the electoral right vote in favour thereof) (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 24 January 2014); – the provisions of Chapter I “The State of Lithuania” of the Constitution and those of the Chapter XIV “Alteration of the Constitution” thereof may be altered only by referendum (Paragraph 2 of Article 148 of the Constitution); – the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitutional Act “On Membership of the Republic of Lithuania in the European Union” may be altered only by referendum (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 24 January 2014). Secondly, in addition to those established in the Constitution, the law may provide for other most significant issues concerning the life of the State and the Nation that must be decided by referendum. The Constitutional Court emphasised that when establishing the list of such most significant issues concerning the life of the State and the Nation, the legislature is bound by the imperative that, under the Constitution, not all issues, but only the most significant issues concerning the life of the State and the Nation, must be decided by referendum, and that issues generally not concerning the life of the State and the Nation may not be decided by referendum (for example, the issues that are important for the life of only some municipalities or some territorial or other communities of citizens). Thirdly, in addition to those established in the Constitution or the law, there may be other most significant issues concerning the life of the State and the Nation that must be decided by referendum: the issues that would be requested to be decided by referendum by not less than 300,000 citizens with the electoral right, or by the Seimas as the representation of the Nation, should be deemed to be such most 62 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

significant issues, although neither the Constitution nor any other law would indicate that a relevant issue must be decided by referendum. Fourthly, provisions of laws may also be adopted by referendum (Paragraph 4 of Article 69 of the Constitution). Thus, the Seimas may, on its own initiative or at the request of not less than 300,000 citizens with the electoral right, call a referendum on the adoption of the provisions of a law that regulate a certain most significant issue concerning the life of the State and the Nation. However, under the Constitution, it is not allowed to adopt certain laws by referendum, because, under the Constitution, the adoption of such laws is within the competence of the Seimas, as, for instance: the Seimas approves the state budget by law and supervises its execution (the budgetary function of the Seimas is a classical and one of the most important functions of the parliament in a democratic state under the rule of law); the Seimas establishes state taxes and other compulsory payments; the Seimas establishes the list of constitutional laws by a 3/5 majority vote of the members of the Seimas. As mentioned before, there is an issue which may not be put to a referendum or submitted to the Seimas at all: this is the repeal of the fundamental values (the innate nature of human rights and freedoms, democracy, or the independence of the state). While construing the constitutional institute of referendums, the Constitutional Court formulated the constitutional imperative for creating the pre-conditions for determining the actual will of the Nation in a referendum: the direct participation of citizens in the governance of their state is a very important expression of their supreme sovereign power; therefore, a referendum must be a testimony to the actual will of the Nation. In view of this fact, the Constitutional Court noted that, where the most significant issues concerning the life of the State and the Nation are put to a referendum, they must be such issues regarding which it would be possible to determine the actual will of the Nation: inter alia, they must be formulated in a clear and not misleading manner. Consequently, under the Constitution, several issues unrelated by their content and nature, or several unrelated amendments to the Constitution, or several unrelated provisions of laws may not be put to a vote in a referendum as a single issue, since acting otherwise would deny the possibility of determining the actual will of the Nation regarding each most significant issue separately concerning the life of the State and the Nation. The Constitutional Court also drew attention to the fact that, in the cases where a referendum is initiated pursuant to Paragraph 3 of Article 9 of the Constitution, under which a referendum is called if not less than 300,000 citizens with the electoral right so request, the approval of citizens for calling a referendum must be expressed separately regarding each issue being put to the referendum, i.e., a single signature may not be given in support of an initiative to call a referendum on several issues unrelated by their content and nature, or several unrelated amendments to the Constitution, or several unrelated provisions of laws. Otherwise, no opportunity would be ensured for citizens to separately decide regarding their support for each initiative to call a referendum, and it would be impossible to determine whether each of the issues, which are unrelated to one another, is indeed requested to be put to a referendum by the subject indicated in Paragraph 3 of Article 9 of the Constitution—not less than 300,000 citizens with the electoral right. 63 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

While interpreting Paragraph 4 of Article 9 of the Constitution, according to which the procedure for calling and conducting referendums shall be established by law, the Constitutional Court disclosed the requirements that arise out of the Constitution for such a law (on referendums). Such requirements can be grouped as follows: 1. The requirement for regulating initiatives to call a referendum: one of the subjects who may exercise the initiative to call a referendum is not less than 300,000 citizens with the electoral right; thus, the formation of this subject and the announcement of an initiative to call a referendum (including requirements for the content and form of an issue proposed to be decided by referendum, requirements for the formation and registration of an initiative group for a referendum, as well as requirements for the collection of signatures in support of calling a referendum and their submission to the institution organising referendums) must be regulated by law. 2. The requirement for regulating the competence of the institution organising referendums: the powers of the institution organising referendums must be established by law. In this context, the Constitutional Court drew attention to the fact that a referendum, as well as an election, is a form of the direct execution of the supreme sovereign power of the Nation, where citizens declare their will through national voting, also that the right to initiate a referendum and to vote in a referendum is granted only to citizens who have the electoral right, as well as that referendums are conducted according to the principles of electoral law, therefore, under the Constitution, referendums must be organised by the institution directly specified in the Constitution—the Central Electoral Commission. As noted by the Constitutional Court, the constitutional status of the Central Electoral Commission implies its certain powers, inter alia, the powers to oversee and take measures that subjects participating in the organisation and conduct of a referendum observe requirements stemming from the Constitution and the laws. 3. The requirements for the content and form of the question put to a referendum that arise out of the aforesaid constitutional imperatives not to put to a referendum any such possible decisions that would not be in line with the requirements arising out of the Constitution, and to create the pre-conditions for determining the actual will of the Nation in a referendum: the requirement that a decision proposed to be put to a referendum must comply with the requirements stemming from the Constitution; the requirements for putting only such questions to a referendum that are formulated in a clear and not misleading manner, that not include several questions unrelated by their content and nature, or several unrelated amendments to the Constitution, or several unrelated provisions of laws. 4. The requirements for establishing particular duties or powers of the subjects of the relations of referendums stemming from the constitutional imperative not to put to a referendum any such possible decisions that would not be in line with the requirements arising out of the Constitution: 1) the requirement for the initiative group for a referendum to bring a decision proposed to be put to a referendum in line with the Constitution (inter alia, to submit to a referendum only such draft amendments to the Constitution that would observe the substantive limitations on the alteration of the Constitution); 2) the requirement for establishing the powers for the Central Electoral Commission in order to ensure that the 64 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

Constitution and the laws would be followed in the course of the organising of referendums:3 to verify whether an issue proposed to be decided by referendum complies with the requirements established in relation to the content and form of such issues, to refuse to register an initiative group for a referendum that fails to fulfil the duty to bring the decision proposed to be decided by referendum into line with the Constitution, or that proposes deciding by referendum an issue that does not meet other requirements established in relation to the content and form of such issues, for example, where an issue proposed to be decided by referendum is formulated in an unclear and misleading manner, or where several unrelated issues are submitted as a single issue; 3) the requirement for establishing the grounds, which stem from the Constitution, for the Seimas to refuse to call a referendum: the Constitution gives rise to the duty of the Seimas not to call a referendum where the decision proposed to be put to the referendum would not comply with the requirements4 stemming from the Constitution, inter alia, where the issue submitted to the referendum would make impossible to determine the actual will of the Nation (the issue would be unclear and misleading, or would include several unrelated issues, or several unrelated amendments to the Constitution, or several unrelated provisions of laws), or where the provisions of the law proposed to be put to the referendum would be in conflict with the Constitution, or where the proposed amendment to the Constitution would not comply with the requirements5 stemming from the Constitution. European standards for referendums. In its ruling of 11 July 2014, the Constitutional Court reviewed the European standards for referendums formulated in the documents of the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional matters, i.e. the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission)—the Guidelines for Constitutional Referendums at National Level and the Code of Good Practice on Referendums. According to the rules adopted in 2001 and set out in the Guidelines for Constitutional Referendums at National Level, a draft new Constitution or draft amendment to the Constitution, which is submitted to a referendum on adopting a new Constitution or altering the existing Constitution, must comply

3 While investigating the compliance of the Law on Referendums with the Constitution, the Constitutional Court held that the power, established in the same law, of the Central Electoral Commission to register an initiative group for a referendum also means the power to assess whether this group observes the requirements established by law for draft laws proposed to be put to a referendum, (inter alia, whether a draft law amending the Constitution pays heed to the requirements stipulating that amendments to the Consti- tution may not violate the harmony of the provisions of the Constitution and must observe the substantive limitations set on the alteration of the Constitution), as well as that this commission must refuse to register such an initiative group for a referendum whose draft law proposed to be put to a referendum is not in line with the said requirements. Otherwise, the power of the Central Electoral Commission established in the Law on Referendums to supervise the execution of this law would be denied and the supervision of the execution of this law would become meaningless. The same power of the Central Electoral Commission consolidated in the same law to register an initiative group for a referendum should be interpreted in an analogous manner. 4 It was held in the Constitutional Court’s ruling that, when establishing, in Article 14 of the Law on Referendums, the duty of the Seimas to adopt a resolution on calling a referendum where the decision proposed to be put to the referendum may not be in line with the requirements stemming from the Constitution, regard had not been paid to the requirement stemming from the Constitu- tion that the law must lay down a ground for the Seimas not to call a referendum in such a case. 5 The Constitutional Court drew attention to the fact that a resolution of the Seimas on calling a referendum or on refusing to call it may be subject to constitutional review. 65 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

with the procedural and substantive requirements set in relation to texts submitted to a referendum. The compliance with substantive requirements means compliance with essential constitutional principles (democracy, protection of human rights, and the rule of law) as well as with the universally recognised principles and norms of international law. Procedural requirements, among other things, include the unity of the content of the text—amendments to the Constitution put to the single vote must be related to one another, i.e., the text of some proposed amendments to the provisions of the Constitution must not be put to the single vote if it combines amendments that are, in substance, of a different content. The non-compliance of the text with procedural and substantive requirements may constitute a ground for refusing to put it to the vote. There must be a certain responsible institution that would be empowered, before the vote, to assess the compliance of the text submitted to the referendum with, among other things, procedural and substantive requirements; the judicial review of the observance of the rules governing constitutional referendums must be conducted, in accordance with the respective competence, by either the Constitutional Court or any other court adopting final decisions, which are not subject to appeal. Procedural and substantive requirements in relation to texts submitted to a referendum, as consolidated in the Code of Good Practice on Referendums, comprising the Guidelines on the Holding of Referendums and the Explanatory Memorandum, which was adopted in 2007, are, in substance, analogous to those set out in the Guidelines for Constitutional Referendums at National Level; in addition, under the Guidelines on the Holding of Referendums, it is necessary to establish such rules on the holding of referendums that, among other things, would create preconditions for the appeal body—an electoral commission or a court—to consider, as early as before the vote, the question of whether the text submitted to the referendum complies with procedural and/or substantive requirements; appeal to a court against an ensuing decision of the authorised institution must be possible.

4.2. Criminal liability for international crimes

Another very important ruling was adopted in a constitutional justice case dealing with issues related to criminal liability for genocide and other international crimes. By means of its ruling of 18 March 2014 adopted in the said case, the Constitutional Court recognised that Article 99 of the Criminal Code (hereinafter referred to as the CC), insofar as this article provides that actions are considered to constitute genocide if they are aimed at physically destroying, in whole or in part, persons belonging to any national, ethnical, racial, religious, social, or political group (i.e. thus defining genocide in broader terms than under the universally recognised norms of international law), as well as the provision of Article 95 of the CC, under which no statute of limitations for delivering a judgment of conviction is applied to the crime of genocide, were not in conflict with the Constitution. The provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the CC, under which Article 99 of the CC, laying down criminal liability for genocide, also had a retroactive effect on such actions that were considered to constitute genocide only under national law (directed against persons belonging to social or political groups), was ruled to be in conflict with the Constitution. 66 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

In this case at law, the Constitutional Court construed the relation between the norms of international law that define international crimes and the norms of national law that regulate criminal liability for the said crimes, by disclosing, in more detail, certain aspects of the constitutional principle of respect for international law, it also reviewed the issues that are important for the statehood of Lithuania (the continuity of the Republic of Lithuania, the legal status of the institutions and participants of the Lithuanian resistance against the Soviet occupation), and provided guidelines on the assessment of the international crimes committed by the Soviet occupation regime. The constitutional principle of respect for international law. In the Constitutional Court’s ruling, it was held that, under Paragraph 1 of Article 135 of the Constitution, the Republic of Lithuania is obliged to follow the universally recognised principles and norms of international law. The said provision consolidates the constitutional principle of respect for international law, i.e. the principle pacta sunt servanda, which means the imperative of fulfilling, in good faith, the obligations that are assumed by the Republic of Lithuania under international law, inter alia, international treaties, and that also arise under the universally recognised norms of international law (general international law), among other things, the jus cogens norms, that prohibit international crimes and are consolidated in international treaties ratified by the Seimas, which, as stipulated in Paragraph 3 of Article 138 of the Constitution, are a constituent part of the legal system of the Republic of Lithuania. Respect for international law is an inseparable part of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, the essence of which is the rule of law. This constitutional principle also embodies the striving for an open, just, and harmonious civil society and a state under the rule of law, as consolidated in the Preamble to the Constitution. The Constitutional Court emphasised that respect for international law is also linked to the striving for an open, just, and harmonious civil society, which implies the openness for universal democratic values and integration into the international community founded on these values. When construing Paragraph 1 of Article 135 and Paragraph 3 of Article 138 of the Constitution, as early as in its ruling of 9 December 1998, the Constitutional Court held that the State of Lithuania, recognising the principles and norms of international law, may not apply substantially different standards to the residents of this country; holding that it is a member of the international community possessing equal rights, the State of Lithuania, of its own free will, adopts and recognises these principles and norms, the customs of the international community, and naturally integrates itself into the world culture and becomes its natural part. In view of such a concept of respect for international law, the Constitutional Court formulated the principle of international law as a minimum constitutional standard for the protection of human rights: as prescribed in Paragraph 1 of Article 135 of the Constitution, to fulfil, in good faith, its international obligations arising under the universally recognised norms of international law, the criminal laws of the Republic of Lithuania that are related to liability for international crimes, including genocide, may not establish any such standards that would be lower than those established under the universally recognised 67 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

norms of international law; disregard for the said requirement would be incompatible with the striving for an open, just, and harmonious civil society and a state under the rule of law, as consolidated in the Preamble to the Constitution and expressed through the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. The Constitutional Court also specified the methods for removing incompatibilities, stemming from the Constitution, between the Constitution and international treaties ratified by the Seimas. It reiterated the doctrinal provisions formulated before that Paragraph 3 of Article 138 of the Constitution, under which international treaties ratified by the Seimas are a constituent part of the legal system of the Republic of Lithuania, should be construed in the light of the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution; the principle of respect for international law consolidated in the Constitution implies that in those cases where a national legal act (with the exception of the Constitution itself) establishes such legal regulation that competes with the one established in an international treaty, the international treaty must be applied; in those cases where the legal regulation consolidated in an international treaty that has been ratified by the Seimas and has entered into force competes with the legal regulation established in the Constitution, the provisions of such an international treaty have no priority in terms of application since a fact underlying the legal system of the Republic of Lithuania is that any law or other legal act as well as any international treaties may not be in conflict with the Constitution. In view of this fact, the Constitutional Court noted that, in the event of the incompatibility between an international treaty and the provisions of the Constitution, the duty arises, under Paragraph 1 of Article 135 of the Constitution, for the Republic of Lithuania to remove the said incompatibility, either by renouncing appropriate international obligations established under the international treaty in the manner prescribed by norms of international law or by making appropriate amendments to the Constitution. The continuity and identity of the State of Lithuania. Since the aforesaid case was related to the classification of the crimes committed by the Soviet occupation regime against the residents of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court had to review the issues of the continuity and identity of the State of Lithuania, its resistance against the occupation, and the legal status of the participants of the resistance, which all affect the said classification. The Constitutional Court recalled that the Act of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania “On the Re-establishment of the Independent State of Lithuania” of 11 March 1990 provided that the execution of the sovereign powers of the State of Lithuania, abolished by foreign forces in 1940, was re-established, and henceforth Lithuania was again an independent state. The Constitutional Court emphasised that the said provisions of the Act of 11 March 1990 made it clear that the restoration of the independence of the State of Lithuania had been grounded on the continuity of the State of Lithuania, which meant that the aggression that the USSR had begun against the Republic of Lithuania on 15 June 1940, the occupation and annexation of the territory of the Republic of Lithuania had abolished neither the State of Lithuania as a subject of international law nor its sovereign powers; due to the occupation of the territory of Lithuania and demolition of its state institutions, the implementation of the sovereign 68 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

powers of the State of Lithuania, its international rights, and obligations had been suspended; the annexation of the territory of the Republic of Lithuania perpetrated by the USSR on 3 August 1940, as a continuation of the aggression, had been an act null and void, thus, from the viewpoint of international law, the territory of the Republic of Lithuania had been occupied by another state and it had never been a legal part of the USSR. The Constitutional Court also emphasised that the provisions “the 16 February 1918 Act of Independence of the Council of Lithuania and the 15 May 1920 Resolution of the Constituent Seimas on the re-established democratic State of Lithuania have never lost their legal force and comprise the constitutional foundation of the State of Lithuania” of the Act of 11 March 1990 made it clear that not only the continuity of the State of Lithuania, but also the identity thereof was upheld: having restored its independence, the Republic of Lithuania, from the viewpoint of international and constitutional law, is a subject of law identical to the State of Lithuania against which the aggression of the USSR was perpetrated on 15 June 1940. The provisions of the Act of 11 March 1990 that the constitution of no other state is valid on the territory of the Republic of Lithuania made it clear that the introduction of the validity of the constitution of any other state (inter alia, the USSR), as well as the imposition of the duties established by such a constitution on citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, had been unlawful. The Constitutional Court noted that the continuity of the State of Lithuania gives rise to the continuity of citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania, which means that, from the viewpoint of international and Lithuanian constitutional law, the imposition of USSR citizenship upon citizens of the Republic of Lithuania in 1940, as a consequence of the aggression of the USSR, was an act null and void; thus, this act was not a legal ground to lose citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania; consequently, during the years of the Soviet occupation, citizens of the Republic of Lithuania (the persons who held citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania on 15 June 1940 and their children) were also not bound by the obligations that were related to USSR citizenship and unlawfully imposed on them. According to the universally recognised norms of international law, citizens of the Republic of Lithuania had an inalienable right to resist the aggression of another state; the organised armed resistance of citizens of the Republic of Lithuania against the Soviet occupation in 1944–1953 should be assessed as self-defence of the State of Lithuania. Consequently, in view of the fact that the aggression of the USSR was carried out against the Republic of Lithuania, also, in view of the continuity of the State of Lithuania and of citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania, the organised armed guerrilla forces should be regarded as the armed forces of the Republic of Lithuania that resisted the occupation, i.e., as volunteer corps of a belligerent country whose members have the status of a combatant. In this context, it should be noted that the service to the State of Lithuania was possible only in the structures of the organised armed resistance against the occupation, among other things, in the structures of the Movement of the Struggle for Freedom of Lithuania (the Council of which constituted the supreme political and military structure and the sole legal authority within the territory of occupied Lithuania). 69 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Guidelines on the assessment of the international crimes committed by the Soviet occupying totalitarian regime. Since the aforesaid case was related to the international crimes committed by the Soviet occupation regime in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court also had to review the international and historical context of the crimes committed by the said regime and to provide guidelines on their assessment. The Constitutional Court relied largely on the documents of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, firstly, on its Resolution 1481/2006 of 25 January 2006 on the need for international condemnation of crimes of totalitarian communist regimes, which not only condemned such crimes, but also gave their general definition. The said resolution noted that the totalitarian communist regimes have been “<…> without exception, characterised by massive violations of human rights. The violations have differed depending on the culture, country and the historical period and have included individual and collective assassinations and executions, death in concentration camps, starvation, deportations, torture, slave labour and other forms of mass physical terror, persecution on ethnic or religious grounds, violation of freedom of conscience, thought and expression, of freedom of the press, and also lack of political pluralism”. The same resolution also noted that the crimes of the totalitarian communist regimes “<...> were justified in the name of the class struggle theory and the principle of dictatorship of the proletariat. The interpretation of both principles legitimised the ‘elimination’ of people who were considered harmful to the construction of a new society and, as such, enemies of the totalitarian communist regimes”. The Constitutional Court drew attention to the fact that the report of 16 December 2005 made by the Political Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe regarding the draft of the aforesaid resolution noted that “[t]he important feature of communist crimes has been repression directed against whole categories of innocent people whose only ‘crime’ was being members of these categories. In this way, in the name of ideology, the regimes have murdered tens of millions of rich peasants (kulaks), nobles, bourgeois, Cossacks, Ukrainians and other groups.” The same report of 16 December 2005 made by the Political Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe also pointed out the following number of people killed by the communist regimes: the former USSR—20 million; China—65 million; Vietnam—1 million; North Korea—2 million; Cambodia—2 million; Eastern Europe (excluding the former Soviet Union with the territories occupied by it)—1 million. In addition, the Constitutional Court took note of Resolution No. 1723 (2010) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe of 23 April 2010 commemorating the victims of the Great Famine (Holodomor) in the former USSR, in which, inter alia, it was held that “[t]he totalitarian Stalinist regime in the former Soviet Union led to horrifying human rights violations which deprived millions of people of their right to life”; “[m]illions of innocent people in Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia and Ukraine, which were parts of the Soviet Union, lost their lives as a result of mass starvation caused by the cruel and deliberate actions and policies of the Soviet regime”; “[w]hile these events may have had particularities in various regions, the results were the same everywhere: millions of human lives were mercilessly 70 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

sacrificed to the fulfilment of the policies and plans of the Stalinist regime”; the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe “strongly condemns the cruel policies pursued by the Stalinist regime, which resulted in the death of millions of innocent people, as a crime against humanity” and “[i]t resolutely rejects any attempts to justify these deadly policies, by whatever purposes <...>”. In the light of all the above considerations, the Constitutional Court emphasised that crimes against humanity and war crimes are undoubtedly attributable to totalitarian communist regimes, inter alia, the Soviet Union, whilst the crimes committed against certain national or ethnic groups during a certain period might be considered to constitute genocide as defined according to the universally recognised norms of international law. The Constitutional Court formulated the following guidelines on the assessment of the international crimes committed by the Soviet occupation regime in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania: – in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania, the Soviet occupation regime perpetrated international crimes that could be qualified, according to the universally recognised norms of international law, as crimes against humanity (killing and extermination of civilians, deportation of residents, their imprisonment and persecution on political and national grounds, etc.) and war crimes (killing and deportation of persons protected under international humanitarian law, forced recruitment of residents of an occupied territory to the armed forces of an occupying state, etc.); – crimes against the residents of the Republic of Lithuania were a part of the targeted and systematic totalitarian policy pursued by the USSR: repressions against the residents of Lithuania sought to exterminate the basis of the civil nation of Lithuania, the former social and political structure of the State of Lithuania, they were directed against the most active political and social groups of the residents of the Republic of Lithuania. Thus, with consideration of the international legal and historical context—the ideology of the totalitarian communist regime of the USSR upon which the extermination of entire groups of people was grounded, the scale of repressions of the USSR against the residents of the Republic of Lithuania, which was a part of the targeted policy of the extermination of the basis of Lithuania’s civil nation and of the targeted policy of the treatment of Lithuanians as an “unreliable” nation—during a certain period (in 1941, when mass deportations of Lithuanians to the Soviet Union began and non-judicial executions of detained persons were carried out, and in 1944–1953, when mass repressions were carried out during the guerrilla war against the occupation of the Republic of Lithuania), the crimes perpetrated by the Soviet occupation regime, in case of the proof of the existence of a special purpose aimed at destroying, in whole or in part, any national, ethnic, racial or religious group, might be assessed as genocide as defined according to the universally recognised norms of international law; – in the course of the qualification of the actions against the participants of the resistance against the Soviet occupation as a political group, one should take into account the significance of this group for the entire respective national group (the Lithuanian nation) that is covered by the definition of genocide according to the universally recognised norms of international law; according to the universally 71 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

recognised norms of international law, the actions carried out during a certain period against certain political and social groups of the residents of the Republic of Lithuania might be considered to constitute genocide if such actions—provided this has been proved—were aimed at destroying the groups that represented a significant part of the Lithuanian nation and whose destruction had an impact on the survival of the entire Lithuanian nation; – in case of the absence of any proof of such an aim, in its turn it should not mean that respective persons should not be punished for their actions against the residents of Lithuania (for example, their killing, torturing, deportation, forced recruitment to the armed forces of an occupying state, persecution for political, national, or religious reasons) according to the laws of the Republic of Lithuania and universally recognised norms of international law; in view of concrete circumstances, one must assess whether those actions entail crimes against humanity or war crimes. Thus, impunity for the international crimes committed by the Soviet occupation regime must be sought to be avoided, regardless of the classification of the said crimes. The assessment of the definition of genocide and of the regulation of liability for genocide in the Criminal Code. When assessing the definition of genocide and the regulation of liability for genocide in the CC, the Constitutional Court applied the aforesaid principle of international law, as a minimum constitutional standard for the protection of human rights, under which the criminal laws of the Republic of Lithuania related to liability for international crimes, including genocide, may not establish any such standards that would be lower than those established under the universally recognised norms of international law. In order to disclose the said minimum constitutional standard, the Constitutional Court reviewed the provisions of international legal acts (the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the Statute of the Tribunal for Rwanda, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court), as well as the jurisprudence of international courts (the International Court of Justice of the United Nations, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda). First of all, the Constitutional Court provided the following definition of genocide according to the universally recognised norms of international law: – “genocide” means deliberate actions (for example, killing members of the protected group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of that group, deliberately creating the conditions of life for that group in order to intentionally bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within that group, forcibly transferring children of that group to another group) that are aimed at destroying, in whole or in part, any national, ethnic, racial, or religious group; the list of protected groups is exhaustive and it does not include any social and political groups; – the specific feature of the crime of genocide that makes this crime different from crimes against humanity is the special intent (dolus specialis) to destroy the protected group in whole or in part; 72 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

– when part of the protected group is targeted, that part must be significant enough for its destruction to have an impact on the group as a whole. It was also noted that, under the universally recognised norms of international law, actions may also be regarded as genocide if they are deliberate actions aimed at destroying certain social or political groups that constitute a significant part of a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group and the destruction of which would have an impact on the respective national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as a whole. The Constitutional Court noted that, under the universally recognised norms of international law, states are under the obligation to adopt national legislation establishing liability for genocide. In the practice of the states concerned, the said obligation may also be understood as certain discretion, while taking account of a concrete historical, political, social, and cultural context, to establish, in their national law, a broader definition of the crime of genocide than that established under the universally recognised norms of international law, among other things, as the possibility of including, within the respective national law, social and political groups in the definition of genocide. The Constitutional Court also noted that the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, a party to which the Republic of Lithuania is, and which are universal international treaties that consolidate the universally recognised norms of international law on the grounds of which international crimes are defined, do not preclude the possibility of establishing a broader definition of genocide. The Constitutional Court held that the Republic of Lithuania had availed itself of that opportunity by including social and political groups in the definition of genocide formulated in Article 99 of the CC; that had been determined by the concrete international legal and historical context—the international crimes committed by occupying totalitarian regimes, in particular, by the Soviet occupation regime, in the Republic of Lithuania. Other (national, ethnical, racial, and religious) protected groups referred to in Article 99 of the CC coincide with the protected groups as established in defining the crime of genocide under the universally recognised norms of international law, thus, when establishing the list of protected groups, the requirement, stemming from Paragraph 1 of Article 135 of the Constitution, that criminal laws relating to liability for international crimes must not establish any such standards that would be lower than those established under the universally recognised norms of international law, is implemented. Therefore, Article 99 of the CC was ruled not to be in conflict with the Constitution. When deciding whether the provision of Article 95 of the CC, under which no statute of limitations for delivering a judgment of conviction is applied to the crime of genocide, was not in conflict with the Constitution, the Constitutional Court also held that the universally recognised norms of international law (the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court) do not preclude from establishing, in national law, that no statute of limitations, including the statute of limitations for delivering a judgment of conviction, applies to the crime of genocide aimed, as defined under national law, against 73 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

social or political groups, i.e. groups not included in defining genocide under the universally recognised norms of international law. The Constitutional Court made a different assessment of the regulation, established in Paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the CC, to the effect that a person may be brought to trial under Article 99 of the CC for the actions aimed at physically destroying, in whole or in part, the persons belonging to any social or political group, where such actions had been committed prior to the time when liability for the genocide of persons belonging to any social or political group was established in the CC; such regulation was in conflict with Paragraph 4 of Article 31 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. When construing the provision “[p]unishment may be imposed or applied only on the grounds established by law” of Paragraph 4 of Article 31 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court noted that the said provision consolidates the principle of nulla poena sine lege, which means that no person may be punished for a deed that was not punishable by law at the time when it was committed. The universally recognised norms of international law permit an exception to the principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege, by providing for the retroactivity of the national laws establishing criminal liability for the crimes recognised under international law or the general principles of law; this exception does not apply to the other crimes specified under national law. This is the only way of heeding the constitutional requirement that criminal laws relating to liability for international crimes must not establish any such standards that would be lower than those established under the universally recognised norms of international law. Thus, in view of the constitutional principle of respect for international law and the striving for an open, just, and harmonious civil society and a state under the rule of law, criminal laws may provide for an exception to the constitutional principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege, which would be applicable to crimes established under international law or the general principles of law, including the crime of genocide as defined under the universally recognised norms of international law (i.e., the crime of genocide directed exclusively against national, ethnical, racial, or religious groups).

4.3. Higher education

In the constitutional justice case in which the ruling of 10 November 2014 was adopted, the Constitutional Court investigated the compliance of the provisions of the Law on Science and Studies, which regulate the formation of the council of a school of higher education and the funding of studies, with the Constitution. Two impugned provisions (Paragraph 3 of Article 20, under which four or five members of the council of a school of higher education are appointed, in accordance with the procedure laid down by the senate (academic council) and the representation of students, upon the evaluation of the assessment of candidates carried out by the Council of Higher Education, and Paragraph 7 of Article 70, under which the period of the assessment of the results of the studies of a person whose studies are funded by the state does not exceed an academic year) of the law were ruled not to be in conflict with 74 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

the Constitution. The provision of Paragraph 7 of Article 70 of the aforesaid law, under which a person loses state funding for studies if the average results of their studies are more than 20 percentage points lower than the average results of the studies of students of the same year of studies, was ruled to be in conflict with the Constitution. Issues related to the governance structure of schools of higher education, among other things, the formation of the council of a school of higher education, as well as the state funding of studies at state schools of higher education, were also previously considered in the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence on more than one occasion (in the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 20 March 2008, its decisions of 28 October 2009 and 18 December 2009, its ruling of 22 December 2011, etc.). In this ruling, the Constitutional Court invoked the constitutional doctrine of autonomy of schools of higher education formulated in its previous acts, and also disclosed a number of new aspects of the said issues. The formation of the council of a school of higher education.As mentioned before, the Constitutional Court recognised that Paragraph 3 of Article 20 of the Law on Science and Studies, insofar as it provided that four out of nine or five out of eleven members of the council of a school of higher education are appointed, in accordance with the procedure laid down by the senate (academic council) and the representation of students, from among the persons who do not belong to the academic community of that school of higher education, upon the evaluation of the assessment of candidates carried out by the Council of Higher Education (an expert body on issues of higher education development), was not in conflict with the Constitution. In the ruling, it was noted that the autonomy of schools of higher education guaranteed in Paragraph 3 of Article 40 of the Constitution determines the self-governance of the academic community (scientific community) of these schools, which is also implemented through the governance institutions of a particular school of higher education which represent the said community of that school. The self-governance of the academic community should be related to the democratic principles of governance, which include the direct participation of the said community in, and its decisive influence on, the formation of the governance institutions of the school of higher education that are vested with the greatest powers. The model of the governance structure of schools of higher education is chosen by the legislature, and not by schools of higher education themselves. While not denying the autonomy of schools of higher education and their self-governance based on the democratic The collection of the selected principles of governance, the legislature may establish various models acts of the Constitutional Court on higher education issues of the governance structure of schools of higher education, for instance, (“Higher Education”, 2013) to provide for one institution directly representing the academic 75 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

community and implementing the self-governance of that community, which would be empowered to decide on all the most important questions relating to both the academic and institutional autonomy of the school of higher education, or several such institutions, which would decide on the most important governance questions relating to academic autonomy and institutional autonomy separately, as well as an institution of control and supervision, which would be composed not exclusively of, or not of, members of the academic community, and which in the course of adopting decisions of governance of the school of higher education could perform advisory functions as well. Other models of the governance structure of schools of higher education are also possible; however, no matter what model the legislature chooses, it must heed the requirements arising out of the principle of autonomy of schools of higher education: the self-governance of schools of higher education must be implemented through the institutions of schools of higher education, the procedure for forming which may not be the one that would not enable the academic community of the school of higher education to influence decisions on administration of the school of higher education; the governance institutions of schools of higher education that discharge the self-governance functions of the school of higher education must be formed by schools of higher education themselves, after they establish, on the bases of laws, the ways and procedure of forming these institutions in their by-laws or statutes. It was also noted that, while combining the principles of autonomy of schools of higher education, and those of their responsibility and accountability to society, it is possible to establish by law that part of members of the collective governance institutions of schools of higher education that discharge the self-governance functions of schools of higher education are appointed, in accordance with the procedure established by a school of higher education, from among the persons who do not belong to the academic community of that school of higher education. When assessing the compliance of the impugned provision of the law, under which four or five members of the council of a school of higher education are appointed from among the persons who do not belong to the academic community of that school of higher education, with the Constitution, the Constitutional Court held that, under the said provision, the academic community of a state school of higher education has a decisive influence on the formation of the council of this school of higher education as a collective body of governance: it may directly appoint five out of nine or six out of eleven members of the council; the other, respectively, four or five members of the council who do not belong to the academic community of that school of higher education are appointed in accordance with the procedure laid down by the institutions representing this community—the senate (academic council) and the representation of students. Thus, the members of the council of a state school of higher education are appointed by this school of higher education itself, and the members of the academic community of this school comprise the majority of the council. In addition, under the law, the council, when adopting strategic and other most important decisions on the governance of the school of higher education, normally has to assess proposals submitted by the senate (academic council)—the collective body of governance representing the academic community. In the light of the foregoing, the Constitutional 76 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

