Source: http://www.lrkt.lt/en/court-acts/search/170/ta1267/content
Timestamp: 2018-03-23 05:19:47
Document Index: 431189584

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 238', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 236', 'Art. 238', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 67', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 238', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 238', 'Art. 238', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 14', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 236', 'Art. 238', 'Art. 238', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 238', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 238', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 74', 'Art. 235', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 74', 'Art. 31']

On returning part of the petition and refusing to consider part of the petition - Constitutional Court of The Republic of Lithuania
On returning part of the petition and refusing to consider part of the petition
ON THE PETITION OF A GROUP OF MEMBERS OF THE SEIMAS, THE PETITIONER, REQUESTING AN INVESTIGATION INTO WHETHER CHAPTER XXXVIII OF THE STATUTE OF THE SEIMAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA AND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER, AS WELL AS THE RESOLUTION OF THE SEIMAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. IX-1954) “ON THE FORMATION OF THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATION COMMISSION” OF 23 DECEMBER 2003 ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, ALSO AN INVESTIGATION INTO WHETHER THE REGULATION OF THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATION COMMISSION FORMED BY THE 23 DECEMBER 2003 RESOLUTION (NO. IX-1954) OF THE SEIMAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA AS APPROVED BY THE 30 DECEMBER 2003 DECISION (NO. 1) OF THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATION COMMISSION IN ORDER TO INVESTIGATE THE REASONABLENESS AND SERIOUSNESS OF THE CHARGES BROUGHT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC ROLANDAS PAKSAS AND TO DRAW UP A CONCLUSION REGARDING THE PROPOSAL TO INSTITUTE THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS FORMED BY THE 30 DECEMBER 2003 RESOLUTION (NO. IX-1954) OF THE SEIMAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA AND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THIS REGULATION ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS, THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, AND OF THE STATUTE OF THE SEIMAS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to Articles 25 and 28 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, on 16 April 2004, in its procedural sitting, considered the petition of a group of members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania requesting an investigation into whether:
“– Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania and, in particular, Art. 238 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, in which the structure of sittings of the special investigation commission is established, also in which the persons participating in the sittings are named, which, however, indicates neither procedural rights of the persons participating in the sittings of the special investigation commission, nor provides for the procedure of effective implementation of procedural rights (the mechanism of their implementation and procedural guarantees), in their content are not in conflict with Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the provision ‘<…> the procedure for impeachment proceedings which shall be established by the Statute of the Seimas’ of Article 74 and the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’,
– Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania and, in particular, Par. 1 Art. 236 and Par. 3 Art. 238 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, which consolidate the right of the initiators of impeachment proceedings or their representatives to accomplish, in special investigation commission sittings, the functions of both the accuser and the person who adopts the final procedural decision, as to their content, are not in conflict with ‘the prohibition against being a judge in his own case’ derived from the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’,
– the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (No. IX-1954) ‘On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission’ of 23 December 2003 is not in conflict with Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the provision ‘<…> the procedure for impeachment proceedings which shall be established by the Statute of the Seimas’ of Article 74 and the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’,
– ‘The Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the 23 December 2003 resolution (No. IX-1954) of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania’, approved by the 30 December 2003 decision (No. 1) of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (No. IX-1954) ‘On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission’ of 23 December 2003, as to its form as well as the procedure of its adoption, publishing and entry into effect, is not in conflict with Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the provision ‘<…> the procedure for impeachment proceedings which shall be established by the Statute of the Seimas’ of Article 74 and the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’,
– ‘The Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the 23 December 2003 resolution (No. IX-1954) of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania’, approved by the 30 December 2003 decision (No. 1) of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (No. IX-1954) ‘On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission’ of 23 December 2003, as to its form as well as the procedure of its adoption, publishing and entry into effect, is not in conflict with Pars. 1 and 2 Art. 5, Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 and Par. 2 Art. 67 of the Constitution,
– Item 16 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the 23 December 2003 resolution (No. IX-1954) of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, approved by the 30 December 2003 decision (No. 1) of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (No. IX-1954) ‘On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission’ of 23 December 2003, as to its content is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’, the principle of fair (just) bringing of a person to legal liability and the right to be heard as consolidated in Par. 2 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6, Art. 13 of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the Covenant, as well as with the right to defence consolidated in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 3.c Art. 6, Art. 13 of the Convention, and Par. 3.d Art. 14 of the Covenant,
