THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
DECISION
Concerning the compliance of the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania "On Partial Amending and Appending of the Law of
the Republic of Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas", 16
March 1993, with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania
8 November 1993, 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, Stasys
Stačiokas, Teodora Staugaitienė, Stasys Šedbaras and Juozas
Žilys,
the secretary of the hearing - Rolanda Stimbirytė,
the petitioner - Zita Šličytė, representative of the
group of the Seimas,
the party concerned - Juozas Bernatonis, the Seimas
representative, deputy Chairman of the Seimas,
pursuant to part 1 of Article 102 of the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania and part 1 of Article 1 of Law
on the Constitutional Court, the Court in its public sitting
of 4 November 1993 conducted the investigation of Case No
6, subsequent to the petition submitted to the Court by a
group of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania members to
investigate the conformity of the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania "On Partial Amending and Appending of the Law of
the Republic of Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas", 16
March 1993, with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
established:
The petitioner - a group of the Seimas members requests
the Constitutional Court to investigate if the Law "On
Partial Amending and Appending of the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas", 16 March 1993, is in
compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania. The request is grounded on the provision
established in Article 69 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania that "laws shall be enacted in the
Seimas in accordance with the procedure established by law".
The petitioner maintains that the law in dispute was enacted
by the Seimas on 16 March 1993 neglecting the procedure of
law enactment established by law, as:
1) in violation of Article 216 of the Provisional
Statute of the Seimas "the head of the Committee for State
and Law - the Commission for Drafting Laws did not announce
the date of the public sitting of the Committee when the
possibility would be provided for the Seimas members to
submit proposals and supplements for consideration. During
the consideration no conclusion on the part of the
Committee for Budget was submitted";
2) "the term for the third consideration was set for
the same day of the Seimas sittings in violation of the
procedure prescribed by law (i.e. in Articles 206 and 209 of
the Provisional Statute of the Seimas), furthermore, the
Seimas majority ignored the proposals and supplements
submitted by the members of the Seimas and did not charge
the legislators to edit the draft law taking them into
consideration";
3) "On 16 March 1993 applying speed-up order of
consideration of this law, the first, the second and the
third considerations were conducted on the same day of the
Seimas sittings in violation of the procedure established by
law, and, for this reason, factions and members of the
Seimas could not in due time, at least 24 hours before the
consideration, submit their proposals and amendments in
writing".
Furthermore, the petitioner in the request submitted to
the Constitutional Court states that during the
consideration of said draft law in the Seimas on 16 March
1993 "the Seimas members of Homeland Coalition (Tėvynės
Santaros frakcijų koalicija) demanded in compliance with
Article 69 of the Constitution to establish a list of
constitutional laws. This demand was rejected by the
majority of the Seimas and on the same day the Law "On
Partial Amending and Appending of the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas was enacted by the vote
of 55 Seimas members".
As it is specified in Article 7 of the Constitution of
the Republic of Lithuania "any law which contradicts the
Constitution shall be invalid."
On 10 March 1993, the draft law "On Amending the Law of
the Republic of Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas" was
submitted to the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania. On the
same day the Seimas decided to include this draft law into
the session schedule of sittings and to apply the speed-up
procedure of consideration.
The first and the second considerations of this law
were conducted in 16 March 1993 morning sitting. The third
consideration was carried out and the law "On Partial
Amending and Appending of the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas" was enacted in the
evening sitting of 16 March 1993.
Upon the request of Homeland Coalition (Tėvynės
Santaros frakcijų koalicija) on 23 March 1993 the Seimas
formed the Provisional Committee for the investigation of
said violations.
The Provisional Committee of the Seimas, upon the
investigation of the petition submitted by Homeland
Coalition have agreed that the petition points out to the
following violations of the Provisional Statute of the
Seimas:
1) the date of the public sitting of the Committee for
State and Law - the Commission for Drafting Laws was not
announced;
2) the conclusion drawn by the Committee for Budget was
not submitted during the consideration;
3) the discussion time as well as the number of
participants was limited;
4) the third consideration was scheduled for the same
day of the Seimas sitting when the first and the second
considerations were conducted;
5) the procedure of amendments and supplements to draft
laws established in Article 208 of the Statute was not
observed.