Court judged the impugned provision of the law to be in line with the requirements, arising out of the constitutional principle of autonomy of schools of higher education, that schools of higher education themselves form the governance institutions that discharge the self-governance functions of a school of higher education and that the academic community of a school of higher education determines decisions on managing the affairs of the school of higher education. In the Constitutional Court’s ruling, it was also held that the procedure under which the evaluation of the assessment of candidates to members of the council of a school of higher education is carried out by the Council of Higher Education, may be laid down by the institutions representing the community of the school of higher education: the senate (academic council) and the representation of students. Attention was also drawn to the fact that the results of the assessment of candidates carried out by the Council of Higher Education are not unconditionally binding on the subjects who appoint members of the council of the school of higher education. Thus, according to the Constitutional Court, the legal regulation under which four or five members of the council of the school of higher education are selected and appointed upon the evaluation of the assessment of candidates carried out by the Council of Higher Education does not create any preconditions for restricting the right of the community of the school of higher education to decide as to which persons may properly represent it in the governance institutions of the school of higher education and does not create any conditions for the Government to meddle with the sphere of autonomy of schools of higher education, to unreasonably interfere with the governance of schools of higher education, and to deny the self-governance of the academic community of schools of higher education. The time period of the assessment of the learning results of persons whose studies are funded by the state. As mentioned before, the provision of Paragraph 7 of Article 70 of the Law on Science and Studies, under which the time period of the assessment of the learning results of a person whose studies are funded by the state (in order to establish whether their studies should further be funded) is the period of academic studying established by a school of higher education, but not exceeding an academic year, was also ruled not to be in conflict with the Constitution. The Constitutional Court noted that the assessment of the results of learning of citizens who study at state schools of higher education subsequent to the requisition by the state (i.e. in order to meet the demand of specialists of respective areas (fields)) must be conducted on a regular basis, i.e. after each period of academic learning following which the main check of the knowledge of the studied subjects is conducted. The Constitutional Court drew attention to the fact that, under Paragraph 3 of Article 40 of the Constitution, schools of higher education enjoy a special legal status—they are guaranteed autonomy; the autonomy of a school of higher education is understood as the right to independently establish its procedure for its scientific activities and studies as well as its study programmes, and consolidate them in its by-laws or statute, and to decide other issues related thereto; this right of schools of higher education must be heeded when establishing the period of academic learning after which the main check of the knowledge of the subjects studied by the persons who study at schools of higher education is carried out and one decides whether the results of the learning of the citizens, who study at schools of higher education 77 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

subsequent to the requisition by the state, meet the criteria of good learning established by law. While heeding the said right, a specific period after which one decides whether the results of the learning of students meet the criteria of good learning must be established by taking account of the specific character of the study process, the study forms, the study programmes organised in a school of higher education, the specific character of the study subjects, and the possibility of assessing the results of the entire studies of students of the same year of studies during a respective period. According to the Constitutional Court, an academic year is the longest possible period allowed to be established by law and by means of acts of schools of higher education which would adhere to the said constitutional requirements. The funding of the studies of persons who are good at their studies. By means of this ruling, the Constitutional Court also recognised that the provision of Paragraph 7 of Article 70 of the Law on Science and Studies, under which a person loses state funding for studies if the average results of their studies are more than 20 percentage points lower than the average results of the studies of students of the same year of studies, was in conflict with the Constitution. The ruling recalled that the criteria enabling one to establish which persons can be said to demonstrate good academic results and which, consequently, as prescribed by the Constitution, have the right that their education at state schools of higher education be financed by the state, must be known in advance, they must be clear, objective, and transparent, they cannot deviate from the constitutional concept of good learning, as well as from such concept of good learning that arises out of the social experience of society and does not deny the meaning of the word “good” that is understood by everyone and is generally recognised. The Constitutional Court held that the average results of the studies of students of the same year of studies may not necessarily conform to the generally recognised meaning of the word “good”, thus, certainly, the average results of studies that are not more than 20 percentage points lower may not necessarily conform to such a meaning all the more so, or, provided that the average results of studies conformed to the generally recognised meaning of the word “good”, the average results of studies that are not more than 20 percentage points lower may not necessarily conform to such a meaning. For example, if the average results of the studies of students were “eight” according to a 10-point scale of assessment, then, under the impugned provision of the law, the studies of a concrete person would further be funded by the state if the average results of their studies during a respective period were 6.4 points and higher. In case the average results of the studies of students were “seven” according to a 10-point scale of assessment, then, the studies of a concrete person would further be funded by the state if their average results were 5.6 points and higher. It is clear that the learning of a person, whose average results of studies are 6.4, let alone 5.6, according to a 10-point scale of assessment, is not in line with the concept of good learning that arises out of the social experience of society and the generally recognised meaning of the word “good”. Thus, the impugned provision of the law created the preconditions for the state funding of the studies of such citizens, studying at state schools of higher education, whose learning did not conform to the 78 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

meaning of the word “good”. Consequently, state funds could be used in a constitutionally unreasoned manner and in a manner unfair from the social point of view, whilst this is not in line with the provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the Constitution that citizens who are good at their studies are guaranteed education at state schools of higher education free of charge, and not in line with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

4.4. Social rights

The Constitution consolidates a number of social rights. This determines certain duties of the state in the area of social policies. The Constitutional Court has held on more than one occasion that, under the Constitution, the State of Lithuania is a socially oriented state and, thus, it is under constitutional obligation and it must undertake the burden of fulfilling certain obligations. The constitutional principle of social solidarity means that the burden of fulfilling certain obligations to a certain extent must also be distributed among members of society; however, such distribution must be constitutionally reasoned, it cannot be disproportionate, it cannot deny the social orientation of the state and the obligations to the state that stem from the Constitution. The Constitutional Court receives a relatively large number of petitions which raise questions related to the ensuring of social rights. The right of a person to social security is one of the rights that have been construed in the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence in the most exhaustive manner. The fact that new constitutional disputes relating to this and other social rights arise continuously shows that the said rights are of special relevance. Last year, the Constitutional Court also considered several cases related to various aspects of the right to social security (the right to an old age pension, the right to social assistance in the event of unemployment and widowhood), as well as the right to healthcare. In some cases, the social obligations of the state are also closely related to the ensuring of the economic rights of a person such as the right to receive fair pay for work. Taking such linkages into account, this section of the report presents, in conjunction with the Constitutional Court’s acts concerning social rights, the acts in which the problems of the protection of the said economic right have been analysed. In 2014, eight acts concerning social and economic rights were adopted (they comprise one third of all the acts in which petitions were considered in substance); half of them addressed issues related to limitations on the said rights in order to balance the state budget and the budget of the State Social Insurance Fund in the event of the occurrence of a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state due to the economic crisis. 4.4.1. The reduction of the size of the pension contributions accumulated in pension funds One of such cases at law assessed the constitutionality of the reduction (which had resulted from a difficult economic and financial situation in the state), in 2012, of the contributions that are designated for the accumulation of future old age pensions and transferred to pension funds. By means of its ruling 79 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

of 19 December of 2014 adopted in this case, the Constitutional Court recognised that Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Law on Reform of the Pension System, insofar as it established, in 2012, the reduced (from 2 to 1.5 percent of the income of the participants of the pension accumulation system) size of the cumulative pension contribution, had not been in conflict with the Constitution. In this ruling, the Constitutional Court invoked the provisions of its ruling of 29 June 2012, which was adopted in a similar constitutional justice case concerning the reduction, in 2009–2011, of the size of the cumulative pension contribution. In the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 19 December 2014, it was noted that the right to demand that the pensionary maintenance payments that are established in the Constitution and laws that are not in conflict with the Constitution be paid arises out of Article 52 of the Constitution, whilst the property aspects of this right are defended under Article 23 thereof. After the legislature chooses such a model of the system of old age pensions where the funds (or part thereof) designated for old age pensions are accumulated in special pension funds, the accumulated funds may not be equated with the cumulative pension itself (with payable payments), the size of which also depends upon the results of the economic activity (inter alia, investment) of the economic subjects administering pension funds; only the right of a person to the funds already accumulated in these funds should be related to the protection of the rights of their ownership; the property aspects of this right are defended under Article 23 of the Constitution. The legislature, having established that part of the funds designated for old age pensions is transferred to special pension funds in order to accumulate future old age pensions, in case of necessity (for example, in the event of an economic crisis, etc.), when the economic and financial situation in the state changes so that the collection of the funds necessary to pay old age pensions is not ensured from the income of persons working at that time, has the powers to decide to temporarily reduce part (transferred to special pension funds and designated for the accumulation of future old age pensions) of the funds that are collected from the said income, however, while doing so, the legislature must follow the imperatives arising out of the Constitution (the principles of justice, reasonableness, proportionality, the equality of rights, the protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, legal security, and social solidarity), it must not deny the essence of such a cumulative pension itself, and must not establish such a scale of the reduction that would not be necessary in order to achieve the aforementioned objectives. Persons who have acquired certain rights according to the law have the right to reasonably expect that these rights will be maintained and implemented for the established period of time. If the legislature, in case of necessity (for example, in the event of an economic crisis), decides to reduce the part of the funds, collected from the income of working persons, that is transferred to special pension funds and designated for the accumulation of future old age pensions, the legislature not only cannot deny the essence of such a cumulative pension, but it must also seek to achieve that persons who have accumulated this pension would not incur any significant losses, and, in case such losses are unavoidable, it must, while taking account of the financial and economic possibilities of the state, establish just compensation for such losses; various ways of such compensation may be chosen. 80 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

The Constitutional Court held that the reduction, in 2012, of the size of the cumulative pension contribution had resulted from the economic and financial situation in the state, which, despite various other measures applied in 2009–2011 in order to overcome the economic crisis, had been still so difficult that the collection of the funds necessary to pay state social insurance contributions, including old age pensions, from the income of persons working at that time had not been ensured. According to the Constitutional Court, the reduction of the size of future cumulative pension contributions rather than the size of the contributions already transferred to pension accounts in pension accumulation companies or the amount of the assets acquired from the funds of the said contributions and of the investment income (costs) received from the said assets (funds), did not violate the constitutional principle of the protection of the right of ownership. The constitutional right to an old age pension and the constitutional principle of the protection of legitimate expectations were not violated as well since compensation for the cumulative pension contributions reduced in 2012 was established in 2013 (the size of 0.5 percent of income higher than that established prior to the reduction of the cumulative pension contribution); in addition, the obligation, established by the legislature, for the Government, after it states that the extreme situation in the state is over, to submit draft laws on increasing the rate of the cumulative pension contribution to the Seimas, was in force; the said obligation was construed by the Constitutional Court, in its ruling of 29 June 2012, as the obligation of the legislature itself to increase the size of cumulative pension contributions for all the participants of the pension accumulation system and as the precondition for compensating for the reduced contributions. The Constitutional Court also noted that no law guarantees a certain size of a future cumulative pension payment, and when the size of the cumulative pension contribution is reduced, the part of the contribution designated for the state social insurance old age pension increases proportionately. 4.4.2. The reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries of prosecutors and some other state officials Another ruling in which the Constitutional Court assessed the compliance of laws, related to the economic crisis, with the Constitution was adopted in the case subsequent to the 21 petitions of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court concerning the reduction of the work remuneration of prosecutors and some other state officials. The Constitutional Court’s ruling of 22 December 2014 recognised that the legal regulation that had been consolidated in the Law on the Work Pay of State Politicians and State Officials and in laws amending it and that, in the event of the occurrence of a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state, had established the disproportionately reduced coefficients of the positional salaries of the said officials, had been in conflict with the Constitution. When considering this constitutional justice case, the Constitutional Court invoked the provisions of its previous rulings, including its ruling of 1 July 2013 concerning the constitutionality of the reduction of the remuneration of state servants and judges, and also invoked the constitutional requirements (disclosed in the said provisions) that are applied to the legal regulation which is established by the 81 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

legislature and by means of which the remuneration of persons who are paid for their work from the funds of the state budget or the municipal budget is reduced due to the economic crisis. In the Constitutional Court’s ruling, it was noted that the legislature may reduce remuneration to various persons if it is necessary to ensure the vital interests of society and the state and to protect other constitutional values; however, in such cases as well, the legislature must keep a balance between the rights and legitimate interests of persons with regard to whom the less favourable legal regulation governing remuneration is established and the interests of society and the state, i.e., heed must be paid, among other things, to the requirements for the principle of proportionality. The Constitutional Court noted that, after reducing the basic size of positional salary (remuneration) as early as from 1 August 2009, the remuneration of the persons, who are paid for their work from the funds of the state budget or the municipal budget, had been reduced to the same extent, if assessed in percentage terms, and for the same period of time. Meanwhile, upon the application, by means of the legal regulation impugned in this case, of an additional measure of reducing the remuneration of prosecutors and some other officials, i.e. upon the application of the reduction of the coefficients of positional salaries, the coefficients of the positional salaries of some state officials had been reduced in a disproportionate manner: the proportions of the sizes of their remuneration, which had been established in the period prior to the occurrence of the particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state, had been violated, and the size of the remuneration of a prosecutor of high qualification who performs a complex job that requires extensive experience and responsibility had been approximated to the size of the remuneration of a person of lower qualification who performs a less complex job. In addition, when the legal regulation that had reduced the coefficients of the positional salaries of state officials had been in force, a certain group of the said officials had been singled out in respect of which the said coefficient had not only been increased, but it had also been higher than that established prior to the reduction of the coefficients of positional salaries. An additional measure of reducing work remuneration had no longer been applied to the said state officials, even though the legal regulation that had reduced the coefficients of the positional salaries of state officials had still been in force; that had contributed to the distortion of the proportions of the work remuneration of state officials that had existed prior to the reduction of the coefficients of positional salaries. In the light of the provisions of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 1 July 2013, in the ruling of 22 December 2014, it was also noted that, after the Constitutional Court rules the legal regulation concerning the disproportionate reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries of prosecutors and some other state officials to be in conflict with the Constitution, the legislature must establish a mechanism of compensation for the losses incurred by persons, i.e. a procedure on the grounds of which the state would compensate, within a reasonable time, for the said losses in a fair manner—to the extent the incurred losses were disproportionate. The Constitutional Court also recalled its position set forth in its decision of 16 April 2014 that the legislature may postpone the establishment and/or implementation of the specified mechanism 82 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

of compensation for a reasonable time that should be established after the assessment of the existing economic and financial situation in the state, in the light of the consequences of an extreme situation and the capabilities of the state, including various obligations assumed by the state, which, inter alia, are related to financial discipline, thus, also to the imperative of balancing the revenue and expenditure of the state budget. 4.4.3. Compensation for the losses incurred due to the reduction of old age pensions Last year, the Constitutional Court also adopted two decisions in which it construed the provisions of its rulings in relation to compensation for the old age pensions reduced due to the economic crisis and compensation for the disproportionately reduced remuneration. In both cases, the petitioners that submitted their petitions requesting the construction of the Constitutional Court’s rulings were uncertain whether the establishment and/or implementation of a relevant compensation mechanism could be postponed, also whether only the legislature had the powers to establish when and how the incurred losses had to be compensated for and whether the right to compensation for the said losses could be implemented under judicial procedure as well. In the first of the said decisions—in its decision of 7 March 2014—the Constitutional Court construed the provisions of its ruling of 6 February 2012, under which, while seeking to ensure that the losses incurred due to the reduction of old age pensions would be compensated for in a fair manner and within a reasonable time after the extreme situation is over, the legislature must, without unreasonable delay, establish, by means of a law, the essential elements (grounds, sizes, etc.) of the said compensation, on the basis of which one should prepare the procedure for compensation for the reduced pensions. The Constitutional Court construed that the said provisions mean that: – after the extreme situation is over in the state and after preconditions arise for assessing, according economic indicators (rates of economic growth and funds accumulated by the state), the respective capabilities of the state, fair compensation for the losses incurred due to the reduction (also by means of the provisions of the law ruled in conflict with the Constitution) of old age pensions must be ensured for all persons; this can only be properly ensured on the basis of the sizes, terms, and other essential elements of the said compensation that are established by the legislature; – the legislature, when it establishes a mechanism for compensation for the reduced old age pensions (among other things, the starting date of the payment of compensation and a reasonable period of time during which losses will be compensated for), must take account of the consequences of an extreme situation and the capabilities of the state, including various obligations assumed by the state, which, among other things, are related to financial discipline (thus, also to the imperative of balancing the revenue and expenditure of the state budget). In the Constitutional Court’s decision, account was also taken of the fact that fair compensation for the losses incurred must be ensured depending on whether the provisions of the law, by means of which old age pensions had been reduced, were ruled in conflict with the Constitution: the losses incurred 83 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

after reducing old age pensions by means of the provisions that were in conflict with the Constitution must fully be compensated for; the losses incurred after reducing the said pensions by means of the provisions that were not in conflict with the Constitution must be compensated for, according to the capabilities of the state, in a fair manner, but not necessarily in full. 4.4.4. Compensation for the losses incurred due to the disproportionate reduction of the remuneration of state servants and judges The Constitutional Court’s decision of 16 April 2014 construed the provisions of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 1 July 2013, under which, after the Constitutional Court has ruled the legal provisions that laid down the disproportionate extent of the reduction of the remuneration of the persons who are paid for their work from the funds of the state budget or the municipal budget to be in conflict with the Constitution, a duty stems for the legislature to establish, without unreasonable delay, a mechanism of compensation for the losses incurred by those persons, i.e. a procedure, according to which the state will compensate, within a reasonable time (in view, among other things, of the economic and financial situation of the state), for such losses in a fair manner—to the extent the incurred losses were disproportionate. The powers of the legislature to postpone the establishment (implementation) of a compensation mechanism. The Constitutional Court construed that the legislature, while following the constitutional principle of responsible governance, may postpone the establishment and/or implementation of the mechanism of compensation for the losses incurred due to the disproportionate reduction of remuneration for a reasonable time that should be determined in view of the assessment of the existing economic and financial situation in the state and in the light of the consequences of an extreme situation and the capabilities of the state, including various obligations assumed by the state, among other things, those related to financial discipline (thus, also to the imperative of balancing the revenue and expenditure of the state budget). In the decision, it was noted that, under the Constitution, the state budget must be realistic and the revenue and expenditure provided for therein must be grounded upon the assessment of the needs and possibilities of society and the state. The Government, in the course of the preparation of the draft budget of the state, must, and the Seimas, in the course of the consideration and approval of the state budget, must take into consideration state functions, the existing economic and social situation, the needs and possibilities of society and the state, the available and expected financial resources and state obligations (also, the international ones), as well as other important factors. Under the Constitution, the legislature, when passing a law or other legal act, the implementation of which requires funds, must provide for the funds necessary for its implementation; the legislature may not create any such legal situation where, after the passing of a law or other legal act, the implementation of which requires funds, such funds are not allocated or the allocation thereof is not sufficient. In the course of deliberating and approving the state budget for the next year, a duty stems for the legislature to reassess the actual economic and financial 84 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

situation in the state and to decide whether the said situation is still a particularly grave one, whether the collection of the state budget revenue is still disordered to the extent that, due to this, the state is unable to perform the obligations undertaken by it. Thus, the legislature may postpone the establishment and/or implementation of a compensation mechanism for a reasonable time; however, society must be presented with concrete criteria upon which the assessment of the economic and financial situation of the state, determining the said postponement, is based. When an extreme situation in the state is over, the legislature must immediately establish a compensation mechanism by means of passing a law so that the legitimate expectations of the persons who incurred these losses would be ensured. The implementation of the right to compensation for the losses incurred. In the Constitutional Court’s decision, it was also construed that the right of the persons, who incurred losses due to the disproportionate reduction of remuneration, to compensation for the said losses should be implemented in accordance with a mechanism established by the legislature. In case the legislature unreasonably delays its establishment or if an unfair mechanism is established (from the point of view of the terms and/or amounts of the payment of compensation), the persons who incurred these losses may defend their violated rights under judicial procedure. When supporting the said construction, the Constitutional Court noted that the legislature, having the duty to establish a compensation mechanism, must assess which of the losses incurred were disproportionate. Until the legislature, without violating the requirement to establish, without unreasonable delay, the mechanism of compensation for the said losses, has not fulfilled its duty yet, it is not clear to what extent these losses must be fairly compensated for so that the requirement for compensation for the disproportionately reduced amount of remuneration would be met, and from when, in what portions, and during how much time in reality (upon the assessment of the economic and financial situation in the state and in view of the obligations assumed by the state) it is possible to compensate for the aforesaid losses. However, in case the legislature unreasonably delays the establishment of a compensation mechanism or establishes an unfair compensation mechanism, the violated rights may be defended under judicial procedure. 4.4.5. The method of paying unemployment insurance payments The Constitutional Court’s ruling of 14 February 2014 recognised that Item 39 of the Regulations on Unemployment Social Insurance Payments, as approved by government resolution No. 1656 of 24 December 2004, insofar as, after establishing that an unemployment insurance payment is transferred to the indicated personal account held by the payment recipient in a credit establishment within the territory of the Republic of Lithuania, the said item did not provide for any other methods of paying the said payments to their recipients (for example, in cash), had not been in conflict with the Constitution. The Constitutional Court noted that, under the Constitution, Article 52 thereof, the legislature must establish the legal regulation that would ensure that persons who have, due to certain reasons, lost their 85 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

job would receive adequate social assistance; sufficient measures for the implementation of the right to social assistance in the event of unemployment must also be established. The legal regulation governing social assistance in the event of unemployment must, among other things, create preconditions for all the members of society who have, due to certain reasons, lost their job to take care of their own welfare by themselves rather than to rely solely on the social security guaranteed by the state. It was also noted that, under the Constitution, the legislature, having consolidated, by means of a law, the legal regulation governing the relations of social assistance in the event of unemployment, including the grounds and conditions for awarding the said assistance, may commission another subject (thus, the Government as well) to establish, by means of a substatutory legal act and on the grounds of a law, the procedure for awarding and paying the said assistance. When establishing, by means of a substatutory legal act (thus, a government resolution as well), a certain procedure for paying a respective payment, no preconditions for the disproportionate burdening of the implementation of the right to receive social assistance in the event of unemployment may be created. According to the Constitutional Court, the procedure for paying unemployment insurance payments, including the method of paying such payments, was consolidated in the aforesaid Regulations with a view to implementing the relevant commissioning for the Government as formulated by the legislature. Thus, the Government enjoyed the powers to establish the procedure for the implementation of the legal regulation governing the paying of unemployment insurance payments as consolidated in the law. When assessing whether the Government could consolidate the aforesaid method of paying unemployment insurance payments as the only method, the Constitutional Court noted that the Government, while implementing the powers conferred on it by the legislature and after taking into account the specific character of the implementation of the right to unemployment insurance payments (in consideration of a subject implementing that right and that subject’s possibilities of taking active measures to implement that right), had been allowed not only to establish concrete methods of paying unemployment insurance payments, but also to choose whether unemployment insurance payments could be paid by means of one or several methods. The impugned legal regulation ensured that a person who had, due to certain reasons, lost their job would receive an unemployment insurance payment awarded to them and it did not create any preconditions for the disproportionate burdening of the implementation of the right to receive social assistance in the event of unemployment. In view of the fact that, by means of its ruling of 31 October 2012, the Constitutional Court ruled the legal regulation that had provided for the only method of paying sickness benefits (transfer to the recipient’s account) to be in conflict with the Constitution, it was noted, in its ruling of 14 February 2014, that, in its specific character, the implementation of the right to an unemployment insurance payment (in consideration of a subject implementing that right and that subject’s possibilities of taking active measures to implement that right) differed in substance from the implementation of the right to a sickness benefit; therefore, the Constitutional Court’s legal position (ratio decidendi) set forth in its ruling of 31 October 2012 could not be invoked in this case. 86 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

4.4.6. The allocation of payments from the Guarantee Fund for employees of insolvent enterprises By means of its ruling of 14 April 2014, the Constitutional Court ruled Paragraph 12 of Article 5 of the Law on the Guarantee Fund, insofar as it had established that payments from the funds of the Guarantee Fund were not allocated to the employees who had concluded an employment contract with an insolvent enterprise after the day that the creditor (creditors) had notified the enterprise of their intention to apply to a court for the institution of bankruptcy proceedings, to be in conflict with the Constitution. According to the Law on the Guarantee Fund, the funds from the Guarantee Fund are allocated for the payments related to employment relations, where those payments are paid for the outstanding claims that an employer (enterprise), due to their insolvency, are unable to pay to their employees. The Constitutional Court noted that the constitutional principle of proportionality—one of the elements of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law—means that the measures provided for in a law must be in line with the legitimate objectives that are important to society, that these measures must be necessary in order to reach the said objectives, and that these measures must not restrict the rights and freedoms of the person obviously more than necessary in order to reach the said objectives; this, among other things, implies the requirement that the legislature must establish the legal regulation that would create the preconditions for the sufficient individualisation of the limitations on the rights and freedoms of the person. The impugned provision of the Law on the Guarantee Fund had presumed that in all cases when an employee concluded an employment contract with an insolvent enterprise after the enterprise had been notified of the intention to apply to a court for the institution of bankruptcy proceedings, fake employment relations would be created for the sole purpose that employees would receive statutory payments from the funds of the Guarantee Fund. According to the Constitutional Court, such a presumption was ungrounded, since information about the insolvency of the enterprise and about the fact that it had received a notification of the intention of its creditor (creditors) to apply to a court for the institution of bankruptcy proceedings against it, was not public and persons who intended to conclude employment contracts with an insolvent enterprise could be unaware of such information. The Law on the Guarantee Fund and the Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy had never contained any prohibition for an insolvent enterprise against concluding employment contracts with new employees prior to the day of the passing of a court’s ruling to institute bankruptcy proceedings against the enterprise or prior to the day of the decision of the creditors’ meeting to carry out bankruptcy procedures by extrajudicial means. In view of this fact, in the Constitutional Court’s ruling, it was held that the impugned provision of the law had limited the right of a person, who was employed in good faith, to receive remuneration and other employment-related payments from the funds of the Guarantee Fund more than necessary in order to reach the objective—to prevent the right arising out of fake employment relations to demand 87 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

that the said payments be allocated. The said impugned provision had not created any preconditions for the sufficient individualisation of the limitations on the rights and freedoms of the person, and it was recognised that the said provision had been in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. In the ruling, it was also noted that the constitutional principle of the equality of persons before the law requires that the main rights and duties must be established by law equally to all; the said principle would be violated if certain persons or their groups were treated in a different manner, even though there are no differences of such a character and to such an extent between the said persons or their groups that their uneven treatment could be objectively justified. The Constitutional Court held that the situation of persons working in an insolvent enterprise under an employment contract and that of persons willing to conclude employment contracts with such an enterprise did not differ in substance (both groups could be unaware of the fact that the enterprise had received a notification of the intention of its creditor (creditors) to apply to a court for the institution of bankruptcy proceedings against it); however, law-established protection guarantees for those groups in cases of the insolvency of the employer and the ways of the protection of their rights had been different. In case an employment contract had been concluded prior to the aforesaid notification, the employee had to be allocated a payment in the size established by law from the funds of the Guarantee Fund, whilst if such a contract had been concluded as from the day of that notification, the employee could only file their claims related to employment relations against the insolvent enterprise under the procedure established by the Law on Enterprise Bankruptcy (the satisfaction of these claims was not guaranteed, because it depended on the funds of the enterprise in bankruptcy (the bankrupt enterprise)). Thus, according to the impugned provision of the law, an employee with whom an insolvent enterprise had concluded an employment contract after the notification of the intention to apply to a court for the institution of bankruptcy proceedings groundlessly found themselves in a worse situation than those with whom employment contracts had been concluded prior to the said notification. Since there had not been any differences in their character and extent between those employees that such uneven treatment could be objectively justified, the impugned provision of the Law on the Guarantee Fund was also ruled in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, in which the principle of the equality of persons before the law is consolidated. 4.4.7. The right to the state annuity of the widow(er) of the President of the Republic In its ruling of 3 July 2014, the Constitutional Court considered issues relating to the right to social assistance in the event of widowhood. This ruling recognised that Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Law on the State Annuity of the President of the Republic, which consolidates the right of the spouse of a deceased President of the Republic to receive the state annuity of the widow(er) of the President of the Republic, was in conflict with the Constitution. The Constitutional Court judged the said right to be a privilege on the grounds of the social status of the person. 88 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

In the ruling, it was emphasised that the constitutional status of the President as Head of State is individual and exceptional, and it differs from the legal status of all other citizens and state officials. This status includes, as its inseparable part, the constitutional social guarantees of the President of the Republic. The purpose of the guarantee of the financing of the President of the Republic and of his/ her residence, as consolidated in Article 90 of the Constitution, is to ensure that the President of the Republic is able to properly perform his/her duties and to properly represent the State of Lithuania. This constitutional guarantee means that the legislature has the duty to establish by law the financing necessary to perform the duties of the President of the Republic, which includes not only the financing of the activities and residence of an incumbent President of the Republic but also a proper financing, i.e., which is in line with the dignity and exceptional legal status of the President as Head of State, ensured for a former President of the Republic (and also the pension of the President of the Republic or another state payment corresponding to the essence and purpose of this pension). The Constitutional Court noted that the provisions of Article 90 of the Constitution do not regulate the legal status of the spouse of the President of the Republic or his/her material (social) maintenance after the death of the President of the Republic; however, social assistance for the spouse and other members of the family of the President of the Republic is guaranteed on the basis of other provisions of the Constitution, among other things, on the basis of social assistance provided for under Article 52 of the Constitution in the event of widowhood. Article 52 of the Constitution lays down the bases for pensionary maintenance and social assistance. One of the types of social assistance guaranteed by the state, as indicated in the said article of the Constitution, is social assistance in the event of widowhood, thus, the state is constitutionally obliged to provide such social assistance, i.e., to partly compensate for the family income lost by a person as a result of the death of his/her wife (husband). The Constitution does not lay down any grounds and conditions for providing the said assistance, nor any duration and amounts of this social assistance—this must be established by the legislature; however, the legislature is bound by the constitutional principles of social solidarity, social harmony, justice, reasonableness, proportionality, and the equality of rights, as well as by the capacities of the state and society. The Constitutional Court held that a deceased person’s social status alone is not in itself a constitutionally justified ground to ensure for the widow(er) of that person an essentially different social assistance of a much larger amount than that ensured for other widow(er)s. Thus, according to the Constitutional Court, such legal regulation—under which, on the grounds of the mere fact of becoming the widow(er) of the President of the Republic, who has the individual and exceptional legal status of Head of State, granting the right to the pension of the President of the Republic or a state payment corresponding to the essence and purpose of this pension, the said widow(er) is granted the right to receive social assistance that is, in substance, different from, much larger than, that ensured for the widow(er)s of other persons in the event of widowhood, i.e., the state annuity of the widow(er) of the President of the Republic—consolidates a privilege on the grounds of the social 89 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

status of the person. This legal regulation was ruled in conflict with Article 52 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. At the same time, the Constitutional Court drew attention to the fact that, under the Constitution, it is permitted to establish social assistance of different amounts in the event of widowhood. A ground for differentiating them would be the amount of family income lost by a person as a result of the death of his/her wife/husband. However, when establishing different amounts of the said assistance, the legislature must pay heed to the capacities of the state and society and not violate the constitutional imperatives of justice, reasonableness, proportionality, and social harmony. 4.4.8. The funding of healthcare services The Constitutional Court’s decision of 26 February 2014 construed the provisions of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 16 May 2013 in relation to the funding of healthcare services, which were formulated by the Constitutional Court while disclosing the concept of the obligation of the state to guarantee medical aid and services for a human being in the event of sickness, and the content of the guarantee of medical aid to citizens free of charge at state medical establishments, as consolidated in Paragraph 1 of Article 53 of the Constitution. The petitioner applied to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting the construction of these provisions in order to ensure that due note is taken of them in the law-making process. The funding of free-of-charge medical aid by state budget funds. The Constitutional Court construed that the Constitution consolidates the guarantee of vital (necessary to save and preserve the life of a human being but not equated with medical aid to save and preserve the health of a human being) free-of-charge, i.e. financed by state budget funds, medical aid to citizens. As regards a bigger scope of free-of-charge medical aid to citizens, compared to that implied by the said constitutional guarantee, the legislature may establish it only in cases where this corresponds with the financial capabilities of the state, i.e., where the state budget is not subject to burden mismatched with these capabilities, due to which the state would be unable to discharge its other functions or the discharging of such functions would be much more difficult. State budget funds must be allocated to pay for the services of free-of-charge vitally necessary medical aid rendered to citizens at state healthcare establishments as well as to ensure the continuous operation of the network of these establishments that is needed to render such aid. Where the said aid, due to certain circumstances, cannot be in a timely and quality manner rendered at state medical treatment establishments and, as a result, is rendered at other healthcare establishments, the costs incurred by the latter establishments for rendering such aid must similarly be covered by state budget funds. The funding of healthcare services by compulsory health insurance funds. After the legislature has chosen compulsory health insurance as one of the sources for the funding of healthcare, the funds of this insurance should be used to pay for only healthcare services not covered by free-of-charge medical 90 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

aid services. However, in order to ensure the adequate rendering of free-of-charge vitally necessary medical aid to citizens at state medical treatment establishments as well as the continuous operation of the network of these establishments that is needed to render such aid and, at the same time, the continuity of healthcare, high quality of services, and the rational and effective use of resources, it is necessary (expedient) that a certain extent of healthcare services related to the said aid be also rendered in these establishments and be paid for by compulsory health insurance funds. The said should be taken into account when healthcare services are financed by compulsory health insurance funds, among other things, when an institution authorised by the state concludes agreements with healthcare establishments (including state healthcare establishments) regarding the rendering of services financed by the funds of the said insurance. At the same time, it is not permitted to deny the obligation of the state to support the economic efforts and initiative that are useful to society and are based on private ownership, the freedom of fair competition between healthcare establishments, and other principles of Lithuania’s economy consolidated in the Constitution. In this context, the Constitutional Court also emphasised that the creation and maintenance of the required network of state healthcare establishments must be based on an actual demand for services rendered by these establishments and the responsible and rational distribution and use of limited public funds; it is necessary to continually assess whether the network of state healthcare establishments is optimal and whether the healthcare services rendered by these establishments meet the criteria of accessibility and quality. It was also construed that the legislature must, by means of a law, clearly specify the scope of personal healthcare services financed by compulsory health insurance funds and define clear criteria based on which it could be determined which healthcare services are paid for by the funds of the said insurance. In certain cases, by choice or at the request of a patient, a certain part of a healthcare service financed by compulsory health insurance funds could be paid for from private funding sources; however, such a legal regulation may not deny the requirement, stemming from Paragraph 1 of Article 53 of the Constitution, that sufficient accessibility to quality healthcare services be ensured. Having chosen compulsory health insurance based on the principle of social solidarity, the legislature has the discretion to establish the amount of compulsory health insurance contributions, which depends on certain income of a person, as well as to specify the types of income based on which the amount of the said contributions is calculated. The scope of healthcare services financed by compulsory health insurance funds that may be rendered to a person may not depend on the amount of the compulsory health insurance contributions paid by the person. The scope of healthcare services paid for by compulsory health insurance funds that may be rendered to a person is determined by the health needs of the insured, the amount of the accumulated compulsory health insurance funds, and the priorities in the funding of healthcare services. Compulsory health insurance funds must be distributed in a responsible and rational manner, and the constant control over the use of these funds must be ensured. 91 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

4.5. The independence of the Judiciary

The independence of judges and courts is one of the essential principles of a democratic state under the rule of law. This constitutional principle obliges the legislature to establish such guarantees of the independence of judges and courts that ensure the impartiality of courts in the course of adopting decisions and prevent interference with their activity in the course of administering justice. The independence of judges and courts is ensured by various means, including, among other things, the consolidation of the procedural independence of judges, the organisational autonomy and self-government of courts, and social (material) guarantees in line with the status of judges. In 2014, the questions in connection with the guarantees of the independence of the judiciary were considered in two cases. 4.5.1. The remuneration of judges In its ruling of 8 May 2014, the Constitutional Court recognised that the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges, insofar as it established the coefficients of the positional salary of justices of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, judges of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, and judges of regional administrative courts, was not in conflict with the Constitution. The petitioners maintained that the impugned legal regulation established lower remuneration for the judges of the aforementioned courts if compared to the remuneration that had been provided for by the government-established legal regulation valid from 1 April 1998 until 31 December 1999. The Constitutional Court held that the minimum sizes of the remuneration of the judges of the aforementioned courts, as calculated according to the legal regulation established in the Law on the Remuneration of Judges, were on average 5.6 percent lower than the corresponding sizes calculated according to the aforementioned legal regulation established by the Government. In the ruling, the Constitutional Court made it clear that the impugned legal regulation would, as a general rule, be regarded as in conflict with the Constitution if there were no exceptional circumstances justifying the establishment of that legal regulation. When deciding the case in question, the Constitutional Court The collection “The Indepen- reminded that the independence of the judiciary is a necessary dence of the Judiciary”, com- condition for the protection of human rights and freedoms, as well prising the acts of the Consti- as that it is not a privilege, but one of the most important duties tutional Court dealing with the constitutional principle of the of the judiciary, which derives from the right guaranteed by the independence of courts and Constitution to everyone, who believes that their rights or freedoms judges. Published in 2014 92 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

have been violated, to have an impartial arbiter of the dispute. The independence of judges is ensured by means of the consolidation of the self-government and financial and material-technical provision of the judiciary as a fully-fledged branch of power, also by means of the establishment of the inviolability of the term of powers of judges and the inviolability of the person of a judge, as well as by means of the establishment of social (material) guarantees for judges. Judges, who are under the duty to consider conflicts arising in society, as well as conflicts between a person and the state, must be not only highly professionally qualified and of impeccable reputation, but also materially independent and secure as to their future. The imperative of the constitutional protection of the remuneration and other social (material) guarantees of judges derives from the principle of the independence of judges and courts, which is consolidated in the Constitution; this principle is aimed at protecting judges, who are administering justice, from any influence of the legislature and the executive, as well as from that of other state authority establishments and officials, political and public organisations, commercial-economic structures, and other legal and natural persons. The state has the duty to establish such remuneration for judges that is in conformity with the status, functions, and responsibility of the judiciary and judges. The Constitution prohibits the reduction of the remuneration and other social (material) guarantees of judges; any attempts to reduce the remuneration of judges or their other social (material) guarantees, or any limitation on the financing of courts, should be treated as an encroachment on the independence of judges and courts. However, as noted by the Constitutional Court in the ruling in question, a certain insubstantial reduction of the remuneration and other social (material) guarantees of some judges, where such reduction is related to the unclarity, instability, and contradictoriness of the former legal regulation, could be justified by the exceptional circumstances of the transitional period, during which, following the restoration of the independence of the Republic of Lithuania, the system of courts (including the system of the remuneration of judges) of the Republic of Lithuania was in the process of formation. When assessing whether the legal regulation consolidated in the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges was not in conflict with the Constitution, the Constitutional Court gave consideration to the following exceptional circumstances, determined in that case: – first, the government-established legal regulation, with which the petitioners compared the impugned legal regulation, was valid for a short period—from 1 July 1997 until 31 December 1999 and it ceased to be valid more than eight years before the establishment of the impugned legal regulation; – second, the aforementioned government-established legal regulation provided for the increase in the service remuneration (coefficients) of judges that, subsequently, i.e., as from 1 January 2000, was reduced by the respective government resolution in view of the then complicated economic and financial situation; – third, as calculated according to the legal regulation established in the Law on the Remuneration of Judges, the minimum sizes of the remuneration of justices of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, judges of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, and judges of regional administrative courts were 93 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

on average 25.8 percent higher than the minimum sizes of the remuneration of these judges calculated according to the government-established legal regulation valid and actually applied during the period from 1 January 2000 until 14 November 2008; – fourth, the legal regulation that had been valid and actually applied with regard to the sizes and calculation of the remuneration of judges from the restoration of the independence of the Republic of Lithuania until the entry into force of the Law on the Remuneration of Judges had not been established by means of a law, and it had been temporary, inconsistent, and contradictory; the latter legal regulation should be regarded as a temporary factual legal regulation of the particular transitional period, during which, following the restoration of the independence of the Republic of Lithuania, the system of courts of the Republic of Lithuania was in the process of formation; the requirement, stemming from the Constitution, that the remuneration of judges be established by means of a law, as well as that the sizes of the remuneration of judges be differentiated according to clear criteria not connected with the administration of justice during the consideration of cases, was implemented only upon adopting the Law on the Remuneration of Judges, i.e. upon the entry into force of this law, the aforementioned transitional period came to an end. The reduction, as provided for by the legal regulation laid down in the Law on the Remuneration of Judges, in the average size of additional pay (a constituent part of the remuneration of judges) was judged in the same manner. The Constitutional Court held that, under the Law on the Remuneration of Judges, if compared to the government-established legal regulation applied before the entry into force of this law, the additional pay supplementing the remuneration of judges differed not only in its size but also in its character: the Law on the Remuneration of Judges established the additional pay for the years served for the State of Lithuania, which could be counted as from 11 March 1990, after the independence of the State of Lithuania was restored;6 whereas, according to the aforesaid legal regulation established by the Government, the additional pay for the time served was provided for irrespective of whether or not the time served was in connection with the service for the State of Lithuania, and it included the years served not for the State of Lithuania prior to 11 March 1990. The Constitutional Court noted that, more than eighteen years after the restoration of the independence of the Republic of Lithuania, during which the transitional period of the formation of the system of courts of the Republic of Lithuania had come to an end upon the adoption of the Law on the Remuneration of Judges, and during which the temporary factual legal regulation governing the remuneration of judges had been characterised by inconsistency and contradictoriness, there was no ground to expect that the judges of courts of the Republic of Lithuania could be paid additional pay, as a constituent part of their remuneration, for the years served not for the Republic of Lithuania, including the period prior to 11 March 1990.

