THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
RULING
On the compliance of the resolution of the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania
"On the main directions of land reform", 17 June 1993, with
the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
19 January 1994, Vilnius
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania,
composed from the Justices of the Constitutional Court
Algirdas Gailiūnas, Kęstutis Lapinskas, Zigmas Levickis,
Vladas Pavilonis, Pranas Vytautas Rasimavičius, Teodora
Staugaitienė, Stasys Šedbaras and Juozas Žilys,
the secretary of the hearing - Rolanda Stimbirytė,
the petitioner - Seimas member Leonas Milčius and
advocate Šarūnas Vilčinskas, representatives of a group of
the Seimas members,
the party concerned - Seimas members Mykolas Pronckus
and Algirdas Taminskas, representatives of the Seimas,
pursuant to Part 1 of Article 102 of the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania and Part 1, Article 1 of the
Law on the Constitutional Court, in its public court hearing
of 14 January 1994 conducted the investigation of Case No
4/93 subsequent to the petition submitted to the Court by a
group of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania members
requesting to investigate if the resolution of the Seimas
"On the main directions of land reform", 17 June 1993, is in
compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
The petitioner - a group of the Seimas members -
request the Constitutional Court to investigate if the
Seimas resolution "On the main directions of land reform",
17 June 1993 (Parliamentary Record, No 24-561, 1993) is in
compliance with Articles 23, 46, 67 and 70 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania according to the
contents, form of norms as well as the procedure of its
adoption, signing and promulgation. The petition is grounded
on the following motives:
1. It is established in Article 23 of the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania that the rights of ownership
shall be protected by law. The Seimas, ignoring this
provision, by the resolution "On the main directions of land
reform" (sub-items 1 and 2 of item 2 of "Directions")
established the duty for landowners to lease the land that
was restored to them for agricultural enterprises and
companies without setting forth a term. The Seimas
restricted the successor's rights in item 15 of "Directions"
and in item 23 established the duty for landowners to return
the debts of former farms to the state. The state assumed
the rights of creditor banks and did not provide for itself
the duty to return the former landowners their money that
had been deposited in the bank.
The petitioner also maintains that in item 16 of
"Directions" the Government is charged to support only those
farms that meet certain criteria which contradicts Article
46 of the Constitution.
2. In the opinion of the petitioner, the Seimas
resolution "On the main directions of land reform" is not in
compliance with the Constitution according to its form, as
it is established in item 2 of Article 67 that the Seimas
shall enact laws, and, as it can be seen from item 2, Part
1, Article 94 of the Constitution, the Seimas shall adopt
resolutions concerning only the implementation of its laws.
Thus, the Seimas has regulated land ownership relations not
by a law but by a resolution.
3. The petitioner also points out that this Seimas act
was considered applying the legislative procedure, however,
it was signed and promulgated not by the President but by
the Chairman of the Seimas. In the opinion of the
petitioner, the said act of the Seimas is comparable to a
law according to the procedure of its adoption, the extent
of regulation and the contents of norms. Various
institutions of the Republic of Lithuania rely on it
considering the petitions of former landowners. Due to
this, the question of the enactment of said resolution
arises.
In the process of preparation of the case for the
hearing of the Constitutional Court the petitioner's
representatives, by way of responding to the statements of
the representative of the party concerned, submitted the
following additional arguments and motives:
1. Theoretically, "Directions" may be called a
programme, though, it is beyond dispute, that this is an act
of the Seimas, and every Seimas act must be in conformity
with the Constitution.
2. The statement of the representative of the party
concerned that Seimas act in dispute does not contradict
Article 46 of the Constitution revises the Constitution
itself.
3. Citizens requesting to restore the right to the
deprived property are the owners of that property, because
the state does not have legal basis to be the owner of the
property that the people were deprived of during the
occupation. Therefore, representatives of the party
concerned are not right in interpreting landowners only as
claimants to owners.