The Provisional Committee has drawn the following
conclusions pertaining to every fact:
1. The law was drafted on the initiative of
J.Bernatonis, A.Kunčinas and V.Būtėnas, members of the
Committee for State and Law. This draft was investigated in
9 March 1993 sitting of the Committee for State and Law and
was approved by the majority vote, however, the said draft
law was submitted for consideration and was investigated not
upon the instructions of the Committee but on the initiative
of the group of the members of the Seimas. Thus, the Seimas
did not commission the Committee for State and Law or any
other Committee to draft the law. On the other hand, all the
sittings of the Committee for State and Law with the
exception of closed ones are public and there was no need to
inform about it separately, therefore, in this case
requirements set forth in Article 216 of the Provisional
Statute of the Seimas are not applicable and this Article
does not regulate the right of legislative initiative.
2. It is specified in Article 216 of the Provisional
Statute of the Seimas that law enactment should be preceded
by the conclusion drawn by the Committee for Budget and
Finance pertaining to State means and their possible source
necessary to implement a law or decision. As in said draft
law the tendency of saving the expenses is obvious because
it contains a suggestion to diminish the composition of the
Central Electoral Committee, the conclusion of the Committee
for Budget and Finance would evidently have had no sense.
3. The duration of discussions during the first and
second considerations was limited to 40 minutes and
speeches to 5 minutes respectively. The duration of
discussions and the number of participants are interrelated,
therefore, the limitation of discussion time causes the
limitation of the number of those who speak. In the opinion
of the Committee, in this case there was no direct violation
of Article 218 of the Provisional Statute of the Seimas.
The Seimas members did not ask to prolong the consideration
of the draft law.
4. It is specified in Article 218 of the Provisional
Statute of the Seimas that the third consideration can be
conducted in one of the nearest sittings of the Seimas. The
first and the second considerations were conducted in 16
March 1993 morning sitting and the third consideration - in
the evening sitting of the same day which is in absolute
compliance with Article 218 of the Provisional Statute of
the Seimas. It is established in Article 218 that the third
consideration shall be conducted in conformity with the
requirements set forth in Chapter 23 of the Statute. In the
opinion of the petitioner, there was a violation of Article
206 of the Provisional Statute of the Seimas. However, this
Article regulates not the course of the third consideration
but the decisions upon the second consideration which in
case of application of speed-up order of consideration is
regulated by Article 218. Thus, in this case, there was no
violation of the Provisional Statute of the Seimas as the
third consideration was conducted on the same day applying
speed-up procedure of law consideration established in
Article 218.
5. Article 208 of the Provisional Statute of the Seimas
regulates not the course of the third consideration but the
decisions adopted upon the second consideration. In the
event of application of speed-up order of consideration, the
third consideration is regulated by Articles 209, 210, 211
and 212 and as the third consideration in question met the
requirements established in these Articles, it can be stated
that, in this case, there was no violation of the
Provisional Statute of the Seimas.
The Provisional Committee, upon the investigation of
the facts submitted in the petition of Homeland Coalition
(Tėvynės Santaros frakcijų koalicija) , have drawn a general
conclusion that in the consideration of the draft law "On
Partial Amending and Appending of the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas" there was made some
minor formal violation (the conclusion of the Committee for
Budget and Finance concerning the State means and their
possible source necessary to implement the law - Article 216
- was not submitted), which did not influence the enactment
and the implementation of said law. On this ground, the
Provisional Committee proposed to leave the enacted law in
force.
Three members of the Provisional Committee (The Seimas
members P.Giniotas, S.Pečeliūnas and V.Žiemelis) did not
agree with the conclusions of the Committee and prepared a
separate certificate the main statements of which are as
follows:
1. The right of legislative initiative vested in the
Seimas members in compliance with Article 68 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania was restricted as
"the head of the Committee for State and Law - Commission
for Drafting Laws did not inform about the time of the
public sitting of the Committee and when the possibility
would be provided for the Seimas members to submit their
proposals and supplements for consideration" (as it is
required by Article 216 of the Provisional Statute of the
Seimas)
2. "The Committee for Budget and Finance did not
consider this draft law and did not submit any conclusions"
(the violation of Article 216 of the Provisional Statute of
the Seimas).