– Item 19 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the 23 December 2003 resolution (No. IX-1954) of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, approved by the 30 December 2003 decision (No. 1) of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (No. IX-1954) ‘On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission’ of 23 December 2003, as to its content is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’, the principle of independence and impartiality of the institution deciding the issue of constitutional liability as well as the principle of functional equality of the accusation and defence parties that are entrenched in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6 of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the Covenant, as well as with Par. 3 Art. 238 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania,
– ‘The Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the 23 December 2003 resolution (No. IX-1954) of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania’, approved by the 30 December 2003 decision (No. 1) of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (No. IX-1954) ‘On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission’ of 23 December 2003, (in particular, Items 16 and 20 of the Regulation), is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’, the right to have an opportunity to prepare for effective legal defence and realise the right either to defend himself or with the help of an advocate of one’s choice, which is consolidated in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6, Art. 13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d of Art. 14 of the Covenant as well as with the principle of functional equality of the accusation and defence parties that is entrenched in Par. 2 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6, of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the Covenant,
– Item 20 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the 23 December 2003 resolution (No. IX-1954) of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, approved by the 30 December 2003 decision (No. 1) of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (No. IX-1954) ‘On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission’ of 23 December 2003, as to its content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’, the right to have enough time and opportunities to prepare for effective legal defence and realise the right either to defend himself or with the help of an advocate of one’s choice, which is consolidated in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6, Art. 13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d Art. 14 of the Covenant,
– Item 21 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the 23 December 2003 resolution (No. IX-1954) of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, approved by the 30 December 2003 decision (No. 1) of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (No. IX-1954) ‘On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission’ of 23 December 2003, as to its content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’, the right to have a real opportunity for preparation of effective legal defence and to realise the right to defence, which is consolidated in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6, Art. 13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d Art. 14 of the Covenant, as well as with the principle of functional equality of the accusation and defence parties that is entrenched in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6 of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the Covenant,
– Item 26 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the 23 December 2003 resolution (No. IX-1954) of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, approved by the 30 December 2003 decision (No. 1) of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (No. IX-1954) ‘On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission’ of 23 December 2003, as to its content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’, the right to have a real opportunity for preparation of effective legal defence and to realise the right to defence, which is consolidated in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6, Art. 13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d of Art. 14 of the Covenant,
– Item 29 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the 23 December 2003 resolution (No. IX-1954) of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, approved by the 30 December 2003 decision (No. 1) of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (No. IX-1954) ‘On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission’ of 23 December 2003, as to its content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’, the right to be heard and the right to defence which are consolidated in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 1, 3.d, Art. 6, Art. 13 of the Convention, and Pars. 1.d, 3.d Art. 14 of the Covenant, and the principle of functional equality of the accusation and defence parties that is entrenched in Par. 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6 of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the Covenant,
– Item 30 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the 23 December 2003 resolution (No. IX-1954) of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, approved by the 30 December 2003 decision (No. 1) of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (No. IX-1954) ‘On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission’ of 23 December 2003, as to its content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’, and the principle of functional equality of the accusation and defence parties that is entrenched in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6 of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the Covenant,
– Item 33 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the 23 December 2003 resolution (No. IX-1954) of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, approved by the 30 December 2003 decision (No. 1) of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (No. IX-1954) ‘On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission’ of 23 December 2003, as to its content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’, the right to defence and the right to question by himself witnesses of the accusation and to have an opportunity that such witnesses be questioned, also the right to demand that witnesses of the defence be summoned and questioned under the same conditions that are applied to witnesses of the accusation, which are consolidated in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6, Art. 13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.d, 3.e Art. 14 of the Covenant, as well as with the principle of functional equality of the accusation and defence parties that is entrenched in Par. 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6 of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the Covenant.”
Note: the text of the petition of the petitioner is quoted in this decision of the Constitutional Court as it was presented by the petitioner, i.e. with accentuations in the text, abbreviations, etc. which were made by the petitioner himself.
