THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
RULING
On the compliance of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania
resolution "On amending item 5 of the resolution of the
Supreme Council of the Republic
of Lithuania "On the procedure for implementing the Republic
of Lithuania
Law on Citizenship", adopted 22 December 1993, with the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
13 April 1994, Vilnius
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
composed from the Justices of the Constitutional Court
Algirdas Gailiûnas, Kæstutis Lapinskas, Zigmas Levickis,
Vladas Pavilonis, Pranas Vytautas Rasimavièius, Stasys
Staèiokas, Teodora Staugaitienë and Juozas Þilys,
the secretary of the hearing - Sigutë Brusovienë,
the petitioner - Vilija Aleknaitë-Abramikienë,
representative of a group of Seimas members ,
the party concerned - Seimas member Petras Papovas,
Seimas representative,
pursuant to Part 1, Article 102 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania and Part 1, Article 1 of the Law
on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in
its public hearing of 8 April 1994 conducted the
investigation of Case No 7/94 subsequent to the petition
submitted to the Court by a group of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania members requesting to investigate if
Seimas resolution ÖOn amending item 5 of the resolution of
the Supreme Council of the Republic ÖOn the procedure for
implementing the Republic of Lithuania Law on CitizenshipÕ,
adopted 22 December 1993, is in compliance with Articles 12,
28 and the first part of Article 29 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
On 22 December 1993, the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania adopted resolution "On amending item 5 of the
resolution of the Supreme Council of the Republic of
Lithuania "On the procedure for implementing the Republic of
Lithuania Law on Citizenship"" (Official Gazette "Valstybës
Þinios", No 2 -24, 1994).
The petitioner - a group of the Seimas members -
requests the Constitutional Court to recognize that Seimas
resolution "On amending item 5 of the resolution of the
Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania" On the
procedure for implementing the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Citizenship" ", 22 December, 1993 Article 29 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The petitioner grounds his request on the fact that
said resolution establishes the norm that persons having
served in the armed forces of the Soviet Union and having
terminated their service within the period up to 1 march
1992 and up to 4 November 1994 having been issued a Citizen
of the republic of Lithuania Certification Card or a
Certification Testifying to the (Person's) Decision to
acquire Citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania , have
citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania and may be issued
the passport of a citizen of the republic of Lithuania. In
the petitioner's opinion, in Article 12 of the Constitution
it is specified, that citizenship of the Republic of
Lithuania shall be acquired by birth or on other bases
established by law and the procedure for the acquisition and
loss of citizenship shall be established by law, whereas
Seimas has resolved this issue by adopting said resolution.
The petitioner has stated that said resolution
contradicts the second part of Article 12 of the
Constitution in which it is determined that, with the
exception of cases established by law, no person may be a
citizen of the Republic of Lithuania and another state at
the same time. ÖPersons who served in the armed forces as
well as another repressive structures of the Soviet Union,
had to be and were citizen of the Soviet Union, therefore,
documents to their decisions to acquire citizenship of the
Republic of Lithuania, which they have been issued shall be
invalid. Hereby, this resolution contradicts Article 28 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well. By
said resolution, the Seimas legalises citizenship
irrespective of the fact whether a person, has acquired it
lawfully or not. The constitutional principle establishing
that all people shall be equal before the law, the court,
and other state institutions, has also been violated (Part
1, Article 29, Constitution)Õ.
In the court hearing, the petitioner's representative
has submitted the following additional arguments.
The fact that the presence of the armed forces of the
Soviet Union in Lithuania was unlawful is confirmed by a
number of legal acts: the Supreme Council of the republic of
Lithuania resolution ÖOn 1939 treaties between Germany and
USSR and elimination (liquidation) of their consequences to
LithuaniaÕ, 7 February 1990, Ö13 March 1990 address of the
Supreme CouncilÕ To the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of
the USSRÕ, 19 March 1990 declaration (statement of the
Supreme Council ÖOn the status of Soviet armed forces in
LithuaniaÕ, and partly 24 December 1989 resolution passed in
the meeting of USSR People's deputies. The Soviet army was
unlawfully stationed in Lithuania, thus, there is no ground
for maintaining that persons, who formed that army, had come
to Lithuania lawfully. Hereford the conclusion is to be made
that the factual presence of servicemen of the Soviet Union
on the territory of Lithuania did not mean, however, that
they had permanent place of residence in Lithuania, because:
a) they could not choose their place of residence
themselves;
b) Serviceman of the Soviet Union were registered in
Lithuania according to legal status of foreign state.