3. "In the consideration of this draft law, the
discussion time was limited to 5 minutes and the time
allotted for the consideration of this issue was also
limited, therefore, the majority of those willing to
participate in discussions could not do this which can only
be qualified as the limitation of the number of participants
in the discussions. It is specified in the Provisional
Statute that only one limitation can be applied" (the
violation of Article 218 of the Provisional Statute of the
Seimas).
4. "The first and the second considerations of the
draft law ended at 2.30 p.m. of 16 March 1993. The third
consideration was set for the next Seimas sitting, i.e.
after 3 p.m. In this case the Seimas members did not have
the possibility to submit their suggestions and supplements
for the third consideration" in conformity with the
requirements established in Article 208 of the Provisional
Statute of the Seimas.
5. "In the process of consideration and voting of this
draft law, an amendment of the title of the draft law was
submitted in verbal form, which was not a formal amendment
but a key one altering the title of the law as well as the
essence of the interpretation of its content. This amendment
was applied in violation of the procedure established in
item 4 of Article 208 of the Provisional Statute of the
Seimas, in which it is specified that new amendments and
supplements are not accepted during the third consideration,
except formal amendments which are not subject to
consideration and voting and are only submitted in writing
to the Commission for Drafting Laws".
The above mentioned members of the Provisional
Committee proposed to abrogate the Seimas decision to enact
the Law "On Partial Amending and Appending of the Law of the
Republic of Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas".
Two alternative draft decisions were submitted to the
Seimas. On 4 May 1993, the Seimas by the majority vote
confirmed the draft decision proposed by the Provisional
Committee in approval of the conclusions drawn by this
Committee.
In the process of the preliminary investigation of the
case, the representative of the petitioner submitted the
following supplementary arguments and motives:
1. "The Seimas, by adoption of the new edition of
Article 11 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on
Elections to the Seimas, renounced the provision that "all
political parties and public political movements
participating in an election shall have the right to equal
representation in all electoral committees". The
renunciation of this provision contradicts Article 29 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania which promulgates
that all people shall be equal before the law. As it is well
known, people can be physical and juridical persons, thus
Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
guarantees not only the equality of all people before the
law but also the equality of political parties and public
political movements registered as juridical persons. The
granting of exclusive rights to the Society of Lawyers of
Lithuania as well as to political parties and public
political movements that won their mandate of members of the
Seimas in multi - candidate electoral area established in
the edition of Article 11 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania, does not only contradict Article 29
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania but also
denies the opportunity of active participation in elections
to the Seimas to those political parties and public
political movements that did not get seats in the Seimas by
the elections in multi - candidate electoral area".
"New editions of Articles 13 and 14 of the Law of the
Republic of Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas,
establishing principles of the formation of electoral
committees of electoral areas and districts, by analogy with
those of forming the Central Electoral Committee, also
contradicts Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania".
2. The newly elected Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania "had primarily to establish a list of
constitutional laws and only then start the process of
legislation. Unfortunately, this was not done either within
3,5 months before the enactment of the Law "On Partial
Amending and Appending the Law of the Republic of Lithuania
on Elections to the Seimas" or later.
The draft Law "On the Constitutional Laws of the
Republic of Lithuania" was submitted to the Seimas on 19
October 1993.
Article 2 of the draft Law establishes that the Law of
the Republic of Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas is a
constitutional law. Thus, amending and appending the Law of
the Republic of Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas without
having established a list of constitutional laws, the Seimas
has grossly violated the provisions of Article 69 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania".
3. "The essence of violations enumerated in the
declaration (an appended document to the petition submitted
to the Constitutional Court) of Homeland Coalition (Tėvynės
Santaros frakcijų koalicija) "is that the constitutional
right of legislative initiative vested in the Seimas of the
Republic of Lithuania members in accordance with Article 68
of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania was
restricted".