The petitioner's representatives in the court hearing
emphasized that constitutional rights of people are
especially restricted by the provisions that establish
compulsory lease of the land to be restored and restrict the
division of former land domain among several persons
recovering the actual land property. Due to the fact, that
"The main directions of land reform" changed the conditions
of recovering the actual land property, i.e. formulated new
restrictions, the process of land reform has slowed down
because the institutions considered applications of former
landowners in compliance with "Directions".
The petitioner's representatives, on the basis of the
aforesaid motives as well as opinions of the specialists
they had invited, requested the Constitutional Court to
recognize that the Seimas resolution "On the main directions
of land reform" contradicts the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania according to the contents, form, procedure of
adoption, signing and promulgation.
Seimas member M.Pronckus, representative of the party
concerned, stated that claims made by a group of the Seimas
members in the petition submitted to the Constitutional
Court requesting to investigate if the Seimas resolution "On
the main directions of land reform" are in compliance with
the Constitution, are groundless because of the following
motives:
1. The Seimas, while adopting the decision of 17 June
1993, did not confirm but approved of "The main directions
of land reform" drafted by the Government of the Republic of
Lithuania, which is "not a law, but only a document defining
certain strategy of the implementation of land reform. State
institutions do not follow "Directions" in dealing with
property issues". This resolution of the Seimas does not
contradict the Constitution, because only citizens by
referendum and the Seimas have the right to determine the
strategy of the People's development and these powers of
theirs may not be restricted by anybody.
The representative of the party concerned explained
that the first Laws of the Republic of Lithuania "On the
Reinstatement of the 12 May 1938 Constitution" and "On the
Provisional Basic Law of the Republic of Lithuania",
adopted on 11 March 1991, recognized that the whole land
would be the exclusive property of the state. This was also
confirmed by Law on Land Reform and the Law "On the
Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of
Ownership to the Existing Real Property" that were adopted
later. For example, it is established in Article 3 of the
Law on Land Reform that the objects of land reform shall be
the Land reform fund of the Republic of Lithuania, as well
as in Article 12 of the Law "On the Procedure and Conditions
of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the
Existing Real Property" it is set forth that, land required
for State needs as well as other land shall be bought out
from persons defined in Article 2 of this law. This means
that, the State leaves at its disposal all the land it needs
reimbursing the former owners and their successors in the
manner prescribed by laws. Therefore, in the opinion of the
party concerned, the petitioner groundlessly identifies
claimants to landowners with the owners themselves.
Furthermore, the representative of the party concerned
indicated that, in both said laws, it is written that land
reform shall be implemented as well as the right of
ownership to land shall be restored according to the land
planning projects, i.e. the State freely disposes of land
according to the confirmed principles of land planning
projects.
The representative of the party concerned on the basis
of the arguments he had submitted, maintained that, upon
recognition of the petitioner's reproaches, it should be
stated that said laws, along with the Provisional Basic Law
of the Republic of Lithuania, contradict the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania.
3. Conforming to Article 46 of the Constitution which
establishes that: "The State shall regulate economic
activity so that it serves the general welfare of the
people", the representative of the party concerned
maintained that this is just the purpose of "The main
directions of land reform".
The representatives of the party concerned emphasized
in the court hearing that by said resolution the Seimas only
approved of the strategy of the implementation of land
reform. Approval does not mean, however, that "The main
directions of land reform" is a binding executive act of the
State. By adopting "Directions", an attempt was made to
establish "a certain order of sequence in the matters of
land reform". The said resolution of the Seimas is only a
suggestion for the Government and obligation for the Seimas
Committee on Agriculture to draft laws and it does not
contain the contents of norms of the law, and landowners are
not charged to lease the land. State institutions, while
dealing with the petitions of the citizens, did not follow
"Directions", and land reform was not suspended.
Conforming to the above mentioned arguments as well as
opinions of the specialists, the representatives of the
party concerned requested the Constitutional Court to
recognize that the Seimas resolution "On the main directions
of land reform" is in compliance with the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. On the compliance of the resolution of the Seimas
"On the main directions of land reform", 17 June 1993, with
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania according to
form.