The petitioners representative has maintained that
Certification Testifying to the (Person's) Decisions to
Acquire Citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania may have
been issued only for civilians as they were valid only
along with soviet passport they possessed. At that time it
was not the passport but military card (serviceman's
identity card) which confirmed the person's identity and
citizenship of Soviet servicemen, therefore, the
certifications they have been issued are invalid (unlawful).
The representative of the party concerned has
explained, that the petitioner's request is groundless and
the adopted resolution ÖOn amending item 5 of the resolution
of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania ÕOn the
procedure for implementing the Republic of Lithuania Law on
CitizenshipÕ does not contradict the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania.
The representative of the party concerned has submitted
the following counter - arguments:
The goal (purpose) of the resolution adopted by the
Seimas is - to regulate equal application of laws and other
legal acts that are in force now and were in effect earlier
according to the principles of equality of men. Seimas
resolution of 22 December 1993 has regulated the meaning of
items 8, 5 and 4 of 10 December 1991 resolution and
provision thereof that no legal acts shall have retroactive
and, more so, they are not validity with respect to 1989
Law, on Citizenship which is no longer in force. Said
resolution adopted by the Seimas provides the possibility
for the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania to lawfully
and validity be issued with passports of citizens of the
republic of LithuaniaÕ.
The representative of the party concerned holds that
the arguments submitted by the petitioner are not grounded,
as:
Ö1. The Seimas resolution has not amended the provision
of Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania, but , on the contrary, has regulated that persons
who have acquired citizenship on the bases prescribed by
laws be issued passports of a citizen.
2. Said resolution is in conformity with Part 2,
Article 12 of the Constitution, because the laws on
Citizenship have provided for other separate cases when
persons are considered to be citizens of the Republic of
Lithuania, and items 7 and 4 of the Supreme Council of the
Republic of Lithuania resolution ÖOn the procedure for
implementing the Republic of Lithuania Law on CitizenshipÕ
establish that citizenship of the Soviet Union with regard
to persons specified in Article 1 of the Law on Citizenship
is null and void.
3. The Seimas resolution cannot contradict Article 28
of The Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well, as
citizenship has been legalised not by said resolution but by
above mentioned Laws on Citizenship. The Seimas has
regulated the application of legal laws in issuing passports
for the citizen of the Republic of Lithuania. The wording
ÖMay beÕ established in said resolution allows for passport
agencies to check whether a person has acquired his or her
citizenship validly and lawfully.
4. Seimas' said resolution has also not violated the
provisions of Part 1, Article 28 of the Constitution, as the
Seimas Öhas only regulated all the provisions of legal acts
specifying that all citizens of the Republic of Lithuania
must be issued passports of citizens, i.e. that the
principle of all person's equality before Laws on
Citizenship and passport agencies be established.Õ
The representative of the party concerned in his
additional explanation (argumentation) on 7 April 1994 has
also that Law on Citizenship did not forbid Soviet
servicemen to be citizens of Lithuania and they, by the
Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania resolution ÖOn
the procedure for implementing the Republic of Lithuania Law
on CitizenshipÕ were allowed to serve in military structures
within the period up to 1 March 1992. Therefore, he
maintains that, persons specified in paragraph 3 Article 1
of the Law on Citizenship may as well be servicemen, and
they are not forbidden to be citizens of the Republic of
Lithuania and may be issued with passports of a citizen of
the Republic of Lithuania.
There may not be different explanations with regard to
what is the permanent place of residence of servicemen or
other persons. Besides, the permanent place of residence
should be decided in accordance with permanent registration
of residents which was in force at that time (at the time
of their residing).
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
Citizenship is a person's permanent political legal
relation to a certain state, grounded on mutual rights and
obligations as well mutual trust, loyalty and protection
therefrom. Laws on citizenship adopted by states precisely
regulate conditions and procedure for acquiring citizenship,
providing for the oath to the state and pledge of loyalty
(with exception of cases when citizenship is acquired by
birth), forbidding or restricting badly double citizenship.
In modern contemporary international law international
agreements concerning (on) double citizenship between states
concerned is considered a usual way of legalisation of
double citizenship.