The representative of the petitioner has also
explained that "the declaration of Homeland Coalition gives
far from being exhaustive interpretation of Article 218 of
the Provisional Statute of the Seimas and that the joining
of alternative norms into one idea ensues from inaccurate
citing of the law. It also gives a misleading reference to
Article 209, though, in reality, Article 208 was cited, as
well as groundlessly relies on Article 208 instead of
Article 218 of the Provisional Statute of the Seimas".
The representative of the party concerned stated that
the petition of a group of the members of the Seimas
submitted to the Constitutional Court on 23 March 1993 with
the request to investigate the compliance of the Law "On
Partial Amending and Appending of the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas" with the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania does not contain any evidence
or arguments confirming the contradiction of aforesaid law
to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. The
Provisional Committee formed by the Seimas has also
established no violations mentioned above. The
representative of the party concerned, approving of the
conclusions drawn by the Committee, in addition has made the
following retorts:
1. The petitioner states that the conclusions of the
Committee for Budget and Finance were not submitted during
the consideration of said draft law. It is specified in
Article 192 of the Provisional Statute of the Seimas as a
general norm that "if the implementation of the law requires
state means, the initiators of draft laws should submit
their proposals as well as the Committee for Budget and
Finance along with the Government should submit their
conclusions pertaining to possible source of means". The
special norm established in Article 216 of the Statute only
specifies the term for the submission of the conclusions
drawn by the Committee for Budget and Finance but it does
not define the conditions when they are indispensable. In
this case the initiators of the draft did not submit the
proposals because after the consultations with the members
of the Committee for Budget and Finance they found out that
the implementation of the amended law would not require
additional budget means.
2. The petitioner's statement, that the third
consideration of the draft law could not be conducted
earlier than on the other nearest day of the Seimas
sitting, is groundless. The petitioner presents an erroneous
and too extensive interpretation of special norms
established in Article 218 of the Provisional Statute of the
Seimas that define the application of the speed-up procedure
of the consideration of a law. As defined by special norm
established in Article 218, in case when the speed-up order
of the consideration of a law is applied, the Seimas upon
the first and the second consideration decides to conduct
the third one in one of the nearest sittings of the Seimas.
In item 1 of Article 206 of the Provisional Statute of the
Seimas an analogous general norm is formulated specifying
that "the third consideration may not be conducted earlier
than on the other nearest day of the Seimas sitting",
however, it is applied in all cases with exception of those
when the Seimas decide to consider the law under the speed-
up order or emergency order of consideration. Therefore,
the Seimas decision to conduct the third consideration of
the draft law in the nearest sitting, i.e. in the evening
sitting of the same day was in compliance with the
Provisional Statute of the Seimas.
3. The representative of the party concerned does not
agree with the petitioner's statement that in the period
between the first, the second and the third considerations
the edited draft law was not submitted to the Seimas
members. In fact, the first and the second considerations in
the morning sitting of the Seimas ended about 1.30 p.m.
whereas the third consideration started at the end of the
evening sitting - i.e. after 7 p.m., and by this time a
newly edited draft law heeding the remarks and proposals of
the Seimas members, had been submitted. For example, an
amendment of P.Papovas, member of the Seimas, was submitted
and considered. However, it was rejected, as key amendments
to the law were proposed. The remarks of the Seimas members
that Article 2 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas is not
in compliance with the Constitution, were taken into
account and an amended draft law was submitted for the third
consideration.
4. The petitioner maintains that by the adoption of
this law procedure of law enactment established in the
Constitution was violated as this law had to be enacted as a
constitutional law. As a matter of fact, in the process of
the consideration of the above mentioned draft law, a number
of the Seimas members suggested establishing a list of
constitutional laws, however, the suggestion was submitted
in violation of the Provisional Statute of the Seimas and
without preparation of necessary drafts. In conformity with
Article 69 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
the Seimas shall establish a list of constitutional laws by
a three - fifths majority vote of the Seimas members. As the
Law on Elections to the Seimas did not have the power of the
constitutional law, the Law on Partial Amending and
Appending of it could not be considered and enacted as a
constitutional law.