6 In this context, the Constitutional Court mentioned that, as held in its ruling of 22 February 2013, in the period prior to the restoration of the independence of the Republic of Lithuania on 11 March 1990, “the only institutions of the State of Lithuania were the Republic of Lithuania’s diplomatic missions and consular posts abroad”, and that “the service to the State of Lithuania was possible only in the structures of the organised armed resistance against the occupation (inter alia, in the Movement of the Struggle for Free- dom of Lithuania), which operated for a certain time on the occupied territory of the Republic of Lithuania”. 94 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

Limits on awarding the unpaid amount of work remuneration. In the case in question, the Constitutional Court also assessed the provision of Article 301 of the Labour Code, under which the unpaid amount of work remuneration and other amounts due to an employee in connection with employment relations could be awarded by the court for a period not exceeding three years, and ruled this provision to be in conflict with the Constitution. The Constitutional Court held that, according to the said provision, even in the situations where the work remuneration or other amounts due to a person in connection with employment relations had not been paid at all, or had been paid only in part, for more than three years, and where the person had properly implemented his/her right to apply to court for the protection of the violated right to receive fair remuneration for work (where the person had not missed the statutory limitation on the claim), the court was able to award only the amounts unpaid for the period of three years. According to the Constitutional Court, the legal regulation in question had created the preconditions making it impossible to judicially award the amount of the entire work remuneration and other amounts due to a person in connection with employment relations, as well as the preconditions for violating the constitutional right of ownership and the constitutional right to receive fair pay for work; the right of a court to administer justice and secure the implementation of constitutional human rights had been, thus, correspondingly limited and, at the same time, the preconditions had been created for courts to adopt decisions that had been unjust by their content. Therefore, Article 301 of the Labour Code was ruled in conflict with Article 23, the provision “[e]ach human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay for work” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48, and Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of the Constitution. 4.5.2. The disciplinary liability of judges In its decision of 10 March 2014, subsequent to the petition of the President of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court interpreted the following provisions of its ruling of 21 December 1999: the guarantees of the independence of judges and courts do not create any preconditions on the grounds of which judges could avoid the proper fulfilment of their duties and investigate cases in a negligent manner; judges must protect the honour and prestige of their profession; the system of judicial self-government must ensure that judges perform their duties properly and that every unlawful or unethical behaviour of a judge is properly assessed. The Constitutional Court interpreted the aforementioned provisions as meaning the following: – the constitutional principle of the independence of judges and courts does not deny the possibility of imposing disciplinary liability on judges for avoiding the performance of their duties without a justifiable reason, or for the inappropriate performance of their duties (including the negligent consideration of cases); however, the mere fact that the courts of higher instance, after reviewing the decisions adopted by certain judges, have altered or rescinded them due to the errors in the construction and application of law or the breaches of procedural laws, made while adopting these decisions, does not mean that this 95 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

can serve as a basis for imposing disciplinary liability on the judges concerned or dismissing them from office upon the recognition that, by their behaviour, they have discredited the name of the judge; – the recurrent gross and evident errors in the construction and application of law, as well as the recurrent gross and evident breaches of procedural laws, made by judges while adopting decisions, serve as a basis for a judicial self-government institution, which has the respective powers, to regard the conduct of the judges concerned as the inappropriate performance of duties (the negligent consideration of cases) and as the lack of necessary professional qualification, as well as to impose disciplinary liability on these judges or to recognise that, by their behaviour, they have discredited the name of the judge; the system of judicial self-government must function in such a manner that preconditions are created for dismissing from office those judges who have, by their behaviour, discredited the name of the judge. While providing arguments substantiating the aforementioned interpretation, the Constitutional Court, among other things, noted that the procedural independence and autonomy of judges in deciding all issues related to a case under consideration is a necessary condition for the impartial and fair consideration of the case; only a court itself decides on how it should consider a case. While administering justice, judges are not and may not be subordinate to any other judge or to the president of any court (either of the court where they work, or of any court of a higher level or instance). The decisions of a judge may be reviewed and altered or rescinded only by a court of higher instance under the procedure provided for in procedural laws. The purpose of the instance system of courts is to eliminate any errors of fact or those of law, made by the courts of lower instance, and to ensure that courts do not permit the administration of injustice; justice is administered by always leaving an opportunity to correct any possible error. Thus, the fact that the errors in the construction and application of law and the breaches of procedural laws, made by certain judges of the courts of lower instance while adopting decisions in particular cases considered by them in an independent and impartial manner, are corrected by a court of higher instance, first of all, shows that the instance system of courts functions according to its intended purpose rather than that the said judges, who adopted the decisions that were subsequently altered or rescinded, performed their duties in a negligent manner or lacked necessary professional qualification. It should be noted that, when a court of higher instance reviews and alters or rescinds a decision adopted by a court of lower instance, it does not assess the qualification of a judge who has adopted that decision or the activities (work) performed by that judge during the consideration of the case; the qualification and activities of judges are assessed and disciplinary liability measures are applied under the procedure established by law by judicial self-government institutions, which have the respective powers. A possibility of applying certain measures with negative effects to judges for specific decisions adopted by them (for the assessment of facts and the construction of law in those decisions) would deny the essence of the instance system of courts and would create preconditions for undermining the procedural autonomy of judges in deciding all the issues related to a particular case under consideration, as well as for interfering with the actions of a judge or court in administering justice; thus, it would violate the constitutional principle of the independence of judges and courts. 96 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

At the same time, it was held in the decision in question that disciplinary liability may be imposed on judges for avoiding the performance of their duties without a justifiable reason, as well as for the inappropriate performance of the duties assigned to them (including the negligent consideration of cases). Judicial self-government institutions, which have the powers to assess the activities of judges (i.e., how judges perform their duties while administering justice), to examine misconduct committed by judges, and to impose on them disciplinary sanctions, must, on a case-by-case basis, assess all the circumstances related to the performance of the duties by a judge. If judges, when considering cases, perform their duties in a negligent manner (for example, consider cases in haste and superficially, or, on the contrary, unjustifiably slowly, commit the evident breaches of the requirements provided for in procedural laws, do not go into the substance of the material of a case, and consider cases in a slipshod manner), disciplinary liability should be imposed on them for their misconduct. In this context, the Constitutional Court emphasised that judicial self-government institutions, which have the powers to assess the activities of judges and apply disciplinary liability measures, may not decide to apply these measures for the errors in the construction and application of law and the breaches of procedural laws, made by a judge while adopting a decision, where such errors and breeches are subsequently determined and corrected by a court of higher instance, or where they are detected in the course of administering courts or carrying out the assessment of the activities of judges. However, if the decisions of certain judges of the courts of lower instance are altered or rescinded by the courts of higher instance very often, and the gross and evident errors in the construction and application of law, as well as the gross and evident breaches of procedural laws, are repeatedly made in their decisions, this may mean that, while administering justice, the said judges perform their duties improperly (consider cases in a negligent manner, do not go into the substance of the material of the cases) and/or that they do not meet the requirements for professional qualification. The improper and negligent conduct of judges, revealing an evident lack of competence and resulting in the repeated adoption of decisions involving errors in the construction and application of law or the breaches of procedural laws, is incompatible with the requirements set for judges; therefore, such improper and negligent conduct serves as a basis for applying disciplinary liability measures to the said judges and recognising that they have, by their behaviour, discredited the name of the judge.

4.6. Elections

When emphasising the importance of elections to representative institutions, the Constitutional Court has held on more than one occasion that, in a constitutional democracy, special requirements are raised for the formation of political representative institutions: these institutions may not be formed in such a way that would raise any doubts as to their legitimacy and legality, or doubts as to whether the principles of a democratic state under the rule of law have not been violated in the course of the election to representative political institutions. Otherwise, the trust of people in the representative democracy, 97 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

state institutions, and the state itself would be undermined. Elections may not be regarded as democratic, nor their results as legitimate and legal, if they are held by ignoring the principles established in the Constitution for democratic elections and violating the democratic electoral procedures. The Constitution consolidates the following universally recognised democratic principles of elections to representative political institutions: elections must be conducted on the basis of universal, equal, and direct suffrage, and the ballot must be secret; under the Constitution, only such elections are allowed where there is free and fair competition for mandates, where voters have the right and a real opportunity to choose from several candidates, and where, during voting, they can express their will freely and without being subjected to control; the requirements for transparency and publicity must be applied to the formation of a representative political institution. Democratic elections are an important form of the participation of citizens in the governance of the state. Under the Constitution, the legislation must ensure an equal active electoral right of all voters (the right to vote, i.e. to exercise the active electoral right), as well as an equal passive electoral right of all candidates (the right to be registered in an election as a candidate, i.e. the right to stand for election). In 2014, the Constitutional Court considered two cases in connection with electoral issues: in one of those cases, the Constitutional Court had to decide whether the Seimas had the powers to change the The collection of the selected final results of the 2012 election of members of the Seimas, and in the acts of the Constitutional Court other—whether electoral committees must be given the possibility of on election issues (“Elections”, 2012) participating in elections under the name of their choice. 4.6.1. The changing of the final results of the election to the Seimas In its ruling of 27 May 2014, the Constitutional Court recognised that the Seimas resolution of 2 July 2013, by means of which the Seimas had altered the final results of the 2012 election of members of the Seimas in the multi-member electoral constituency, was in conflict with the Constitution. The final results of the 2012 election to the Seimas in the multi-member electoral constituency were established by the Seimas resolution of 14 November 2012, which was adopted on the basis of the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012. In that conclusion, the Constitutional Court recognised that the Law on Elections to the Seimas was violated by the Central Electoral Commission’s decision determining the final order of candidates on the list of the candidates of the Labour Party for members of the Seimas and establishing the final list of the members of the Seimas elected in the multi- member electoral constituency (including the persons whose election was sought by committing certain gross violations of the principles of democratic, free, and fair elections). 98 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

The Seimas resolution of 14 November 2012 was subsequently changed by the Seimas resolution of 2 July 2013, which was impugned in the constitutional justice case in question: by the latter resolution, in the final order of candidates on the list of the candidates of the Labour Party, after the already elected 22 members of the Seimas appearing on that list, the Seimas again included the persons who had been removed from that list by the Seimas resolution of 14 November 2012 and whose inclusion in the final order of the candidates of the Labour Party by the decision of Central Electoral Commission was judged in the aforementioned Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012 as a violation of the Law on Elections to the Seimas. In this way, the Seimas resolution of 2 July 2013 created the preconditions for the aforementioned persons, who had previously been removed by the Seimas resolution of 14 November 2012 from the list of candidates for members of the Seimas, to take up the available vacant seats of members of the Seimas once such vacancies occurred. When assessing the compliance of the impugned Seimas resolution with the Constitution, the Constitutional Court pointed out in its ruling that, under the Constitution, the Seimas has the powers to take a final decision on the results of an election to the Seimas only in the cases where, subsequent to an inquiry of the Seimas or the President of the Republic, the Constitutional Court gives the conclusion that the election law was violated during that particular election of members of the Seimas. Under Paragraph 3 of Article 107 of the Constitution, the Seimas takes a final decision on the results of elections to the Seimas only on the basis of the conclusions of the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court emphasised that it is only the Constitutional Court, as an institution of judicial power, that may establish whether the election law was violated during particular elections to the Seimas, since the establishment of violations of the election law is an object of judicial rather than political assessment. Thus, under the Constitution, the Seimas is not allowed to decide anew the same issue regarding which the Constitutional Court has given its conclusion. In addition, the Seimas has no powers to decide whether the conclusions of the Constitutional Court on violations of the election law are well-founded and lawful. This means that the Seimas, which is, by its nature and essence, a political institution, whose decisions reflect the political will of the majority of members of the Seimas, and whose decisions are grounded in political arrangements and compromises, is not allowed to decide the issue of law as to whether the election law was violated or to disregard the Constitutional Court’s conclusions that the election law was violated during particular elections to the Seimas. The Seimas has the powers to conclusively decide on the results of an election to the Seimas insofar as these results are related to the violations of the election law that have been established in the respective conclusion of the Constitutional Court. While implementing its powers, as provided for in Paragraph 3 of Article 107 of the Constitution, to take a final decision on the results of an election to the Seimas, and being under the obligation to have regard to the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and responsible governance, the Seimas is not allowed to create any preconditions for awarding the mandates of members of the Seimas to the candidates whose election was sought by committing the gross violations of the principles of democratic, free, and fair elections. When the Seimas is making a final decision on the final election 99 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

results, an essential significance derives from the fact that certain gross violations of the principles of democratic, free, and fair elections were committed during the election, and that those violations might have distorted the genuine will of the voters. The violations of the said electoral principles can be committed not necessarily by the candidates for members of the Seimas themselves—these violations can be committed also by other persons seeking the election of certain candidates to the Seimas. Having emphasised that the constitutional principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, legal certainty, and legal security give rise to the requirement that the stability of the system of state power, inter alia, the stability of the Seimas, as a representative political institution, must be ensured, the Constitutional Court noted that the final results of an election to the Seimas that are established by the Seimas under Paragraph 3 of Article 107 of the Constitution may not be altered, unless there is a constitutional ground for doing so (in that case, they could be altered only on the basis of another conclusion of the Constitutional Court). By the Seimas resolution of 2 July 2013, the final results of the 2012 election to the Seimas were altered in the absence of another Constitutional Court’s conclusion and in disregard to the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012, according to which, during the 2012 election to the Seimas, the election law was violated; thus, as judged by the Constitutional Court, the Seimas disregarded the requirements, which stem from Paragraph 3 of Article 107 of the Constitution and the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and responsible governance, that, when taking a final decision on the results of an election to the Seimas, the Seimas is obliged to base its decision on the respective Constitutional Court’s conclusion, also that it may not create any preconditions for awarding the mandates of members of the Seimas to the candidates whose election was sought by committing the gross violations of the principles of democratic, free, and fair elections, as well as that it is not allowed to alter the final results of the election to the Seimas without a constitutional ground and in the absence of another conclusion of the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court explained the legal consequences of the entry into force of its ruling by pointing out that the Seimas resolution of 2 July 2013 had not altered the final results of the 2012 election to the Seimas, that it provided no grounds for anyone to acquire the right to take up the available vacant seats of members of the Seimas once such vacancies occur, and that the final results of the 2012 election to the Seimas had been established by the Seimas resolution of 14 November 2012. 4.6.2. The right of election committees to choose their name In its ruling of 13 October 2014, the Constitutional Court ruled the provisions of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Law on Elections to the European Parliament to be in conflict with the Constitution, insofar as these provisions established that, regardless of the fact that an election committee chose its name and specified it in its rules of procedure, the election committee must participate in the electoral process not under its chosen name, but under the letter assigned to it by the Central Electoral Commission in the course of its registration. 100 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

The Constitutional Court held that the European Parliament should be regarded as a representative political institution of the European Union, whose election procedure in a concrete Member State of the European Union is established by the legislature of that concrete Member State. In regulating the implementation of the passive electoral right for the purposes of the election of the European Parliament, the legislature is obliged to heed the imperatives stemming from the Constitution and the principles of electoral law. The right, guaranteed by the Constitution, to stand for election under the conditions provided for by law is an important constitutional right of a person. The legislature has the powers to establish in the election laws the constitutionally grounded requirements (conditions) for a person who is eligible to stand in elections. In the ruling in question, it was also noted that the Constitution guarantees and safeguards the interest of the public to be informed, and that this interest assumes particular importance in the process of elections to political representative institutions. Thus, from Paragraph 2 of Article 34 of the Constitution, the duty derives for the legislature to establish a legal regulation that ensures the adherence to the principles of democratic elections, inter alia, the transparency of the electoral process, the equality and fair competition among collective entities nominating candidates for elections, as well as the publicity of information that is important to voters about these entities. In addition, the ensuring of democratic electoral principles also implies the establishment of such a legal regulation that creates preconditions for properly informing voters about the collective entities nominating candidates in an election, as well as about the names of such entities. This information must be public, easily accessible, and it must not mislead voters. The collective entities that nominate candidates in an election must have the opportunity to participate in the electoral process and present themselves to voters under the name of their choice. The name of these entities helps voters not only to recognise and distinguish them from other collective entities nominating candidates but also to decide about their values, strivings, etc. As judged by the Constitutional Court, in the absence of any important and constitutionally grounded objective, the impugned legal regulation, obligating election committees to participate in elections to the European Parliament by presenting themselves to voters not under the name of their choice, but under the letter assigned to them by the Central Electoral Commission, had made it more difficult to implement the passive electoral right for the persons entered on the lists of candidates nominated by election committees for members of the European Parliament and had failed to ensure the principles of the transparency of the electoral process as well as those of the equality and fair competition among collective entities nominating candidates. Thus, the legal regulation in question was judged as violating the passive electoral right, consolidated in Paragraph 2 of Article 34 of the Constitution. At the same time, the Constitutional Court noted that the collective entities that have the right to nominate candidates in elections to political representative institutions, when they choose their name under which they wish to present themselves to voters, as well as the legislature, when it regulates the 101 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

respective relations, are bound by the constitutional principle of elections as a responsible political process, as well as by the constitutional requirements that the constitutional order, public order, and the protection of public morals be respected and safeguarded and that national, racial, religious, and social hatred, violence, or discrimination be not incited. In the ruling, it was also held that the impugned provisions, which had, in a constitutionally unreasonable manner, made it more difficult for the candidates nominated by election committees to implement their passive electoral right, did not deny the passive electoral right of these candidates in general and did not abuse any constitutional principles of democratic and free elections. Therefore, the lawfulness of the 25 May 2014 election to the European Parliament could not be questioned on the grounds that the impugned legal regulation was found to be in conflict with the Constitution.

4.7. The restoration of the rights of ownership

In 2014, the Constitutional Court considered two cases in which it assessed the compliance of the provisions of the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property with the Constitution, and, in both cases, the impugned provisions were ruled not in conflict with the Constitution. The rulings adopted in those cases were based on the previous constitutional doctrine on the restoration of the rights of ownership and were, in substance, grounded in the recognition that the legislature has a broad discretion in establishing the conditions for the restoration of the rights of ownership. When deciding the cases on the issues in connection with the restoration of the rights of ownership, the Constitutional Court has held on more than one occasion that the legislature, in regulating the restoration of the denied rights of ownership, has the discretion to establish the conditions and procedure for the restoration of the rights of ownership. This discretion is objectively determined by the fact that, during the period following the unlawful expropriation of property, the system of the relations of ownership has changed in substance. When the conditions and procedure for the restoration of the rights of ownership are established by law, it is necessary to take account of the changed social, economic, and other conditions. When establishing, by means of a law, the forms, conditions, and procedure for the restoration of the rights of ownership to the existing real property, the legislature is bound by the Constitution. The legislature must take account of the constitutional principles of the protection of property, as well as of the fact that, in the course of restoring the rights of ownership to the existing real property, it is equally necessary to protect other values consolidated in the Constitution and to ensure that, in the course of restoring the rights of ownership of certain persons, i.e. owners, the rights and legitimate interests of other persons and the interests of the whole society are not violated. 102 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

4.7.1. The right of heirs of former owners to restore the rights of ownership In its ruling of 8 October 2014, the Constitutional Court ruled Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property not in conflict with the Constitution, insofar as, after the establishment of the right of the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania—heirs of former owners by will—to restore the rights of ownership to the existing real property, such a right was not granted to the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania—heirs of former owners by operation of law. The Constitutional Court noted that, under the Constitution, the right to inherit property is not identical to the right of a citizen to restore the rights of ownership to the existing real property according to the procedure established by law; the persons who have the right to inherit the property of a deceased former owner must not be identified with persons entitled to restore the rights of ownership to the existing real property according to the procedure established by law. In view of the specificity of the relations of the restoration of the rights of ownership, the discretion of the legislature to establish the conditions and procedure for the restoration of the rights of ownership includes its discretion to define the circle of subjects to whom the rights of ownership are to be restored, i.e., to define persons who have the right to restore the rights of ownership. In implementing that discretion, the legislature may establish that the rights of ownership to the existing real property are restored not according to the legal norms governing the inheritance relations, but only under a special procedure established by law, and not to all former owners and not all heirs of former owners, but only to those who meet the conditions established in the law. In the light of this, the impugned legal regulation by which, in implementing its discretion to define the circle of subjects to whom the rights of ownership are to be restored, the legislature does not grant the right to restore the rights of ownership to the existing real property to all heirs of former owners, was held constitutionally justifiable and violating neither the principles of the inviolability of property and the protection of the rights of ownership, consolidated in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution, nor the principle of the equality of the rights of persons, consolidated in Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court also held that the laws on restitution, when defining the circle of the persons entitled to restore the rights of ownership to the existing real property, have never provided for any such category of subjects as the heirs of a deceased owner by operation of law; since the very beginning of the process of restitution, these laws have established the right to restore the rights of ownership for the children (or adopted children), parents (or adoptive parents), or spouse of a deceased former owner. Consequently, as held by the Constitutional Court, there were no legal grounds for other heirs of former owners by operation of law to expect that an opportunity would be consolidated for them to restore the rights of ownership to the existing real property, i.e. they could not acquire any particular legitimate expectations. Thus, the impugned legal regulation was judged as not violating the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty. 103 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

4.7.2. The restoration of the rights of ownership to urban land In another case in connection with the restoration of the rights of ownership, the Constitutional Court had to decide whether the state has the right to purchase urban land necessary for the exploitation of certain buildings. In its ruling of 30 October 2014, the Constitutional Court ruled the provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1 of Article 12 of the Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property to be not in conflict with the Constitution, insofar as, according to them, the land situated prior to 1 June 1995 in the territories categorised as urban land is not restituted in kind and is purchased by the state where it is occupied by the plots of land necessary for the exploitation of certain structures. In the ruling, it was reminded that the state has created the legitimate expectation for persons who have the right to have their rights of ownership restored that they will be able to implement the said right by the means, under the conditions and procedure, and within the time limits provided for by law; the legitimate expectation of owners to have their rights of ownership restored to the existing real property does not mean that the rights of ownership to the existing real property must in all cases be restored by means of the restitution of that property in kind; there may also be the legal situations where the existing real property is not restituted in kind to its former owners if that property is necessary for the needs of society; the provision of the law that compensation must be provided in the cases where property may not be restituted in kind is not in conflict with the principles of the inviolability of property and the protection of the rights of ownership, since fair compensation ensures the restoration of the rights of ownership in an equal manner. The Constitutional Court noted that the legislature, when establishing, by means of laws, the conditions and procedure for the restoration of the rights of ownership, needs to take account of the changed social, economic, and legal situation, as well as of other actual facts, as well as to ensure that, in the course of restoring the rights of ownership of some persons, i.e. former owners, the rights and legitimate interests of other persons, i.e. those who are using the land of the former owners, because it is necessary for the exploitation of the structures owned by them by right of ownership, are not violated. It was also noted that the Constitution does not prohibit the situation where the relations of the restoration of the rights of ownership to the existing real property are regulated by law in a differentiated manner in terms that the conditions and procedure for the restoration of the rights of ownership may vary depending on the kind of the property (land, forest, etc.) to which the rights of ownership are to be restored, or depending on the territory on which the property, to which the rights of ownership are to be restored, is located. The fact that the Constitution does not prohibit the situation where the relations of the restoration of the rights of ownership to the existing real property are regulated by law in a differentiated manner means that the legislature has the discretion to establish the differentiated conditions and procedure for the restoration of the rights of ownership to land located in urban areas, rural areas, or land located in different urban areas, including land necessary for the exploitation of certain structures, however, in doing so, the legislature must pay heed to the Constitution, as well as to 104 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

the requirements stemming from the Constitution that, in the course of restoring the rights of ownership of former owners, the non-violation of the rights and legitimate expectations of other persons must be ensured; in addition, the aforementioned fact also means that land may be not restituted in kind to persons who have the right to have their rights of ownership restored and that it may be purchased by the state only where there is the need of society for doing so. The Constitutional Court pointed out that urban areas are predominantly occupied by the structures of the residential purpose, as well as the structures designed for public use (structures related to trade, services, production, culture, science, medical treatment, etc. and intended for the needs of society), and that the use of the plots of land required for the exploitation of the said structures is linked with the interests of a large number of persons and the interests of the entire society. Thus, the restoration of the rights of ownership to such urban land that is necessary for the exploitation of structures owned by other persons entails facing not only the interests of individual persons who have the right to have their rights of ownership restored, or the interests of the actual land users or lessees, but also the interests of other persons or the interests of the entire society. The satisfaction of the interest of exclusively those persons who have the right to have their rights of ownership restored to the aforementioned land in kind and the simultaneous disregard for the interests of the persons who need that land for the exploitation of certain structures owned by them, or for the interests of other persons or society in connection with the same land, would not be in compliance with the constitutional requirement that the said interests must be reconciled and would result in the failure to protect other values consolidated in the Constitution, including the striving for an open, just, and harmonious society.

4.8. Other constitutional justice cases

In other constitutional justice cases considered in 2014, the Constitutional Court dealt with various questions, which were related to the constitutional status of prosecutors, the protection of the state language, freedom of economic activity, constitutional liability, etc. 4.8.1. The constitutional status of prosecutors Subsequent to the petition of the President of the Republic, which raised the questions of the accountability of prosecutors and the possibility of establishing the grounds and procedure for dismissing the Prosecutor General not only exclusively by means of a law, in its decision of 16 January 2014, the Constitutional Court interpreted the provisions of its rulings in connection with the constitutional status of prosecutors. The principle of the independence of prosecutors. In the aforementioned decision, the Constitutional Court interpreted the provisions of its ruling of 24 January 2003, according to which, in order to perform their functions properly, prosecutors must have sufficient independence guarantees, provided for in the law, while the legislative or executive branches of power, as well as their officials and other persons, have 105 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

no right to interfere with the activities of prosecutors, who perform the functions established in the Constitution, as well as the provisions of its rulings of 13 May 2004 and 16 January 2006, stating that the independence of prosecutors in organising and directing pre-trial investigation and in upholding charges on behalf of the state in criminal cases is a constitutional value, and that the Constitution does not permit any such legal regulation that would deny or restrict the independence of prosecutors. These provisions were construed by the Constitutional Court as meaning that it is not permitted to establish any such legal regulation that would oblige prosecutors to submit accounts on the performance of their constitutional functions to the legislative and executive branches of power and that would, among other things, oblige the Prosecutor General to submit accounts on the activity of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Lithuania, which would subsequently need to be approved by the Seimas, the President of the Republic, or the Government. The establishment of the aforesaid obligations would mean interference with the activities as well as the restriction of the independence of prosecutors, who perform the functions provided for in the Constitution. While providing arguments substantiating this decision, the Constitutional Court noted that Paragraph 3 of Article 118 of the Constitution directly consolidates the principle of the independence of prosecutors: when performing their functions, prosecutors are independent and obey only the law. Consequently, prosecutors, while performing their functions, act independently, and the institutions of the legislative and executive power and, among them, the Seimas and the President of the Republic, who participate in the process of appointing and dismissing the Prosecutor General, may not interfere with the performance of the functions of prosecutors, give prosecutors any obligatory instructions as to the performance of their functions, or control the work of prosecutors while they are performing their functions. At the same time, it was noted in the decision that the legislature is obliged to align the constitutional provision that state institutions serve the people with the constitutional principle of the independence of prosecutors. The Constitutional Court held that the alignment of these constitutional values would be ensured if the Prosecutor General were obliged, by law, to submit to society, as well as to the Seimas and the President of the Republic, who participate in the process of the appointment and dismissal of the Prosecutor General, information (public reports) about the implementation of the priorities of the penal policy, the defence of the public interest, the organisation of the work of the Prosecutor’s Office, the directions of the activity of the Prosecutor’s Office, the organisation of cooperation between Lithuanian and foreign pre-trial investigation establishments or other institutions, the time limits for the investigation of criminal deeds, particular problems arising in the course of the work of the Prosecutor’s Office, etc. The establishment of the grounds and procedure for the dismissal of the Prosecutor General. The Constitutional Court interpreted that the provisions of its rulings (including the provision that the legislature has the powers to establish, by law, the term of the powers of prosecutors and the grounds and procedure for their dismissal from office, as well as the provisions elucidating the provision of Article 76 of the Constitution that the structure and the procedure of the activities of the Seimas are established by 106 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

the Statute of the Seimas) mean that, under the Constitution, the grounds and procedure for the dismissal of the Prosecutor General must be established exclusively in a law, whereas the Statute of the Seimas may establish the procedure under which the Seimas adopts a decision on whether or not to give its assent to the proposal of the President of the Republic to appoint or dismiss the Prosecutor General. In the decision in question, it was held that, under Paragraph 3 of Article 118 of the Constitution, the procedure for the appointment and dismissal of prosecutors, as well as their status, must be established by means of a law. Consequently, the procedure for the appointment and dismissal of the Prosecutor General may be established exclusively in a law. The Constitutional Court also emphasised that, under the Constitution, the legislature may, by means of a law, establish that the Prosecutor General may be dismissed from office prior to the expiry of the term of his/her powers; however, this may be done not on any possible grounds but only on the grounds due to which the Prosecutor General may not hold that office in general (e.g., due to the age provided for in the law, transference to another place of work, or the loss of citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania). As judged by the Constitutional Court, the Statute of the Seimas may not provide for any grounds for the dismissal of the Prosecutor General from office. The Statute of the Seimas must establish the procedure under which the Seimas decides on whether or not to give its assent to the proposal of the President of the Republic to appoint or dismiss the Prosecutor General. The Seimas has the powers to determine what the time limits and procedure are for presenting a proposed candidate at a sitting of the Seimas, what presenting a candidate includes, under what procedure the said candidate is considered at a sitting of the Seimas, which subunits of the Seimas have the right to consider a candidate, as well as under what procedure voting is held on whether or not to give an assent to a proposed candidate. In the decision, the Constitutional Court emphasised that the Prosecutor General is not an official appointed or elected by the Seimas; the Prosecutor General is appointed to office and dismissed from office by the President of the Republic upon the assent of the Seimas. Consequently, it was held that the procedure for dismissing an official upon a motion of no confidence, which is provided for in Article 75 of the Constitution and is related to the assessment of the activity of officials appointed or elected by the Seimas, may not be applied to the Prosecutor General. 4.8.2. The writing of names and family names in the passports of citizens The questions connected with the writing of names and family names in the passports of citizens have been considered in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court on more than one occasion. In the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 21 October 1999, it was noted that the names and family names of persons must be written in the passports of citizens in the state language. Otherwise, the constitutional status of the state language would be denied. While interpreting the provisions of the aforementioned ruling, in its decision of 6 November 2009, the Constitutional Court answered the question filed concerning the interpretation of its ruling of 21 October 1999 in the following way: after the name and family name of an individual are entered in the state language in the passport, it is allowed to specify 107 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