1. The petitioner, a group of members of the Seimas, has applied to the Constitutional Court with a petition requesting an investigation into whether:
– Item 20 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the 23 December 2003 resolution (No. IX-1954) of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, approved by the 30 December 2003 decision (No. 1) of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (No. IX-1954) ‘On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission’ of 23 December 2003, as to its content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’, the right to have enough time and opportunities to prepare for effective legal defence and realise the right either to defend himself or with the help of an advocate of one’s choice, which is consolidated in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6, Art. 13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d of Art. 14 of the Covenant,
– Item 26 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the 23 December 2003 resolution (No. IX-1954) of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, approved by the 30 December 2003 decision (No. 1) of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (No. IX-1954) ‘On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission’ of 23 December 2003, as to its content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’, the right to have a real opportunity for preparation of effective legal defence and to realise the right to defence, which is consolidated in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6, Art. 13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d Art. 14 of the Covenant,
– Item 29 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the 23 December 2003 resolution (No. IX-1954) of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, approved by the 30 December 2003 decision (No. 1) of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (No. IX-1954) ‘On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission’ of 23 December 2003, as to its content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’, the right to be heard and the right to defence which are consolidated in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars.1, 3.d, Art. 6, Art. 13 of the Convention, and Pars. 1.d, 3.d Art. 14 of the Covenant, and the principle of functional equality of the accusation and defence parties that is entrenched in Par. 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6 of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the Covenant,
The Covenant indicated in the petition of the petitioner is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The Convention indicated in the petition of the petitioner is the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
1. The petitioner, a group of members of the Seimas, requests an investigation into whether the provisions of the Statute of the Seimas pointed out by it are not in conflict with the Constitution, whether the Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission (hereinafter also referred to as the Regulation) formed by the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (No. IX-1954) “On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission” of 23 December 2003 of 23 December 2003, approved by the 30 December 2003 decision (No. 1) of the Special Investigation Commission in order to investigate the reasonableness and seriousness of the charges brought against the President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas and to draw up a conclusion regarding the proposal to institute the impeachment proceedings (hereinafter also referred to as the Special Investigation Commission) formed by the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (No. IX-1954) “On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission” of 23 December 2003 and individual items of the said regulation are not in conflict with the Constitution, the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and of the Statute of the Seimas.
2. The petition of the petitioner is composed of fourteen requests, two of which request an investigation into whether the provisions of the Statute of the Seimas are not in conflict with the Constitution, one of which requests an investigation into whether the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-1954) “On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission” of 23 December 2003 is not in conflict with the Constitution, and eleven of which request an investigation into whether the Regulation, its individual items are not in conflict with the Constitution, the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and those of the Statute of the Seimas.
3. Although the petition of the petitioner to the Constitutional Court is composed of fourteen requests to investigate the compliance of three legal acts (parts thereof) of different legal force with the Constitution, they are united and linked by the same arguments: the arguments upon which the doubts of the petitioner concerning the compliance of the provisions of the Statute of the Seimas with the Constitution, as well as the compliance of the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-1954) “On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission” of 23 December 2003 with the Constitution, are inseparable from the arguments upon which the doubts of the petitioner are based concerning the compliance of the Regulation and its individual items with the Constitution, the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and of the Statute of the Seimas; the arguments upon which doubts of the petitioner are based concerning the compliance of the impugned Seimas resolution with the Constitution are inseparable from the arguments upon which the compliance of the provisions of the Statute of the Seimas with the Constitution are based. The basic idea of all these fourteen requests is that, in the opinion of the petitioner, the Statute of the Seimas (parts of the Statute of the Seimas indicated by the petitioner) does not establish certain legal regulation which, the petitioner believes, should, according to the Constitution, have been established therein, while since this the legal regulation in question has not been established, it was permitted to adopt neither the impugned Seimas resolution, nor the Regulation. Virtually, the petitioner asserts that as long as certain legal regulation has not been established in the Statute of the Seimas (parts of the Statute of the Seimas indicated by the petitioner), which the petitioner believes is necessary according to the Constitution, then neither the proposal to institute impeachment proceedings and preliminary investigation, nor subsequent impeachment proceedings in the Seimas, are possible.
Attention should be paid to the fact that the petitioner has presented to the Constitutional Court all aforementioned fourteen requests to investigate the compliance of three legal acts of different legal force, i.e. the Statute of the Seimas, the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-1954) “On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission” of 23 December 2003, and the Regulation (parts of these legal acts), with the Constitution (the compliance of the Regulation—with provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and of the Statute of the Seimas) as one petition.