Subsequent to the above mentioned motives, the
representative of the party concerned is of the opinion
that the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On Partial
Amending and Appending of the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on Election to the Seimas" is in compliance with
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, thus, the
petitioner's request should not be complied with. The
representative of the party concerned has also stated that
he would not be against the evaluation of additional
arguments of the petitioner's representative by the
Constitutional Court. The representative of the party
concerned has also explained, that universally recognized
human and civil rights and freedoms are established in
Chapter of the Constitution "The Individual and the State".
The petitioner's representative gives too extensive an
explanation of the notion "person" and groundlessly
maintains that equality of people established in Article 29
of the Constitution is applicable to juridical persons. The
consideration of the constitutional law in dispute was
conducted in speed-up order prescribed by the Provisional
Statute of the Seimas in compliance with the right of
legislative initiative established in Article 68 of the
Constitution.
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
1. Concerning the compliance of the procedure of the
enactment of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On
Partial Amending and Appending of the Law of the Republic
of Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas, 16 March 1993, with
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
General rules of law enactment are formulated in
Article 69 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
It is specified by which majority vote laws and
constitutional laws shall be adopted. As far as other
procedures are concerned, it is established in the first
part of said Article that laws shall be enacted in the
Seimas in accordance with the procedure established by law.
At present, these procedures are established in the
Provisional Statute of the Seimas - a legal act having the
power of law. The procedure of the submission of draft laws
to the Seimas, of three considerations of those laws, of
discussions, voting and other significant issues pertaining
to the process of legislation, are established in it. In
fact, these are the issues of the structure and the
procedure of activities of the Seimas that shall be
determined by the Statute of the Seimas as prescribed by
Article 76 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The self-dependence of the Seimas is within its competence
established in the Constitution as well as is limited by its
duty to act in compliance with the Constitution and valid
laws. The duty of the Seimas to act in accordance with the
procedure of law enactment established by the Statute of the
Seimas not only may be but, in fact, must be interpreted as
a constitutional duty because it is conditioned by the
provision established in part 1 of Article 69 of the
Constitution.
It is determined in the Provisional Statute of the
Seimas how to verity the adherence to the procedure of law
enactment prescribed by law and how to resolve disputes
ensuing from the violations of procedure (Article 2121 of
the Provisional Statute of the Seimas). It is also specified
in the Statute that in cases when the Provisional Committee
formed by the Seimas draws the conclusion pointing out to
gross violations in the procedure of legislation, essential
violations in the order of voting as well as other relevant
violations of significant provisions of the Statute that
predetermined the decision of the Seimas on the law, the
Seimas resolves by voting whether to abrogate or to leave in
force the act in dispute. Thus, the conclusion can be drawn
that the Seimas itself states if there was a violation of
the procedure of law enactment prescribed by the Statute of
the Seimas, and resolves the disputes that arise. The
perfection of the norms of the Statute is also within the
competence of the Seimas. There was no appeal to the
Constitutional Court on the constitutionality of the above
mentioned and other norms of the Provisional Statute of the
Seimas determining the procedures of consideration and
adoption of draft laws.
The Seimas formed the Provisional Committee to
investigate the said procedural violations. In the
conclusions submitted by the Committee, violations mentioned
in the declaration of Homeland Coalition (Tėvynės Santaros
frakcijų koalicija) are investigated and a generalized
conclusion is drawn that during the consideration of the
draft Law "On Partial Amending and Appending of the Law of
the Republic of Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas" a
minor formal violation has been made (no conclusion of the
Committee for Budget and Finance pertaining to state means
and their possible source necessary for the implementation
of the law was submitted), which had no effect upon the
adoption and implementation of the law in dispute. On the
basis of this, the Provisional Committee proposed to leave
the Law "On Partial Amending and Appending of the Law of the
Republic of Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas", 16 March
1993, in force. Furthermore, the Provisional Committee has
called attention to the fact, that the speed-up procedure of
the consideration of law is not specified accurately enough
in the Provisional Statute of the Seimas, therefore, various
interpretations of norms, causing disputes and
misunderstandings are possible. On 4 May 1993 the Seimas
adopted the decisions in approval of the conclusions drawn
by the Provisional Committee.