Pursuant to Article 102 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and item 1, Part 2, Article 63 of the
Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court
shall examine the compliance of laws and other acts of the
Seimas with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
It is set forth in item 2 of Article 67 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania that the Seimas
shall enact laws. As it can be seen from the second part of
Article 70 of the Constitution, the Seimas may adopt other
acts as well. The disputable act has got the form of a law
and not Seimas resolution. While classifying state legal
acts from the point of view of legal traditions in Lithuania
that served as a basis for drafting the existing
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and co-ordinating
this classification with the constitutional division of
power on which the system of sources of law in modern
democratic states is grounded more or less, state legal
acts are divided into laws (Constitution, Constitutional
laws, laws), executive acts (other acts of the Seimas,
regulations, individual executive acts) and court decisions.
While investigating this case, it is essential to
establish the dependence of the form of laws and other acts
of the Seimas upon their contents, thus, the grouping of
legal acts into normative acts and individual acts is
especially significant. Normative acts are considered those
that contain universally binding rules of general nature.
Here, what is most significant, is not the particular
wording of a certain rule, but the fact that the text should
provide understanding beyond doubt that the instruction is
given to certain subjects under certain conditions to act in
appropriate way.
A law is an original legal act adopted in the procedure
prescribed by the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
and the Statute of the Seimas which expresses the
legislator's will and which has the supreme legal power.
Therefore, a law can be amended or its validity can be
nullified only upon the adoption of another law or
recognition of it as contradictory to the Constitution by
the Constitutional Court. All other legal acts must be
adopted conforming to laws and may not contradict them, i.
e. must be executive. Executive legal act is a legal act
adopted by a competent body on the basis of and according to
the procedure prescribed by law. An executive act is usually
an act of administration. Norms of the law are realized by
it, however, such an act may not replace the law itself and
create new legal rules of general nature that in their power
would compete with the norms of law. It is an act of
application of norms of law irrespective of the fact whether
this act is of temporary (ad hoc) or permanent validity.
These peculiarities of an executive act shall also be
indispensable for other acts adopted by the Seimas specified
in the second part of Article 70 of the Constitution.
Executive acts of the Seimas may not contradict the
Constitution and laws enacted by the Seimas, the more so,
they may not change the norms of laws and their contents.
The representative of the party concerned maintained
that the Seimas resolution "On the main directions of land
reform" is not a legal act but a programme, therefore, in
his opinion, requirements and evaluations that are set for a
law or an executive act are not applicable for said act. In
jurisprudence and in legislative practice of other states,
the so-called programme laws are well-known. The form and
possible contents of such laws are established in
constitutions. Programme laws set the goals of economic and
social activities for the state but do not establish legal
rules regulating the conduct of the subjects of legal
relations. The Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
does not provide for programme laws as a special form of
laws, therefore, all laws are evaluated as original legal
acts of factual validity, that are binding to all subjects
of legal relations.
The legal analysis of the text of the Seimas resolution
in dispute does not confirm the statement of the
representative of the party concerned that this is only a
programme (strategic) document. Even if it were such
according to its contents, it would have to possess the form
of the law. Said resolution, of which "The main directions
of land reform" is an inseparable integral part, established
general norms and also charged the Seimas Committee on
Agriculture and indirectly the Government to submit concrete
draft laws. "The main directions of land reform" consists of
the following chapters: I. Land acquisition into private
ownership. II. Providing with conditions for effective
farming. III. Repayment of claimants to land possessed
by the right of ownership. Thus, as it can be seen from the
very titles of the aforementioned chapters, the rights of
ownership to land are regulated here. At the same time, it
is set forth in the second part of Article 23 of the
Constitution that the rights of ownership shall be protected
by law, and in the third part of this Article it is
prescribed that property may only be seized for the needs of
society according to the procedure established by law and
must be adequately compensated for. This means that a
legislator may regulate subjective rights of landowners and
participants of other property legal relations only by
determining the contents of these rights. In the process of
implementation of land reform in Lithuania, property
relations are regulated by special laws regulating the
principles and procedure of land reform. In the time when
the Seimas resolution in dispute was adopted, the Law of the
Republic of Lithuania "On the Procedure and Conditions of
the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing
Real Property", 18 June 1991 (Parliamentary Record, No 21-
545, 1991), along with amendments and supplements
(Parliamentary Record, No 3-40, 7-155, 11-278, 15-405, 1992,
Parliamentary Record, No 5-83, 1993) was in force until 12
January 1993, as well as the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on Land Reform, 25 July 1991(Parliamentary Record,
No 24-635, 1991), along with amendments and supplements (
Parliamentary Record, No 1-11, 3-45, 15-404,1992) was in
effect until 7 May 1992, that established the conditions and
procedure of the restoration of the rights of ownership to
land and its new acquisition while implementing land reform.