The link between all fourteen formulated requests to the Constitutional Court is also confirmed by references to the same articles (parts thereof) of the Constitution and constitutional principles, which are often repeated (both in the course of setting forth the arguments of the entire petition as well in formulating all the fourteen requests to the Constitutional Court), repetition of the arguments, also repetition of certain requests from the fourteen (e.g., the requests to investigate whether “Art. 238 of the Statute of the Seimas <…> [is] not in conflict with <…> the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’” and whether “Par. 3 Art. 238 of the Statute of the Seimas <…> [is] not in conflict with ‘the prohibition against being a judge in his own case’ derived from the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’” are formulated separately; also the requests to investigate whether Item 20 of the Regulation “is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’, the right to have a real opportunity for preparation of effective legal defence and to realise the right to defence, which is consolidated in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6, Art. 13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d of Art. 14 of the Covenant, as well as with the principle of functional equality of the accusation and defence parties that is entrenched in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6, of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the Covenant” and whether the same item “is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’, the right to have enough time and opportunities to prepare for effective legal defence and realise the right either to defend himself or with the help of an advocate of one’s choice, which is consolidated in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6, Art. 13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d Art. 14 of the Covenant”).
The link between the requests is also confirmed by the fact that the petitioner grounds its position concerning the impugned provisions of the Statute of the Seimas and the compliance of the impugned Seimas resolution with the Constitution upon the legal regulation established in the Regulation confirmed by the a particular special investigation commission, i.e. the Special Investigation Commission formed by the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-1954) “On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission” of 23 December 2003, and impugns the legal regulation established in the Regulation on the basis of, inter alia, provisions of the Statute of the Seimas and/or their interpretation.
The common and inseparable character of the argumentation by the petitioner determines the fact that only the entirety of the arguments and reasoning of all aforementioned fourteen requests discloses the essence and content of the petition of the petitioner as well as its position. Therefore, while deciding whether to accept the petition of the petitioner for consideration at the Constitutional Court, the arguments grounding all the fourteen requests should be regarded as a whole.
1. The petitioner, a group of members of the Seimas, requests an investigation into whether:
– Item 21 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the 23 December 2003 resolution (No. IX-1954) of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, approved by the 30 December 2003 decision (No. 1) of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (No. IX-1954) ‘On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission’ of 23 December 2003, as to its content, is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’, the right to have a real opportunity for preparation of effective legal defence and to realise the right to defence, which is consolidated in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Pars. 3.b, 3.c Art. 6, Art. 13 of the Convention, and Pars. 3.b, 3.d Art. 14 of the Covenant, as well as with the principle of functional equality of the accusation and defence parties that is entrenched in Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, Par. 1 Art. 6, of the Convention, and Par. 1 Art. 14 of the Covenant,
1.1. Under Paragraph 1 of Article 102 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court shall decide whether the laws and other acts of the Seimas are not in conflict with the Constitution and whether acts of the President of the Republic and the Government are not in conflict with the Constitution or laws. Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court provides that the Constitutional Court shall guarantee the supremacy of the Constitution in the legal system as well as constitutional legality by deciding, according to the established procedure, whether the laws and other acts adopted by the Seimas are not in conflict with the Constitution and whether acts of the President of the Republic and the Government are not in conflict with the Constitution or laws.
Under the Constitution, the Seimas passes constitutional laws, laws, resolutions concerning implementation of laws and other legal acts (Articles 67, 69, 70, And Item 2 of Article 94 of the Constitution). The laws adopted by the Seimas are signed and officially promulgated by the President of the Republic (Paragraph 1 of Article 71 of the Constitution); if the President of the Republic does not refer back a law adopted by the Seimas, or if he does not sign this law, then such a law becomes effective after it has been signed and officially promulgated by the Speaker of the Seimas (Paragraph 2 of Article 71 of the Constitution).
The structure and procedure of activities of the Seimas shall be established by the Statute of the Seimas. The Statute of the Seimas shall have the force of a law (Article 76 of the Constitution). Under Paragraph 2 of Article 70 of the Constitution, the Statute of the Seimas and other legal acts adopted by the Seimas, which are not constitutional laws or laws, are signed and officially promulgated by the Speaker of the Seimas.
1.2. By its Resolution (No. IX-1954) “On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission” of 23 December 2003, the Seimas formed the Special Investigation Commission in order to investigate the reasonableness and seriousness of the charges brought against the President of the Republic Rolandas Paksas and to draw up a conclusion regarding the proposal to institute the impeachment proceedings.
1.3. By its decision No. 1 of 30 December 2003, the Special Investigation Commission confirmed the Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission formed by Seimas resolution No. IX-1954 of 23 December 2003. Differently from the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-1954) “On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission” of 23 December 2003, the Regulation was not published in the official gazette “Valstybės žinios”; it was not signed by the Speaker of the Seimas, either.