the name and family name of the individual in other, non-Lithuanian, graphic signs of writing and in non-grammaticised form in other sections for entries of the passport in the cases where the individual requests so; however, such an entry of a name and family name in non-Lithuanian graphic signs should not be equated to the entry regarding the identity of the individual as made in the state language. Subsequent to the petition of the Minister of Justice, the provisions of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 21 October 1999 were once again interpreted by the Constitutional Court in its decision of 27 February 2014. The duty to take account of the position of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language. In the latter case, the Constitutional Court was requested to elucidate whether the provisions of the aforementioned ruling stating that the legislature must establish, by law, how the use of the state language is ensured in public life and provide for the means of the protection of the state language, as well as that the name and family name of a person must be written in the passport of the citizen in the state language, mean that the legislature may lay down the rules of writing names and family names in the passports of citizens without making clear what is the position of (without having received any proposals from) the state institution of professional language specialists, which has the powers to take care of the protection of the state language, to establish the guidelines for the state language policy, and to carry out the state language policy, or that the legislature may act without following the position of the said state institution. The Constitutional Court made it clear that, when establishing the legal regulation governing the writing of names and family names in the passports of citizens, the legislature needs special knowledge, it must receive an official conclusion and clear proposals, which the legislature may not disregard, from the persons (institutions) that have the relevant special (professional) knowledge and, among them, from a state institution of professional language specialists (currently the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language), which has the powers to take care of the protection of the state language, to establish the guidelines for the state language policy, and to carry out that policy. The Constitutional Court pointed out that the Constitution does not imply any such activities of the Seimas where the Seimas itself collects all the information necessary for legislation, without relying on the information submitted by other state institutions; in the cases where it is necessary in the process of lawmaking to rely on special knowledge or special (professional) competence, the Seimas should obtain the necessary information from the appropriate state institutions and take it into account. Since, for the purposes of establishing, by law, how names and family names must be written in the passports of citizens, it is necessary to take account of certain special knowledge or special (professional) competence, the Seimas, following the constitutional principle of responsible governance, must properly assess the relevant official conclusions, including the official conclusion of the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language. Amending the rules of writing personal names in the passports of citizens. In addition, the Minister of Justice requested the Constitutional Court to elucidate whether the provision of the operative part 108 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 21 October 1999 that Item 2 of the Resolution of the Supreme Council “On Writing Names and Family Names in the Passports of Citizens of the Republic of Lithuania” of 31 January 1991 is in compliance with the Constitution means that, under the Constitution, it is possible to establish only those rules of writing names and family names that are established in Item 2 of the said resolution (i.e., the name and family name of a person in the passport of the citizen is written in Lithuanian characters and according to pronunciation). The Constitutional Court made it clear that, by following the requirements stemming from the Constitution, it is possible to establish, by law, the rules other than those set in the aforementioned resolution for writing names and family names in the passports of citizens in the cases where the amendment of these rules is proposed by the state institution of professional language specialists, which has the powers to take care of the protection of the state language, i.e. in the cases where this institution regards such amendment as posing no danger to the Lithuanian language. In the decision, the Constitutional Court noted that the legislature or a state institution authorised by it, when they define the issues essential to the use of the state language, as well as when they establish the rules of writing names and family names in the passports of citizens, must pay heed to the constitutional imperative of the protection of the state Lithuanian language and assess any potential danger to the common Lithuanian language and the distinctiveness of the Lithuanian language. Under the Constitution, there may be no tolerance for the fact that these rules, including those consolidating the writing of non-Lithuanian personal names (names and family names) in the passports of citizens, are established without having assessed their impact on the common Lithuanian language, the distinctiveness of the Lithuanian language, and the writing of Lithuanian personal names. In the decision, it was mentioned that the basis of the characters of the Lithuanian language, as well as of the absolute majority of the state (official) languages of European countries, is formed by Latin characters. Nonetheless, although the Lithuanian alphabet is created on the basis of Latin characters, it also has its own distinctive symbols of writing, which reflect the unique phonetic features of the Lithuanian language. Lithuanian characters and the essential issues related to their use, including the principles of the appropriate transcription, must be defined by the legislature or a state institution authorised by it; currently, such an institution is the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language. While summarising, the Constitutional Court held that, under the Constitution, the rules consolidating the writing of non-Lithuanian personal names (names and family names) in the passports of citizens of the Republic of Lithuania must be established by taking into account the assessment of their impact on the common Lithuanian language and the distinctiveness of the Lithuanian language. Therefore, as held by the Constitutional Court, the State Commission of the Lithuanian Language must give the official conclusion on whether the rules other than those set in Item 2 of the aforementioned resolution of the Supreme Council may be established for writing names and family names in the passports of citizens, including whether, in certain cases, for the purposes of writing non-Lithuanian names and family names in the passports of citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, it is possible to use 109 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

not only the letters of the Lithuanian alphabet but also other exclusively Latin-based characters, to the extent that these characters are consistent with the tradition of the Lithuanian language and do not violate the system or the distinctiveness of the Lithuanian language. 4.8.3. The powers of the Minister of Finance to establish the amount of late payment interest In the case in which the ruling of 3 February 2014 was adopted, the Constitutional Court dealt with the constitutional dispute regarding the powers of the Minister of Finance to establish the amount of late payment interest on the late payment of taxes, including state social insurance contributions. The Constitutional Court recognised that the provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 39 of the previously valid Law on Tax Administration, which consolidated the powers of the Minister of Finance, when establishing the amount of late payment interest on the undue payment of taxes, to decide, at his/her own discretion, but not exceeding the established 10-point limit, by how many points to increase the interest rate specified in the said paragraph, was in conflict with the Constitution. Article 99 of the currently valid Law on Tax Administration, insofar as it consolidates the powers of the Minister of Finance, when establishing the amount of late payment interest on the undue payment of taxes, to increase the interest rate specified in the said article by 10 percentage points, was ruled by the Constitutional Court not in conflict with the Constitution. In deciding this case, the Constitutional Court invoked the provision of its ruling of 26 September 2006 to the effect that, after having chosen such a way of legal regulation where the amounts of late payment interest on the non-payment or undue payment of taxes depend on certain indicators specified in the law and can be subject to change, the legislature must, by means of a law, not only establish the subject (a state institution, official) that has the powers to state the said indicators and, based on them, to establish the amounts of late payment interest, but also specify, in the law, the criteria that have to be followed by the said subject in establishing the amounts of late payment interest. The Constitutional Court held that the laws previously had not established any criteria to be followed by the Minister of Finance, therefore, the Minister of Finance could not only increase the said interest rate but also decide, at his/her own sole discretion, by how many points to increase that interest rate (provided the established 10-point limit had not been exceeded). The latter legal regulation was found to be in conflict with Item 15 of Article 67 of the Constitution, under which the Seimas establishes state taxes and other compulsory payments, also Paragraph 3 of Article 127 of the Constitution, under which taxes, other payments to the budgets, and levies are established by means of laws, as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. When assessing the currently valid legal regulation established in Article 99 of the Law on Tax Administration, the Constitutional Court held that, under this article, the Minister of Finance, when establishing the amount of late payment interest on the undue payment of taxes, including state social insurance contributions, must follow clear criteria specified in this article, i.e. the Minister of Finance establishes the amount of the said late payment interest by increasing the weighted average of the annual 110 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

interest rate for the treasury bills of the Republic of Lithuania, issued in Litas by auction in the previous calendar quarter, by 10 percentage points. The Constitutional Court held that such a legal regulation did not create any preconditions for the Minister of Finance to decide, at his/her own discretion, by how many points to increase the interest rate in question; consequently, there were no arguments for assessing that this legal regulation could, in any way, deny any values enshrined in and defended as well as protected by the Constitution. 4.8.4. On the obligation to manage oil waste In its ruling of 9 May 2014, the Constitutional Court recognised that the impugned provision of the State Strategic Waste Management Plan, as approved by government resolution No. 519 of 12 April 2002, insofar as, from 2008, oil producers and importers were set a mandatory task of regenerating or recycling (or otherwise using) at least 30 percent of oil waste, calculated on the basis of the amount of oil placed on the market per year, was not in conflict with the Constitution. The Constitutional Court reminded that freedom of economic activity, consolidated in Paragraph 1 of Article 46 of the Constitution, is not absolute and that a person may exercise it in observance of certain mandatory requirements and limitations; on the other hand, the state is not allowed to interfere with individual economic activity in an unlimited manner; therefore, it is impermissible to deny, by means of the established limitations, the essential provisions of freedom of economic activity, such as the equality of rights of economic subjects, fair competition, etc. Paragraph 3 of Article 46 of the Constitution prescribes that the state regulates economic activity in such a manner that it serves the general welfare of the nation. As a rule, the regulation of economic activity is connected with the establishment of certain conditions for economic activity, the regulation of certain procedures, the control of economic activity, as well as with certain limitations and prohibitions set with regard to this activity. While interpreting Paragraph 3 of Article 46 of the Constitution in conjunction with Paragraph 1 of Article 53 of the Constitution, which provides that the state takes care of people’s health, and in conjunction with Paragraph 3 of Article 53 and Article 54 thereof, which consolidate the constitutional bases for environmental protection, the Constitutional Court noted that such a limitation on economic activity that aims at protecting people’s health, as well as such a limitation on economic activity that aims at protecting the environment from harmful influences, conserving the nature, using its resources in a rational manner, and compensating for the harm caused to the natural environment, should be treated as designed for ensuring the general welfare of the nation and, provided heed is paid to the requirements stemming from the Constitution, as not constituting a violation of the Constitution. The requirement derives from the said provisions of the Constitution for the legislature to establish, when regulating economic activity, such its limitations that aim at ensuring the general welfare of the nation and, in particular, at protecting human health and the environment from harmful influences, using natural resources in a rational manner, and compensating for the harm caused to the natural environment. At the same time, the Constitutional Court emphasised that, by means of a legal regulation, 111 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

it is possible to establish such duties of economic subjects that do not restrict the freedom of their activity more than it is necessary to achieve the constitutionally significant objectives regarding the protection of human health and environmental protection. When the duties of economic subjects in relation to the protection of human health and environmental protection from harmful influences, the rational use of natural resources, and compensation for harm caused to the natural environment are established by means of a law, the Government may be entrusted with adopting substatutory legal acts necessary to implement that law and to regulate the performance of the duties of economic subjects established by that law. In the ruling, it was noted that, when regulating the organisation of waste management as one of the types of economic activity, the legislature must take account of the fact that improperly managed waste endangers the environment as well as human and public health; the legislature must also pay heed to the imperative of using natural resources in a rational manner. Therefore, the legislature may establish the duty of economic subjects, where it is technically possible, first of all, to recycle waste in such a way that allows producing products intended for the same or other purposes, and where there is no possibility of recycling waste—to use it otherwise, without making any significant negative impacts on human and public health as well as the environment. The procedure for the enforcement of this duty may be specified in detail by the legal acts of the Government. The Constitutional Court held that, under the impugned provision of the Waste Management Plan, oil producers and importers were set the mandatory task of regenerating, recycling, or otherwise using (for example, in order to produce energy or fuel that meets the quality requirements for liquid fuel) not all oil waste but its minimum amount—30 percent, calculated on the basis of the amount of oil placed on the Lithuanian market per year. This task was set pursuant to provisions of the Law on Waste Management. It was held in the ruling that, according to the provisions of the Law on Waste Management and the State Strategic Waste Management Plan, the producers and importers of products (manufactured products), including oil, are subject to the principle of the responsibility of the producer, which aims at ensuring the maximum possible collection and recycling of product waste and the maximum possible use of secondary raw materials, as well as to the “polluter pays” principle, which means that the costs of managing waste must be paid by the producer or importer of products, the use of which produces waste; subjects participating in waste management activities, including oil producers and importers, are responsible for ensuring that their activity related to oil waste management is in line with the order of priorities in waste management, which is applied in view of the principles of environmental protection, the protection of resources, as well as an overall impact on the environment and public health; oil waste must be treated in accordance with the requirements established for hazardous waste. Thus, according to the Constitutional Court, in establishing the impugned legal regulation, the Government pursued the constitutionally significant objectives set regarding the protection of human health and environmental protection and paid heed to the requirements stemming from the Constitution. The fact that the duty to manage the established amount of oil in the aforementioned ways had been 112 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

imposed on oil producers and importers provided no grounds for stating that the impugned legal regulation was disproportionate to the aforementioned constitutionally significant objectives, or that it was impossible to objectively implement that legal regulation. 4.8.5. The selling of state-owned land without an auction In the case in which the ruling of 9 October 2014 was adopted, the Constitutional Court considered another government-established legal regulation and found the provision of the Government Resolution (No. 692) “On the Sale and Lease of New Plots of Different-Purpose State-Owned Land” of 2 June 1999 providing for the sale of vacant plots of state-owned land edging between the plots of private land and roads (streets) to the owners of neighbouring plots of land without an auction to be not in conflict with the Constitution and the Law on Land. In that case, the Constitutional Court assessed whether the impugned provision of the government resolution did not compete with the norms of the Law on Land, i.e. whether the impugned provision did not violate the hierarchy of legal acts. In the ruling, the Constitutional Court pointed out that, under the Constitution, laws establish rules of a general character, while substatutory legal acts may particularise them. In addition, the Government may, within its competence, regulate the relations of the transfer of property that belongs to the state by right of ownership to the ownership of other subjects by means of substatutory acts that are based on and do not compete with the law. The Constitutional Court also invoked its ruling of 22 October 1996, where it was noted that the Government has the powers to particularise, in its resolutions, the principal provisions established in laws governing the sale and lease of state-owned land by auction and without an auction, however, the legal regulation established by the Government must be based on laws and objective circumstances. The Constitutional Court pointed to the principle rule consolidated in the Law on Land under which the areas of state-owned land edging between the private plots of land are sold without an auction and that only the owners of the neighbouring private plots of land may acquire such areas of state-owned land under the non-auction procedure. The Constitutional emphasised that the Law on Land regulated land relations in such a manner that creates the conditions for satisfying the needs of society as well as natural and legal persons to rationally use the land. Thus, the exception to the general rule (that state land must be sold by auction) is not an end in itself. This legal regulation implies that an area of state- owned land edging between the private plots of land cannot be formed as an independent plot of land and used in a rational manner. It was noted that a situation where a particular area of state-owned land is edging between a private plot of land and a road (street), as regards the possibilities of the formation of this area of land as an independent plot of land and using it in a rational manner, does not differ in substance from a situation where such an area is edging between the private plots of land. Thus, according to the Constitutional Court, there was no ground for stating that the impugned provision limited the opportunities of the persons indicated by the law (owners of neighbouring private 113 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

plots of land) to acquire the particular areas of state-owned land without an auction, or that that the areas of state-owned land edging between the private plots of land and roads (streets), in view of objective circumstances, should be sold by auction. Consequently, it was ruled that the provision of the Law on Land was particularised by the government-established legal regulation without denying the principal rule consolidated therein; thus, the legal regulation in question was based on and did not compete with the law. 4.8.6. Constitutional liability (impeachment) Subsequent to an inquiry by the Seimas, the Constitutional Court gave its conclusion of 3 June 2014 on the compliance of the actions of Neringa Venckienė, a member of the Seimas, against whom an impeachment case had been instituted, with the Constitution. The Constitutional Court recognised that Seimas member Neringa Venckienė, who had failed to attend, without a justifiable reason, 64 plenary sittings of the Seimas and 25 sittings of the Committee on Legal Affairs of the Seimas, held between April and November 2013, had discredited the authority of the Seimas as the representation of the Nation and had breached her oath and grossly violated the Constitution. The constitutional institute of impeachment. In the aforementioned conclusion, the Constitutional Court reminded about the most important aspects related to the constitutional concept of impeachment. The Constitutional Court noted that the institute of constitutional impeachment—a special parliamentary procedure—is one of the forms of public democratic control and one of the measures of self-protection of the state community, i.e. the civil Nation: state officials who have violated the Constitution and laws, who have raised personal or group interests above the interests of society, or who have, by their actions, discredited state authority, may be removed from office under the procedure established by law. For a gross violation of the Constitution, a breach of the oath, or if it transpires that a crime has been committed, the mandate of a member of the Seimas may be revoked under the procedure for impeachment proceedings. The Constitutional Court emphasised that the Constitution unconditionally requires that members of the Seimas take the oath to be faithful only to the State of Lithuania, as well as that they pledge to respect and execute its Constitution and laws and to conscientiously serve their Homeland, democracy, and the welfare of the people of Lithuania. By taking the oath, a member of the Seimas assumes an unconditional obligation to observe all the constitutional values referred to in the oath. Faithfulness to the State of Lithuania is inseparable from faithfulness to the Constitution; upon the breach of the oath to be faithful to the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitution is also grossly violated. Under the Constitution, only the Constitutional Court has the powers to decide whether the concrete actions of a member of the Seimas against whom an impeachment case has been instituted are in conflict with the Constitution, and whether that member of the Seimas has grossly violated the Constitution. Thus, the constitutional duty is established for the Constitutional Court to investigate whether a member of the Seimas has carried out the concrete actions, specified in the respective inquiry 114 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

to the Constitutional Court, and to assess whether these actions are in conflict with the Constitution and whether the Constitution has been grossly violated. The requirement for fair legal proceedings. The constitutional concept of impeachment implies fair legal proceedings, in which the priority is given to the protection of the rights of a person. The protection of the rights of a person is guaranteed only if the proceedings are public, the parties to the proceedings enjoy equal rights, and the legal disputes, in particular those regarding the rights of a person, are decided by ensuring that the particular person has the right and opportunity to defend these rights. It should be noted that the duty stems from the requirement for fair legal proceedings for the legislature to establish the legal regulation that creates preconditions for the members of the Seimas or state officials against whom impeachment is to be or has been instituted to defend their rights at all stages of impeachment proceedings. The requirement for fair legal proceedings implies the duty of the state institutions that have the constitutional powers in impeachment proceedings, i.e. the Seimas and the Constitutional Court, when they implement their respective functions in impeachment proceedings, to enable persons against whom impeachment is to be or has been instituted to implement their rights in the impeachment proceedings. The Constitutional Court emphasised that a member of the Seimas or a state official against whom impeachment is to be or has been instituted has the right, as well as the obligation stemming from their oath, to participate in the impeachment proceedings. A member of the Seimas or a state official, who has taken the oath to be faithful to the Republic of Lithuania and to respect and execute its Constitution and laws, must respect state authority institutions. Thus, a member of the Seimas or a state official against whom impeachment is to be or has been instituted has the obligation to arrive, when requested, at the state institutions that have the constitutional powers in impeachment proceedings and to provide explanations for the actions that are a subject matter of the investigation and assessment carried out by these institutions. Failure to fulfil this obligation, after the person has been duly informed about the ongoing impeachment proceedings, does not prevent the state institutions that have the constitutional powers in impeachment proceedings, including the Constitutional Court, from exercising their powers and adopting decisions that fall within their competence. Although the appropriate measures had been taken in the impeachment proceedings in order to notify Seimas member Neringa Venckienė of the ongoing proceedings and to give her an opportunity to provide explanations in the impeachment case, Neringa Venckienė had failed to participate and provide explanations in the proceedings.7

7 The Constitutional Court noted that certain appropriate measures had been taken in the impeachment proceedings in order to notify Seimas member Neringa Venckienė of the ongoing proceedings and to give her an opportunity to provide explanations in the impeachment case: the letters of the justice-rapporteur with requests for written explanations regarding the case under preparation or, in the event of the appointment of an authorised representative, for authorising the representative to provide written explanations regarding the case, as well as the summonses to be present at the Constitutional Court’s hearing, which had been signed by the Acting President of the Constitutional Court, were sent to Seimas member Neringa Venckienė to the Seimas and to the address of 115 A SURVEY OF THE JURISPRUDENTIAL ACTIVITY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

The duties of members of the Seimas. The constitutional status of a member of the Seimas integrates the duties, rights, guarantees of the activity, and responsibility of a member of the Seimas, as a representative of the Nation, and it is based upon the constitutional principle of the free mandate of a member of the Seimas. While in office and implementing their rights, members of the Seimas are guided by the Constitution, state interests, and their own consciences. Under the Constitution, members of the Seimas not only acquire the respective rights, but they must also perform certain duties stemming from the Constitution and the laws not in conflict with the Constitution. Under the Constitution, members of the Seimas are professional politicians, i.e. such representatives of the Nation whose work at the Seimas is their professional activity. The uninterrupted continuity of the activity of the Seimas implies the uninterrupted continuity of the activity of a member of the Seimas. Under the Constitution, a member of the Seimas is under the duty to attend the sittings of the Seimas. The constitutional duty of members of the Seimas to participate in the work of the Seimas includes the duty to participate in the work of the structural subunits of the Seimas, to which they belong as their members, and to exercise other powers of members of the Seimas established in the Constitution, laws, and the Statute of the Seimas. The work of members of the Seimas also includes the activity of members of the Seimas when they carry out assignments and other tasks of the Seimas, its committees, and other structural subunits, also when, in the cases established by law, they represent certain groups of members of the Seimas, etc. Situations may arise where, due to extremely important personal and other justifiable reasons, the members of the Seimas cannot attend, for a certain period of time, the sittings of the Seimas, the committees of the Seimas, or other structural subunits, to which they belong as their members, or where they cannot perform, for a certain period of time, other duties of members of the Seimas. In such cases, the said members of the Seimas must apply to the institution specified by law (by the Statute of the Seimas) for permission, for a particular period of time, not to attend particular sittings and not to perform certain other duties. If such permission is not obtained, failure by the said members of the Seimas to attend the sittings of the Seimas, its committees, and other structural subunits, to which they belong as their members, or their failure to perform other duties of members of the Seimas, would be unjustifiable. Situations may also arise where the members of the Seimas cannot notify the institution specified by law (by the Statute of the Seimas) before a particular sitting begins that they will not attend that sitting; in such cases, the legislature is also obliged to establish the procedure enabling the institution specified by law to decide whether the reasons of failure by the said members of the Seimas to attend a particular sitting were especially important and justifiable. In its conclusion, the Constitutional Court held that Seimas member Neringa Venckienė had had a chance to notify the Secretariat of the Seimas Sittings and the Chair of the Seimas Committee on

her declared place of residence (the notifications and summonses to Seimas member Neringa Venckienė were sent to the address indicated by her as the address of her place of residence or the address to which correspondence should be sent); on 18 April 2014, a notification of the judicial hearing concerning the inquiry, set forth in the Seimas resolution, into whether the concrete actions of Seimas member Neringa Venckienė were in conflict with the Constitution, was circulated via the Press Centre of the Baltic News Service, and, since that day, it was published on the website of the Constitutional Court. 116 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

Legal Affairs that she would not attend the plenary sittings of the Seimas and the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Legal Affairs, held between April and November 2013, as well as to notify them of the reasons of her absence, which she had failed to do. The Constitutional Court pointed out that the reasons such as leaving the Republic of Lithuania, the fact that the persons concerned are suspects in criminal proceedings and that their search is announced, as well as that they may be hiding from a pre- trial investigation in order to avoid criminal liability, cannot in themselves be important and justifiable reasons for failure to attend the sittings of the Seimas and of its committee, or for failure to notify of the inability to attend these sittings. In the conclusion, the Constitutional Court also noted that the mere fact that members of the Seimas implement their right to draw up draft laws and other draft acts of the Seimas does not mean that they duly perform their duties of representatives of the Nation. Episodic participation in implementing part of the constitutional powers of the Seimas while passing laws may not be judged as an uninterrupted continuous activity of a member of the Seimas and as the proper implementation of the constitutional obligation of that member of the Seimas to represent the Nation, or as the fulfilment of the duty to attend the sittings of the Seimas and of its structural subunits. Thus, the Constitutional Court concluded that the mere fact that certain draft laws and other draft acts of the Seimas, indicating that Seimas member Neringa Venckienė had proposed them together with other members of the Seimas, had been registered at the Secretariat of the Seimas Sittings did not mean that, having failed to attend, without a justifiable reason, the particular plenary sittings of the Seimas and the sittings of the Seimas Committee on Legal Affairs, whose member Neringa Venckienė had been, she had, purportedly, duly performed the duties of a member of the Seimas.

NOTE

he summaries of the Constitutional Court’s acts presented in this annual report are unofficial Tand not binding on the Constitutional Court. The information presented herein is only meant to inform the public. The official and unabridged texts of the Constitutional Court’s acts can be found on the Internet website of the Constitutional Court (http://www.lrkt.lt) and on the Register of Legal Acts (https://www.e-tar.lt). 117 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTS 5. OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

he decisions of the Constitutional Court on the issues assigned to its competence by the Constitution Tare final and not subject to appeal. This means that the Constitutional Court’s rulings, conclusions, and decisions, by which a constitutional justice case is finished, i.e., the final acts of the Constitutional Court, are binding on all state institutions, courts, enterprises, establishments, and organisations, as well as officials and citizens, without excluding the Constitutional Court itself. The legal consequences of ruling a legal act in conflict with the Constitution are expressis verbis established in the Constitution itself, and disclosed, in more detail, in the official constitutional doctrine formulated by the Constitutional Court and in the Law on the Constitutional Court. Under the Constitution, a legal act that has been ruled by the Constitutional Court to be in conflict with the Constitution (another legal act of higher legal force) may not be applied from the day of the official publication of the decision of the Constitutional Court (Article 107). The Constitutional Court has noted that such a legal act is permanently removed from the Lithuanian legal system and may never be applied again. Article 72 of the Law on the Constitutional Court provides that all state institutions as well as their officials must revoke the substatutory acts or provisions thereof which they have adopted and which are based on an act that has been ruled unconstitutional; the decisions based on legal acts that have been ruled in conflict with the Constitution or laws must not be executed if they had not been executed prior to the entry into force of the appropriate ruling of the Constitutional Court. It should be noted that the Constitution (Paragraph 1 of Article 102 and Paragraph 2 of Article 107 thereof, the principle of the supremacy of the Constitution, and the constitutional imperative of the rule of law) gives rise to the Constitutional Court’s powers to judge the consequences of applying a legal act (part thereof) that is in conflict with the Constitution to be anti-constitutional in cases where such a legal act (part thereof) should be regarded as a violation of the constitutional prohibition on overruling the legal force of a final act of the Constitutional Court, or as a substantial denial of the fundamental constitutional values: the independence of the State of Lithuania, democracy, the republic, or the innate nature of human rights and freedoms (the Constitutional Court’s decision of 19 December 2012). 118 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

After the Constitutional Court has recognised that a certain legal act (part thereof) is in conflict with the Constitution, a constitutional duty stems for a law-making subject—the Seimas, the President of the Republic, or the Government—that has adopted the said legal act to recognise that such a legal act (part thereof) is no longer valid, or—if those social relations require a legal regulation—to adopt a legal act (legal acts) establishing a new legal regulation so that the newly established legal regulation would not be in conflict with the Constitution and other legal acts of higher legal force. The latter duty is especially relevant where, after the entry into force of the Constitutional Court’s ruling, by which a legal act (part thereof) has been ruled in conflict with the Constitution, the legal system entails certain uncertainties, legal gaps, or even a vacuum in a relevant legal regulation (then it is necessary to rectify the legal regulation in such a way that legal gaps and other uncertainties would be removed and the said legal regulation would become clear and consistent). It should be noted that the Constitutional Court’s rulings that deal with issues related to ensuring human rights and freedoms should be implemented as soon as possible. Thus, when implementing the Constitutional Court’s rulings, in which legal acts (parts thereof) adopted by the law-making subjects—the Seimas, the President of the Republic, and the Government— have been ruled in conflict with the Constitution, said subjects must: 1) repeal (declare no longer valid) those legal acts (parts thereof) (the so-called negative duty), or 2) adopt a legal act (legal acts) establishing a new legal regulation (the so-called positive duty). In both cases, the legal act in question (part thereof) may not be applied under any circumstances until the moment of fulfilling this constitutional duty—the legal force of the said act is repealed in this respect. As held by the Constitutional Court, when adopting new laws and other legal acts as well as amending and/or supplementing the existing ones (also when a new legal regulation is established in order to fulfil the requirements of the Constitution, or when the existing legal regulation is corrected in order to make it compatible with the Constitution), all law-making subjects are bound by the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence, the official constitutional doctrine formulated in the reasoning parts of the Constitutional Court’s acts, i.e. by the official construction of the provisions of the Constitution, and other legal arguments. In cases where a relevant law-making subject has not carried out its constitutional duty, i.e. has not passed a legal act, by means of which a new legal regulation compatible with the Constitution would be established instead of the one that has been ruled in conflict with the Constitution, legal gaps may be filled ad hoc by courts when they are deciding on individual cases and applying (as well as interpreting) law within their competence. However, this way of applying law removes legal gaps only with regard to individual social relations in respect of which a dispute is settled in a case considered by a court, whilst the said gaps may (and must) be finally removed by law-making institutions when they pass relevant legal acts. It may be noted that the Constitutional Court’s rulings have been implemented efficiently: at the end of 2014, the majority of the Constitutional Court’s rulings, in which certain legal acts had been ruled in conflict with the Constitution and/or laws, were implemented—135 out of 163 of such rulings (about 119 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

83 percent). 13 rulings (about 8 percent), 5 of which were adopted in 2014, for the implementation of which the performance of the positive duty, i.e. the adoption of a legal act (legal acts) establishing a new legal regulation, is necessary, remained not implemented, as well as 15 rulings (about 9 percent), 1 of which was adopted in 2014, for the implementation of which only the performance of the negative duty, i.e. a formal repeal of legal acts (parts thereof) that had been ruled in conflict with the Constitution, is necessary, were not implemented as well. Below this annual report focuses on the first category of not implemented rulings of the Constitutional Court since their implementation is more important to the legal system—the said implementation is related to the removal of uncertainties, legal gaps, or a vacuum in a relevant legal regulation.

5.1. Not implemented rulings of the Constitutional Court for the implementation of which the adoption of a legal act (legal acts) establishing a new legal regulation is necessary

A law-making subject that has adopted a legal act (part thereof) which has been ruled in conflict with the Constitution has a positive duty to adopt a new legal regulation in cases where: 1) after the entry into force of a ruling of the Constitutional Court, the legal system entails a gap in a certain legal regulation; 2) a certain legal regulation has been ruled in conflict with the Constitution notably for the reason that it contains a legal gap (legislative omission) prohibited by the Constitution; 3) after the entry into force of a ruling of the Constitutional Court, a certain legal regulation becomes particularly vague. The operative parts of the Constitutional Court’s rulings for the implementation of which the aforesaid positive action by law-making institutions may be necessary often specify a certain extent of a relevant legal regulation to which the said regulation does not comply with the Constitution: it is recognised that a legal act is in conflict with the Constitution, “insofar as it provides…” or “insofar as it does not provide...”. 5.1.1. Not implemented rulings of the Constitutional Court adopted prior to 2014 Changing the factual circumstances of a criminal deed, specified in the accusation, and its classification in court. One has not implemented the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 15 November 2013, in which several norms that regulate the criminal procedure were ruled in conflict with the Constitution, in particular, Paragraph 2 of Article 255 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the CCP), insofar as the said paragraph did not provide that the accused may not be convicted under a different criminal law that provides for a less serious crime or a less serious criminal misdemeanour and establishes other or new features of a criminal deed or other circumstances significant for the classification of a deed in comparison with the criminal law specified in the indictment, if the accused was not given prior notification of such a possibility in a court trial, as well as Paragraph 1 of Article 256 of the CCP, insofar as the said paragraph did not provide that a court may, on its own initiative, change 120 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

the factual circumstances of a criminal deed that is specified in the accusation to those that are different in substance. After the entry into force of this ruling of the Constitutional Court, the specified provisions of the CCP must be corrected as appropriate. Until this has been done, courts should follow the said ruling of the Constitutional Court and give prior notification to the accused of the reclassification of a deed to a less serious one in a court trial, but in case the accused were not notified of this, they could not invoke this as a violation of procedural law infringing their right to defence; thus, the legislature should not delay the adoption of a necessary amendment to the CCP. The legislature must also enable a court that is considering a criminal case to change, on its own initiative, the factual circumstances of a deed that is specified in the accusation to those that are different in substance so that the court could properly classify a criminal deed committed by the accused and administer justice. An appeal against the decision not to accept a petition. One has not implemented the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 26 January 2006, adopted nine years ago, in which the legal regulation established in Paragraph 4 of Article 10 of the Law on Petitions was ruled in conflict with the Constitution, insofar as, under the said legal regulation, a person who thinks that a decision of the Seimas and a municipal council to refuse to uphold a complaint about the decisions of the Petitions Commission not to regard an application as a petition or to refuse to accept a petition for consideration is not grounded on the bases established in laws, or is grounded on the bases that are not established in laws, may not appeal against such a decision to a court. The Law on Petitions was last amended in October 2013; however, the provision conflicting with the Constitution has remained unchanged. The differentiation of the state pensions of judges and their remuneration for work. Two rulings of the Constitutional Court in relation to the material (social) guarantees of judges have not been implemented yet. The first is its ruling of 29 June 2010 on the state pensions of judges. In this ruling, it was recognised that the following was in conflict with the Constitution: 1) Paragraph 1 (under which the right to receive the maximum size of the state pension of judges was acquired by persons whose length of service as a judge had been twenty years or more) of Article 6 of the Law on the State Pensions of Judges, insofar as, in consolidating the maximum size of the state pension of judges, no account had been taken of the peculiarities of separate court systems; 2) Paragraph 2 (which established the procedure for the calculation of the state pension of judges whose length of service as a judge was less than twenty years, as well as the percentages of the said pension) of Article 6 of the Law on the State Pensions of Judges since the legal regulation established in the said paragraph had not been in line with the concept of the state pension of judges as a constitutional social (material) guarantee of judges upon the expiry of their powers, given that, on the one hand, it had created the preconditions for equalising the sizes of the state pensions of judges whose length of service as a judge differed considerably and, on the other hand, it had created the preconditions for granting the state pensions of judges of a considerably different size to those judges whose length of service as a judge differed insignificantly. It should be noted that the Constitutional Court delayed the official publication of the said ruling so that the legislature would have time to adopt a new legal regulation governing the sizes of the state 121 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

pensions of judges instead of the one that had been ruled in conflict with the Constitution and so as to avoid the emergence of a vacuum in the legal regulation, which could substantially disturb the granting of the said pensions. Such a vacuum in the legal regulation emerged on 16 November 2010 after the entry into force of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 29 June 2010 and after the failure of the legislature to establish a new legal regulation until then by changing Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 6 of the Law on the State Pensions of Judges. The legislature has so far failed to remove the vacuum that has emerged in the legal regulation governing the state pensions of judges;1 the state pensions of judges are granted and calculated pursuant to the acts of the director of the National Courts Administration. Another not implemented ruling of the Constitutional Court as regards the material (social) guarantees of judges is its ruling of 14 February 2011, in which it was recognised that Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Law on the Remuneration of Judges was in conflict with the Constitution, insofar as the said paragraph limited the right of judges to receive fair remuneration for overtime work and for work on public holidays and days off. Several other rulings of the Constitutional Court, adopted prior to 2014, have not been implemented as well: its ruling of 28 September 2011, in which the concepts consolidated in Item 1.6 of the State Family Policy Concept, as approved by a resolution of the Seimas, were ruled in conflict with the Constitution; its ruling of 5 September of 2012, in which Paragraph 5 of Article 2 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas was ruled in conflict with the Constitution, insofar as the said paragraph provided that a person who has been removed from office or whose mandate of a member of the Seimas has been revoked, under the procedure for impeachment proceedings, for the commission of a crime that has not grossly violated the Constitution and breached the oath, may not be elected as a member of the Seimas; its ruling of 16 May 2013, in which Paragraph 2 of Article 8 of the Law on Health Insurance was ruled in conflict with the Constitution, insofar as the said paragraph provided that, with regard to certain persons, compulsory health insurance becomes effective only in the next month following the day on which compulsory health insurance contributions were paid on behalf of these persons or they themselves paid the said contributions three months in succession, or only from the day on which these persons pay a contribution equal to three minimum monthly salaries; its ruling of 20 December 2013, in which Paragraph 6 of Article 33 of the Law on Road Traffic Safety was ruled in conflict with the Constitution, insofar as the said paragraph did not provide for any possibility of recovering an impounded vehicle