The Republic of Lithuania Law on Citizenship, adopted
1989, did not provide for possibility for a citizen of
Lithuania to be at the same time a citizen of another state.
This provision was also established in Provisional Basic Law
in Part 2, Article 13 of which it was promulgated: ÖAs rule,
a citizen of Lithuania may not be currently a citizen of
another stateÕ. The above mentioned constitutional provision
was later specified by the Supreme Council of the Republic
of Lithuania resolution ÖOn the procedure for application of
Articles 7 and 35 of the Law of the republic of Lithuania on
CitizenshipÕ, passed on 9 June 1990. In said resolution it
was interpreted: ÖA citizen of the Republic of Lithuania may
possess the citizenship of another state only in cases when,
by way of exception, he is granted citizenship of the
Republic of Lithuanian accordance with Article 7 of the Law
of the Republic of Lithuania on CitizenshipÕ.
Double citizenship has become more restricted upon
adoption of 16 April 1991 Law " On amending Article 18 of
the Republic of Lithuania Law on Citizenship", by which said
Article establishing the cases of the loss of citizenship
was appended by item 4 providing for the loss of citizenship
on the following basis: "upon acquisition of citizenship of
another state". True, the provisions concerning restriction
of double citizenship in Lithuania were later adjusted
(amended) providing for additional ways of exception for
this prohibition. It concerned, however persons of one
category - persons who were citizens of the republic of
Lithuania prior to June 15 1940, and their descendants.
Thus, there is no legal ground for maintaining that, with
the exception of said prescribed by law cases, other persons
acquiring citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania may
currently be citizens of other states.
In Article 1 of the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Citizenship, adopted 1989, it established that the following
persons shall be citizens of Lithuania:
(1) Persons who were citizens of the Republic of
Lithuania, children and grandchildren of such persons, as
well as other persons who were permanent residents on the
current territory of the Lithuanian SSR prior to 15 July
1940, and their children and grandchildren who now are or
have been permanent residents on the territory of the
Lithuanian SSR;
(2) Persons who have a permanent place of residence in
the Lithuanian SSR, provided they were born on the territory
of the Lithuanian SSR, or have provided that at least one of
their parents or grandparents was born on said territory,
and provided that they are not citizens of another state;
(3) Other persons who, up to and including the date of
entry into force of this Law, have been permanent residents
on the territory of the Republic and have here a permanent
place of employment or another constant legal source of
support; such persons shall freely choose their citizenship
during two years following the entry into force of this Law;
and
(4) Persons who have acquired citizenship of the
Lithuanian SSR under this law".
It is obvious that completely different groups of
persons , which have had specific relations with the
Republic of Lithuania, are specified in every item of said
Article, therefore, not only general requirements for them
have been established by law, but also different procedures
for granting citizenship for separate groups of persons or
additional conditions necessary to acquire citizenship.
General requirements and conditions for persons of all
groups were as follows: at first they were considered only
as potential citizens as they were guaranteed the right to
freely decide on their citizenship; the prerequisite for
becoming citizens of Lithuania was permanent residence on
the territory of Lithuania; having accepted citizenship of
Lithuania they all had to take the pledge of loyalty to the
Republic of Lithuania.
Citizens specified in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 1
of the Law on Citizenship ex officio (by virtue of their
previous right) have become citizens of the Republic of
Lithuania - they had only to provide evidence for (about)
appropriate circumstances and to apply for the issuance of
citizens' documents. Their right to decide on citizenship
actually meant the right to renounce citizenship of
Lithuania. In this respect, the status of the persons of
other groups was completely different. Persons mentioned in
paragraph 4 of said Article could acquire citizenship only
in accordance with other Articles of the Law on Citizenship:
Article 7 (granting citizenship by way of exception),
Article 15 (granting citizenship by naturalisation), etc.
Conditions and procedure for granting citizenship for
persons specified in paragraph 3, Article 1 were also
different. These persons were different from persons
specified in items 1 and 2, Article 1 as earlier they had
never had firm permanent legal relations with Lithuania. As
matter of fact, they were immigrants (settlers), who have
come from places that are beyond the borders of Lithuania.