1.4. The Regulation confirmed by the 30 December 2003 decision (No. 1) of the Special Investigation Commission is neither a law nor another legal act adopted by the Seimas, it was confirmed by the Special Investigation Commission, one of structural units of the Seimas, by its decision. The Regulation is a constituent part of the 30 December 2003 decision (No. 1) of the Special Investigation Commission.
1.5. Under the Constitution and the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court does not enjoy the powers to investigate legal acts adopted by Seimas commissions or other structural units of the Seimas.
Thus, the petition of the petitioner to the extent that it requests an investigation into the compliance of the Regulation, its individual items, with the Constitution, the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and those of the Statute of the Seimas, is not within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.
1.6. Under Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, if the consideration of the petition does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court shall refuse to consider the petition requesting an investigation into the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution.
1.7. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the Constitutional Court shall refuse to investigate the petition of the group of members of the Seimas, the petitioner, to the extent that it requests an investigation into whether:
“– ‘The Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the 23 December 2003 resolution (No. IX-1954) of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania’, approved by the 30 December 2003 decision (No. 1) of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (No. IX-1954) ‘On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission’ of 23 December 2003, as to its form as well as the procedure of its adoption, publishing and entry into effect, is not in conflict with Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the provision ‘<…> the procedure for impeachment proceedings which shall be established by the Statute of the Seimas’ of Article 74 and the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’,
2. The petitioner, a group of members of the Seimas, requests an investigation into whether:
– Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania and, in particular, Par. 1 Art. 236 and Par. 3 Art. 238 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, which consolidate the right of the initiators of impeachment proceedings or their representatives to accomplish, in special investigation commission sittings, the functions of both the accuser and the person who adopts the final procedural decision, as to their content, are not in conflict with ‘the prohibition against being a judge in his own case’ derived from the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’.”
2.1. Chapter XXXVIII “The Proposal to Initiate Impeachment Proceedings and the Preliminary Investigation” of the Statute of the Seimas is a constituent part of Part VIII “Impeachment Proceedings” of the Statute of the Seimas. This chapter regulates only part of the relations linked with bringing of members of the Seimas and state officials to liability according to the procedure for impeachment proceedings, namely, the relations linked with the proposal to institute impeachment proceedings and the preliminary investigation; it does not regulate the impeachment proceedings in the Seimas (Chapter XXXIX of the Statute of the Seimas is designed for this), it does not regulate the proceedings of consideration of the compliance of concrete actions of the impeached person with the Constitution at the Constitutional Court (the Law on the Constitutional Court regulates these relations), nor does it regulate the proceedings to be conducted in the cases when the Seimas, after it has heard a report by the Prosecutor General concerning the crime committed by the person, who may be held liable according to the procedure for impeachment proceedings (save the President of the Republic), gives its consent to hold the concrete person criminally liable (these relations are regulated by the Code of Criminal Proceedings of the Republic of Lithuania), nor does this chapter regulate the impeachment procedure in the Seimas after the reception of a copy of the judgment of conviction (Chapter XL of the Statute of the Seimas is designed for this).
Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas includes Articles 227-243 of the Statute of the Seimas. These articles define the notion of impeachment proceedings (Article 227), it provides against which state officials impeachment proceedings are applied (Article 228), it provides for the grounds for instituting impeachment proceedings (Article 229), it provides as to who has the right to propose that the Seimas institute impeachment proceedings (Article 230), it provides for a report by the Prosecutor General concerning the state officials who are suspected of commission of a crime (Article 231), it provides for the time period of bringing of the charge concerning the commission of a crime (Article 232), it defines the form of the proposal to institute impeachment proceedings (Article 233), it provides for the time period of the proposal to institute impeachment proceedings (Article 234), it provides for the formation of the special investigation commission in order to investigate the reasonableness and seriousness of the charges and to draw up a conclusion regarding the proposal to institute the impeachment proceedings (Article 235) and establishes the procedure for the formation of this commission (Article 236), it provides for the manner of informing the press and other mass media about the course of the investigation (Article 237), it regulates the procedure of sittings of the special investigation commission (Article 238), it regulates questioning of witnesses and experts (Article 239), it provides for the application to the Constitutional Court (Article 240), it provides as to what content of the conclusion of the special investigation commission there should be (Article 241), it provides the manner of confirmation of the conclusion of the special investigation commission (Article 242), it provides for the formulation of the charges and appointment of the accusers (Article 243).
