EN 
 
 
OPINION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK 
of 26 October 2005 
at the request of Lietuvos bankas 
on a draft law amending Article 125 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania 
(CON/2005/38) 
 
1. On 30 September 2005 the European Central Bank (ECB) received a request from Lietuvos bankas 
for an opinion on a draft law amending Article 125 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania 
(hereinafter the ‘draft law’).  
2. The ECB’s competence to deliver an opinion is based on the first and third indents of Article 2(1) 
of Council Decision 98/415/EC of 29 June 1998 on the consultation of the European Central Bank 
by national authorities regarding draft legislative provisions1, as the draft law relates to currency 
matters and Lietuvos bankas. In accordance with th e first sentence of Article 17.5 of the Rules of 
Procedure of the European Central Bank, th e Governing Council has adopted this opinion. 
3. Article 125(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania currently provides that ‘the right of 
issue of currency shall belong exclusively to Lietu vos bankas’. The draft law amends this article so 
that it reads ‘the right of issue of currency shall belong to Lietuvos bankas’. The word ‘exclusively’ 
is therefore deleted. The ECB notes, however, th at further changes to Article 125(2) are necessary 
in order to ensure, upon adoption of the euro by L ithuania, that the Constitution is compatible with 
the Treaty establishing the European Community and the Statute of the European System of 
Central Banks and of the European Central Bank.  It is recalled that the ECB’s Convergence 
Report 2004 stated that all national legislation re ferring to Lithuania’s national currency must be 
brought in line with the Treaty and the Statute.  
In this context, the ECB raises two major concer ns. First, the competence to issue euro banknotes 
derives from Article 106(1) of the Treaty and Artic le 16 of the Statute which provide that the ECB 
and the national central banks of the Member Stat es which have adopted the euro (hereinafter the 
‘participating Member States’) may issue banknot es which are the only banknotes to have legal 
tender status within the participating Member Stat es. It is therefore Community law that foresees a 
plurality of issuers of euro banknotes, including  Lietuvos bankas when the euro is eventually 
introduced in Lithuania. The draft law fails to r ecognise that the power to issue euro banknotes is 
based on Community not national law, and th at it foresees a plurality of issuers. 
                                                      
1  OJ L 189, 3.7.1998, p. 42. 
2 Second, Article 106(1) of the Treaty and Article 16 of the Statute provide that the ECB’s 
Governing Council has the exclusive right to authorise the issue of banknotes within the Community, and, under Article 106(2) of the Treaty, it also has the right to approve the volume of the issue of euro coins by Memb er States. The issuance of euro  banknotes and coins is therefore 
subject to the conditions listed in the Treaty and the Statute. National legislation must recognise that the Governing Council has such rights; the cu rrent wording of the draft law does not do so.  
In order to address these concerns and to elimin ate incompatibilities, the ECB suggests inserting in 
the draft law references to the Treaty and the Statut e. In particular, the draft law should state that 
Lietuvos bankas ‘shall have the right, in accord ance with the Treaty establishing the European 
Community, to issue banknotes’. To the extent that Lietuvos bankas is also entrusted to issue coins, 
the draft law should provide that Lietuvos banka s ‘shall have the right, subject to the Treaty  
establishing the European Co mmunity, to issue coins’. 
4. The draft law is silent as to its date of entry into force. The ECB notes that any provisions thereof 
recognising that the power to issue euro banknot es and coins is based on Community law and that 
the ECB has the right to authorise the issue of banknotes and to approve the volume of issuance of 
coins should take effect as of the date on which Lithuania’s derogation is abrogated. 
5. The ECB notes that the draft law does not address a nother issue concerning the compatibility of the 
Constitution with the Treaty and the Statute. This concerns the personal independence of the Chair 
of Lietuvos bankas’ Board. Such independence is  ensured by Article 14.2 of the Statute which 
states, inter alia , that a ‘Governor may be relieved from o ffice only if he no longer fulfils the 
conditions required for the performance of his du ties or if he has been guilty of serious 
misconduct’. 
6. The ECB notes that, in accordance with Article 75 of the Constitution, the Parliament may remove 
officials
2 appointed or chosen by it3 by a majority vote of all members of no confidence in the 
officials in question. In addition, Article 84(13)  provides that the President of the Republic may 
recommend that the Parliament express no confidence  in the Chair of Lietuvos bankas’ Board. The 
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuani a holds the view that ‘the expression of no 
confidence is the ground for dismissal of an offi cial appointed or elected by the Parliament’4.  
7. The ECB considers that as Articles 75 and 84( 13) of the Constitution add a new ground for 
dismissal, the vote of no confidence, they do not comply with Article 14.2 of the Statute. The ECB (and, previously, the European M onetary Institute) has repeatedly affirmed that national law cannot 
provide for any other grounds than the ones foreseen by Article 14.2 of the Statute for dismissal of 
                                                     
 
2  Article 126(2) of the Constitution states that the Chai r of Lietuvos bankas’ Board is appointed by the Parliament  on the 
recommendation of the President of the Republic.  
3  With the exception of the persons specified in Article 74 of the Constitution. Article 74 of  the Constitution concerns the 
impeachment procedure, which does not apply to the Chair of Lietuvos bankas’ Board. 
4  Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania of 24 January 2003 ( Valstybės žinios , 2003, No 10-366). 
3 governors5. In particular, in the Convergence Re port 2004 the ECB observed that ‘under 
Articles 75 and 84(13) of the Constitution, Lith uania’s Parliament … may remove officials 
appointed or chosen by the Parliament, including the Chair of Lietuvos bankas’ Board, by a majority vote by all members of no confidence in the officials in question. The ground for dismissal, the vote of no confidence, does not comply with Article 14.2 of the Statute, and therefore must be adapted accordingly’
6.  
8. Taking into account that the procedure for the dismissal of the Chair of Lietuvos bankas’ Board is 
set out in Articles 10(4) and 12(2) and (3) of the Lietuvos bankas Act and that these provisions 
refer to the grounds for dismissal listed in Article 12(1) thereof7, the incompatibilities of 
Articles 75 and 84(13) of the Constitution with th e Treaty and the Statute should be removed by 
excluding the Chair of Lietuvos bankas’ Board from the scope of application of Articles 75 and 
84(13) of the Constitution.   
9. The compliance of Lithuanian law with the Treat y and the Statute will be assessed in accordance 
with the procedure laid down in Article 122(2) of the Treaty.  
10. This opinion will be published on the ECB’s website. 
  Done at Frankfurt am Main, 26 October 2005. 
 
[signed] 
 
The President of the ECB 
Jean-Claude TRICHET 
                                                     
 
5  See, for example, European Mone tary Institute, Progress Towards Convergence 1996, p. 101; European Monetary 
Institute, Convergence Report: Report required by Article 109j  of the Treaty establishing the European Community 
(1998), pp. 12, 294; European Central Bank, Convergence Report 2004, p. 27.  
6  P. 225.  
7  Article 12(1) of the Lietuvos bankas Act provides, inter alia , that the Chair of Lietuvos bankas’ Board is dismissed prior 
to the expiration of his/her term of office only if he/she  does not fulfil the conditions required for the performance of 
his/her duties or he/she has been  found guilty of serious misconduct.