The legal proceedings prove that the conclusion of the
Committee for Budget and Finance was not submitted for the
adoption of law, i.e. the requirement established in part 2
of Article 216 of the Provisional Statute of the Seimas has
been violated. The Court holds that the issue of financing
the elections has in essence been resolved upon the
enactment of the Law on Elections. Thus, even though the
above mentioned procedural violation has been made, the
Constitutional Court does not find a sufficient ground for
the conclusion that the enacted law contradicts the
Constitution in accordance with the procedure of its
enactment established by the Constitution.
The legal proceedings also prove that many
disagreements and disputes arose from inaccurate defining of
the procedure of the consideration of draft laws in the
Statute and the variety of interpretations of the norms of
the Statute. In the application of these norms a rule
specifying that, in case of the competition between general
and special norms, a special norm shall be valid, was not
always observed.
On the basis of item 4 of part 1 of Article 64 of the
Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court
investigates the compliance of legal act with the
Constitution in accordance with the procedure prescribed by
this law. The Constitutional Court draws the conclusion that
this procedure in the adoption of the Law "On Partial
Amending and Appending of the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas" was not violated.
Thus, there is no ground for maintaining that the law in
dispute contradicts part 1 of Article 69 of the Constitution
of the Republic of Lithuania in the procedure of its
enactment. The petitioner did not raise the question whether
in the adoption of the law in dispute the norms of part 2 of
said Article were violated.
2. Concerning the issue whether the Law "On Partial
Amending and Appending of the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on the Elections to the Seimas", 16 March 1993,
had to be enacted in accordance with the procedure
established by constitutional laws and not general
procedure.
The Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
establishes a variety of majority votes for the enactment of
laws. in compliance with part 2 of Article 69 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, laws shall be
deemed adopted if the majority of the Seimas members
participating in the sitting vote in favour thereof. The
procedure of the enactment of constitutional laws is
defined in part 3 of said Article: they shall be deemed
adopted if more than half of all the members of the Seimas
vote in the affirmative and shall be amended by at least a
three - fifths majority vote of all the Seimas members.
Due to the above mentioned variety in the procedure of
the adoption of laws, the classification of laws in
accordance with constitutional norms is very significant.
The constituent parts of the Constitution shall primarily be
laws established in Article 150 of the Constitution. Only
the Seimas is empowered with enumerating other
constitutional laws. It is determined in part 3 of Article
69 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania: "The
Seimas shall establish a list of constitutional laws by a
three - fifths majority vote of the Seimas members". Thus,
a list of constitutional laws being established only in
accordance with this procedure, laws entering this list
shall be interpreted as constitutional laws, and the rule of
their enactment and amendment by at least a three - fifths
majority vote of all the Seimas members established in the
Constitution shall be applied only to these laws. In the
absence of such a list of constitutional laws, the aforesaid
procedure of law enactment may not be applied to the
adoption of any law, except the law on the establishment of
the list of constitutional laws. Even more groundless are
the arguments that amendments and supplements to an ordinary
law may be adopted in accordance with the rules of the
adoption of constitutional laws.
The above mentioned procedure of law enactment and
amendment is not applied to amendments to the Constitution
that can also be called constitutional laws. The procedures
of their amending, consideration and adoption are regulated
by Chapter 14 of the Constitution of Republic of Lithuania
"Amending the Constitution".
Constitutional norms do not establish the priorities of
the sequence of consideration or enactment of laws,
constitutional laws included. These issues are within the
competence of the Seimas.
3. Concerning the Compliance of the Law "On Partial
Amending and Appending of the law of the Republic of
Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas", 16 March 1993, with
Article 68 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The petitioner maintains that due to procedural
violations made in the adoption of the Law "On Partial
Amending and Appending of the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas", 16 March 1993, the
right of the Seimas members to submit proposals and
supplements for consideration was restricted, i.e. the
constitutional right of legislative initiative of the
members of the Seimas established in Article 68 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania was restricted in
essence.