2.2. Requesting an investigation into the compliance of Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas and of its individual articles (parts thereof) with the Constitution, the petitioner indicates expressis verbis Paragraph 1 of Article 227, Article 235, Paragraph 1 of Article 236, Article 238, Paragraph 1 of Article 239 of the Statute of the Seimas, as well as certain provisions of the Constitution, quotes jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court and interprets it in its own way.
2.3. Summing up its arguments concerning the relation of the provisions of the Statute of the Seimas with the Constitution, the petitioner maintains that “it is the Statute of the Seimas, which has the force of a law, that must thoroughly define the entire process of the investigation performed by the special investigation commission: the course of the investigation (the stages of the investigation and the order of the performed actions), indicate the adopted procedural decisions and name the procedural rights of the impeached person and those of his advocate, the procedure of their implementation and the procedural guarantees”. The petitioner maintains that “on the grounds of the entirety of the arguments set forth in this petition, it should be concluded that Chapter XXXVIII of the Statue of the Seimas, in particular Art. 238 of the Statute of the Seimas, in which the structure of sittings of the special investigation commission is defined, also in which the persons participating in the sittings are named, which, however, indicates neither procedural rights of these persons, nor provides for the procedure of effective implementation of procedural rights (the mechanism of their implementation and procedural guarantees), in their content are not in conflict with Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution, the provision ‘the procedure for impeachment proceedings which shall be established by the Statute of the Seimas’ of Article 74 and, alongside, the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’.”
Thus, the doubt of the petitioner as regards the compliance of Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas with the Constitution is based on the fact that, in its opinion, this chapter does not establish certain legal regulation which, according to the petitioner, ought to be established in this chapter. The petitioner virtually impugns not the legal regulation expressis verbis established in the Statute of the Seimas, but the legislative omission which, in its opinion, there is in the Statute of the Seimas, i.e. something that this legal act does not establish, although, in the opinion of the petitioner, under the Constitution, the legislature should have established it, i.e. the petition impugns the gap in the legal regulation which, according to the petitioner, is prohibited by the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court has noted many a time that if the laws (parts thereof) do not establish certain legal regulation, the Constitution Court enjoys the powers to investigate the compliance of these laws (parts thereof) with the Constitution in the cases when due to the fact that the said legal regulation has not been established in particularly those laws (parts thereof) the principles and/or norms of the Constitution might be violated. In the cases when the petitioner impugns the fact that the law or another impugned legal act (part thereof) indicated by the petitioner has not established certain legal regulation, but the said legal regulation under the Constitution need not be established in that particular impugned legal act (part thereof), the Constitutional Court holds that in the case on the request of the petitioner a matter of the investigation is absent (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 25 January 2001, and its decisions of 6 May 2003 and 13 May 2003).
It must be held that the petition of the petitioner, which is based on the legislative omission presumed by it, may be accepted and the case may be commenced subsequent to the petition of the petitioner only in the case that the arguments and reasoning are set forth in the petition, which ground that the legal regulation, not established in the Statute of the Seimas, must, under the Constitution, be established in the part of the Statute of the Seimas particularly indicated by the petitioner.
2.4. Paragraph 1 of Article 64 of the Law on the Constitutional Court provides that the grounds for the consideration of a case concerning the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution in the Constitutional Court shall be a legally justified doubt that the entire legal act or part thereof is in conflict with the Constitution according to: (1) the content of norms; (2) the extent of regulation; (3) form; (4) the procedure of adoption, signing, publication, and entry into effect, which is established in the Constitution.
Under Item 8 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, a petition for the investigation of the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution must contain the position of the petitioner concerning the compliance of an appropriate act with the Constitution and legal support of such position containing references to laws.
It needs to be emphasised that the position of the petitioner concerning the compliance of a legal act (part thereof) with the Constitution according to the content of the norms and/or the scope of regulation must be indicated clearly, unambiguously, the petition must contain the arguments and reasoning grounding the doubt of the petitioner that the legal act (part thereof) is in conflict with the Constitution. Thus, the petition requesting an investigation into the compliance of a legal act (part thereof) with the Constitution according to the content of norms and/or the scope of regulation must clearly indicate concrete articles (parts thereof), items of the legal act the compliance of which with the Constitution is doubtful from the petitioner’s viewpoint, also concrete provisions—norms and/or principles—of the Constitution, to which, in the opinion of the petitioner, contradict the concretely indicated articles or items of the impugned legal act. The petition requesting an investigation into the compliance of a legal act (part thereof) with the Constitution according to the content of norms and/or the scope of regulation must also clearly indicate the legal arguments grounding the doubt of the petitioner as regards every concretely indicated article (part thereof) or item of the impugned legal act, the compliance of which with the concretely indicated provision of the Constitution is doubtful to the petitioner. Otherwise, the petition requesting an investigation into the compliance of a legal act (part thereof) with the Constitution according to the content of norms and/or the scope of regulation must be considered to be not in line with the requirements of Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court and, on the grounds of Article 70 of this law, should be returned to the petitioner; the return of a petition does not take away the right to apply to the Constitutional Court according to the common procedure after removal of the deficiencies thereof (Paragraph 2 of Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court).