As a rule, they had citizenship of the Soviet Union. After
restoration of independent state of Lithuania they became
here foreigners. In other states, citizenship for such
persons is generally granted by naturalisation. In
Lithuania, citizenship for them was granted in a rather
simplified procedure. It was required from them to be
permanent residents on the territory of Lithuania and have
here a permanent place of employment or another constant
legal source of support. They had the right within 2 years
following the enforcement of the Law on Citizenship to
freely decide on citizenship , i. e. could either retain
citizenship of the Soviet Union or become citizens of
Lithuania. This case may be interpreted as acquisition of
citizenship by voicing one's option, because, upon
restoration of independent state and end of occupation, part
of residents, who had not have firm legal relations with
former state of Lithuania, were entitled to the right to
choose citizenship.
Voicing one's option as a way of acquiring citizenship
is usually provided for by bilateral international treaties
with the Republic of Lithuania. This opportunity of choosing
one's citizenship (i. e. by voicing one's option, in fact)
which had been unilaterally promulgated by Lithuania, was
later recognised by Russia as Soviet Union successor. On
international level this principle of option was actually de
jure registered (included) in the treaty between Lithuania
and Russia "On the basis of state relations" which was
signed on 29 July 1991 in Moscow.
In accordance with the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Citizenship, adopted 1989, the prerequisite for acquiring
citizenship for persons who were born beyond the borders of
the Republic of Lithuania (with exception of those cases,
when at least one of his or her parents or grandparents was
born on the territory of Lithuania) was permanent residence
on the territory of Lithuania and a permanent place of
employment or another constant legal source of support in
Lithuania. Only those persons in conformity with paragraph
3, Article 1 of the Law on Citizenship, were entitled to the
right to freely decide on citizenship within 2 years
following the enforcement of the Law, i. e. until 4 November
1991.
Conditions prescribed by said Law had relevant
significance in resolving issues on citizenship. They have
priority with regard to person's decision on citizenship of
Lithuania, i. e. only a person who meets these conditions is
entitled to the right to decide on citizenship of Lithuania.
And, on the contrary, - when a person fails to meet above
mentioned conditions for acquiring citizenship, his wish to
become a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania shall not
bring legal consequences, and if on this ground thereof he
or she has been issued a Citizen of the Republic of
Lithuania Certification Card or a Certification testifying
to the [Person's] Decision to Acquire Citizenship of the
Republic of Lithuania, they must be recognised invalid.
Therefore, the interpretation of above mentioned
concepts "permanent residence on the territory of Lithuania"
and "permanent place of employment constant legal source of
support" acquires special importance. In the Law, these
concepts were not fully defined, thus their interpretation
was formed while practically applying norms of the law,
their contents was certainly specified (particularised) in
resolutions of the Supreme Council. Said concepts were
clearly enough defined in item 3 of the Supreme Council
resolution "On the procedure for implementing the Republic
of Lithuania Law on Citizenship" adopted 10 December 1991,
which specified that "a person shall be considered as
permanently residing in Lithuania if he or she:
- has been registered in the register of permanent
residents of the Republic of Lithuania;
- and has acquired living quarters in Lithuania by the
right to ownership or leased same for an indefinite period,
or is the owner's or tenant's family member;
- and is employed in Lithuania under employment
contract or has another paid occupation in Lithuania, is
somebody's dependant or is paid a pension legally due to him
or her in Lithuania;
- and pays on the territory of Lithuania income tax,
and other taxes established by laws of the Republic of
Lithuania, or is exempt therefrom in the manner established
by law."
There is no much doubt expressed about the
interpretation of these concepts (the interpretation of
these concepts is not is not questioned a lot), only it is
maintained that such resolution and provisions thereof are
applicable solely to the new Law on Citizenship (1991).
Thus, it is stated, that in order to prove permanent
residence on the territory of Lithuania under 1989 Law on
Citizenship, it should be necessary to refer to former
registration of residents. This is a doubtful statement
because previous temporary as well as permanent registration
of residents was, in essence, administrative measure which
restricted one of the fundamental human rights - the right
to freely move on the territory of the state and to freely
choose one's place of residence. It should also be noted,
that such procedure for registration was obviously of
discriminative nature as restrictions of registration were
not applied to servicemen of occupation army and other
officials of occupation regime (they enjoyed exceptions and
privileges). It is also important, that servicemen could not
freely choose place of their residence themselves as they
were stationed and periodically dislocated under the orders
of high military authority.