The right of the Seimas to regulate property relations
is beyond doubt because the Seimas is the only legislator
empowered by the People. Property relations may be regulated
only by laws and not other acts of the Seimas. Meanwhile, in
"The main directions of land reform" some statements are
formulated that, according to their meaning, are new legal
rules changing in essence the present legal situation. For
instance, it is established in sub- items 1 and 2 of item 2
of "The main directions of land reform" that:
"In areas ascribed to land that shall be bought out by
the state, the actual land property may be recovered in:
1) the land leased by specialized pure strain stock-
breeding farms and seed-growing farms as well as breeding-
grounds, also in the land occupied by orchards, berry-
fields, nursery-gardens of specialized agricultural
companies, also in plots of vegetable gardens that are under
irrigation system and those adhering to cattle-breeding
complexes - for persons who, upon restoration of the rights
of ownership to land, make private land lease contracts with
above mentioned agricultural enterprises until their
reorganization or termination of activities;
2) farming lands adjoining to cattle-breeding farms,
entitling the landowner to the right of independent farming
only upon the termination of farming activities by above -
mentioned agricultural companies or other owners of cattle-
breeding farms. Meanwhile, said users of land shall make
contracts of private land lease with the landowners.
In these plots the land rent payment is established of
the same amount as that of state land lease.
The restoration of the right of ownership to land in
said plots of land that shall be bought out by the state,
however, does not entitle the landowner to the right of
unilateral breach of land lease contract so long as present
land users may function".
The part of the text cited above is not programme. A
legal norm of law nature is formulated in it ( conditions of
return of actual land, the amount of land rent payment,
etc.). Besides, by this norm it is established another
provision different from one which is set forth in Article
12 of the Law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the
Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real
Property" that was in force at that time, under which
existing real property shall be bought out by the state.
Thereby, the contents of possible legal relations regulated
by law is changed.
It is set forth in item 15 of "The main directions of
land reform": "The distribution of former land estates among
claimants wishing to recover their actual land property is
restricted by laws and regulations (except cases when
applicants reside in rural areas or when everyone is
allotted not less than 20 hectares)". Such legal provision
failed to be present in former valid laws.
It is established in item 23 of "The main directions of
land reform": "For prospective claimants to the land
possessed by the right of ownership, upon their submission
of declaration about the debts of the former farm ( until
1940 ) to the Land Bank, mortgage of land or other debts to
the state, the plot of land which is subject to restitution
or buying out by the state shall be equivalently reduced. In
the event of failing to submit such a declaration, but upon
establishing said debts throughout 10 years by state
institutions, they shall be ascribed for the landowner
according to the equivalent sum of money for grain and shall
be paid for the state by instalments". In a law-governed
State, disputes arising from transactions are resolved by
civil proceedings. In this case the State as a party of
civil dispute should not unilaterally settle the dispute in
its own favour by the establishment of imperative norm. The
presence of such an imperative norm in the disputable
resolution also confirms that this resolution is not a
programme but a legal act equivalent to law.
Item 16 of "The main directions of land reform"
contains the following imperative norm ascribed for the
Government: "The Government by preferential credits for
capital construction shall support only those farms that
according to the size of land or special extent of
production meet the requirements set for the farmer's
holding or agricultural company". It is evident from the
Seimas competence established in Article 67 of the
Constitution as well as the principle of the division of the
powers determined in Article 5 of the Constitution, that the
Seimas may not give the Government any direct normative
instructions otherwise than in the procedure of legislation.