The process of legislation is the whole complex of
legally significant acts necessary for the adoption of a
law and performed in rigid sequence of logic and time. The
following stages of the process of legislation are
universally recognized: the realization of the right to
legislation, the consideration of a draft law, the adoption
of a draft law, the promulgation and the enforcement of the
enacted law. Only with the completion of one stage in
consecutive order starts another. The aforesaid consecutive
order of the process of legislation is in essence
established in the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania: the realization of the right of legislative
initiative - in Article 68, the adoption of laws - in
Article 69, the promulgation and enforcement of laws - in
Articles 70-72. The stage of the consideration of draft
laws, being the stage which guarantees the application of
principles of democracy in the process of legislation, is
not specified in these articles. However, their actual
presence is evident from other constitutional norms: Article
71 establishes the right of the President of the Republic of
Lithuania to refer the law back "to the Seimas for
reconsideration", Article 72 - the right of the Seimas "to
reconsider and enact laws" which have been referred back by
the President of the Seimas. Upon this a conclusion can be
drawn that the stage of the consideration of draft laws is
necessary in the procedure of the Seimas legislation. This
is confirmed in the wording of Article 72 that "after
reconsideration of the Seimas, a law shall be deemed enacted
if the amendments and supplements submitted by the President
of the Republic were adopted, or if more than half of all
the Seimas members vote in the affirmative, and if it is a
constitutional law - if at least three - fifths of all the
Seimas members vote in the affirmative".
The process of legislation starts with putting forward
an initiative. This may be done only by the persons
specified in the Constitution, i.e. persons who have the
right of legislative initiative. The essence and purpose of
this right is to initiate the process of legislation. This
right is practically realized by the submission of some
concrete draft law to the Seimas or by written wording of a
new substantial idea concerning legislation. Upon the
submission of the law project by the proper subject, the
duty of the Seimas - institution of legislation - is to
initiate the consideration of the submitted draft law or the
idea of the law project. Then the second stage of the
process of legislation, usually defined by regulations of
the Seimas (Statutes), starts. In this stage, remarks,
proposals, amendments and supplements on the draft law
submitted by the members of the Seimas are relevant elements
of the stage of consideration, however, they cannot be
interpreted as legislative initiative because it has already
been realized. Suggestions, amendments and supplements are
practically submitted up to the moment of law enactment. The
order of their submission and consideration is regulated by
regulation norms of the consideration of draft laws. It is
peculiar that the order differs in essence from the
realization of the right of legislative initiative. The
right of legislative initiative is also different from the
submission of amendments and supplements to the draft under
consideration in its purpose and, after all, they are
different parts of the stages of the process of legislation.
On the basis of the above mentioned motives, the
Constitutional Court concludes that the Law "On Partial
Amending and Appending of the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on Elections of the Seimas", 16 March 1993, was
enacted in compliance with the norms established in Article
68 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
4. Concerning the compliance of the Law "On Partial
Amending and Appending of the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas, 16 March 1993, with
Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The petitioner states that the amendment of Article 11
of the Law on Elections to the Seimas and the renunciation
of the principle of equal representation of all political
parties and public political movements participating in an
election in all electoral committees, established in this
law, violated the principle of equality of all people before
law specified in Article 29 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania.
The aforesaid Article 29 is in Chapter 2 of the
Constitution under the title "The Individual and the State",
therefore, the concept "person" can only be, in this case, a
synonym of "individual". This chapter of the Constitution,
Article 29, in particular, is about human and civil rights,
freedoms and duties, thus, there is no juridical ground for
more extensive interpretation of the notion "person".
The variety of legal status is peculiar to collective
legal persons (organizations and institutions), therefore,
on the basis of typology of legal persons, groups of persons
with the same special legal capacity may be discerned, and
only these groups are comparable among themselves.
On the basis of the above mentioned motives, the
Constitutional Court concludes that the Law "On Partial
Amending and Appending of the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas", 16 March 1993, is in
compliance with Article 29 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Lithuania.
Conforming to Article 102 of the Constitution as well
as Articles 53, 54, 55 and 56 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court has taken the
following decision:
The Law of the Republic of Lithuania "On Partial
Amending and Appending of the Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on Elections to the Seimas", 16 March 1993, does
not contradict the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania.
This Constitutional Court decision is final and not
subject to appeal.
The decision 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 Stasys Stačiokas
Teodora Staugaitienė Stasys Šedbaras
Juozas Žilys