The issue concerning the status of Soviet army troops
stationed on the territory of Lithuania arose in the process
of preparation for 1990 elections to the Supreme Council and
local councils. At the beginning, the Supreme Council by its
29 September 1989 and 7 December 1989 resolutions has
elucidated that servicemen of Soviet army troops shall
participate in elections general (i. e. former occupation)
procedure: separate election Committees shall be formed and
lists of voters shall be established in submits, candidates
to the posts of deputies shall be nominated in the meetings
of soldiers. Later, however, when on the initiative of
citizens of Lithuania, referendum on the possibility for
Soviet servicemen to participate in elections was called
forth, the Supreme Council by 15 January 1990 resolution
recognised said elucidation's null and void and has
established that only those servicemen who under Article 1
of the Law on Citizenship may be citizens of Lithuania shall
participate in elections. Thus, already prior to the
restoration of independent state of Lithuania it had been
established that servicemen of occupation army were not
entitled to the right to participate in elections organised
in Lithuania, with exception of those persons who under 1989
Law on Citizenship could be recognised citizens of
Lithuania. These were the persons who were recognised
citizens of Republic of Lithuania in accordance with
paragraphs 1 and 2, Article 1 of Law on Citizenship, as well
as other persons who in established judicial procedure had
already become citizens of the Republic of Lithuania.
Lithuania's standpoint (point of view) to armed forces
of the Soviet Union stationed on its territory as to
occupation army was officially expressed (stated) in the
Supreme Council 7 February 1990 resolution "On 1939 treaties
between Germany and the USSR and elimination (liquidation)
of their consequences to Lithuania", the Supreme Council 19
March 1990 declaration "On the status of Soviet armed forces
in Lithuania" as well as in many other documents of the
Supreme Council. The activities of KGB, internal troops and
other repressive structures of the Soviet Union operating in
Lithuania were appropriately (accordingly) evaluated. It
should be noted, that the fact of 1940 annexation and
occupation of Lithuania was recognised by many states of the
world. The same recognition was expressed in the preamble to
the treaty between Lithuania and Russia "On the basis of
interstate of relations" which was signed on 29 July 1991 in
Moscow.
Therefore, the provisions of the Supreme Council 10
December 1991 resolution "On the procedure for implementing
the Republic of Lithuania Law on Citizenship are actually
based on the same interpretation of illegal stationing of
occupation army on the territory of another state together
with (along with) other legal consequences therefrom. It
should be noted, that former (previous) item 5 of said
resolution could be applied only to former servicemen of
occupation army of foreign state as well as persons who had
served in repressive structures of foreign state. The
statement that "persons serving in the armed forces,
internal troops and state security structures, as well as
other law enforcement and repressive structures of the
Soviet Union which have been unlawfully stationed and
operating in Lithuania since 15 June 1940, may not be
considered as permanently residing or employed in
Lithuania", was logically related to said official
declarations (statements) of the Seimas of Lithuania on
(pertaining to) the location residing of occupation army in
Lithuania and may not be evaluated as new interpretation of
the provisions of 1989 Law in Citizenship. The explanation
that evaluation of occupation army can be different with
regard to time, may not be admitted either. It is obvious
that irrespective of time:
1) neither occupation army (along with soldiers) nor
repressive structures (along with officers) of foreign
state, which resided in Lithuania without free-will consent
of Lithuania's authorities, could be interpreted
(considered) as lawfully residing;
2) service in occupation army or repressive structures
of foreign state could not be considered as legal permanent
employment on the territory of Lithuania;
3) Unlawful, i. e. without free-will consent of
official authorities of the Republic of Lithuania, residing
on the territory of Lithuania irrespective of its duration,
could not be considered as lawful permanent on the territory
of Lithuania.
Reservations should also be made about explanations
that laws of the Republic of Lithuania allowed servicemen of
the Soviet Union to be citizens of the Republic of Lithuania
and that the latter were permitted to stay in said services
until 1 March 1992. In this case, different ways of
acquiring citizenship are mixed, thus, providing conditions
for evading prohibitions for soldiers of occupation troops
to become citizens of Lithuania. In cases when in legal acts
mention is made of citizens of the Republic of Lithuania who
serve in army troops of the Soviet Union, it is meant
persons who acquired citizenship under paragraph 1 or 2,
Article 1 of 1989 Law on Citizenship. They could find
themselves in occupation army for different reasons,
however, the citizenship of Lithuania they acquired is
lawful because they are either descendants of former
citizens of Lithuania or they themselves (or their parents,
grandparents) were born in Lithuania. Namely for such
persons, i. e. lawful citizens of Lithuania, item 4 of the
Supreme Council 10 December 1991 resolution "On the
procedure for the implementing the Republic of Lithuania Law
on Citizenship" was meant, which set the terms (until 1
March 1992) for the termination of military or another
service in institutions of foreign state.