The Seimas, by its decision having adopted new legal
norms regulating land ownership relations and having amended
the present legal norms, violated the constitutional
principle of supremacy of laws over executive legal acts as
well as the provisions of the Constitution specifying that
property relations and the contents of subjective rights of
the participants of these relations shall be regulated by
laws and not by executive acts. The Seimas, while resolving
the issues that are the subject matter of legal regulation,
may not choose the form of resolution, because resolution is
a legal act of lower rank.
The Constitutional Court, stating the viciousness of
the form of the Seimas resolution, emphasizes that the
provisions of the resolution regulate the contents of
private property rights. The right to private property is
one of the main human rights established in the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania. Taking the significance of
this fundamental right into consideration, it is established
in the Constitution that the rights of ownership shall be
protected by law. Legal regulation is of paramount
importance for the protection of private rights of
ownership, because in the legislative process, along with
the Seimas, the President of the Republic takes part as
well: he shall sign and promulgate the laws enacted by the
Seimas, also have the relative veto power, i. e. the right
to refer back to the Seimas a law enacted by it for
reconsideration. No doubt, these rights vested in the
President of the Republic should be evaluated as an
additional guarantee of the constitutionality of the laws
enacted by the Seimas.
The Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania resolution "On
the main directions of land reform" is legally vicious also
because of the fact that the provisions formulated in it in
many ways competed with the laws that were in force at that
time, formed the state of legal uncertainty for the subjects
of legal relations, shattered the people's reliance on law
and all this does not conform to the striving for a law-
governed state, promulgated in the preamble to the
Constitution.
Conforming to the aforementioned motives, the
Constitutional Court draws the conclusion that the Seimas
act of such normative contents should not have been adopted
in the form of resolution, therefore, the Seimas resolution
"On the main directions of land reform" contradicts Article
23 and item 2, Article 67 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania according to its form.
As the Seimas resolution "On the main directions of
land reform" according to its form is not in compliance with
the procedure of the regulation of property relations
established in the Constitution, this act may not be
recognized as legitimate. The compliance of concrete
statements of the resolution which is not legitimate
according to its form with the Constitution, may not be
evaluated.
2. On the compliance of the resolution of the Seimas
"On the main directions of land reform", 17 June 1993, with
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania according to
the procedure of its adoption, signing and promulgation.
The Seimas resolution "On the main directions of land
reform" was adopted in the Seimas plenary sitting by the
majority vote of the Seimas members participating in the
sitting. This conforms to the second part of Article 69 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, in which it
is established that laws shall be deemed adopted if the
majority of the Seimas members participating in the sitting
vote in favour thereof. This is a general principle of the
adoption of the Seimas resolutions, which is also applied to
other Seimas acts, except constitutional acts (Ruling of the
Constitutional Court on the compliance of the decision of
the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania "On the dissolution
of Vilnius city Council and some measures necessary to
improve the activities in local governments", 15 April 1993,
with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania ).
While adopting the resolution of normative nature "On
the main directions of land reform", the Seimas chose
inadequate for this case form of legal regulation, however,
it did not violate the procedure of adoption of resolutions
prescribed in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Seimas resolution "On the main directions of land
reform" was signed and promulgated by the Chairman of the
Seimas. According to the form of legal act the Seimas has
chosen, this is in conformity with the provision of the
second part of Article 70 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania: "Other acts adopted by the Seimas and
the Statute of the Seimas shall be signed by the Chairman of
the Seimas".
Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania and Articles 53, 54, 55, 56 of the Law
of the Republic of Lithuania on the Constitutional Court,
the Constitutional Court has passed the following
ruling :
To recognize that the resolution of the Seimas
"On the main directions of land
reform", 17 June 1993, according to its form contradicts
Article 23 and item 2, Article 67 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 Gailiūnas Kęstutis Lapinskas
Zigmas Levickis
Vladas Pavilonis Pranas Vytautas Rasimavičius
Teodora Staugaitienė
Stasys Šedbaras Juozas Žilys