It also needs to be noted that if one does not indicate concrete articles (parts thereof), items of the legal act, the compliance of which with the Constitution is doubtful to the petitioner, nor concrete provisions—norms and/or principles—of the Constitution to which, in the opinion of the petitioner, the concretely indicated articles (parts thereof) or items of the impugned legal act contradict according to the content of the norms and/or scope of regulation, nor the legal arguments grounding the doubt of the petitioner concerning each concretely indicated article (part thereof) or item of the impugned legal act, the compliance of which with the concretely indicated provisions of the Constitution according to the content of norms and/or scope of regulation is doubtful to the petitioner, and in case such a petition was accepted at the Constitutional Court and a case was commenced subsequent to it, one would also restrict the rights of the party concerned, the state institution that has passed the impugned legal act, since it would be more difficult for the person concerned to present explanations concerning the arguments of the petitioner and to prepare for the judicial consideration.
2.5. As mentioned before, Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas regulates the relations linked with the proposal to institute impeachment proceedings and with the preliminary investigation.
2.5.1. The petitioner does not quote, nor does even mention most of the articles of Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas, the compliance of which with the Constitution is requested to be investigated. For instance, the petition does not mention Articles 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 237, 240, 241, 242, and 243 of the Statute of the Seimas. The petition does not present any arguments at all as regards the relation of these articles (parts thereof) of the Statute of the Seimas with the principles or norms of the Constitution, nor does it directly formulate a request to investigate the compliance of any of these articles (parts thereof) with the Constitution. Instead of that a request of general nature to the Constitutional is formulated to investigate the compliance of entire Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas with the Constitution.
2.5.2. It has been mentioned that, in its petition, the petitioner indicates expressis verbis Paragraph 1 of Article 227, Article 235 and Paragraph 1 of Article 239 of the Statute of the Seimas, however, the petition merely retells the legal regulation established in these articles of the Statute of the Seimas, but one does not state any opinion about the relation of this legal regulation with the principles and norms of the Constitution. The petitioner has not formulated any request to investigate the compliance of any of these articles (parts thereof) with the Constitution.
2.5.3. The petitioner requests expressis verbis an investigation into the compliance of only Paragraph 1 of Article 236 and Article 238 (by separately indicating Paragraph 3 of this article) of the Statute of the Seimas with the Constitution and presents arguments only regarding the compliance of these articles of the statute of the Seimas with the Constitution.
It needs to be noted that, as mentioned before, the arguments upon which the doubt of the petitioner as regards the compliance of Paragraph 1 of Article 236 and Article 238 of the Statute of the Seimas with the Constitution is based are inseparable from the arguments upon which the doubts of the petitioner as regards the compliance of the Regulation approved by the 30 December 2003 decision (No. 1) of the Special Investigation Commission with the Constitution, the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and of the Statute of the Seimas are based.
It must also be noted that the petitioner has not presented any arguments grounding the fact that the legislative omission (gap of the legal regulation prohibited by the Constitution) pointed out by it should, under the Constitution, be removed by establishing respective legal regulation precisely in Paragraph 1 of Article 236 and Article 238 (or in Paragraph 3 of this article, which the petitioner points out separately) of the Statute of the Seimas.
