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