1 In its decision of 14 January 2015 on the construction of its ruling of 29 June 2010, the Constitutional Court recalled, in this regard, that the Constitution does not tolerate any such situation where a relevant law-making subject avoids or delays the adoption of relevant legal acts that, while following the official concept of the provisions of the Constitution—the official constitutional doctrine— set forth in the Constitutional Court’s rulings, would correct, as appropriate, the legal regulation that has been ruled, by a ruling of the Constitutional Court, in conflict with legal acts of higher legal force, inter alia (and, first of all), with the Constitution; such a situation should especially not be tolerated when a lacuna legis, a legal gap, appears in the legal system after the entry into force of the Constitutional Court’s ruling that has ruled a certain legal act (part thereof) in conflict with the Constitution (or another legal act of higher legal force), i.e. when certain social relations remain legally unregulated, even though, while paying heed to the imperatives of the consistency and inner uniformity of the legal system, which stem from the Constitution, and taking account of the content of these social relations, the said relations must be legally regulated. 122 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

from a car pound once the fulfilment of the outstanding obligation to pay the costs related to towing away and storing the said vehicle has been adequately ensured. Alongside, it needs to be noted that the procedure for the implementation of certain rulings has already commenced after registering draft laws amending relevant laws at the Seimas.2 5.1.2. Not implemented rulings of the Constitutional Court adopted in 2014 Certain legal acts were ruled in conflict with the Constitution in 11 out of 17 rulings of the Constitutional Court adopted in 2014. Positive legislative action should be taken by the legislature in implementing five rulings. The preparation and adoption of amendments to laws need certain time; therefore, it is understandable that certain Constitutional Court’s rulings adopted in 2014, especially those that have been adopted recently, namely its ruling of 13 October 2014 on the names of election committees and its ruling of 10 November 2014 on funding studies at schools of higher education, have not been implemented yet for objective reasons. The prohibition on altering a draft law amending the Constitution in substance. A constitutional justice case in which the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 24 January 2014 was adopted dealt with issues related to the alteration of the Constitution. Among other things, the Constitutional Court decided on whether, after receiving a draft law amending the Constitution that had been drawn up by a group of members of the Seimas, the Seimas Committee on Legal Affairs could change its content in substance and submit an amended draft law to the Seimas for consideration. The Constitutional Court held that Article 170 of the Statute of the Seimas, which regulates the submission and consideration of draft laws amending the Constitution, did not establish any requirements concerning decisions that, following the consideration of a draft law amending the Constitution, may be made on said draft law by the Seimas Committee on Legal Affairs as the lead committee considering that draft law, and that it did not establish any limitations on submitting, for the first vote, the text of a draft law amending the Constitution that is different from that submitted by the subjects that have the right to make a motion to alter the Constitution. Paragraph 1 of Article 147 of the Constitution gives rise to the prohibition on changing in substance the content of a draft law amending the Constitution, when considering it at the Seimas, that has been submitted by the subjects established in the Constitution that have the right to make a motion to alter the Constitution—a group of not less than 1/4 of all the members of the Seimas or not less than 300,000 voters; therefore, the structural subunits of the Seimas as well as

2 Draft laws amending laws, the explanatory notes of which specify that these draft laws aim at implementing the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 5 September 2012 (the draft Law Amending Articles 2, 51, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, 25, 26, 35, 37, 38, 39, 41, 51, 54, 55, 56, 61, 671, 91, 92, and 97 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas (No. I-2721)), its ruling of 16 May 2013 (the draft Law Amending Articles 2, 8, 15, 21, and 30 of the Law on Health Insurance (No. I-1343)), and its ruling of 15 November 2013 (the draft Law on Amending Articles 188, 189, 246, 255, 256, and 272 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Supplementing the Code with Article 91), have been registered. By the 25 March 2015 decision (No. SV-S-977) of the Board of the Seimas, it was again proposed that the Government prepare draft legal acts necessary for the implementation of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 29 June 2010. 123 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

individual members of the Seimas do not have any right to submit to the Seimas for consideration a draft law amending the Constitution that would be different in substance from a draft law amending the Constitution that has been submitted by a group of not less than 1/4 of all the members of the Seimas. In the light of the foregoing, Article 170 of the Statute of the Seimas, insofar as it did not establish any prohibition against any substantial changes made by the Seimas Committee on Legal Affairs to draft laws amending the Constitution that have been submitted by the subjects that have the right to make a motion to amend the Constitution and insofar as it did not establish any prohibition on submitting, for the first vote, a substantially changed text of a draft law, was ruled in conflict with the Constitution. Such prohibitions have not been established in the Statute of the Seimas so far; thus, the preconditions for the emergence of situations where the Constitution would be amended by not complying with the constitutional requirements as regards the procedure for altering the Constitution (with procedural limitations on the alteration of the Constitution) have not been removed. The retroactive effect of a law that lays down criminal liability for the crime of genocide. In its ruling of 18 March 2014, the Constitutional Court recognised that the provision of Paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the CC, under which Article 99 of the CC, laying down criminal liability for genocide, also had a retroactive effect on such actions that are considered to constitute genocide only under national law (directed against persons belonging to social or political groups, i.e. groups that are not provided for in defining the crime of genocide according to the universally recognised norms of international law), was in conflict with the Constitution. After the entry into force of this ruling, it is not allowed to put anyone on trial under Article 99 of the CC (i.e. for genocide) for the actions aimed at physically destroying, in whole or in part, persons belonging to any social or political group, where such actions had been committed prior to the time when liability for the genocide of persons belonging to any social or political group was established in the CC. The provisions of criminal laws must be particularly precise and clear; therefore, the legislature should, without any delay, implement this ruling of the Constitutional Court by correcting, as appropriate, the legal regulation established in Paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the CC so that Article 99 of the CC, insofar as it lays down criminal liability for genocide directed at persons belonging to any social or political group, would not have any retroactive effect. The requirement for decisions proposed to be put to a referendum and the grounds for the Seimas not to call a referendum. In its ruling of 11 July 2014, the Constitutional Court recognised that Article 6 of the Law on Referendums, insofar as it did not establish the requirement that several issues unrelated by their content and nature, or several unrelated amendments to the Constitution, or several unrelated provisions of laws may not be submitted as a single issue in a decision proposed to be put to a referendum, and Article 14 of the same law, insofar as it provided that the Seimas was obliged to adopt a resolution on calling a referendum where the decision proposed to be put to the referendum may not be in line with the requirements stemming from the Constitution, were in conflict with the Constitution. In implementing this ruling of the Constitutional Court, the legislature should supplement the legal 124 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

regulation as appropriate—it should establish the aforesaid requirement for draft decisions proposed to be put to a referendum and the grounds for the Seimas not to call a referendum if a decision proposed to be put to a referendum were not in line with constitutional requirements. In this context, it should be noted that, as it is clear from the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 11 July 2014, the Seimas could establish a new legal regulation governing referendums while implementing its obligation to adopt the Constitutional Law on Referendums (the said law is included in the list of constitutional laws, which is approved by the Seimas). The right of election committees to choose their name. In its ruling of 13 October 2014, the Constitutional Court recognised that the provisions of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Law on Elections to the European Parliament, under which election committees were obliged to participate in elections to the European Parliament by presenting themselves to voters not under their chosen name, but under the letter assigned to them by the Central Electoral Commission, were conflict with the Constitution. The legislature must rectify this legal regulation and ensure an opportunity for all collective entities that nominate their candidates in elections to participate in the electoral process under the name of their choice. The funding of the studies of citizens who are good at their studies at schools of higher education. In its ruling of 10 November 2014, the Constitutional Court recognised that the provision of Paragraph 7 of Article 70 of the Law on Science and Studies, under which a person loses state funding for studies if the average results of their studies are more than 20 percentage points lower than the average results of the studies of students of the same year of studies, was in conflict with the Constitution. The Constitutional Court emphasised that the criteria enabling one to establish which persons can be said to demonstrate good academic results and which persons, consequently, as prescribed by the Constitution, have the right that their education at state schools of higher education be financed by the state, cannot deviate from the concept of good learning that arises out of the social experience of society and does not deny the generally recognised meaning of the word “good” that is understood by everyone. Meanwhile, the impugned provision of the law also created the preconditions for the state funding of the studies of citizens, studying at state schools of higher education, whose learning does not conform to the generally recognised meaning of the word “good”, thus, the said provision created the preconditions for using state funds in a constitutionally unreasoned manner and in a manner unfair from the social point of view. In implementing this ruling of the Constitutional Court, the legislature should redefine the criterion of good learning according to which the studies of persons are funded by the state; this criterion must be such that persons whose learning does not conform to the generally recognised meaning of the word “good” could not be regarded as persons who are good at their studies.3

3 By the 25 March 2015 decision (No. SV-S-978) of the Board of the Seimas, it was proposed to the Government to prepare draft legal acts necessary for the implementation of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 10 November 2014. 125 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

5.2. Rulings of the Constitutional Court for the implementation of which the repeal of legal regulation conflicting with the Constitution is necessary

Where, after the entry into force of a ruling of the Constitutional Court, by means of which a certain legal act (part thereof) has been ruled in conflict with the Constitution, no legal gaps or other uncertainties appear in the legal system, a law-making institution that has adopted the said legal act does not need to rectify it—in order to implement the Constitutional Court’s ruling, it is suffice to formally repeal (recognise that it is no longer valid) the legal regulation that is in conflict with the Constitution. Two such rulings were adopted in 2014. For instance, the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 8 May 2014—by means of which the Constitutional Court recognised that Article 301 of the Labour Code was in conflict with the Constitution, insofar as the said article had limited the judicial award of the amounts of work remuneration and other amounts connected with employment relations due to the employee (the said amounts could have been awarded to the employee for not longer than a 3-year period)—has been implemented by the Seimas by declaring the said article of the Labour Code no longer valid.4 Sometimes, after the entry into force of a ruling of the Constitutional Court, not only an unconstitutional legal act or its provision referred to in the operative part of the Constitutional Court’s ruling, but also the related legal regulation should be repealed (or it should be amended as appropriate). For example, upon the recognition by the Constitutional Court, in its ruling of 3 July 2014, that Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Law on the State Annuity of the President of the Republic was in conflict with the Constitution, insofar as the said paragraph had consolidated the right of the widow(er) of the President to receive the state annuity of the widow(er) of the President of the Republic, the legislature should repeal not only the said provision, but also the other provisions of the law that are inseparable from the former provision and regulated the granting and payment of the annuity in question and therefore lost their meaning. The example of this case also shows that arguments set forth in the reasoning parts of the Constitutional Court’s acts may be certain guidelines enabling the legislature and other law-making institutions to see the necessity to rectify legal acts adopted by them that establish a similar legal regulation. Thus, a proper implementation of the Constitutional Court’s acts should be understood in broader terms than only the enforcement of the decisions consolidated in the operative parts of the said acts—in the process of law-making, due note should also be taken of the official constitutional doctrine formulated by the Constitutional Court and other arguments set forth in the reasoning parts of its acts.

4 Article 7 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Articles 751, 98, 268, 287, 288, and 293 of the Labour Code and Declaring Article 301 of the Code No Longer Valid, as adopted on 16 December 2014. 126 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

5.3. The argumentation presented in acts of the Constitutional Court which should be taken into consideration in the process of law-making

The Constitutional Court has held on more than one occasion that, in passing new laws and other legal acts, as well as amending and supplementing the existing ones, state institutions that pass them are bound by the concept of the provisions of the Constitution and other legal arguments set forth in the reasoning part of a ruling of the Constitutional Court,5 that the legislature may not disregard the concept of the provisions of the Constitution and other legal arguments set forth in a ruling of the Constitutional Court, otherwise, the preconditions could be created for ruling laws, if one applied to the Constitutional Court regarding their constitutionality, to be in conflict with the Constitution,6 and that not only the Constitutional Court’s rulings, but also its conclusions and decisions—all its acts that interpret the Constitution, i.e. formulate the official constitutional doctrine—are also binding, by their content, on law-making institutions (officials) and those that apply law.7 The construction of the provisions of the Constitution, which is provided in the Constitutional Court’s acts, has a certain degree of abstractedness. However, sometimes, when presenting arguments substantiating its acts, the Constitutional Court provides guidelines on what constitutes a legal regulation that would not be in conflict with the Constitution or that would be necessary for the implementation of the requirements of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court has formulated such guidelines on more than one occasion. Attention should be drawn to several cases where no account was taken of these guidelines and thereby the preconditions for the emergence of new constitutional justice cases were created. The right of judges to familiarise themselves with classified information significant to the case. In its ruling of 19 December 1996, the Constitutional Court assessed the compliance of the provisions of the Law on State Secrets and Their Protection with the Constitution and recognised that, in the aspect impugned by the petitioner, Article 10 of the said law had not been in conflict with the Constitution. At the same time, it was noted that the right of judges to familiarise themselves with the information that constitutes a state secret and is necessary for the investigation of a case is determined by the function of administering justice by the court as a state institution rather than by entering the position of judges on the list of certain positions; the fact that Article 10 of the Law on State Secrets and Their Protection does not indicate directly that judges ex officio have the right to familiarise themselves with the information that constitutes a state secret may be regarded as a deficiency in the said law. The Constitutional Court has returned to this question twice: in its ruling of 15 May of 2007, it confirmed its previous position and emphasised that there cannot be any legal situation where a court, when considering a case, would not be able to familiarise itself with the case material that contains information constituting a state secret (or that is any other classified information); in its decision of 3 July

5 See the Constitutional Court’s rulings of 30 May 2003, 19 January 2005, 28 March 2006, and 22 December 2011. 6 See the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 19 January 2005 and its decision of 3 July 2013. 7 See the Constitutional Court’s decision of 20 September 2005 and its ruling of 28 March 2006. 127 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ACTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

2013, devoted to the construction of the aforesaid provisions of its acts, the Constitutional Court again held that courts (judges) considering a case have the right to familiarise themselves, in all cases, with the case material and/or the material significant to the case that constitutes a state secret (or is any other classified information), irrespective of whether they have a permission, which is issued under the Law on State Secrets and Official Secrets, to handle, or familiarise themselves with, classified information. In the decision, it was noted that, in order for the court to properly administer justice and defend the violated rights and freedoms of a person in a real and effective rather than formal way, under the Constitution, the legal regulation must be established that ensures the right of courts (judges) considering a case to familiarise themselves, in all cases, with all the case material and/or the material significant to the case; no such situation is allowed where a court would be forced to adopt a decision without having any opportunity to familiarise itself with all the case material and/or the material significant to the case, including the material that constitutes a state secret or any other classified information. Despite the said constitutional requirements, the Law on State Secrets and Official Secrets has not been amended yet by explicitly consolidating therein that judges ex officio have the right to familiarise themselves with classified information. Paid annual leave of members of the Seimas. One has not yet implemented the doctrinal provision, set forth in the Constitutional Court’s acts, regarding the paid annual leave of members of the Seimas. In its ruling of 1 July 2004, the Constitutional Court noted that Paragraph 1 of Article 49 of the Constitution, which provides that each working human being has the right to rest and leisure as well as to annual paid leave, and Paragraph 4 of Article 60 of the Constitution, which provides that the duties, rights and guarantees of the activities of a member of the Seimas are established by law, give rise to the duty of the legislature to establish by law the duration of, and other conditions for, the paid annual leave of members of the Seimas; the law-established consolidation of the leave of members of the Seimas would also ensure that no preconditions would be created for the constitutionally ungrounded treatment of the period between the sessions of the Seimas as time equal to the leave of members of the Seimas or any other type of their rest. In the Constitutional Court’s decision of 10 February 2005, which construed the provisions of the ruling of 1 July 2004, it was emphasised that the leave of members of the Seimas must be established not by any legal act adopted by the Seimas, but namely by law; it was noted that such a law must determine the duration of the paid annual leave of members of the Seimas, the amount of pay for the leave, and other essential conditions as regards the leave; the said decision also disclosed certain constitutional requirements that must be heeded by the legislature in regulating relations concerning the paid annual leave of members of the Seimas. The powers of the Central Electoral Commission to remove a candidate or a list of candidates from the electoral process. As mentioned before, the legislature and other law-making institutions are bound not only by those arguments that are set forth in the Constitutional Court’s rulings, but also by those that are set forth in its other acts. For instance, the Constitutional Court’s conclusion of 10 November 2012 specifies certain powers of the Central Electoral Commission that should be established by the 128 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

legislature in regulating the process of elections to the Seimas. Having held that, under the Constitution, the Central Electoral Commission must have sufficient powers to efficiently ensure, upon establishing gross violations of the principles of democratic, free, and fair elections, that those violations do not distort the genuine will of the voters, and that persons the lawfulness of electing whom would rise doubts do not receive a mandate of the Seimas (including its powers to apply the strictest measure—to declare election results invalid), the Constitutional Court noted that the legislature must establish such a legal regulation governing the electoral process under which the Central Electoral Commission would also have other measures to ensure that the genuine will of the voters is not distorted, including its powers to declare that the participants of the electoral process (candidates, with a view to electing whom gross violations of the aforesaid principles were committed, or the entire list of the candidates of a political party) have lost their right to participate in the election and to be elected as members of the Seimas or to participate in the distribution of the mandates of the Seimas. Such powers of the Central Electoral Commission have not been yet established in the Law on Elections to the Seimas. Compensation for the losses incurred due to the disproportionate reduction of remuneration. Another example when, in the light of the arguments set forth in the reasoning part of a ruling of the Constitutional Court, the legislature should take certain legislative action, is the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 22 December 2014, in which the disproportionate reduction of the coefficients of the positional salaries of prosecutors and certain other state officials in the event of the occurrence of a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state was ruled in conflict with the Constitution. In this ruling, it was held that the Constitution gives rise to the duty of the legislature to establish the mechanism of compensation for the losses incurred by the specified persons as a result of such a reduction, i.e. to establish the procedure under which the state will compensate for the said losses within a reasonable time period and in a fair manner—to the extent that the incurred losses have been disproportionate; such a legal regulation should be established without unreasonable delay.8 A similar example is the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 1 July 2013, in which the disproportionate reduction of the remuneration of state servants and judges was ruled in conflict with the Constitution. In this respect, it should be noted that, as held in the Constitutional Court’s decision of 16 April 2014, the legislature may postpone the establishment and/or implementation of the mechanism of compensation for the losses incurred due to the disproportionate reduction of remuneration for a reasonable time that should be determined in view of the assessment of the existing economic and financial situation in the state as well as in the light of the consequences of an extreme situation and the capabilities of the state, including various obligations that are assumed by the state and related to financial discipline.9

8 By the 25 March 2015 decision (No. SV-S-979) of the Board of the Seimas, it was proposed that the Government prepare draft legal acts necessary for the implementation of the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 22 December 2014. 9 By the law of 11 September 2014 adopted by the Seimas, it was proposed that the Government prepare and submit to the Seimas, by 1 May 2015, a draft law regulating the mechanism of compensation for the losses that, as a result of the economic crisis, have been incurred, due to the disproportionate reduction of work pay (remuneration), by persons whose work is paid from the funds of the state budget or a municipal budget. 129 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

6. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

ince its very establishment in 1993, the Constitutional Court has been developing and strengthening Scooperation with both the constitutional courts of neighbouring and other states and with international institutions. The Constitutional Court is a full member of two international organisations—the World Conference on Constitutional Justice (WCCJ) and the Conference of European Constitutional Courts (CECC)—uniting constitutional justice institutions. It also maintains cooperation ties with the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission). The Constitutional Court has particularly friendly long-term cooperation relations with the constitutional courts of neighbouring states—Latvia and Poland. In recent years, priority has been given to cooperation with the constitutional courts of Ukraine and Moldova, i.e. the EU’s Eastern Partnership countries with which EU association agreements have been signed. The Constitutional Court is planning to revive closer cooperation ties, which were developed before the economic crisis, with the constitutional courts of Germany, Portugal, and other Western European countries. The dialogue taking place among the justices of constitutional courts during bilateral and multilateral meetings, international conferences, and other events is useful in strengthening the interrelations of constitutional justice institutions, in improving the qualifications of justices, sharing the acquired experience and making use of the experience of foreign constitutional courts in the activities of the Constitutional Court.

6.1. Activity in international organisations

6.1.1. Membership in the World Conference on Constitutional Justice There is a diverse range of organisations operating in the world that bring constitutional courts together on a regional or linguistic basis (the CECC, the Association of Asian Constitutional Courts 130 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

The participants of the 3rd Congress of the World Conference on Constitutional Justice. The Congress was attended by Constitutional Court’s President Dainius Žalimas and Justice Gediminas Mesonis. Seoul (South Korea), 1 October 2014

and Equivalent Institutions, the Union of Arab Constitutional Courts and Councils, the Conference of Constitutional Jurisdictions of Africa, etc.). With the aim of bringing the members of the said organisations together, the Venice Commission put forward the idea of founding an umbrella organisation—the World Conference on Constitutional Justice—uniting institutions of constitutional review from all over the world. This idea was developed during the XIVth Congress of the CECC, which took place in Vilnius on 3–6 June 2008. Being one of the initiators of the establishment of the WCCJ, the Constitutional Court of Lithuania was elected as a member of the preparatory Bureau (an institution entrusted with the organisation of the 1st Congress of the WCCJ) of the WCCJ. The Constitutional Court has been a member of the Bureau of the WCCJ without interruption so far. The 1st Congress of the WCCJ took place in Cape Town (South Africa) in 2009. This Congress was attended by representatives from more than 90 constitutional justice institutions and nine organisations operating on a regional or linguistic basis. During the Congress, it was decided that the Bureau of the WCCJ, composed of the presidents of the organisations uniting constitutional courts on a regional or linguistic basis, the presidents of the constitutional courts that either have organised or would organise a Congress, and the three presidents of the courts chosen by the General Assembly of the WCCJ, would operate as a permanent executive institution of the WCCJ. The Congress discussed the Statute of the WCCJ, which was ultimately adopted in the meeting of the Bureau that took place in Bucharest (Romania) in 2011. The Statute of the WCCJ provides the objective of this organisation, which is to promote constitutional justice as a key element for democracy, the protection of human rights, and the rule of law. To achieve this objective, the WCCJ organises Congresses at least once every three years, as well as it organises various regional conferences and seminars. At present, the WCCJ unites 95 constitutional justice institutions of various states from Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe. The Venice Commission discharges the function of the Secretariat of the WCCJ. The 2nd Congress of the WCCJ took place in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) in 2011. It discussed the topic “Separation of Powers and Independence of Constitutional Courts and Equivalent Bodies”. The 131 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

Constitutional Court prepared its national report on this topic. The Constitutional Court’s President Kęstutis Lapinskas and Justice Armanas Abramavičius took part in this Congress. The topic of the 3rd Congress of the WCCJ held in Seoul (South Korea) in September 2014 was “Constitutional Justice and Social Integration”. The Constitutional Court delivered its national report “The Jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania in the Face of the Challenges Brought About by Social Integration”. The Congress also discussed the issues of, and tendencies in, the protection of the independence of constitutional courts or equivalent institutions and decided to discuss developments and tendencies in this field at each Congress. The Constitutional Court’s President Dainius Žalimas and Justice Gediminas Mesonis took part in the Congress. During the first session of the General Assembly of the WCCJ that took place during this Congress, the Constitutional Court of Lithuania was elected as a member of the Bureau of the WCCJ for another three-year period. This illustrates the international authority of the Constitutional Court and the recognition of its contribution to the activities of the WCCJ. In November 2014, the Constitutional Court submitted an application to hold the 4th Congress of the WCCJ in Lithuania in 2017, when the 25th anniversary of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania will be commemorated. On 21 March 2015, this application was granted. 6.1.2. Membership in the Conference of European Constitutional Courts The Conference of European Constitutional Courts is an organisation established in Dubrovnik (Croatia) in 1972 on the grounds of the joint declaration of intent of the presidents of European constitutional courts. This organisation unites constitutional and equivalent courts conducting a constitutional review in European states. At present, it unites 41 full members and one associate member. This organisation promotes the exchange of information on the working methodology and practice of constitutional review among its member courts together with the exchange of opinions on institutional, structural, and operational issues in the fields of public law and constitutional jurisdiction, it takes measures to strengthen the independence of constitutional courts and, in particular, is concerned with the protection of human rights. At regular intervals of every three years, the CECC holds Congresses focussing on various issues of constitutional justice. The governing body of the CECC is the Circle of Presidents, which is composed of the presidents of the courts and the institutions with full member status. The chairmanship of the CECC is held by one of its elected members for the period of three years. The Constitutional Court has taken part in the activities of the CECC since the very establishment of the Constitutional Court, and it became a full member of this organisation in 1997. The Constitutional Court participates in the annual meetings of the Circle of Presidents and in the Congresses held every three years; it prepares its national report for each Congress. The Constitutional Court presided over this organisation in 2005–2008 and hosted the XIVth Congress of the CECC on “Problems of Legislative Omission in Constitutional Jurisprudence” in Vilnius on 3–6 June 2008. At the said Congress, a resolution on the cooperation of the CECC with the Venice 132 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

Constitutional Court’s President Dainius Žalimas participates in the meeting of the Circle of Presidents at the XVIth Congress of the Conference of European Constitutional Courts. Vienna (Austria), 14 May 2014

Commission was adopted, and agreement was reached on the establishment of a world organisation uniting constitutional courts. In May 2014, the XVIth Congress of the CECC took place in Vienna (Austria). The national report of Lithuania “Cooperation of Constitutional Courts in Europe—Current Situation and Perspectives” was prepared for this Congress. The Constitutional Court’s President Dainius Žalimas and Justice Algirdas Taminskas took part in the Congress. At the same Congress, the Constitutional Court of Georgia was chosen to hold the chairmanship of the CECC and it was decided that the XVIIth Congress would be held in Batumi in 2017. In September 2015, the Circle of Presidents will approve the topic of the upcoming Congress. 6.1.3. Cooperation with the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) The Constitutional Court maintains close cooperative ties with the Commission of the Council of Europe for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) which is an advisory institution of the Council of Europe on constitutionalism issues. The Constitutional Court makes use of the CODICES InfoBase on constitutional case-law, which was created and is maintained by this Commission. This InfoBase contains the most significant decisions of the constitutional justice institutions of many states and their summaries in English and French; the most important rulings, decisions, and conclusions of the Constitutional Court and their summaries are also sent to this InfoBase. The Constitutional Court also has the possibility of engaging in sharing experience in the Venice Forum, i.e. asking, through the Venice Commission, the representatives of the constitutional justice institutions of other states the 133 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

questions that are material in deciding concrete constitutional justice cases, as well as providing, in its turn, answers to their enquiries. The representatives of constitutional courts for relations with the Venice Commission (liaison officers) meet in the annual meetings of the Joint Council on Constitutional Justice. Last year, such a meeting, which was also attended by a representative of the Constitutional Court, took place in Batumi. The meeting discussed the role of constitutional courts during the economic crisis. In 2014, Gediminas Mesonis, a Justice of the Constitutional Court, was appointed as an individual member—independent expert—(permanent member) of the Venice Commission representing Lithuania for a four-year period (Vygantė Milašiūtė, a representative of the Ministry of Justice, is a substitute member). The members of the Venice Commission draw up the opinions and conclusions of the Venice Commission on draft legal acts of its member states, assess the compliance of such acts with the standards for democracy, and submit recommendations.1 The Venice Commission meets in plenary sessions, which are attended by individual members, four times a year. Egidijus Jarašiūnas and Kęstutis Lapinskas, the then Justices of the Constitutional Court, as well as Kęstutis Jankauskas, the Director of the Law Department of the Constitutional Court, have also served as individual members of the Venice Commission. In cooperation with the Venice Commission, several international conferences were organised in Vilnius: “Citizenship and State Succession” (1997); the Baltic-Nordic regional conference “Interpretation and Direct Application of the Constitution” (2002); the conference “Constitutional Justice and the Rule of Law” dedicated to the 10th anniversary of the Constitutional Court’s activity (2003); “Law and Fact in Constitutional Jurisprudence” (2005); the conference “Standards of Europe’s Constitutional Heritage” (2012), dedicated to the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution, the participants of which were welcomed by the President of the Venice Commission, Gianni Buquicchio, whilst Sergio Bartole, a member of the Venice Commission, delivered one of the reports in this conference; the conference “Modern Tendencies of Constitutional Justice: The Relation Between National and International Law” (2013), dedicated to the 20th anniversary of the Constitutional Court’s activity, which was attended by Evgeni Tanchev, a member of the Venice Commission. The Venice Commission provides not only organisational, but also financial support. The justices of the Constitutional Court have delivered reports, on more than one occasion, in international seminars held by the Venice Commission. In November 2013, at a seminar of the Venice Commission, Justice Dainius Žalimas delivered the report “Preliminary Requests Before Constitutional Courts: The Experience of the Constitutional Court of Lithuania” to the justices of the Constitutional Court of Jordan. In November 2014, at a seminar held by the Venice Commission, Gediminas Mesonis, a Justice of the Constitutional Court, delivered a lecture on the principle of proportionality to the members of the Constitutional Council of the Kyrgyz Republic.

1 It should be noted that no draft legal acts of Lithuania or problems of its legal system have ever been considered in the Venice Com- mission. This shows that Lithuania is not a problematic state in respect of European standards for constitutionalism. 134 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

6.2. Cooperation with foreign constitutional courts and ties with international courts

The Constitutional Court has particularly friendly ties with the constitutional justice institutions of neighbouring states—the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland and the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia. The bilateral cooperation of the Constitutional Court with the constitutional courts of these states is unique and, at a global level, is presented as an example of cooperation among constitutional courts to be followed. In cooperation with the constitutional courts of Latvia and Poland, bilateral conferences, which are particularly useful since the constitutional courts of neighbouring states face similar legal problems, are held every year. The opportunity to share experience is valuable in seeking solutions to these problems and developing a respective constitutional doctrine. Bilateral conferences present a review of decisions adopted per year, justices get acquainted with the relevant jurisprudence of the constitutional justice institution of a neighbouring state, they discuss the most significant cases and the most important rulings, exchange their opinions, and discuss topical and practical issues arising out of both legal theory and everyday work. As mentioned before, in 2014, more attention was given to the development of cooperation with the constitutional courts of Ukraine and Moldova. The four-party meetings of the justices of the constitutional courts of Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine were started to be held on the initiative of the Constitutional Court. An agreement was reached on cooperation with the constitutional courts of Moldova, which has recently signed an association agreement with the European Union, and Romania; the exchange of the acquired experience takes place with the representatives of the Constitutional Court of Georgia. The first conference of the constitutional courts of Lithuania, Moldova, and Romania is planned for April 2015. 6.2.1. Cooperation with the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland The Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland was the first foreign constitutional court with which particularly friendly bilateral relations were established; these relations may be an excellent example of cooperation between the respective institutions of Lithuania and Poland. The cooperation with the Constitutional Tribunal has been maintained since the very establishment of the Constitutional Court, i.e. for more than twenty years now. Since 1995, Poland and Lithuania have taken turns annually in holding conferences between the justices of both courts, in which the participants exchange information about the most important decisions adopted in a given year and deliver reports on the topic of the conference of that year. So far 18 bilateral conferences between the courts of Lithuania and Poland have been held. The following topics have been discussed at them: constitutional justice (1995); the problems of the legal nature, powers, and realisation of the decisions of institutions of constitutional review (1996); the place of a constitutional court in the system of state institutions (1997); the problems of interpreting 135 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

The annual bilateral conference of the justices of the Constitutional Tribunal of Poland and the Constitutional Court of Lithuania. Marijampolė, 10–13 June 2014. Sitting from left: Leon Kieres (Justice of the Constitutional Tribunal of Poland), Andrzej Rzepliński (President of the Constitutional Tribunal of Poland), Dainius Žalimas (President of the Constitutional Court of Lithuania) constitutional norms, the final acts of institutions of constitutional supervision and their impact on the decisions of courts of general jurisdiction (1998); the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the judicial practice of a constitutional court, freedom to form political parties under the new Constitution (2000); the development of constitutional principles in constitutional jurisprudence, the relationship between constitutional courts and courts of general jurisdiction (2001); the budget and public finances as constitutional values, the budgetary competence of a parliament (2002); national constitutional courts and European integration (2003); the interpretation of law (2004); the enforcement of the decisions of constitutional courts and their impact on the legal system (2006); constitutional grounds for the activity of parliamentary investigation commissions (2007); the constitutional aspects of environmental protection (2008); property and the protection of property in constitutional jurisprudence (2009); constitutional grounds for economic freedom (2010); social rights (2011); the fundamental elements of the structure of constitutional justice acts (2012); freedom from discrimination in the jurisprudence of a constitutional court (2013). In June 2014, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania hosted the 18th annual bilateral conference; justices held a discussion on “Constitutional Grounds for Local Self-government” and delivered reports on the most important constitutional justice cases considered during the most recent year. In this conference, Justices Egidijus Šileikis and Pranas Kuconis delivered reports. Since 2003, the President and justices of the Constitutional Court have been regularly invited to participate in the events held in Warsaw to commemorate the Constitution of 3 May 1791, whilst the representatives of the Constitutional Tribunal have participated annually in the events held in Vilnius to commemorate the Day of the Constitution, as well as in the events held every three years on the 136 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

occasion of the rotation of the justices of the Constitutional Court. 2014 were no exception: in March, guests from the Constitutional Tribunal were present on the occasion of the rotation of the justices of the Constitutional Court, whilst, in October, they attended the commemoration of the Day of the Constitution; a delegation of the Constitutional Court took part in the events to commemorate the Constitution of 3 May 1791 in Warsaw, where the Constitutional Court’s President Dainius Žalimas gave his congratulatory speech. In July 2014, the presidents of both constitutional courts, together with their colleague from Latvia, went to Ukraine, where an agreement was reached on the format of a four-party cooperation. The courts continuously exchange legal literature. The library of the Constitutional Court has accumulated more than 600 publications in Polish that have been given as gifts on various occasions. Not only the justices but also the staff members of both courts have been involved in sharing their work experience. In 2014, the delegations of staff members exchanged their visits. In 2014, the Constitutional Court also hosted the debate of the Polish Scientific Conference “Recovering Forgotten History. The Image of East-Central Europe in English Language Textbooks”, which was also attended by Jerzy Stępień, a former President of the Constitutional Tribunal and the Director of the Institute of Civic Space and Public Policy at Lazarski University in Warsaw. 6.2.2. Cooperation with the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia The cooperation with the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia began immediately after the said court was established, i.e. in 1996. Since 2000, the justices of both courts have shared their work experience in their meetings, and, since 2002, as is the case with colleagues from Poland, the constitutional courts of Lithuania and Latvia have held annual bilateral conferences, in which the most

The annual bilateral conference of the justices of the Constitutional Court of Latvia and the Constitutional Court of Lithuania. Riga, 5–6 June 2014 137 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

important decisions adopted by both courts in a given year are presented and the topic of the conference is discussed. In the conferences organised so far, discussions have been held on the following topics: constitutional jurisdiction in Lithuania and Latvia (2000); the principle of the equality of persons in the jurisprudence of constitutional courts (2002); the role of constitutional courts in the context of membership in the European Union (2004); the rule of law, a fair legal process, and the right to a fair trial (2005); social rights of a person in the jurisprudence of courts (2006); the concept of ultra vires (2007); the constitutional aspects of environmental protection (2009); the principle of legitimate expectations (legal certainty) (2010); the problems of election law in constitutional jurisprudence (2011); constitutional review in the area of state finances (2012); the constitutional doctrine of citizenship (2013). The justices of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia are invited to all the most important events organised by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, whilst the justices of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania attend conferences organised by the Constitutional Court of the neighbouring state. In June 2014, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia organised the 13th annual bilateral conference in Riga. This conference was also attended by the former justices of both constitutional courts. The participants discussed the development of a constitutional doctrine in a constitutional court. Colleagues from Latvia presented the tendencies of the constitutional doctrine in the field of the protection of the rights of ownership, as well as the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia in formulating the doctrine of the principle of equality. The justices of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania spoke about the possibilities of reinterpreting the official constitutional doctrine and about tendencies in the development of the said doctrine. The representatives of both courts also delivered reports on the most important cases considered in the most recent years. In this conference, Justices Pranas Kuconis and Gediminas Mesonis, and the former Constitutional Court’s Justice Toma Birmontienė delivered reports. In 2014, with the aim of developing the bilateral cooperation, a delegation of the staff members of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania visited the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia. The delegation had a look at the activities and functions of the Law department and other units, at ongoing projects, the database of jurisprudence under development and other working tools; a discussion with Latvian colleagues was held on the influence of the case-law of international courts on national jurisdiction. A reciprocal visit from Latvian colleagues is expected in 2015. 6.2.3. Cooperation with the Constitutional Court of Ukraine The first contacts with the Constitutional Court of Ukraine were made in 2003, whilst the first bilateral conference “Guarantees of the Independence of Courts” was held between the justices of the constitutional courts of Lithuania and Ukraine in Vilnius in September 2012. The Memorandum on the Development of Cooperation Between the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania and 138 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

the Constitutional Court of Ukraine was signed on 24 October 2012; it was agreed to maintain and develop relations. The cooperation with the Constitutional Court of Ukraine was particularly strengthened in 2014. On 14–16 July 2014, on the initiative of the President of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the delegations of the constitutional courts of Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland paid a visit to Ukraine to express their solidarity with this country and their support for the creation of a state under the rule of law in Ukraine. On their visit, the presidents of the constitutional courts of Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine met with President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine. The Constitutional Court’s President Dainius Žalimas also met with Olexander Turchynov, the then Chairperson of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. The delegations of the constitutional courts of Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland also met with Vitaly Yarema, the then Ukraine’s Prosecutor General, the justices of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, and the representatives of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. On 15 July, a four-party (between the representatives of the constitutional courts of Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine) round-table discussion was held at the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. The participants discussed the relevant topics of constitutional justice: the criteria for the constitutional control over the measures to tackle an economic crisis (austerity measures), the influence of the jurisprudence of the ECtHR on the official constitutional doctrine developed by constitutional courts, and the development of the said doctrine. A delegation of the Constitutional Court—President Dainius Žalimas and Justice Vytas Milius—took part in the discussion; the President of the Constitutional Court delivered a report on the topics of the discussion.

Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko meets Presidents of the Constitutional Courts of Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia—Yurii Baulin, Andrzej Rzepliński, Dainius Žalimas and Aldis Laviņš. Kiev, 14–16 July 2014 139 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

On 24 October 2014, a second four-party (between the representatives of the constitutional courts of Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine) round-table discussion on “The Role of a Constitutional Court in Ensuring the Independence of Courts” was held at the Constitutional Court. The former Constitutional Court’s Justice Toma Birmontienė delivered a report in this discussion. On 24 October 2014, a delegation of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (the Constitutional Court’s Chairman Yurii Baulin, and Justices Mykola Melnyk, Stanislav Shevchuk, Viktor Shyshkin, and Serhii Vdovichenko), as well as the representatives of the constitutional courts of Latvia and Poland, participated in the events dedicated to commemorate the Day of the Constitution. The President of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine delivered the report “Constitutional Traditions of Ukraine: From Pylyp Orlyk Constitution to Modern Constitutional Reform”. It is expected that the meetings of the justices of the constitutional courts of Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine continue to be held in the four-party format in Poland or Latvia in 2015. 6.2.4. Ties with other constitutional courts and international courts As mentioned before, another priority of the Constitutional Court in international cooperation is to strengthen ties with the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova. Several meetings between the presidents of the constitutional courts of Lithuania and Moldova were held in 2014, and experience (in particular on issues related to EU law) in jurisprudential activities was actively shared with colleagues from Moldova. The first conference of the constitutional courts of Lithuania, Moldova, and Romania dedicated to discuss the common topical issues of the jurisprudential activities of these courts is planned for April 2015. The cooperation with the Constitutional Court of Georgia, which was elected in the XVIth Congress of the CECC to hold the chairmanship over this organisation, intensified in 2014. The representatives of the Constitutional Court of Georgia have visited our Constitutional Court on more than one occasion in order to learn from our experience in holding the Congress of the CECC. The staff members of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania who have consulted their colleagues on various organisational and professional issues have also been on a visit to Georgia. The Constitutional Court maintains professional ties with the constitutional courts of other states as well. It cooperates with the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Austria, which is the oldest constitutional court in Europe, also with the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, which has authoritative standing among constitutional justice institutions (a delegation of the representatives of this court last visited Vilnius in 2013), and with the constitutional courts of other countries, as, for instance, the Czech Republic, Kosovo, Croatia, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, etc. The delegations of the ECtHR and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) have paid a visit to the Constitutional Court, and the justices of the Constitutional Court have attended events held by these courts, on more than one occasion. The delegation of the ECtHR, headed by Dean Spielmann, the President of the ECtHR (the delegation also included Egidijus Kūris, a judge of the ECtHR, and Roderick 140 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

A meeting with Dean Spielmann, the President of the ECtHR, Roderick Liddell, the Director of Common Services of the ECtHR, and Egidijus Kūris, a judge of the ECtHR. The guests were received by Dainius Žalimas, the President of the Constitutional Court of Lithuania, and Justices Elvyra Baltutytė, Danutė Jočienė, Gediminas Mesonis, and Vytas Milius. Vilnius, 12 September 2014 Liddell, the Director of Common Services), visited the Constitutional Court on 12 September 2014. In the meeting with the justices of the Constitutional Court, a discussion was held on the relationship between the judicial practice of national, in particular, constitutional, courts and the jurisprudence of the ECtHR. In November 2014, like a year ago, the Constitutional Court’s President Dainius Žalimas participated in a forum for the judges of the courts of the Member States of the European Union, organised by the CJEU in Luxembourg. 6.2.5. Participation in international conferences The justices of the Constitutional Court take an active part and deliver reports in international conferences and other events held by the constitutional justice institutions of other states. The justices of the Constitutional Court often attend annual international conferences held in Yerevan by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia and the Venice Commission. The topics of these conferences vary: electoral disputes, constitutional justice and the formation of a social state, the principle of the supremacy of a constitution, the implementation of rulings of a constitutional court, etc. In the 19th annual international conference “The Constitutional Status of Human Dignity”, which took place in Yerevan in October 2014, Justices Gediminas Mesonis and Algirdas Taminskas delivered the report “The Constitutional Status of Human Dignity: Lithuania Case”. In 2014, the representatives of the Constitutional Court also took part and delivered reports in the following international conferences: in July 2014, at the invitation of the Supreme Court of Montenegro and the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance for Human Rights and Global Peace, Justice Danutė Jočienė went on 141 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

a visit to Cetinje where she took part in the Montenegro Symposium on International Law and Human Rights “An Interdisciplinary Analysis of the Role of International Law in Promoting Human Rights” and delivered the report “The Role of the National Courts in Implementing the European Convention on Human Rights”; in July 2014, in the 4th Black Sea Regional Conference on the Emerging Challenges to the Right to Privacy, which took place in Batumi, Justice Elvyra Baltutytė delivered the report “Certain Aspects of the Right to Privacy in the Jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania”; in September 2014, in the conference “The Role of Constitutional Justice in Protecting the Values of the Rule of Law” held in Chisinau and dedicated to the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova, the Constitutional Court’s President Dainius Žalimas delivered the report “Facing the Challenges of the Financial Crisis: The Role of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania”; in September 2014, in the conference “Contemporary Challenges of the Constitutional Judiciary” held in Skopje and dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Macedonia, Justice Danutė Jočienė delivered the report “The Principle of Separation of Powers and its Protection by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania”; in October 2014, in the conference held in Pristina and dedicated to the 5th anniversary of the activity of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo, the Constitutional Court’s President Dainius Žalimas delivered the report “Eternity Clauses: A Safeguard of Democratic Order and Constitutional Identity”; in November 2014, in the conference “The Constitutional Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the Constitutional Court of Montenegro, Justice Danutė Jočienė delivered the report “The Protection of Procedural Rights and Guarantees in the Jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania”. 142 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

THE RELATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL 7. COURT WITH THE PUBLIC

n its activity, the Constitutional Court follows the principles of publicity, transparency, and openness Ito the public and seeks to make its activity clearer and more understandable, while the institution itself—more open, to the public. The celebration of the Day of the Constitution. On 24 October 2014, the Constitutional Court organised the official event on the occasion of the Day of the Constitution, involving the participation of the representatives of the Seimas and the Government, the judiciary, the academic community, as well as the delegations from the Latvian, Polish, and Ukrainian constitutional courts. During the celebration event, welcome speeches were given on behalf of President Dalia Grybauskaitė of the Republic of Lithuania, Speaker of the Seimas Loreta Graužinienė, and Prime Minister Algirdas Butkevičius. Congratulatory speeches were made by Deputy Speaker of the Seimas Algirdas Sysas, Vice President of the Latvian Constitutional Court Uldis Kinis, and Justice of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal Leon Kieres. Yurii Baulin, the Chairman of the Ukrainian Constitutional Court, presented the report “The Constitutional Traditions of Ukraine: from the Constitution of Pylyp Orlyk towards Modern Constitutional Reform” and Dainius Žalimas, the President of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court, delivered the report “The Principle of Geopolitical Orientation in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania”. The Constitutional Court contributed to the organisation of other events held on the occasion of the Day of the Constitution. On 23 October 2014, the Constitutional Court was visited by the participants of the project “Constitution Day 2014”, run by the Student Representation of the Faculty of Law of Vilnius University. On 27 October 2014, the Constitutional Court hosted the round-table discussion “Reasoning with Legal Principles: Reconstruction and Development”, initiated by the Law Institute of Lithuania to commemorate the Day of the Constitution. The creation of a new website. In 2014, work started on the creation of a new website of the Constitutional Court. The previous website was used for the period of 15 years, during which its design was renewed more than once. Technological changes, greater attention given by the public to the activity of the Constitutional Court, and the growing information demand determined the decision to 143 THE RELATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT WITH THE PUBLIC

create a new website of the Constitutional Court. The new website was launched in February 2015. It is not only of a different design, but also safer and clearer, with the necessary information more easily accessible. One of the most essential novelties of the new website is the search tool that may be used to access the acts of the Constitutional Court according to the date of their adoption, their number, type, or words contained in the title or text, etc. Courts and other subjects who have the right to apply to the Constitutional Court might also find useful the review of the admissibility of the petitions and inquiries filed with the Constitutional Court, which will be provided on the new website. In order to encourage a wider spread of information about the activity of the Constitutional Court, it has been planned to create the accounts for the Constitutional Court on the websites of social networks. Court tours and meetings with the public. Tours of the Constitutional Court may be organised at the request of the representatives of higher schools, other education establishments, communities, and public organisations. During the tours, visitors are acquainted with the activity of the Constitutional Court and meet with the President and justices of the Constitutional Court as well as the state servants working at the Constitutional Court. The activity of the Constitutional Court has been of particular interest to students. In 2014, the Constitutional Court was visited by: the students of the Faculty of Law of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, studying in the Master’s degree programme “Legal Regulation of Public Administration and Human Rights” at Mykolas Romeris University; the law students from the United States of America, taking part in the summer law study programme organised by the Faculty of Law of Vilnius University in cooperation with Charlotte School of Law (USA); the students from

The official ceremony on the occasion of the Day of the Constitution, held in the Column Hall of the Presidential Palace. Vilnius, 24 October 2014 144 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

various foreign countries participating in the international law school at Mykolas Romeris University; the group of law students from the Vilnius branch of the Lithuanian National Group of the European Law Students’ Association (ELSA Lithuania); several groups of students of the Faculty of Law of Vilnius University together with the guests from Germany and Slovenia visiting this university; the students of Kaunas University of Technology and Vilnius College (University of Applied Sciences); the employees of the JSC “Mantinga”; the students of Marijampolė Gymnasium; and the representatives of the Ukmergė branch of the Lithuanian Lawyers’ Association. In February 2014, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania and the Lithuanian Lawyers’ Association signed an agreement on the development of close cooperation in educating the public, cultivating its legal and social self-awareness, fostering respect for constitutional values, and advancing constitutional law studies. The library of the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court has a specialised library, which holds the collections of Lithuanian and foreign legal literature. The first books were received as gifts from the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland. A large number of valuable publications, as, for instance, the collection of the 1918–1940 Official Gazette “Vyriausybės žinios” and the invaluable pre-war legal literature (the monographs of Mykolas Romeris and Petras Leonas), were received as gifts from the Martynas Mažvydas National Library of Lithuania and the library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences. Today, the library includes approximately 29 thousand resources: about 9 thousand books, 19.5 thousand periodical publications, also CDs, DVDs, and other resources. The whole literature collected in the library is arranged according to the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), which meets world-wide standards and is designed for use in scientific and special libraries. In addition to the resources in the Lithuanian language, the library contains publications in 19 world languages—mostly in English, Russian, French, German, and Polish. In 2014, the library holdings were augmented with 371 publications, mainly including the publications in the field of public studies. Although the library is, primarily, intended for the work of the justices and staff of the Constitutional Court, it may also be visited by other people interested in legal literature. In addition, the library provides the possibility for interested persons to purchase the publications of the Constitutional Court. Publishing. The quarterly bulletin of the Constitutional Court “Konstitucinė jurisprudencija” [“Constitutional Jurisprudence”] has been published since 2006. The bulletin includes the rulings and conclusions of the Constitutional Court, the decisions in which the Constitutional Court interprets its final acts, also scientific articles on various constitutional justice problems, the reports delivered by the justices at the international conferences, the reviews of new books published in the field of law, the most important judgments adopted by the constitutional courts of foreign states, as well as the overview of the news of the Constitutional Court and the latest relevant events. In 2014, a favourably assessed publication “Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinio Teismo oficialiosios konstitucinės doktrinos nuostatos: 1993–2009” [“The Provisions of the Official Constitutional Doctrine of the Constitutional Court: 1993–2009”], constituting a first systemic collection of the provisions of the 145 THE RELATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT WITH THE PUBLIC

official constitutional doctrine, was followed by a sequel comprising, in a continued systemic way, the provisions of the official constitutional doctrine set out in the acts of the Constitutional Court during 2010–2013. This book, covering the most recent official constitutional doctrine disclosing the content of the Constitution and the interrelations of its provisions, may be helpful for both legal specialists employed in various fields and law students, as well as useful for other law-application and law-making purposes. In 2014, the reports and articles dedicated to the conference held, in 2013, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the Constitutional Court were published in both the Lithuanian and English languages in a single collection titled “Modern Tendencies of Constitutional Justice: The Relation Between National and International Law”. Translation of the acts of the Constitutional Court into the English language. All acts of the Constitutional Court by which the Constitutional Court decides the cases in substance or interprets the provisions of its previous final acts are translated into English and placed on the website of the Constitutional Court. In this way, the official constitutional doctrine formulated by the Constitutional Court is made accessible to legal specialists of foreign states. During the last years, several collections of the selected acts of the Constitutional Court have been published in the English language in the series titled “Selected Decisions”. The first two collections in these series include the selected acts of the Constitutional Court on election issues (“Elections”, 2012) and on higher education issues (“Higher Education”, 2013). In 2014, the collection “The Independence of the Judiciary”, comprising the acts of the Constitutional Court dealing with the constitutional principle of the independence of courts and judges, was published. The forthcoming collection in the series is planned to include the most important acts of the Constitutional Court on the issues of social rights. In addition, in 2014, a new information brochure on the Constitutional Court was published in the English language.

Publications of the annual bilateral conferences of the Justices of the Constitutional Court of Lithuania and the Constitutional Courts of Poland, Ukraine, and Latvia 146 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

ANNEXES

Annex 1 PETITIONS AND INQUIRIES FILED WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

1.1. PETITIONS AND INQUIRIES FILED IN 2014, THEIR ADMISSIBILITY AND CONSIDERATION

1. Filed: 79 1.1. Petitions requesting an investigation into the compliance of legal acts with the legal acts of a higher legal force 75 1.2. Inquiries concerning conclusions 1 1.3. Petitions requesting the construction of the acts of the Constitutional Court 3 2. Returned to petitioners (in full extent): 7 2.1. Petitions requesting an investigation into the compliance of legal acts with the legal acts of a higher legal force 7 2.2. Inquiries concerning conclusions – 3. Rejected as inadmissible for consideration (in full extent):1 10 3.1. Petitions requesting an investigation into the compliance of legal acts with the legal acts of higher legal force 8 3.2. Inquiries concerning conclusions 1 3.3. Petitions requesting the construction of the acts of the Constitutional Court 1 4. Accepted as admissible for consideration: 62 4.1. Petitions (parts of petitions) requesting an investigation into the compliance of legal acts with the legal acts of higher legal force 60 4.2. Inquiries concerning conclusions – 4.3. Petitions requesting the construction of the acts of the Constitutional Court 2 5. The petitions and inquiries that have already been considered:2 26 5.1. Petitions requesting an investigation into the compliance of legal acts with the legal acts of higher legal force 24 5.2. Inquiries concerning conclusions – 5.3. Petitions requesting the construction of the acts of the Constitutional Court 2 6. Dismissed cases 2

7. Accepted as admissible and pending consideration: 34 7.1. Petitions requesting an investigation into the compliawnce of legal acts with the legal acts of higher legal force 34 7.2. Inquiries concerning conclusions – 7.3. Petitions requesting the construction of the acts of the Constitutional Court –

1 One of the petitions received in 2014 was rejected as inadmissible for consideration in 2015 (by the Constitutional Court’s decision of 15 January 2015). 2 Including the petition decided by the Constitutional Court’s decision of 14 January 2015. 147 Annex 1. PETITIONS AND INQUIRIES FILED WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Admissibility of applications in 2014

13% Accepted as admissible for consideration Rejected as inadmissible for consideration Returned to petitioners 78% 148 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

1.2. SUBJECTS FILING PETITIONS AND INQUIRIES IN 2014, A SUBJECT MATTER OF THESE PETITIONS AND INQUIRIES

1. Petitions requesting an investigation into the compliance of legal acts with the legal acts of a higher legal force: 75 1.1. Filed by courts 67 1.1.1. regarding the compliance of the laws and other acts of the Seimas with the Constitution 59 1.1.2. regarding the compliance of the acts of the President with the Constitution and laws – 1.1.3. regarding the compliance of the acts of the Government with the Constitution and laws 8 1.2. Filed by the Seimas 2 1.2.1. regarding the compliance of the laws and other acts of the Seimas with the Constitution 2 1.2.2. regarding the compliance of the acts of the President with the Constitution and laws – 1.2.3. regarding the compliance of the acts of the Government with the Constitution and laws – 1.3. Filed by the groups of members of the Seimas3 6 1.3.1. regarding the compliance of the laws and other acts of the Seimas with the Constitution 5 1.3.2. regarding the compliance of the acts of the President with the Constitution and laws – 1.3.3. regarding the compliance of the acts of the Government with the Constitution and laws – 1.4. Filed by the President of the Republic – 1.5. Filed by the Government – 2. Inquiries concerning conclusions: 1 2.1. Filed by the Seimas 1 2.1.1. concerning the violations of the Law on Elections 1 2.1.2. concerning the state of health of the President of the Republic – 2.1.3. concerning the constitutionality of international treaties – 2.1.4. concerning the actions of persons against whom an impeachment case has been instituted – 2.2. Filed by the President of the Republic – 3. Petitions requesting the construction of the acts of the Constitutional Court: 3 3.1. Filed by the representative of a party to the case (a member of the Seimas) 1 3.2. Filed by another subject who has the right to apply to the Constitutional Court (President of the Supreme Court of Lithuania) 2

3 One petition filed by a group of members of the Seimas concerned the compliance of an international treaty with the Constitution; this can be treated as a subject matter of an inquiry rather than a petition. 149 Annex 1. PETITIONS AND INQUIRIES FILED WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Subjects that applied to the Constitutional Court

2% Courts 8% 1% 4% Groups of members of the Seimas

Seimas

President of the Supreme Court of Lithuania

85% Representative of a party to the case

1.3. PETITIONS AND INQUIRIES FILED WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT IN 1993–2014

Applications according to subjects applying to the Constitutional Court

Filed by courts (821 petitions)

Filed by a group of members of the Seimas (182 petitions) Filed by the Seimas (15 petitions) 2% 80% Filed by the Government (3 petitions) 18% Filed by the President of the Republic (2 petitions)

Filed by the Speaker of the Seimas (1 petition)

It is clear that the largest number of applications was filed with the Constitutional Court by courts (80 percent) and the groups of members of the Seimas (18 percent). 150 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

160

140

120

100

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Filed by courts Filed by the Government

Filed by a group of members of the Seimas Filed by the President of the Republic

Filed by the Speaker of the Seimas Filed by the Seimas

In 2014, the Constitutional Court received 79 applications requesting it to investigate the constitutionality of legal acts, to construe its previous rulings, or to give a conclusion. During the whole activity of the Constitutional Court, the largest number of applications was filed in 2010, reaching in total 157. This could be accounted for by the emergence of a particularly difficult economic and financial situation in the state in 2009, which caused the adoption and/or amendment of particular legal acts. The latter acts were contested in the Constitutional Court. 151 Annex 2. THE ACTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Annex 2 THE ACTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

2.1. THE ACTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT ADOPTED IN 2014

Rulings

2% Decisions on rejecting the consideration 10% of a petition Decisions on dismissing part of a case 16% 33% Decisions on the construction of the acts of the Constitutional Court 8% Decisions on returning a petition 12% 17% Decisions on dismissing a case 2% Conclusion Decision on accepting a petition

18 17 16

10 9 8 8 6 6 5 4 4

2 1 1 0 Rulings Decisions on Conclusion Decisions on Decisions on Decisions on Decisions on Decision on the construction rejecting the dismissing a dismissing returning a accepting a of the acts of the consideration case part of a case petition petition Constitutional of a petition Court

In 2014, the Constitutional Court adopted 51 acts. 152 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

2.2. THE ACTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT BY WHICH THE PETITIONS WERE CONSIDERED IN SUBSTANCE IN 1993–2014

Acts of the Constitutional Court

30 28

25 22 24 20 20 20 20 18 17 21 16 16 18 15 15 13 14 14 15 13 13 13 10 10 5 5

0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

The acts of the Constitutional Court by which the petitions 5 20 10 13 13 15 14 16 17 18 13 16 14 22 21 20 13 20 15 18 28 24 were considered in substance Among them: rulings 5 19 9 12 12 14 14 15 17 18 13 12 13 22 20 18 10 16 14 16 25 17

decisions on the construction of the acts of the 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 3 6 Constitutional Court

conclusions 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 153 Annex 2. THE ACTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

2.3. THE RULINGS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT ADOPTED IN 2014

Provisions in terms Date, Case Unofficial title Petitioner Reviewed legal acts of which the review of Substance of the operative part Act No. No. compliance was carried out 1. 24-01-2014 22/2013 On the Law The The Law Amending Paragraph 1 of Article 147 • The law ruled in conflict with Paragraph KT2-N1/2014 Amending Seimas Article 125 of the of the Constitution 1 of Article 147 of the Constitution; Article Constitution 125 of the The Statute of the Paragraph 1 of Article 147 • Article 170 ruled in conflict with Constitution Seimas of the Constitution Paragraph 1 of Article 147 of the Constitution 2. 03-02-2014 15/2011 On the powers A court The Law on Tax Item 15 of Article 67 and • Paragraph 3 of Article 39 ruled to have KT3-N2/2014 of the Minister Administration Paragraph 3 of Article 127 been in conflict with Item 15 of Article of Finance to of the Constitution and the 67 and Paragraph 3 of Article 127 of establish the constitutional principle of a the Constitution and the constitutional amount of state under the rule of law principle of a state under the rule of law; late payment The Law on Tax • Article 99 ruled not in conflict with the interest Administration (new Constitution wording) 3. 14-02-2014 19/2012 On the method A court The Regulations Article 52 of the • Item 39 ruled to have been not in KT4-N3/2014 of the paying of on Unemployment Constitution and the conflict with the Constitution unemployment Social Insurance constitutional principle of a insurance Payments, as state under the rule of law payments approved by the government resolution of 24 December 2004 4. 18-03-2014 31/2011- On criminal A group The Criminal Code Paragraphs 2 and 4 of • Article 99 ruled not in conflict with the KT11-N4/2014 40/2011- liability for of Article 31, Paragraph Constitution; 42/2011- genocide members 1 of Article 135, and • Paragraph 3 of Article 3 ruled (to have 46/2011- of the Paragraph 3 of Article 138 been) in conflict with Paragraph 4 of 9/2012- Seimas of the Constitution and the Article 31 of the Constitution and the 25/2012 and courts constitutional principle of a constitutional principle of a state under state under the rule of law the rule of law; • Item 1 of Paragraph 8 (Item 1 of Paragraph 5) of Article 95 ruled (to have been) not in conflict with the Constitution 5. 14-04-2014 22/2011- On the A court The Law on the Paragraph 1 of Article • Paragraph 12 of Article 5 ruled to have KT13-N5/2014 28/2011 allocation of Guarantee Fund 29 and Article 52 of the been in conflict with Paragraph 1 of payments for Constitution and the Article 29 of the Constitution and the employees constitutional principle of a constitutional principle of a state under of insolvent state under the rule of law the rule of law enterprises from the guarantee fund 6. 08-05-2014 20/2011- On the Courts The Law on the Paragraph 2 of Article 109 • The Appendix to the Law ruled not in KT17-N6/2014 14/2013- coefficients Remuneration of of the Constitution and the conflict with the Constitution 15/2013- of the Judges constitutional principle of a 16/2013 remuneration state under the rule of law of judges and The Labour Code Article 23, the provision “[e] • Article 301 (Article 298) ruled (to have on the Labour ach human being <…> shall been) in conflict with Article 23, the Code have the right <…> to receive indicated provision of Paragraph 1 of fair pay for work <…>” of Article 48, and Paragraph 1 of Article Paragraph 1 of Article 48, 109 of the Constitution 154 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

Provisions in terms Date, Case Unofficial title Petitioner Reviewed legal acts of which the review of Substance of the operative part Act No. No. compliance was carried out and Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of the Constitution 7. 09-05-2014 47/2011 On the A court The State Strategic Paragraphs 1 and 3 • Item 166.4 ruled (to have been) not in KT18-N7/2014 obligation to Waste Management of Article 46 of the conflict with the Constitution manage oil Plan, as approved Constitution and the waste by the government constitutional principle of a resolution of 12 state under the rule of law April 2002 8. 27-05-2014 24/2013 On the A group The Resolution Paragraph 3 of Article 107 • The reviewed resolution ruled in conflict KT19-N8/2014 changing of the of of the Seimas of the Constitution and the with Paragraph 3 of Article 107 of the final results of members “On Amending constitutional principles of Constitution and the constitutional the election to of the Articles 1 and 2 a state under the rule of law principles of a state under the rule of law the Seimas Seimas of the Resolution and responsible governance and responsible governance of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania ‘On the Establishment of the Final Results of the 14 October 2012 Election to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania in the Multi- member Electoral Constituency’” of 2 July 2013 9. 03-07-2014 6/2011 On the right A group The Law on the Articles 52 and 90 of the • Paragraph 1 of Article 4 ruled in conflict KT34-N9/2014 to the state of State Annuity of Constitution and the with Article 52 of the Constitution and annuity of the members the President of the constitutional principle of a the constitutional principle of a state widow(er) of of the Republic state under the rule of law under the rule of law the President Seimas of the Republic The part of the case regarding the compliance of Article 5 with the Constitution was dismissed (Item 2 of Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 3 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court) 10. 11-07-2014 16/2014- On organising A court The Law on Paragraph 1 of Article 6, • The Law to a certain extent ruled not in KT36-N10/2014 29/2014 and calling and the Referendums Paragraph 1 of Article 7, conflict with the Constitution; referendums Seimas and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 9 of the Constitution • Article 6 ruled in conflict with and the constitutional Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 9 of the principle of a state under the Constitution; rule of law • Article 14 ruled in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 6 and Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law 11. 08-10-2014 1/2012 On the right A court The Law on the Paragraphs 1 and 2 of • Paragraph 1 of Article 2 ruled (to KT43-N11/2014 of heirs of Restoration of the Article 23 and Paragraph have been) not in conflict with the former owners Rights of Ownership 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution to restore of Citizens to Constitution and the the rights of the Existing Real constitutional principle of a ownership Property state under the rule of law 155 Annex 2. THE ACTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Provisions in terms Date, Case Unofficial title Petitioner Reviewed legal acts of which the review of Substance of the operative part Act No. No. compliance was carried out 12. 09-10-2014 11/2012 On the selling A court The Government Item 2 of Article 94 of • The first paragraph of Item 2.15 ruled KT44-N12/2014 of state-owned Resolution “On the Constitution, the to have been not in conflict with the land without the Sale and Lease constitutional principle of Constitution and Items 4 and 5 of an auction of New Plots of a state under the rule of Paragraph 5 of Article 10 of the Law on Different-Purpose law, and Items 4 and 5 of Land State-Owned Land” Paragraph 5 of Article 10 of of 2 June 1999 the Law on Land 13. 13-10-2014 10/2014 On the names A court The Law on Paragraph 2 of Article 34 of • Paragraph 6 of Article 38 ruled in KT45-N13/2014 of public Elections to the Constitution conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 34 of election the European the Constitution committees Parliament The part of the case regarding the compliance of Paragraph 2 of Article 38 with the Constitution was dismissed (Paragraph 3 of Article 69 and Paragraph 2 of Article 80 of the Law on the Constitutional Court) 14. 30-10-2014 7/2012 On the A group The Law on the Articles 23 and 29 of the • Paragraph 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph KT46-N14/2014 restoration of Restoration of the Constitution and the 1 of Article 12 ruled not in conflict with of the rights members Rights of Ownership constitutional principle of a the Constitution of ownership of the of Citizens to state under the rule of law to the urban Seimas the Existing Real land necessary Property for the exploitation of the structures owned by other persons 15. 10-11-2014 24/2012 On the A group The Law on Science Paragraph 3 of Article • Paragraph 3 of Article 20 ruled not in KT48-N15/2014 formation of of and Studies 40 and the provision “[c] conflict with the Constitution; the council members itizens who are good of a school of the at their studies shall be • Paragraph 7 of Article 70 to a certain of higher Seimas guaranteed education at extent ruled not in conflict with the education and State schools of higher Constitution; on funding education free of charge” of • studies Paragraph 3 of Article 41 Paragraph 7 of Article 70 to a certain of the Constitution and the extent ruled in conflict with the constitutional principle of a indicated provision of Paragraph 3 of state under the rule of law Article 41 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law 16. 19-12-2014 10/2012 On the A court The Law on Reform Articles 23 and 52 of the • Paragraph 1 of Article 4 ruled to KT50-N16/2014 reduction of of the Pension Constitution and the have been not in conflict with the the size of System constitutional principle of a Constitution the pension state under the rule of law contributions The part of the case regarding Paragraph accumulated in 13 of Article 3 of the Law on the Approval pension funds of the Indicators of the Budget of the State Social Insurance Fund for 2012 was dismissed (Paragraph 3 of Article 69 and Paragraph 2 of Article 80 of the Law on the Constitutional Court) 17. 22-12-2014 6/2014- On the Courts The Law on the Paragraph 1 of Article 29 • Section III of the Appendix ruled to KT51-N17/2014 7/2014- reduction Work Pay of State and the provision “[e]ach have been in conflict with Paragraph 156 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

Provisions in terms Date, Case Unofficial title Petitioner Reviewed legal acts of which the review of Substance of the operative part Act No. No. compliance was carried out 8/2014- of the Politicians and State human being <…> shall • 1 of Article 29 and Paragraph 1 of 9/2014- coefficients of Officials have the right <…> to Article 48 of the Constitution and the 11/2014- the positional receive fair pay for work” constitutional principle of a state under 12/2014- salaries of of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 the rule of law; 18/2014- prosecutors of the Constitution and the 19/2014- and some other constitutional principle of a • Section IV of the Appendix ruled to 20/2014- state officials state under the rule of law have been in conflict with Paragraph 21/2014- 1 of Article 29 and Paragraph 1 of 22/2014- Article 48 of the Constitution and the 23/2014- constitutional principle of a state under 24/2014- the rule of law; 25/2014- The Law Amending Paragraph 1 of Article 29 • Paragraph 2 of Article 3 to a certain 27/2014- the Appendix to and the provision “[e]ach extent ruled to have been in conflict 28/2014- the Law on the human being <…> shall with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 and 30/2014- Work Pay of State have the right <…> to Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the 31/2014- Politicians and State receive fair pay for work” Constitution and the constitutional 32/2014- Officials (adopted on of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 principle of a state under the rule of law; 33/2014- 23 April 2009) of the Constitution and the 43/2014 constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law The Law Amending Paragraph 1 of Article 29 • Article 2 ruled to have been in the Appendix to and the provision “[e]ach conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 the Law on the human being <…> shall and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Work Pay of State have the right <…> to Constitution and the constitutional Politicians and State receive fair pay for work” principle of a state under the rule of law; Officials (adopted on of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 17 July 2009) of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law The Law Amending Paragraph 1 of Article 29 • Article 2 ruled to have been in Section III of the and the provision “[e]ach conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 Appendix to the Law human being <…> shall and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the on the Work Pay of have the right <…> to Constitution and the constitutional State Politicians and receive fair pay for work” principle of a state under the rule of law State Officials of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law 157 Annex 2. THE ACTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

2.4. THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT’S DECISIONS REQUESTING CONSTRUCTION ADOPTED IN 2014

Date, Act no. Unofficial title Petitioner Provisions construed Substance of construction 1. 16-01-2014 On the President The provisions of the second paragraph of Item 4 of Section II It is not permitted to establish any such legal KT1-S1/2014 construction of of the of the reasoning part of the ruling of 24 January 2003: regulation that would oblige prosecutors the provisions Republic “To discharge their functions properly, prosecutors must have to submit the accounts of the performance of rulings sufficient independence guarantees, which must be provided of their constitutional functions to the related to the for in the law. The legislative or executive powers as well as legislative and executive powers, inter alia, independence of their officials have no right to interfere with the activities of any such legal regulation that would oblige prosecutors and prosecutors when they discharge their functions established in the Prosecutor General to submit the said the dismissal of the Constitution”; accounts of the activity of the Prosecutor’s the Prosecutor Office of the Republic of Lithuania, which General from The provisions of the sixth paragraph of Item 4.5 of Section II would subsequently need to be approved by office of the reasoning part of the ruling of 13 May 2004 and of the the Seimas, the President of the Republic, third paragraph of Item 15.3 of Section I of the ruling of 16 or the Government; the establishment of January 2006: the aforesaid duty would mean interference “The independence of prosecutors in organising pre- with the activities of prosecutors, who trial investigation and being in charge of it as well as in perform the functions provided for in upholding charges on behalf of the state in criminal cases the Constitution, and the restriction is a constitutional value; under the Constitution, it is not of the independence of prosecutors in permitted to establish any such legal regulation whereby this performing the functions provided for in the constitutional value would be denied or the independence of Constitution. prosecutors would otherwise be restricted when they organise pre-trial investigation and direct it and when they uphold charges on behalf of the state in criminal cases”; The provisions of the first paragraph of Item 6 of Section II of The grounds and procedure for dismissing the reasoning part of the ruling of 24 January 2003: the Prosecutor General may be established “<...> the legislature has the powers <...> to establish the only by law; the Statute of the Seimas may term of the powers of prosecutors as well as the grounds and establish, inter alia, the procedure under procedure for their dismissal from office. While establishing which the Seimas adopts a decision on this, the Seimas is bound by the Constitution, thus, also by the whether or not to give its assent to the principle of a state under the rule of law, entrenched therein, proposal of the President of the Republic to which implies the legal certainty, stability, and the protection of appoint or dismiss the Prosecutor General. legitimate expectations. After having established the term of the powers of the Prosecutor General, the legislature does not have the right to provide for any grounds for the dismissal of the Prosecutor General from office before the expiry of the term of the powers of the Prosecutor General. Under the Constitution, the legislature may establish only such grounds for the dismissal of the Prosecutor General from office before the expiry of his or her powers due to which the Prosecutor General may not hold office on the whole (e.g., due to such legal facts as the age provided for in the law, transference to another place of work, or the loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania)”; The provisions of Item 7 of the reasoning part of the ruling of 30 March 2000: “Article 76 of the Constitution provides that ‘[t]he structure and procedure of the activities of the Seimas shall be determined by the Statute of the Seimas. The Statute of the Seimas shall have the force of a law’. A blanket norm is set down in this article of the Constitution, which permits the Seimas to establish, by itself, its structure, the procedure of its activities, procedures for the presentation of draft laws and other draft legal acts, their deliberation and adoption, as well as the competence of other structural sub-units of the Seimas and their interrelations, and to regulate other issues of the functioning of the Seimas. Under Article 76 of the Constitution, this must be established in the Statute of the Seimas, which has the force of a law.” 158 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