The above mentioned as well as other persons who had
lawfully acquired citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania
were considered as having lost citizenship of the Soviet
Union. With regard to said persons, citizenship of the
Soviet Union was declared null and void. Such decision meant
that consequences of occupation and annexation with regard
to citizens of Lithuania who had been enforced citizenship
of the Soviet Union against their will, were being
eliminated (overcome). It goes without saying, that such
decision on the part of the state could be adopted only with
regard to its citizens, and the state, by no means, could
resolve issues concerning citizenship of another state.
In accordance with laws of the Soviet Union, only
citizens of the Soviet Union, only citizens of the Soviet
Union were allowed to serve in the armed forces of that
state. Therefore, in cases when servicemen of the Soviet
Union upon issuance of Citizens of the Republic of Lithuania
certification Card or Certification Testifying to the
[Persons'] Decision to Acquire Citizenship Republic of
Lithuania (with exception of persons stipulated in
paragraphs 1 and 2, Article 1 of 1989 Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on Citizenship), continued their military service,
laws were violated twice: 1)they unlawfully acquired a
Citizen of the Republic of Lithuania Certification Card, as
said servicemen could not become citizens of the Republic of
Lithuania under paragraph 3, Article 1 of the Law on
Citizenship; 2) they unlawfully acquired double citizenship,
as laws of the Republic of Lithuania do not provide for
double citizenship for this category of persons.
Provisions of item 5 of the Republic of Lithuania Law
on Citizenship", 10 December 1991, are in compliance with
the main principles of international law. In Article 49 of
12 August 1949 Geneva Convention on Protection of Civilians
During War it is promulgated (declared): "The occupying
country may not deport or dislocate part of its civil
residents to the territory it occupies". If such
restrictions are imposed with regard to civil residents
(civilians), it is inappropriate even to talk about the
right of servicemen of occupation army and officials of
other repressive structures to citizenship of the occupied
state.
The representative of the party concerned has
maintained that the item 5 of the Supreme Council 10
December 1991 resolution "On the procedure for implementing
the Republic of Lithuania Law on Citizenship" may not be
applied to 1989 Law on Citizenship which is no longer in
force, Nevertheless, it is requested to recognize as lawful
amendment to said resolution by which item 5 has been
appended by a new second part, considering that it may be
applied retroactively, i. e. applied to legal consequences
ensuing from the law which is no longer in effect, striving
for the revision (with the purpose to revise them).
The first and second parts of item 5 of the Seimas
resolution "On the Supreme Council of the Republic of
Lithuania resolution "On the procedure for implementing
the Republic of Lithuania Law on Citizenship"" contradict
each other and even deny each other. Furthermore, in the
second part attempts are made to legalise documents
conforming citizenship of Lithuania which have been
unlawfully obtained by some servicemen, thus this part
contradicts the provisions of 1989 Law on Citizenship. In
this case, by said resolution provisions of the law which
has already been realised and is no longer in effect are
revised, and attempts are made to achieve the result which
was not stipulated either in 1989 law on Citizenship nor in
1991 Law on Citizenship which is now in force. Therefore,
the resolution in dispute according to its contents
contradicts the Republic of Lithuania Laws on Citizenship as
well as Article 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania, and according to its form - Article 12 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania as well as Articles 53, 54, 55 and 56
of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Lithuania has passed the following
ruling :
To recognize that the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania resolution "On amending item 5 of the Supreme
Council of the Republic of Lithuania resolution "On the
procedure for implementing the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Citizenship"", adopted 22 December 1993, according to its
contents contradicts the Republic of Lithuania Laws on
Citizenship as well as Article 28 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania, and according its form - Article
12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
This Constitutional Court ruling is final and not
subject to appeal.
The ruling is promulgated on behalf of the Republic of
Lithuania.
Justices of the Constitutional Court:
Algirdas Gailiûnas Kæstutis Lapinskas
Zigmas Levickis Vladas Pavilonis
Pranas Vytautas Rasimavièius Stasys Staèiokas
Teodora Staugaitienë Juozas Þilys