Date, Act no. Unofficial title Petitioner Provisions construed Substance of construction 2. 26-02-2014 On the A member The provision of the second paragraph of Item 1.4 of Section IV The Constitution consolidates the guarantee KT6-S3/2014 construction of of the of the reasoning part of the ruling of 16 May 2013: of vital (necessary to save and preserve the provisions Seimas, “[the] relation between the constitutional values implies the the life of a human being but not equated of the ruling former fact that the medical aid free of charge for all citizens must be with medical aid to save and preserve the related to repre- ensured insofar as it is necessary to save and preserve the life of health of a human being) free-of-charge, healthcare sentative a human being”; i.e. financed by state budget funds, medical of the pe- aid to citizens; as regards a bigger scope titioners— of free-of-charge medical aid to citizens, groups of compared to that implied by the said members constitutional guarantee, the legislature of the may establish it only in cases where this Seimas—in corresponds with the financial capabilities the con- of the state, i.e., where the state budget is not stitutional subject to burden mismatched with these justice case capabilities, due to which the state would be unable to discharge its other functions or the discharging of such functions would be much more difficult. The provisions of the first paragraph of Item 1.4 of Section IV of – State budget funds must be allocated to the reasoning part of the ruling of 16 May 2013: pay for the services of free-of-charge vitally “Paragraph 1 of Article 53 of the Constitution consolidates necessary medical aid rendered to citizens the guarantee of medical aid to citizens free of charge at state at state healthcare establishments as well medical establishments. This guarantee obligates the state to as to ensure the continuous operation of ensure the necessary conditions for its implementation, i.e. the network of these establishments that is not only to create the required network of state healthcare needed to render such aid; establishments, but also to cover the costs of the rendering of – when healthcare services are financed such medical aid by state funds. Thus, while implementing its by compulsory health insurance funds, discretion of the forming of the state health policy and that of consideration should be given, inter alia, the choosing of a model of healthcare funding, the legislator to the fact that, in order to ensure the may not disregard the fact that a certain part of healthcare adequate rendering of free-of-charge vitally services, namely, the free-of-charge medical aid guaranteed to necessary medical aid to citizens at state citizens, must be funded from the state budget funds”; medical treatment establishments as well as the continuous operation of the network The provisions of the third paragraph of Item 1.4 of Section IV of these establishments that is needed to of the reasoning part of the ruling of 16 May 2013: render such aid, it is necessary (expedient) “<…> the guarantee of free-of-charge medical aid to citizens that a certain extent of healthcare services in namely state medical establishments determines the duty of that are related to the said vitally necessary the state to ensure the rendering of vitally important medical medical aid and are paid for by compulsory aid in state medical establishments, inter alia, the permanent health insurance funds be also rendered in operation of the needed network of the state healthcare these establishments; at the same time, it is establishments rendering such aid, however, such a guarantee not permitted to deny the obligation of the may not be construed as the free-of-charge medical aid state to support the economic efforts and financed from the state budget funds should be confined only initiative that are useful to society and are to those establishments. The striving for the ensuring of the based on private ownership, the freedom best possible accessibility to vitally important medical aid is of fair competition between healthcare also determined by the fact that in the situations where, due to establishments, and other principles of some circumstances, such aid cannot be rendered, in a timely Lithuania’s economy consolidated in the and quality manner, in state medical establishments, it may also Constitution; be rendered in other healthcare establishments that are able to – the legislature must, by means of render such aid in a quality and safe manner; the costs incurred a law, establish the fundamentals of by the latter establishments in the course of the rendering of healthcare services funding by compulsory such aid must be covered by state budget funds”; health insurance funds; based on these fundamentals, sub-statutory acts may provide for a detailed procedure for paying for the said services. The provisions of the sixth and seventh paragraphs of Item 1.7 of Section IV of the reasoning part of the ruling of 16 May 2013: 159 Annex 2. THE ACTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Date, Act no. Unofficial title Petitioner Provisions construed Substance of construction “The specific character of healthcare as a sphere of economic activity is determined by the fact that most of healthcare services are funded by public funds <…>. The state, which has the duty to create a system of healthcare funding by public funds based on social solidarity, must, <...> take care of the fact that those funds should be used in a responsible and rational manner. <...> the legislature is faced with the duty to establish the legal regulation governing the funding of healthcare services by compulsory health insurance funds that would create preconditions for the state so that it could plan the funding and distribute the funds among healthcare establishments in a manner where, without denying the obligation of the state to support the economic efforts and initiative that are useful to society and are based on private ownership, fair competition between healthcare establishments, and the right of the consumer of healthcare services (patient) to choose a healthcare establishment, one would ensure high quality of healthcare services funded by those funds and sufficient accessibility to the said services, i.e. their adequate distribution, as well as the continuous operation of the required network of state healthcare establishments. Thus, while being bound by the duty to ensure rational distribution of the limited funds of compulsory health insurance among the establishments rendering healthcare services, the legislature may establish the conditions and limitations of the funding of such services, inter alia such a procedure for the distribution of those funds, according to which they would be allocated to cover the costs of the healthcare services rendered only by those institutions that have concluded a corresponding agreement with an institution authorised by the state, under conditions established by law, regarding the rendering of the services funded from the compulsory health insurance funds. The procedure for concluding such agreements should be grounded on objective and non-discriminatory criteria, known in advance, that would not deny freedom of fair competition and the other principles of Lithuania’s economy consolidated in the Constitution”; The provisions of the fourth paragraph of Item 1.5 of Section IV The legislature must, by means of a law, of the reasoning part of the ruling of 16 May 2013: clearly specify the scope of personal “the state duty to create a system of healthcare funding by public healthcare services financed by compulsory funds based on social solidarity, where such a system would health insurance funds and define clear allow one to ensure the sufficient accessibility to healthcare, may criteria based on which it could be not be construed so that, purportedly, the society should bear determined which healthcare services the burden of the funding of all possible healthcare services for are paid for by the funds of the said persons. In this sphere it is necessary to find decisions ensuring insurance; in certain cases, by choice or at the balance between the interests of the person as a consumer of the request of a patient, a certain part of a healthcare services (patient) and those of the whole society. <...> healthcare service financed by compulsory the principle of solidarity in a civil society does not deny person- health insurance funds could be paid for al responsibility for one’s own fate; the recognition of the mutual from private funding sources; however, responsibility of a person and society is important in ensuring such a legal regulation may not deny the social harmony <...>. The legal regulation governing the funding requirement, stemming from Paragraph 1 of of healthcare of persons should create incentives for everyone to Article 53 of the Constitution, that sufficient take care of his health, to assume the obligation to contribute, as accessibility to quality healthcare services far as possible, to the health funding and to use the healthcare be ensured. services in a responsible and rational manner. Thus, under the Constitution, the legislature also has the powers to establish that certain healthcare services must be paid for with the resources of private funding, as, for instance, by voluntary health insurance funds, the direct payment by the persons themselves, etc.”; 160 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

Date, Act no. Unofficial title Petitioner Provisions construed Substance of construction The provisions of the fourth paragraph of Item 1.6 of Section IV of the reasoning part of the ruling of 16 May 2013: “Having chosen compulsory health insurance as one of the resources of healthcare funding, the legislature must clearly define the scope of the healthcare services provided for persons from the funds of this insurance. This can be done by specifying the services rendered to the insured persons for the funds of this insurance, or, reversely, by specifying those services the rendering of which is not paid for with the insurance funds and which must be paid for with private resources, whereas in case it is impossible to point this out precisely, sufficiently clear criteria must be established enabling one to decide in every concrete situation”; The provisions of the first paragraph of Item 1.6 of Section IV of Having chosen compulsory health insurance the reasoning part of the ruling of 16 May 2013: based on the principle of social solidarity, “When it regulates the relations of compulsory health the legislature has the discretion to establish insurance, the legislator is bound by the requirement, stemming the amount of compulsory health insurance from Paragraph 1 of Article 53 of the Constitution, for the contributions, which depends on certain ensuring of the accessibility, equal to all, to quality healthcare income of a person, as well as to specify the services, <…>. It implies, among other things, that compulsory types of income based on which the amount health insurance must be universal, i.e. it must cover all of the said contributions is calculated; members of society, the amount of the contributions must while doing this, the legislature must pay depend on the income of persons, this amount must be such heed to the principles of the balance of so that preconditions could be created for the accumulation constitutional values, social harmony, of the necessary funds ensuring the sufficient accessibility to responsible governance, reasonableness, quality healthcare services. It needs to be emphasised that the equality of the rights of persons, and after the legislature has chosen compulsory health insurance, other constitutional imperatives, and is not the obligation to pay the compulsory health insurance allowed to deny the obligation of the state contributions as established by law is a constitutional duty; in to take care of people’s health; the scope of itself, such a duty cannot be treated as a limitation of the rights healthcare services financed by compulsory of a person.” health insurance funds that may be rendered to a person may not depend on the amount of the compulsory health insurance contributions paid by the person. 3. 27-02-2014 On the Minister The provisions of Item 4 of the reasoning part of the ruling of When the legislature, while establishing the KT7-S4/2014 construction of of Justice 21 October 1999: legal regulation of writing the name and the provisions of the “the legislature must establish by law how the use of [the state] family name of a person in the passport of the ruling Republic of language is ensured in public life, and, in addition, it must of a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania, related to the Lithuania provide for the means of the protection of the state language” needs special knowledge, it must receive writing of and “the name and family name of a person must be written in an official conclusion, inter alia, an explicit names and a citizen’s passport in the state language”. position, and clear proposals from persons family names (institutions) having special knowledge or in passports special (professional) competence, inter of citizens of alia, a state institution, composed, under the Republic of the laws of the Republic of Lithuania, of Lithuania professional linguists—Lithuanian language specialists (and, to the extent permitted by law, also of representatives of other branches of linguistics), which enjoys the powers to take care of the protection of the state language, to establish, within its competence, the guidelines on the state language policy (or to propose that respective legislative and executive institutions establish the said guidelines by means of legal acts they adopt) and to carry out the state policy of language. 161 Annex 2. THE ACTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Date, Act no. Unofficial title Petitioner Provisions construed Substance of construction The provision of the operative part of the ruling of 21 October Following the requirements stemming 1999: from the Constitution, inter alia, Article 14 “Item 2 of the Resolution of the Supreme Council of the thereof, it is also possible to establish the Republic of Lithuania ‘On Writing Names and Family Names in rules of writing the name and family name Passports of Citizens of the Republic of Lithuania’ of 31 January of a person in the passport of a citizen of 1991 is in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of the Republic of Lithuania, other than those Lithuania”. established in Item 2 of the Resolution of the Supreme Council “On Writing Names and Family Names in Passports of Citizens of the Republic of Lithuania” of 31 January 1991, when their amendment is proposed by a state institution, composed, under the laws of the Republic of Lithuania, of professional linguists—Lithuanian language specialists (and, to the extent permitted by law, also of representatives of other branches of linguistics), which enjoys the powers to take care of the protection of the state language. 4. 07-03-2014 On the Deputy The provision of Item 6.5 of Section III of the reasoning part of After the extreme situation is over in KT8-S5/2014 construction of Head of the ruling of 6 February 2012: the state and after preconditions arise the provisions the Social “to ensure that the losses incurred <…> due to the reduction of for assessing, according objective data of the ruling Insuran old-age pensions would be compensated for within a reasonable (economic indicators, inter alia, indicators related to the ce and time and in a fair manner after the said extreme situation is of economic growth, funds accumulated compensation Funded over, the legislature must, without unreasonable delay, by means by the state), the respective capabilities of for reduced old Pensions of a law, establish the essential elements (grounds, amounts, the state, fair compensation for the losses age pensions Division of etc.) of compensation for the reduced pensions, on the basis of incurred due to the reduction (inter alia, the Social which one should prepare the procedure for compensation for where the reduction resulted from the Insuran the reduced pensions”; adoption of the legal provisions later ruled ce and to be in conflict with the Constitution) of Pensions The provision of Item 5.5 of Section V of the reasoning part of old-age pensions must be ensured; under Depart- the ruling of 6 February 2012: the Constitution, inter alia, under the ment of the “these elements of compensation for the reduced pensions must constitutional imperative of social harmony, Ministry of be established, by means of a law, by the legislature; only if this may be ensured as appropriate in a Social understood in this way the said legal regulation is not in conflict fair manner only by invoking the amounts, Security with the Constitution”; terms and other essential elements of and Labour The provision of Item 19.5 of Section V of the reasoning part of compensation for the losses incurred, as the ruling of 6 February 2012: established by the legislature. “the losses incurred, inter alia, due to the reduction of old-age pensions, would be compensated for within a reasonable time and in a fair manner after the extreme situation is over, the legislature must, without unreasonable delay, by means of a law, establish the essential elements (grounds, amounts, etc.) of compensation for the reduced pensions, on the basis of which one should prepare the procedure for compensation for the reduced pensions”; The provision of Item 6.5 of Section III and of Item 19.5 of The legislature must establish a mechanism Chapter V of the reasoning part of the ruling of 6 February for compensation for the reduced (inter 2012: alia, by means of the provisions of a law “<…> to ensure that the losses incurred <…> would be that were later ruled to be in conflict with compensated for within a reasonable time and in a fair manner the Constitution) old-age pensions, inter <…>, the legislature must, without unreasonable delay, by alia, the starting date of the payment of means of a law, establish the essential elements (grounds, compensation and a reasonable period of amounts, etc.) of compensation for the reduced pensions”; time during which the losses incurred due to the reduction of the said pensions will be compensated for, by taking account of 162 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

Date, Act no. Unofficial title Petitioner Provisions construed Substance of construction the consequences of an extreme situation and the capabilities of the state, inter alia, various obligations assumed by the state, which, inter alia, are related to financial discipline, thus, also to the imperative of balancing the revenue and expenditure of the state budget. 5. 10-03-2014 On the President The provisions of Item 7 of Section I of the reasoning part of the – The constitutional principle of the KT9-S6/2014 construction of of the ruling of 21 March 1999: independence of judges and courts does not the provisions Supreme “<…> the system of the guarantees of the independence of deny the possibility of imposing disciplinary of the ruling Court of the judge and courts does not create any preconditions on the liability on judges for evasion to perform related to the Lithuania grounds of which a judge could evade the proper fulfilment duties without a justifiable reason and for constitutional of their duties, investigate cases in a negligent manner <…>. inappropriate performance of duties (inter principle of the Judges must protect the honour and prestige of their profession. alia, for negligent consideration of cases), independence of Therefore, the system of self-regulation and self-government however, the mere fact that a court of the judiciary of the judiciary must ensure that judges perform their duties higher instance, having reviewed, under the properly and that every unlawful or unethical behaviour of a procedure provided for in procedural laws, judge be properly assessed.” a decision adopted by a judge, altered it or rescinded it due to the errors in the construction and/or application of law or the breaches of procedural laws that were made while adopting it, does not mean that it can serve as a basis for imposing disciplinary liability on a judge and, under Item 5 of Ar- ticle 115 of the Constitution, for dismissing them from office having recognised that by their behaviour a judge has discredited the name of the judge; – recurrent gross and evident errors in the construction and/or application of law as well as recurrent gross and evident breaches of procedural laws that were made by a judge while adopting decisions serve as a basis for (a) self-government institution(s) of courts, which has (have) the respective powers, to assess the conduct of a judge as the inappropriate performance of duties (inter alia, negligent consideration of cases) and lack of necessary professional qualification, to impose disciplinary liability on a judge and recognise that by their behaviour a judge discredits the name of the judge; the system of self-regulation and self-government of the judiciary must function in such a manner that preconditions would be created for dismissing a judge who by their behaviour discredits the name of the judge from office. 6. 16-04-2014 On the President The provisions of the second paragraph of Item 2 of Section – The legislature, while following the KT14-S9/2014 construction of of the XIV of the reasoning part of the ruling of 1 July 2013: constitutional principle of responsible the provisions Supreme “<...> after this Constitutional Court’s ruling has recognised the governance, may postpone the of the ruling Court of legal provisions that laid down the disproportionate extent of establishment and/or implementation of related to the Lithuania the reduction of the remuneration of the persons who are paid the mechanism of compensation for the compensation for their work with the funds of the state budget or municipal losses incurred due to the disproportionate for the budget as conflicting, inter alia, with the provision ‘[e]ach reduction of remuneration for a reasonable disproportionate human being <…> shall have the right <…> to receive fair pay time that should be determined in view of reduction of for work’ of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution, the an assessment of the existing economic and remuneration requirement for establishing a mechanism of the compensation financial situation in the state and in 163 Annex 2. THE ACTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Date, Act no. Unofficial title Petitioner Provisions construed Substance of construction for the losses incurred by the persons who are paid for their the light of the consequences of an extreme work with the funds of the state budget or municipal budget situation and the capabilities of the state, stems from Article 23 of the Constitution; such a mechanism inter alia, various obligations assumed means the procedure, according to which the state, within by the state, which, inter alia, are related a reasonable time (inter alia, in view of the economic and to financial discipline, thus, also to the financial situation of the state and after an assessment of imperative of balancing the revenue and the accumulation (receiving) of the funds required for such expenditure of the state budget; compensation) and in a fair manner, to the extent that the – the right of the persons who incurred incurred losses were disproportionate, will compensate for such losses due to the disproportionate reduction losses. Such legal regulation should be established without any of remuneration to compensation for unreasonable delay in order to avoid numerous applications to such losses should be implemented courts lodged by the persons who are paid for their work with through a mechanism established by the funds of the state budget or municipal budget requesting the legislature, which would ensure fair that the courts award them the remuneration’s unpaid part compensation within a reasonable time; that came into being after the legal provisions, which have in case the legislature unreasonably delays been recognised by this Constitutional Court’s ruling as the establishment of the mechanism of conflicting with the Constitution, had reduced the coefficients compensation for the incurred losses or if an of the positional salaries (remuneration) or the amounts of the unfair mechanism is established (from the additional pay for the qualification class or for qualification point of view of the terms and amounts of c at e g or y.” the payment of compensation), the persons who incurred these losses may defend their violated rights under judicial procedure.

2.5. THE CONCLUSION PRESENTED BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT IN 2014

Date, Act no. Case No. Unofficial title Petitioner Application Investigated actions Conclusion

03-06-2014 3/2014 On the actions of The Seimas Seimas Resolution (No. XII- The actions of Seimas member By these actions, Seimas member Neringa 665) “On the Institution of Neringa Venckienė—failure Neringa Venckienė, KT20-I1/2014 Venckienė Impeachment Against Neringa to attend, without a justifiable a member of Venckienė, a Member of the reason, the 64 plenary sittings the Seimas of Seimas of the Republic of of the Seimas that took place the Republic of Lithuania, and an Application between April and November Lithuania, has to the Constitutional Court of 2013, and the 25 sittings of the breached the oath the Republic of Lithuania” of 12 Seimas Committee on Legal and grossly violated December 2013 Affairs that took place between the Constitution. April and November 2013.

2.6. INTERNATIONAL AND EU LAW IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT’S ACTS ADOPTED IN 2014

Date, Act no. Unofficial title Act of International or EU Law Context

1. 24-01-2014 On the Law • Article 3(4) of the Treaty on the European Union EU competence in the sphere of monetary KT2-N1/2014 Amending • Articles 3(1c), 119(2), 127(2), 128(1), 128(2), and 130 of the Treaty policy. Article on the Functioning of the European Union 125 of the Constitution • Articles 7, 8, and 10 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank

2. 18-03-2014 On criminal • Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Concept of the jus cogens norms and their KT11-N4/2014 liability for mandatory character. genocide 164 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

Date, Act no. Unofficial title Act of International or EU Law Context

• Resolution No. 95 (I) of 11 December 1946 adopted by the General Imperative character of the jus cogens norms; Assembly of the United Nations retroactive force of national laws establishing criminal liability for international crimes. • Resolution No. 96 (I) of 11 December 1946 adopted by the General Definition of genocide. Assembly of the United Nations • Articles 1, 2, and 5 of the 9 December 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide • ICJ1 Advisory Opinion on the Reservations to the Convention on Imperative character of the jus cogens norms. Genocide (I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 15) • Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal of 8 August 1945 Criminal liability for international crimes. • Articles 2, 3, 4(2), and 5 of the Statute of the International Criminal Definition of genocide and other international Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia of 25 May 1993 crimes; non-application of statutory limitation • Articles 2, 3, and 4 of the Statute of the Tribunal for Rwanda of 8 for genocide and other international crimes. November 1994 • Articles 1, 5(1), 6, 7, 8, and 29 of the Rome Statute of the Status of the ICC;2 the definition of genocide International Criminal Court of 17 July 1998 and other crimes; non-application of statutory limitation. • Article 1 the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Non-applicability of statutory limitations to Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity of 26 international crimes. November 1968 • Article 11(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Retroactive force of national laws establishing • Article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights criminal liability for international crimes. • The 3 February 2006 ICJ judgment in the case Democratic Republic of Imperative character of the jus cogens norms. the Congo v. Rwanda concerning armed activities on the territory of the Congo (I.C.J. Reports 2006, p. 6) • The 26 February 2007 ICJ judgment the case Bosnia and Herzegovina Imperative character of the jus cogens norms; v. Serbia and Montenegro concerning the application of the definition of genocide. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43) • The ICJ 3 February 2012 judgment in the case Germany v. Italy on Concept of the jus cogens norms. intervening concerning jurisdictional immunities of the State (I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 99) • Judgment of 21 May 1999 delivered by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in case The Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, No. ICTR-95-1-T • Judgment of 2 September 1998 delivered by the International Definition of genocide. Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in case The Prosecutor v. Akayesu, No. IICTR-96-4-T • Judgment of 15 May 2003 delivered by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in case The Prosecutor v. Semanza, No. ICTR- 97-20 • Judgment of 22 January 2004 delivered by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in case The Prosecutor v. Kamuhanda, No. ICTR-95-54A-T • Judgment of 14 December 1999 delivered by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in case The Prosecutor v. Jelisić, No. IT-95-10

1 The International Court of Justice. 2 The International Criminal Court. 165 Annex 2. THE ACTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Date, Act no. Unofficial title Act of International or EU Law Context

• Judgment of 14 January 2000 delivered by the International Criminal Definition of genocide and other international Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in case The Prosecutor v. Kupreškić crimes. and Others, No. IT-95-16-T • Judgment of 2 August 2001 delivered by the International Criminal Definition of genocide. Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in case The Prosecutor v. Krstić, No. IT-98-33 • Judgment of 17 January 2005 delivered by the International Criminal Definition of genocide and other international Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in case The Prosecutor v. crimes. Blagojević and Jokić, No. IT-02-60-T • Judgment of 30 November 2005 delivered by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in case The Prosecutor v. Limaj and Others, No. IT-03-66-T • Article 45 of the of the Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws Prohibition against the imposition of and Customs of War on Land of 18 October 1907 citizenship of an occupying state. • Article 51(1) of the Geneva Convention “Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War” of 12 August 1949 • General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Definition of aggression. Policy of 27 August 1928 • Aggression as defined by the Convention between the Republic of Lithuania and the USSR of 5 July 1933 • Resolution No. 1096 (1996) of 27 June 1996 on Measures to Retroactive force of national laws establishing Dismantle the Heritage of Former Communist Totalitarian Systems criminal liability for international crimes. adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe • Article 7 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms • The 15 November 2001 ECtHR decision as to the admissibility of the application in the case Papon v. France (No. 2) • The 17 January 2006 ECtHR decision as to the admissibility of the Imperative character of the jus cogens application in the case Kolk and Kislyiy v. Estonia norms; application of criminal liability for • The 24 January 2006 ECtHR decision as to the admissibility of the international crimes. application in the case Penart v. Estonia • The 17 May 2010 ECtHR judgment in the case Kononov v. Latvia • The 18 July 2013 ECtHR Grand Chamber’s judgment in the case Retroactive force of national laws establishing Maktouf and Damjanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina criminal liability for international crimes. • Resolution 1481/2006 of 25 January 2006 of the Parliamentary Definition of crimes of totalitarian communist Assembly of the Council of Europe on the need for international regimes. condemnation of crimes of totalitarian communist regimes • Resolution No. 1723 (2010) of 23 April 2010 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe commemorating the victims of the Great Famine (Holodomor) in the former USSR 3. 14-04-2014 On the • Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the protection Protection of employees in the event of the KT13-N5/2014 allocation of of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (as insolvency of their employer. payments for amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of employees the Council of 23 September 2002) of insolvent • Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council enterprises of 22 October 2008 from the 3 guarantee fund • The 11 September 2003 CJEU judgment in Case C-201/01 Maria Walcher v Bundesamt für Soziales und Behindertenwesen Steiermark

3 The Court of Justice of the European Union. 166 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

Date, Act no. Unofficial title Act of International or EU Law Context

4. 08-05-2014 On the • The 15 October 2013 ECtHR decision in the case Savickas and Temporary reduction of remuneration of KT17-N6/2014 coefficients Others v Lithuania (applications Nos. 66365/09, 12845/10, 29809/10, judges of the 29813/10, 30623/10, 28367/11) remuneration • Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of 17 November 2010 of the The independence of the judiciary and the of judges and Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member states remuneration of judges. on the Labour “On judges: Independence, Efficiency and Responsibilities” Code • The report adopted in the plenary session of the Consultative Council of European Judges on 7–9 November 2011 • European Charter on the Statute for Judges adopted on 8–10 July 1998 • Report “On the Independence of the Judicial System” adopted on 12–13 March 2010 by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) 5. 09-05-2014 On the • Directive 200/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council Liability of oil manufacturers and importers. KT18-N7/2014 obligation to of 19 November 2008 manage oil • The 18 February 1991 ECtHR judgment in the case Fredin v. Sweden Environmental protection. waste (No. 1), application No. 12033/86 • The 8 July 2003 ECtHR Grand Chamber’s judgment in the case Hatton and Others v. the United Kingdom, application No. 36022/97 • The 10 November 2004 ECtHR judgment in the case of Taşkin and Others v. Turkey, application No. 46117/99 • The 8 July 2008 ECtHR judgment in the case Turgut and Others v. Turkey, application No. 1411/03 6. 03-07-2014 On the right • The 16 October 2012 CJEU Grand Chamber’s judgment in Case Status of the Head of State. KT34-N9/2014 to the state C-364/10 Hungary v. Slovak Republic annuity of the • The judgment Wolfgang Mandt v. European Parliament of the Civil Purpose of the pension of widow(er)s. widow(er) of Service Tribunal, delivered in open court on 1 July 2010, case F-45/07 the President of the Republic • The judgment Ramaekers-Jørgensen v. Commission of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 October 2009, case F-74/08 • Articles 21(1) and 39 of the Convention on Special Missions of 8 Status of the Head of State. December 1969 • Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Diplomatic Agents of 14 December 1973 • The 14 February 2002 ICJ judgment in the case concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 ((Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2002, p. 3) 7. 11-07-2014 On organising • Guidelines for Constitutional Referendums at National Level adopted European standards for referendums. KT36-N10/2014 and calling by the Venice Commission at its 47th Plenary Session on 6–7 July referendums 2001 • Code of Good Practice on Referendums adopted by the Venice Commission at its 70th Plenary Session on 16–17 March 2007

8. 08-10-2014 On the right • The ECtHR judgment of 21 July 2009 in the case of Aleksa v. Right to the restoration of ownership. KT43-N11/2014 of heirs of Lithuania (petition No. 27576/05) former owners • The ECtHR Grand Chamber’s decision on the admissibility in to restore the case of Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. The Czech Republic, the rights of application No. 39794/98 ownership • The 30 June 2009 ECtHR decision on the admissibility in the case of Shub v. Lithuania, application No. 17064/06 167 Annex 2. THE ACTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Date, Act no. Unofficial title Act of International or EU Law Context

9. 13-10-2014 On the names • The 18 February 1999 ECtHR Grand Chamber’s judgment in the case Principles of elections to the European KT45-N13/2014 of public Matthews v. the United Kingdom, application No. 24833/94 Parliament. election • The 23 November 2010 ECtHR judgment in the case Greens and M. committees T. v. the United Kingdom, applications Nos. 60041/08, 60054/08 • The 12 August 2014 ECtHR judgment in the case Firth and Others v. the United Kingdom, applications Nos. 47784/09, 47806/09 10. 30-10-2014 On the • The ECtHR judgment of 21 July 2009 in the case of Aleksa v. Right to the restoration of ownership. KT46-N14/2014 restoration Lithuania (petition No. 27576/05) of the rights • The ECtHR Grand Chamber’s decision on the admissibility in of ownership the case of Gratzinger and Gratzingerova v. The Czech Republic, to the urban application No. 39794/98 land necessary for the • The 30 June 2009 ECtHR decision on the admissibility in the case of exploitation of Shub v. Lithuania, application No. 17064/06 the structures • The 25 March 1999 ECtHR Grand Chamber’s judgment in the case Conditions of the restoration of the rights of owned by other Papachelas v. Greece, application No. 31423/96 ownership. persons • The ECtHR 5 November 2002 judgment in the case Pincová and Pinc v. the Czech Republic, application No. 36548/97 • The 22 June 2004 ECtHR Grand Chamber’s judgment of the in the case Broniowski v. Poland, application No. 31443/96) 168 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

Annex 3 PENDING CASES (31 December 2014)

Petition Date of Title of the case Case No. Petitioner No. receipt 1. On competition in the area of waste management services1 1B-55/2011 44/2011 18-11-2011 The Supreme On the compliance of the provision “[m]unicipalities may entrust (as a mandatory task) Administrative the operation of the municipal waste management system to a company established by a Court of municipality or to a waste management institution, enterprise, or organisation established by Lithuania several municipalities” of Paragraph 4 (wording of 1 July 2002) of Article 30 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Waste Management with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 and Paragraphs 1, 3, and 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania 2. On the transfer of a part of the personal income tax to municipal budgets 1B-7/2012 4/2012 02-04-2012 A group of On the compliance of Item 2 (wording of 2 December 2009) of Article 3 of the Republic of members of the Lithuania’s Law on the Methodology of the Determination of Municipal Budget Revenues, Seimas insofar as the said item provides that a part (in percentage terms) of the personal income tax, specified in the Appendix to this law, is transferred to a municipal budget, and the Appendix (wording of 2 December 2009) to this law, insofar as it provides that the Vilnius City 1B-23/2012 13/2012 03-10-2012 The Vilnius Municipality is allocated a part of the personal income tax that is equal to 40 percent in size, Regional with Articles 29 and 120 and Paragraph 1 of Article 121 of the Constitution of the Republic of Administrative Lithuania as well as the constitutional principles of a state under rule of law and responsible Court governance 3. On competition in the area of passenger carriage services2 1B-11/2012 6/2012 26-04-2012 The Vilnius On the compliance of Item 2 of Paragraph 2 of Article 171 (wording of 17 December 2009) of the Regional Road Transport Code of the Republic of Lithuania with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 and Paragraphs Administrative 1, 3, and 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania Court 4. On the maximum size of new plots of land in the city of Kaunas transferred to citizens as 1B-26/2012 17/2012 31-10-2012 The Supreme compensation for real property possessed by them by right of ownership Administrative On the compliance of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 920) Court of “On the Approval of the Sizes of New Plots of Land in Cities” of 23 July 1998 (wording of 31 Lithuania March 2010), insofar as it approves the maximum size of 0.12 ha for new plots of land intended to be transferred for individual construction in the city of Kaunas, with Articles 23 and 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, and Paragraph 3 of Article 5 (wording of 16 November 2006) of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property 5. On the use of right-hand-drive vehicles on public roads3 1B-27/2012 18/2012 06-11-2012 The Kaunas City On the compliance of Paragraph 4 (wording of 15 April 2010) of Article 25 of the Republic of Local Court Lithuania’s Law on Road Traffic Safety and Item 240 of the Road Traffic Rules (wording of 16 July 2008), as approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1950) “On the Approval of the Road Traffic Rules” of 11 December 2002, with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law 6. On the Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal4 1B-32/2012 23/2012 14-11-2012 A group of On: members of the – the compliance of Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Liquefied Seimas Natural Gas Terminal with Paragraph 1 of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania; – the compliance of Paragraph 2 of Article 5 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal with Article 23 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;

1 The case was settled by the ruling of 5 March 2015. 2 The case was settled by the ruling of 15 January 2015. 3 The case was settled by the ruling of 6 February 2015. 4 The proceedings have been opened: the Court’s public hearings were held on 25 February and 17 March 2015. 169 Annex 3. PENDING CASES

Petition Date of Title of the case Case No. Petitioner No. receipt – the compliance of Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Article 11 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal, insofar as natural gas enterprises importing natural gas into the Republic of Lithuania through interconnectors and other natural gas pipelines of the transmission system are under the obligation to purchase, through the Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal, not less than 25 percent of the total natural gas volume that such an enterprise supplies to the natural gas system per year, with Paragraph 1 of Article 23 and Paragraphs 1, 4, and 5 of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania; – the compliance of the provision “[t]he aforesaid natural gas enterprises may not, on the grounds of agreements concluded after the entry into force of this Law, be under the obligation to pay for the untaken natural gas volume imported through interconnectors and other natural gas pipelines of the transmission system (the so-called ‘take-or-pay’ obligation)” of Paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal, insofar as the obligation referred to in the said provision may not be applied only when paying for the untaken natural gas volume imported through interconnectors and other natural gas pipelines of the transmission system, however, it is applied when paying for the untaken natural gas volume imported through the Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal, with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 and Paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania; – the compliance of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 199) “On the Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal” of 15 February 2012 (wording of 11 July 2012), insofar as the said resolution approves the implementation of the project of the Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal by joint-stock company “Klaipėdos Nafta”, as the company implementing the project of the Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal, with Paragraph 1 of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania On the compliance of Paragraph 2 (wording of 12 June 2012) of Article 5 of the Republic of 1B-52/2014 38/2014 15-10-2014 The Vilnius Lithuania’s Law on the Liquefied Natural Gas Terminal with Paragraph 2 of Article 5, Item 15 of Regional Article 67, and Paragraph 3 of Article 127 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Administrative the constitutional principle of the separation of powers Court, 1B-65/2014 54/2014 19-12-2014 The Court of Appeal of Lithuania 7. On the implementation of the property rights of the state in state-managed enterprises5 1B-34/2012 22/2012 14-11-2012 A group of On: members of the – the compliance of Item 4 of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania Seimas (No. 665) “On the Approval of the Description of the Procedure for the Implementation of the Property and Non-property Rights of the State in State-managed Enterprises” of 6 June 2012 with Paragraph 2 of Article 128 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law; – the compliance of Item 54 of the Description of the Procedure for the Implementation of the Property and Non-property Rights of the State in State-managed Enterprises, as approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 665) “On the Approval of the Description of the Procedure for the Implementation of the Property and Non-property Rights of the State in State-managed Enterprises” of 6 June 2012, insofar as the said item provides that, under the conditions laid down in the said item, the manager of shares himself or herself has the right to take decisions on granting a proxy to vote in favour of increasing the authorised capital of a state-managed company through additional contributions when the shares carrying more than 1/2 of all votes belong to the state by right of ownership, with Paragraph 2 of Article 19 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Management, Use and Disposal of the State-owned and Municipal Property

5 The case was settled by the ruling of 24 February 2015. 6 The case was settled by the ruling of 26 February 2015. 170 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

Petition Date of Title of the case Case No. Petitioner No. receipt 8. On the prohibition on correspondence between convicts6 1B-41/2012 1/2013 31-12-2012 The Supreme On the compliance of Paragraph 2 of Article 99 of the Code of the Enforcement of Punishments Administrative of the Republic of Lithuania with Paragraph 2 of Article 22 of the Constitution of the Republic of Court of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law Lithuania 9. On the inclusion of the time of learning at interior, security and military schools in the time 1B-3/2013 2/2013 21-02-2013 The Vilnius of service Regional On the compliance of Item 6 of Paragraph 3 (in wordings of 18 January 2007 and 2 October Administrative 2012) of Article 16 and Paragraph 4 (wording of 17 October 2012) of Article 16 of the Court Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen and Paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of the Officials and Servicemen of the Interior, the Special Investigation Service, State Security, National Defence, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Department of Prisons and the Establishments and State Enterprises Subordinate to the Latter (wording of 19 May 2005), insofar as they provide a different inclusion of the time of learning at the Republic of Lithuania’s higher, special secondary and police (interior) and military schools of further education in the time of service in order to award a pension to the officials of the interior, national defence, the system of the prosecutor’s office, the Special Investigation Service, the Department of Prisons and the establishments and state enterprises subordinate to the latter as well as to customs officials and the officials of the system of the State Security Department, with Article 29 of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law 10. On the right to social housing 1B-12/2013 7/2013 26-04-2013 The Klaipėda On: City Local Court – the compliance of the provision “[t]he right to municipal social housing is granted to families and individuals referred to in Article 1 of this Law whose property held in their possession and income received for one year (last 12 months) that have been declared in accordance with the procedure established by the Law on the Declaration of the Property of Residents are—before the date of the submission of an application for the inclusion in a relevant list of families and individuals who have the right to social housing and before municipal social housing has been provided—lower than the income and property the maximum levels of which are established by the Government” of Paragraph 1 (wording of 12 October 2010) of Article 8 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on State Support for the Acquisition or Rent of Housing and for the Renovation (Modernisation) of Blocs of Flats, as well as the compliance of the provision “[a] lease must also provide that, in case the declared property held in the possession of a tenant (their family) of social housing or income received by them exceeds the levels established under the terms of Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of this Law, the lease shall be terminated under the procedure established in the lease” of Paragraph 4 of Article 11 (wording of 12 October 2010) of the same law, insofar as the said provisions provide that the property held in the possession of families and individuals who have the right to social housing and the income received by them are established without paying any regard to their needs, individual character, and other significant circumstances, with Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principles of justice, reasonableness, proportionality, and the protection of legitimate expectations; – the compliance of Item 2.1 (wording of 17 February 2011) of the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 670) “On the Establishment of the Levels of Annual Income and Property According to Which the Right to Municipal Social Housing or the Improvement of its Conditions is Established” of 28 May 2003 with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5 and Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania 11. On the continuation of the reduction of state pensions in 2012 and 2013 1B-16/2013 12/2013 31-05-2013 The Vilnius On the compliance of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 15 of the Provisional Regional Law on the Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments, insofar as it provides that the Administrative Republic of Lithuania’s Provisional Law on the Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments Court is in force until 31 December 2013 in respect of the state pensions awarded and paid under the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on State Pensions and the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen, with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule 1B-25/2014 15/2014 11-04-2014 of law, the equality of rights of persons, justice, and proportionality 171 Annex 3. PENDING CASES

Petition Date of Title of the case Case No. Petitioner No. receipt On: – the compliance of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 15 of the Provisional Law on the Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments (wording of 20 December 2011), insofar as 1B-30/2013 21/2013 31-10-2013 it provides that the Republic of Lithuania’s Provisional Law on the Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments is in force until 31 December 2012 in respect of the state pensions awarded and paid under the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on State Pensions and the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen, with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law, the equality of rights of persons, justice, and proportionality; – the compliance of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 15 of the Provisional Law 1B-77/2014 1/2015 23-12-2014 on the Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments (wording of 20 December 2012), insofar as it provides that the Republic of Lithuania’s Provisional Law on the Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments is in force until 31 December 2013 in respect of the state pensions awarded and paid under the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on State Pensions and the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen, with the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law, the equality of rights of persons, justice, and proportionality 12. On the determination of the amount of damage suffered by a person as a result of a traffic 1B-17/2013 11/2013 03-06-2013 The Vilnius City accident Local Court On the compliance of Items 8–11 of the Rules for the Determination of Damage Arising as a Result of a Traffic Accident and for the Payment of Insurance Payments, as approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 795) “On the Approval of the Rules for the Determination of Damage Arising as a Result of a Traffic Accident and for the Payment of Insurance Payments” of 23 June 2004 (wording of 13 February 2008) and on the compliance of the first and third paragraphs of Item 6.1 (wording of 3 December 2008) of the Description of the Procedure for the Calculation of the Average Work Remuneration of Employees, State Servants, and Intelligence Officials, as approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 650) “On the Approval of the Description of the Procedure for the Calculation of the Average Work Remuneration of Employees, State Servants, and Intelligence Officials” of 27 May 2003, with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraph 2 of Article 30, and Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, Paragraph 22 of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Compulsory Insurance Against Civil Liability in Respect of the Use of Motor Vehicles (wording of 17 May 2007) and Articles 6.249–6.251 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania 13. On the services complying with public interests in the electricity sector 1B-18/2013 13/2013 03-06-2013 The Vilnius On the compliance of Item 7.1, insofar as it provides that the services complying with public Regional interests cover the balancing of electricity, Items 7.8 and 7.9 of the Description of the Procedure Administrative for the Provision of the Services Complying with Public Interests in the Electricity Sector, as Court approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 916) “On the Approval of the Description of the Procedure for the Provision of the Services Complying with Public Interests in the Electricity Sector” of 18 July 2012, with Paragraph 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 7 of Article 94 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 74 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Electricity (wording of 17 January 2012) and Paragraph 1 of Article 20 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Renewable Energy Sources 14. On exemption from the real property tax 1B-22/2013 17/2013 09-08-2013 The Panevėžys On the compliance of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Real Property Tax (wording of Regional 7 June 2005, as amended and supplemented on 21 December 2011), insofar as it provides for Administrative no possibility of exempting natural persons—taxpayers—who must pay the real property tax Court under the provisions of Article 3, Paragraph 4 of Article 6, Item 6 of Paragraph 1 of Article 7, and Paragraph 6 of Article 7 of the said law from paying the real property tax in whole or in part, as well as it provides for no criteria for such an exemption, with Paragraph 1 of Article 29, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 38, and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 39 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law and justice 15. On organising internet gaming 1B-25/2013 18/2013 20-09-2013 A group of On the compliance of Paragraphs 1 and 5 of Article 10 (wording of 5 September 2011) and members of the Paragraph 3 of Article 19 (wording of 27 June 2002) of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Seimas 172 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

Petition Date of Title of the case Case No. Petitioner No. receipt Gaming with Articles 29 and 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law 16. On the establishment of the procedure for work pay of employees of educational 1B-26/2013 19/2013 27-09-2013 The Supreme establishments Administrative On the compliance of Item 3 (wording of 11 July 2012) of the Resolution of the Government of Court of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 511) “On Improvements in the Procedure for the Work Pay of Lithuania the Employees of Budgetary Establishments and Organisations” of 8 July 1993, insofar as the Ministry of Education and Science is entrusted with the establishment of the schemes of service remuneration (in coefficients) differentiated according to the nature and size of establishments and organisations and according to the length of service of employees, their education and qualifications, while not exceeding the service remuneration (in coefficients) established in the said resolution, as well as it is entrusted with the establishment of other conditions for work pay, as provided for in the said resolution, that are applied in establishing the work pay of a state (with the exception of higher schools) and municipal school head, deputy head for education, head of unit responsible for the organisation of education, teachers, specialists assisting pupils and other employees participating in the process of education, with Items 2 and 7 of Article 94 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, and Paragraph 3 of Article 68 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Education (wording of 17 March 2011) 17. On the accountability of the Prosecutor General to the Seimas regarding the activities of the 1B-28/2013 20/2013 16-10-2013 A group of Prosecutor’s Office members of the On: Seimas – the compliance of the provision “[t]he Seimas shall adopt a resolution regarding the report of the head of the institution and the activity of the institution” of Paragraph 5 (wording of 10 October 2000) of Article 206 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 22 December 1998) with Articles 5, 67, and 75 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania; – the compliance of Paragraph 6 (wording of 27 June 2013) of Article 206 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (wording of 22 December 1998) with Articles 5, 67, and 75 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law; – the compliance of the provision “[t]he Prosecutor General shall account for the activities of the Prosecutor’s Office to the President of the Republic and the Seimas” of Paragraph 3 of Article 4 (wording of 30 June 2011) of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Prosecutor’s Office (wording of 22 April 2003) with Paragraph 3 of Article 118 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law; – the compliance the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (No. XII-528) “On the 2012 Activity Report of the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Lithuania” of 1 October 2013 with Paragraph 3 of Article 118 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law On the possibility of dismissing the Prosecutor General on the proposal of the Seimas 1B-36/2013 1/2014 20-12-2013 On the compliance of Paragraph 6 of Article 22 (wording of 10 December 2013) of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Prosecutor’s Office (wording of 22 April 2003) with Paragraphs 3, 5, and 6 of Article 118 (wording of 20 March 2003) of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania 18. On the possibility of leaving, in the entrails of the earth, the radioactive and toxic waste of 1B-32/2013 23/2013 18-11-2013 A group of the mining industry as a result of hydraulic fracturing members of the On the compliance of Paragraph 2, insofar as it lays down a reservation with regard to the Seimas cases provided for in Paragraph 4, and Paragraph 4 of Article 11 (wording of 30 May 2013) of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Entrails of the Earth with Paragraph 3 of Article 53 and Paragraph 2 of Article 54 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania 19. On the limitations on working in another job for servicemen of professional military service 1B-38/2013 2/2014 23-12-2013 A group of On the compliance of Paragraph 7 (wording of 2 July 2013) of Article 36 of the Republic of members of the Lithuania’s Law on the Organisation of the National Defence System and Military Service, Seimas insofar as it provides that professional military servicemen may not work under an employment 173 Annex 3. PENDING CASES

Petition Date of Title of the case Case No. Petitioner No. receipt contract and be self-employed, except in cases provided for in this law, with the provision “[c] itizens shall have the right <...> to enter on equal terms in the State service of the Republic of Lithuania” of Paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and the provision “[e]ach human being may freely choose a job or business” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania 20. On Minor Impairment to the Health of the Officials or Students of the Interior Service 1B-2/2014 4/2014 28-01-2014 The Supreme System7 Administrative On the compliance of Item 3 of the List of Serious, Moderately Serious and Minor Injuries, Court of Traumas and Other Types of Impairment to the Health of the Officials of the Internal Service Lithuania System or Students of the Vocational Training Establishments of the Interior, as approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 1130) “On the Approval of the Rules for the Determination of the Degree of Seriousness of Impairment to the Health of the Officials of the Interior Service System or Students of the Vocational Training Establishments of the Interior and on the Approval of the List of Serious, Moderately Serious and Minor Injuries, Traumas and Other Types of Impairment to the Health of the Officials of the Interior Service System or Students of the Vocational Training Establishments of the Interior” of 2 September 2004, insofar as minor injuries, traumas and other types of impairment to health are classified only as injuries, traumas, and other types of impairment to health that have led to temporary incapacity for work that exceeds 10 days, with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, and Paragraph 8 (wording of 19 July 2006) of Article 40 of the Statute of the Interior Service 21. On limiting the possibility of choosing the supervisor of the heating and hot water system of 1B-4/2014 5/2014 11-02-2014 The Vilnius City a building Local Court On the compliance of Paragraphs 2 and 4 (wording of 28 June 2012) of Article 20 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Heat Sector (wording of 20 November 2007) with Articles 23 and 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of law 22. On the construction of certain provisions of the ruling of the Constitutional Court of 29 1B-6/2014 06/2008- 18-02-2014 President of the June 2010 in relation to the state pensions of judges8 18/2008- Supreme Court The petition requesting the construction of the following provisions of Section II of the 24/2010 of Lithuania reasoning part of the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania of 29 June 2010, i.e. whether: – the provision “when the pension established by means of a law which is not in conflict with the Constitution is granted and paid, this right and legitimate expectation acquired by the person should also be linked with the protection of the rights of ownership of this person” of Item 2.3 and the provision “the persons who have been granted and paid a pension established by the Constitution or a law, under Article 23 of the Constitution, have the right to demand that the payments be further paid to them in the amounts which were granted and paid previously” of Item 2.4 “also mean that the persons, who have been granted and paid the state pensions of judges on the grounds of the constitutional doctrine (formulated in the Constitutional Court’s act) of the calculation and payment of the state pensions of judges (for example, due to the failure of the legislature to change the legal regulation of the state pensions of judges when the legal regulation which would allow the calculation and payment of the said pensions disappeared after the Constitutional Court had ruled the relevant provisions of the Law on the State Pensions of Judges to be in conflict with the Constitution), have acquired the right that the state pensions of judges be further paid to them in the amounts that have been granted and paid, and whether such their right is defended under the Constitution, inter alia, Articles 23 and 52 of the Constitution”; – the provisions “the doctrine formulated in the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 22 October 2007 that the principled provision that one may not differentiate (also by applying law) the remuneration of the judges of the courts of the same system and of the same level according to when the remuneration of a certain size of judges was established (inter alia, according

7 The petition has been withdrawn (the 4 March 2015 ordinance (No. 2B-9) of the President of the Constitutional Court). 8 The decision on the construction was adopted on 14 January 2015. 174 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

Petition Date of Title of the case Case No. Petitioner No. receipt to whether the person began to work as a judge of the relevant court before establishing the remuneration of a certain size of the judge of that court, or afterwards) is also mutatis mutandis applicable to other social (material) guarantees of judges, inter alia, those which are established (applied) to judges upon the expiry of their powers; they may not be reduced, let alone altogether denied, also in the case when their system is reorganised. It also needs to be mentioned that the imperative of the reality of the social (material) guarantees of judges stems from the Constitution” of Item 3.16 may be understood as meaning that “the prohibition, stemming from the Constitution, on reducing any social guarantees of judges or denying them altogether also means that, when changing the legal regulation of the state pensions of judges, no regulation which would reduce the state pensions of judges may be established”; – the provisions “<...> the legislature, while entrenching, by means of a law, the maximum size of the pension as well as the ways for establishing this size, must heed, inter alia, the fact that the state pension of judges is a social (material) guarantee of the judge upon the expiry of his powers, stemming from the Constitution, which is defended not only under Article 109 of the Constitution, but also under Article 52 thereof, that this social (material) guarantee must be in line with the constitutional status of the judge and his dignity, and that such a constitutional social (material) guarantee of the judge must be real and not only nominal. Otherwise, one would deny the essence and purpose of the state pension of judges as a social (material) guarantee of the judge upon the expiry of his powers, stemming from the Constitution, and thereby would create the preconditions for deviating from the requirements arising out of the Constitution, inter alia, Paragraph 2 of Article 109 thereof, as well as out of the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law” of Item 3.7, “which, inter alia, consolidate the requirements for the reality of the state pensions of judges and for the compliance of the said pensions with the constitutional status of judges and their dignity, could also be construed as meaning that the size of the state pension of judges must always be linked with the work remuneration received by judges, whether it can be linked with other criteria for establishing the said pension and whether the Constitution allows such legal regulation under which, when increasing the work remuneration of judges, the size of the state pension of judges would remain unchanged” 23. On the maximum size of a maternity benefit 1B-26/2014 17/2014 15-04-2014 The Vilnius On the compliance of Paragraph 5 (wording of 15 December 2011) of Article 6 of the Republic Regional of Lithuania’s Law on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance and Item 7 (wording of 21 August Administrative 2012) of the Regulations on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance Benefits, as approved by Court the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 86) “On the Approval of the Regulations on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance Benefits” of 25 January 2001, insofar as they provide that the maximum compensatory earnings for the calculation of maternity benefits may not exceed the sum of the 3.2-fold amount of the insured income approved by the Government for the current year and valid in the month of the acquisition (at the beginning of the pregnancy and childbirth leave) of the right to a maternity benefit, with Article 29, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 38, and Paragraph 2 of Article 39 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania 24. On payment for advocates for providing secondary legal aid 1B-30/2014 26/2014 17-04-2014 The Vilnius City On the compliance of Item 7 (wording of 30 December 2008) of the Sizes of, and the Rules for Local Court the Paying of, Payment to Advocates for the Provision and Coordination of Secondary Legal Aid (wording of 2 May 2006), as approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 69) “On the Approval of the Sizes of, and the Rules for the Paying of, Payment to Advocates for the Provision and Coordination of Secondary Legal Aid” of 22 January 2001, insofar as the said item provides that additional payment at a stage of proceedings is limited to the size of four monthly minimum salaries, with Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law 25. On the services complying with public interests in the electricity sector 1B-39/2014 34/2014 26-05-2014 The Vilnius On the compliance of Item 7.1, insofar as it provides that the services complying with public Regional interests cover the balancing of electricity, Items 7.8 and 7.9 of the Description of the Procedure Administrative for the Provision of the Services Complying with Public Interests in the Electricity Sector, as Court approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania (No. 916) “On the 175 Annex 3. PENDING CASES

Petition Date of Title of the case Case No. Petitioner No. receipt Approval of the Description of the Procedure for the Provision of the Services Complying with Public Interests in the Electricity Sector” of 18 July 2012, with Paragraph 2 of Article 5 and Paragraph 7 of Article 94 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 74 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Electricity (wording of 17 January 2012) and Paragraph 1 of Article 20 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Renewable Energy Sources 26. On the application of the limitations on the right to acquire and possess weapons 1B-44/2014 35/2014 04-07-2014 The Vilnius On the compliance of Paragraph 4 (wording of 29 June 2012) of Article 2 of the Republic of Regional Lithuania’s Law Amending the Law on the Control of Weapons and Ammunition—insofar as Administrative the said paragraph does not provide that the limitations which are established in Paragraph 2 Court, (wording of 18 November 2010) of Article 18 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Control of Weapons and Ammunition and which are more stringent than those established in the previously valid Paragraph 2 (wording of 4 December 2007) of Article 18 of the said law do not apply to persons who, on 28 February 2011, did not have any permit to possess weapons or permit to carry weapons, but who possessed gas pistols (revolvers) that have been, since 1 March 2011, classified as Category C weapons if the circumstances that allow the application of limitations came into existence prior to the entry into force of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Law on the Control of Weapons and Ammunition—with Paragraph 2 of Article 7 and Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law On the compliance of Paragraph 4 (wording of 29 June 2012) of Article 2 of the Republic of 1B-71/2014 55/2014 12-12-2014 The Supreme Lithuania’s Law Amending the Law on the Control of Weapons and Ammunition—insofar as Administrative the said paragraph does not provide that the limitations which are established in Paragraph 2 Court of (wording of 18 November 2010) of Article 18 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Control of Lithuania Weapons and Ammunition and which are more stringent than those established in the previously valid Paragraph 2 (wording of 4 December 2007) of Article 18 of the said law do not apply to persons who, on 28 February 2011, did not have any permit to possess weapons or permit to carry weapons, but who possessed firearms that meet the criteria for other categories, however, that are not classified under those categories because of their low fighting power, and the kinetic energy of projectiles of which is from 2.5 J to 7.5 J, and that have been, since 1 March 2011, classified as Category C weapons if the circumstances that allow the application of limitations came into existence prior to the entry into force of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending the Law on the Control of Weapons and Ammunition—with Paragraph 2 of Article 7 and Paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law 27. On limiting the possibility of choosing the administrator of common-use objects of a block 1B-47/2014 36/2014 11-08-2014 The Vilnius City of flats Local Court On the compliance of Paragraph 7 of Article 4.84 (wording of 10 May 2012) of the Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania with Articles 23 and 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania On the compliance of Paragraph 7 of Article 4.84 (wording of 10 May 2012) of the Civil Code 1B-49/2014 37/2014 16-09-2014 of the Republic of Lithuania with Paragraph 2 of Article 23, Paragraph 1 of Article 29, and Paragraph 2 of Article 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania 28. On judges’ opportunity to receive state pensions of officials 1B-51/2014 39/2014 08-10-2014 The Vilnius On: Regional – the compliance of the provision “[t]he state pension of officials and servicemen is awarded Administrative and paid to the officials and servicemen referred to in Article 1 of this Law who have left the Court service <...> after serving in the systems <...> of the interior <...> for 20 years or more” of Item 1 (wording of 18 January 2007) of Paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen, insofar as the said provision did not prohibit judges from receiving the state pensions of officials, with Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principles of a state under the rule of law, social orientation, and responsible governance; 176 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

Petition Date of Title of the case Case No. Petitioner No. receipt – the compliance of Paragraph 1 (wording of 19 May 2005) of Article 11 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Officials and Servicemen, insofar as the said paragraph does not prohibit judges from receiving the state pension of officials, with Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principles of a state under rule of law, social orientation, and responsible governance; – the compliance of Paragraph 1 (wordings of 9 December 2009, 11 February 2010, and 26 October 2010) of Article 5 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Provisional Law on the Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments, insofar as the said paragraph did not prohibit judges from receiving the state pension of officials, with Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principles of a state under rule of law, social orientation, and responsible governance On state servants’ opportunity to receive state pensions of officials On: 1B-78/2014 2/2015 23-12-2014 The Vilnius – the compliance of Item 5 (wording 18 January 2007) of Paragraph 1 of Article 3 and Paragraph Regional 1 (wording of 19 May 2005) of Article 11 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions Administrative of Officials and Servicemen, insofar as they did not prohibit state servants from receiving the Court state pension of officials, with Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principles of a state under rule of law, social orientation, and responsible governance; – the compliance of Paragraph 1 (wording of 26 October 2010) of Article 5 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Provisional Law on the Recalculation and Payment of Social Payments, insofar as the said paragraph did not prohibit state servants from receiving the state pension of officials, with Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principles of a state under rule of law, social orientation, and responsible governance 29. On officials’ age of retirement upon reaching which a state pension may be awarded 1B-53/2014 40/2014 28-10-2014 The Supreme On the compliance of Article 2 (wording of 27 November 2003) of the Republic of Lithuania’s Administrative Law on the Implementation of the Law on the Approval of the Statute of the Interior Service, Court of insofar as the said article does not provide for a special regulation governing the imposition of Lithuania officials’ retirement age, as established in the Statute of the Interior Service (wording of 29 April 2003), as a condition for awarding and paying the state pensions of officials and servicemen, on persons who retired prior to the entry into force of the said statute, with Article 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law 30. On the postponement of the establishment of the mechanism for compensating the losses 1B-55/2014 41/2014 30-10-2014 The Supreme incurred by persons whose remuneration was reduced in a disproportionate manner Administrative 1B-56/2014 42/2014 Court of On the compliance of the 11 September 2014 Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 2 Lithuania of the Law (No. XII 523) on the Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 25 of, and Annex 1 to, the Law on State Service and Repealing Certain Laws Related Thereto, the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 3 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges, the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 2 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges, the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 30 of the Statute of the Special Investigation Service, the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 1 of the Law Amending the Statute of Service in the Department of Prisons under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 20 of the Statute of the Civil National Defence Service, with Paragraph 3 of Article 5, Paragraph 1 of Article 30, Paragraph 1 of Article 69, and Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law 177 Annex 3. PENDING CASES

Petition Date of Title of the case Case No. Petitioner No. receipt On the compliance of the 11 September 2014 Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 2 1B-60/2014 45/2014 03-12-2014 The Vilnius of the Law (No. XII-523) on the Implementation of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending 1B-61/2014 46/2014 Regional Article 25 of, and Annex 1 to, the Law on State Service and Repealing Certain Laws Related 1B-62/2014 47/2014 Administrative Thereto, the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 3 of the Law Amending the Appendix 1B-63/2014 48/2014 Court to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges, the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 2 1B-66/2014 49/2014 12-12-2014 of the Law Amending the Appendix to the Law on the Remuneration of Judges, the Republic of 1B-67/2014 50/2014 Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 30 of the Statute of the Special 1B-68/2014 51/2014 Investigation Service, the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending Article 3 of the Law Amending 1B-69/2014 52/2014 Article 1 of the Law Amending the Statute of Service in the Department of Prisons under the 1B-70/2014 53/2014 Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Lithuania’s Law Amending 1B-72/2014 56/2014 17-12-2014 Article 3 of the Law Amending Article 20 of the Statute of the Civil National Defence Service, 1B-73/2014 57/2014 with Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 5 and Paragraph 1 of Article 30 of the Constitution of the 1B-74/2014 58/2014 Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law 1B-75/2014 59/2014 1B-76/2014 60/2014 31. On the right to receive several state pensions 1B-57/2014 44/2014 20-11-2014 A group of On the compliance of Paragraph 1 (wording of 8 December 2009) of Article 3 of the Republic of members of the Lithuania’s Law on State Pensions, insofar as mothers who have given birth to (have adopted), Seimas have raised until the age of eight, and have provided with a good upbringing five or more children and who receive second degree state pensions lose their right to receive the state pensions of victims awarded to political prisoners and deportees, with Articles 23 and 52 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law 32. On dismissing the criminal procedure after the expiry of the limitation period for criminal 1B-79/2014 3/2015 30-12-2014 The Supreme liability Court of On the compliance of the provision of Article 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure according to Lithuania which the criminal procedure must be dismissed if the limitation period for criminal liability expires, insofar as the said provision prohibits the continuation of the procedure in court when the continuation of the procedure is requested by the defendant, with Paragraph 2 of Article 21, Paragraph 4 of Article 22, Paragraph 1 of Article 29, and Paragraph 2 of Article 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law 178 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

Annex 4 NOT IMPLEMENTED RULINGS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF WHICH THE ADOPTION OF A LEGAL ACT (LEGAL ACTS) ESTABLISHING A NEW LEGAL REGULATION IS NECESSARY

The Constitutional Court’s ruling and the provision of the ruling’s operative part whereby Note regarding a particular legal act was ruled to be in conflict with the Constitution the implementation of the ruling 1. The ruling of 26 January 2006 (case No. 44/03) 2. To recognise that the provision “the decision to refuse to grant the complaint shall be final and shall not be The provision of the Law on Petitions has not subject to appeal” of Paragraph 4 of Article 10 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Petitions, to the extent that it been amended. consolidates that a person who thinks that a decision of the Seimas and the municipal council to refuse to grant the complaint on the decisions of the petitions commission not to recognise the application as a petition or to refuse to accept the petition for consideration is not grounded on the bases established in the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Petitions or other laws, or is grounded on the bases that are not established in the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Petitions or other laws may not appeal to court, is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 30 and Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. 2. The ruling of 29 June 2010 (case No. 06/2008-18/2008-24/2010) 1. 1. To recognise that Paragraph 1 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 73-3088) of Article 6 of the Republic The Constitutional Court’s ruling came into of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Judges, to the extent that in establishing the maximum size of the state force on 16 November 2010. pension of judges no account was taken of the peculiarities of separate court systems, is in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. 2. To recognise that Paragraph 2 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 73-3088) of Article 6 of the Republic The provisions of the Law on the State of Lithuania’s Law on the State Pensions of Judges is in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 109 of the Constitution Pensions of Judges have not been amended. of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. 3. The ruling of 14 February 2011 (case No. 27/2009-29/2009-30/2009-31/2010-53/2010-55/2010) 2. To recognise that Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Remuneration of Judges The provision of the Law on the (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2008, No. 131-5022), insofar as it limits the right of judges to receive a fair Remuneration of Judges has not been remuneration for overtime work and work during days off and on holidays, is in conflict with the provision “Each amended. human being <...> shall have the right <...> to receive fair pay for work <...>” of Paragraph 1 of Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. 4. The ruling of 28 September 2011 (case No. 21/2008) To recognise that the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (No. X-1569) “On the Approval of the The provisions of the State Family Concept State Family Policy Concept” of 3 June 2008 (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2008, No. 69-2624), to the extent have not been amended. that the provisions of Item 1.6 of the State Family Policy Concept, as approved by this resolution, consolidate the notions of the harmonious family, multi-child family, extended family, family living through a crisis, incomplete family, family at social risk, and family that are founded (were founded) exclusively on the basis of marriage, is in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and to the extent that Item 5.8 of the State Family Policy Concept, as approved by this resolution, provides that the Seimas and the Government, when preparing legal acts in the field of family policy, take account of and adjust them to the provisions of this Concept, is in conflict with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. 5. The ruling of 5 September 2012 (case No. 8/2012) 2. To recognise that Paragraph 5 (wording of 22 March 2012, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2012, No. 42-2042) The provision of the Law on Elections to the of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Elections to the Seimas, insofar as it provides that a person, who Seimas has not been amended. has been removed from office or his mandate of a member of the Seimas has been revoked by the Seimas under procedure for impeachment proceedings for the commission of a crime whereby the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania has not been grossly violated and the oath has not been breached may not stand in elections for a member of the Seimas, is in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5, Paragraph 1 of Article 6, Paragraph 1 of Article 7, Paragraph 2 of Article 34, Paragraph 2 of Article 56, Article 74 and Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 107 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. 179 Annex 4. NOT IMPLEMENTED RULINGS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

The Constitutional Court’s ruling and the provision of the ruling’s operative part whereby Note regarding a particular legal act was ruled to be in conflict with the Constitution the implementation of the ruling 6. The ruling of 16 May 2013 (case No. 47/2009-131/2010) 7. To recognise that Paragraph 2 (wording of 22 July 2009; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2009, No. 93-3983; The provision of the Law on Health Insurance wording of 13 December 2011, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 160-7564; wording of 13 November has not been amended. 2012, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2012, No. 136-6967) of Article 8 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Health Insurance, insofar as, after the legislature had established that the compulsory health insurance of some persons shall become effective only as of the day on which the compulsory health insurance contributions started to be paid on behalf of them or they themselves started paying the said contributions, this paragraph established that, with regard to the persons specified in the said paragraph, the compulsory health insurance shall become effective only in the next month following the day where the compulsory health insurance contributions were paid on behalf of them or they themselves paid the said contributions 3 months in succession, or only as of the day that these persons have paid a contribution equal to 3 minimum monthly wages, is (was) in conflict with Article 29 Constitution. 7. The ruling of 15 November 2013 (case No. 12/2010-3/2013-4/2013-5/2013) 1. To recognise that Paragraph 2 (wording of 10 April 2003; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2003, No. 38-1734) The provisions of the Code of Criminal of Article 255 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania, insofar as it does not provide Procedure have not been amended. that the accused may not be convicted under a different criminal law that provides for a less serious crime or a less serious criminal misdemeanour and establishes new features of a criminal deed or other circumstances significant for the classification of a deed in comparison with the criminal law specified in the indictment, if the accused was not notified of such a possibility during the court trial, is in conflict with Paragraphs 2 and 6 of Article 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. 2. To recognise that Paragraph 1 (wording of 28 June 2007, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2007, No. 81-3312; wording of 22 December 2011, Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 164-7797) of Article 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania, insofar as it does (did) not establish that a court may, on its own initiative, change the factual circumstances of a criminal deed to circumstances different in substance, is (was) in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 31 and Paragraph 1 of Article 109 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principles of justice and a state under the rule of law <...> 5. To recognise that Paragraph 4 of Article 256 (wording of 22 December 2011; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 164-7797) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania, insofar as it establishes that the provisions of Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must not be applied in the situations of the reclassification of a criminal deed specified in the accusation in accordance of a criminal law that provides for a less serious crime or a less serious criminal misdemeanour and establishes different or new features of a criminal deed or other circumstances that are significant for the classification of a deed in comparison with the circumstances established in the criminal law that is specified in the indictment if the factual circumstances of the deed are not changed in substance, is in conflict with Paragraphs 2 and 6 of Article 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. 8. The ruling of 20 December 2013 (case No. 30/2011) To recognise that the provision “[t]he said costs must be paid prior to collecting the vehicle from the vehicle The provision of the Law on Road Traffic (impoundment) parking lot” of Paragraph 6 of Article 33 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Road Traffic Safety Safety has not been amended. (wording of 22 November 2007; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2007, No. 128-5213), insofar as it does not provide for any possibility of recovering the impounded vehicle once the fulfilment of the outstanding obligation to pay the costs involved has been adequately ensured, is in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 23 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. 9. The ruling of 24 January 2014 (case No. 22/2013) 2. To recognise that Article 170 (wording of 15 March 2012; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2012, No. 34-1626) The provisions of the Statute of the Seimas of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, insofar as it does not establish the prohibition against any have not been amended. substantial changes made by the Committee on Legal Affairs of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania to draft laws amending the Constitution that have been submitted by the subjects, specified in Paragraph 1 of Article 147 of the Constitution, that have the right to make a motion to amend the Constitution and does not establish the prohibition against the first vote on the substantially changed text of a draft law amending the Constitution, is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 147 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. 180 Annual Report for 2014 by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania

The Constitutional Court’s ruling and the provision of the ruling’s operative part whereby Note regarding a particular legal act was ruled to be in conflict with the Constitution the implementation of the ruling 10. The ruling of 18 March 2014 (case No. 31/2011-40/2011-42/2011-46/2011-9/2012-25/2012) 2. To recognise that Paragraph 3 (wording of 22 March 2011; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2011, No. 38-1805) The provision of the Criminal Code has not of Article 3 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, insofar as this paragraph establishes the legal been amended. regulation under which a person may be brought to trial under Article 99 of the Criminal Code for the actions aimed at physically destroying, in whole or in part, the persons belonging to any social or political group, where such actions had been committed prior to the time when liability was established in the Criminal Code for the genocide of persons belonging to any social or political group, is in conflict with Paragraph 4 of Article 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

11. The ruling of 11 July 2014 (case No. 16/2014-29/2014) 2. To recognise that Article 6 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Referendums (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, The provisions of the Law on Referendums 2002, No. 64-2570), insofar as it does not establish the requirement that several issues unrelated by their content have not been amended. and nature, or several unrelated amendments to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, or several unrelated provisions of laws may not be submitted as a single issue in a decision proposed to be put to a referendum, is in conflict with Paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. 3. To recognise that Article 14 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Referendums (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2002, No. 64-2570), insofar as it provides that the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania is obliged to adopt a resolution on calling a referendum where the decision proposed to be put to the referendum may not be in line with the requirements stemming from the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, is in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 6 and Paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. 12. The ruling of 13 October 2014 (case No. 10/2014) 1. To recognise that the provisions “When registering the election committee, following the order of registration The provisions of the Law on Elections to time of the election committees at the Central Electoral Commission, the Central Electoral Commission shall the European Parliament have not been assign it a letter without a diacritical mark. This letter is considered to be the name of the election committee amended. and is included in the ballot paper of the election to the European Parliament” of Paragraph 6 of Article 38 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Elections to the European Parliament (wording of 12 November 2013; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2013, No. 121-6116), to the extent that it provides that a letter to be considered to be the name of an election committee is also assigned to an election committee that has already chosen its name and indicated it in its rules of procedure, is in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 34 of the Constitution 13. The ruling of 10 November 2014 (case No. 24/2012) 3. To recognise that Paragraph 7 (wording of 19 January 2012; Official Gazette Valstybės žinios, 2012, No. 13-554) The provision of the Law on Science and of Article 70 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on Science and Studies, to the extent that it provides that a person Studies has not been amended. whose studies of the first cycle or integrated studies are funded by the state loses state funding for studies if the average results of their studies during a respective period are more than 20 percentage points lower than the average results of studies of a respective study programme and form by higher education school students of the same year of studies during a respective period, is in conflict with the provision “[c]itizens who are good at their studies shall be guaranteed education at State schools of higher education free of charge” of Paragraph 3 of Article 41 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law.

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania Annual Report: 2014

22.06.2015. 22,75 ac. quires. Printing 70 copies. Order No. 26382

Published by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania Gedimino Ave. 36, LT-01104 Vilnius

Printed by the publishing office Baltijos kopija UAB Kareivių St. 13B, LT-09109 Vilnius The CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF Lithuania

Annual Report 2014

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania Gedimino Ave. 36, LT-01104 Vilnius http://www.lrkt.lt/en

Vilnius 2015