One should pay attention to the fact that the position of the petitioner concerning the compliance of the impugned provisions of the Statue of the Seimas with the Constitution and the juridical reasoning in favour of this position are contradictory, incoherent, some arguments deny the other ones. For example, as mentioned before, the petitioner requests an investigation into whether, inter alia, “Item 19 of the Regulation of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the 23 December 2003 resolution (No. IX-1954) of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, approved by the 30 December 2003 decision (No. 1) of the Special Investigation Commission formed by the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (No. IX-1954) ‘On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission’ of 23 December 2003, as to its content is not in conflict with the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’, the principle of independence and impartiality of the institution deciding the issue of constitutional liability as well as the principle of functional equality of the accusation and defence parties that are entrenched in Par. 2 Art. 31 of the Constitution, <…> as well as with Par. 3 Art. 238 of the Statute of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania”. Thus, in this part of the petition the petitioner clearly presumes that Paragraph 3 of Article 238 of the Statute of the Seimas is not in conflict with Paragraph 2 of Article 31 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. Meanwhile, in another part of the petition the petitioner requests an investigation into the compliance of Paragraph 3 of Article 238 of the Statute of the Seimas with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law, and the compliance of entire Article 238 (thus, including Paragraph 3 thereof) of the Statute of the Seimas with Paragraphs 1, 2 and 6 of Article 31, Article 74 of the Constitution, as well as the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law. The fact that in one part of the petition one grounds his doubt concerning the compliance of the Regulation with the Constitution and the Statute of the Seimas upon Article 238 of the Statute of the Seimas, while in another part one forwards his doubt concerning the compliance of the said article of the Statute of the Seimas with the Constitution, makes the legal reasoning of the actual position of the petitioner concerning the compliance of the impugned provisions of the Statute of the Seimas contradictory, thus, it makes the position of the petitioner concerning the compliance of the impugned provisions of the Statute of the Seimas with the Constitution ambiguous and very unclear.
2.5.4. Taking account of this, it should be concluded that the petition of the petitioner to the extent that it requests an investigation into the compliance of Chapter XXXVIII and/or its separate articles (parts thereof) of the Statute of the Seimas with the Constitution does not meet the requirements of Item 8 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court.
2.6. Under Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, in the case that a petition or attachments thereto fail to comply with the requirements set forth in Article 66, the President of the Constitutional Court shall return the petition to the petitioner on his own initiative or on the initiative of the justice; the return of a petition shall not take away the right to apply to the Constitutional Court according to the common procedure after removal of the deficiencies thereof.
Therefore, the petition of the petitioner to the extent that it requests an investigation into the compliance of Chapter XXXVIII and/or its separate articles (parts thereof) of the Statute of the Seimas with the Constitution must be returned to the petitioner.
2.7. It was held in this decision of the Constitutional Court that the Constitutional Court shall refuse to investigate the petition of the petitioner to the extent that it requests an investigation into the compliance of the Regulation with the Constitution, the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and those of the Statute of the Seimas. Under Article 28 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, inter alia, all cases of the refusal to consider a petition shall be considered in procedural sittings of the Constitutional Court.
Therefore, the issue of the returning of the petition of the petitioner to the extent that it requests an investigation into the compliance of Chapter XXXVIII and/or its separate articles (parts thereof) with the Constitution should be resolved by the same decision as that concerning the issue of the refusal to investigate the petition of the petitioner to the extent that it requests an investigation into the compliance of the Regulation with the Constitution, the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and those of the Statute of the Seimas.
2.8. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the Constitutional Court returns the petition to the petitioner, a group of members of the Seimas, to the extent that it requests an investigation into whether:
As mentioned before, the return of a petition does not take away the right to apply to the Constitutional Court according to the common procedure after removal of the deficiencies thereof (Paragraph 2 of Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court).
3. The petitioner, a group of members of the Seimas, requests an investigation into whether:
“– the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (No. IX-1954) ‘On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission’ of 23 December 2003 is not in conflict with Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the provision ‘<…> the procedure for impeachment proceedings which shall be established by the Statute of the Seimas’ of Article 74 and the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’.”
3.1. The impugned Seimas resolution is composed of three articles. The petitioner does not impugn the compliance of individual articles of this resolution with the Constitution; in its opinion, the entire legal act—the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-1954) “On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission” of 23 December 2003—is in conflict with the Constitution.
3.2. Summing up its arguments concerning the relation of the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-1954) “On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission” of 23 December 2003 with the Constitution, the petitioner maintains that “being aware, or at least ought to have been aware of the fact that until this day the entire process of the conducted investigation by the special investigation commission has not been thoroughly defined in the Statute of the Seimas, due to which Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas, and, in particular, Art. 238 of the Statute of the Seimas is in conflict with Pars. 1. 2. and 6 Art. 31 and Art. 74 of the Constitution, as well as with the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’, and that the special investigation commission indicated in Art. 235 of the Statute of the Seimas cannot objectively perform the functions assigned to it, since the proceedings, on the basis of which it ought to act, have not been established, however, completely disregarding this and, by means of the Resolution, obligating the Special Investigation Commission to verify the reasonableness and seriousness of the charges brought against the President of the Republic on the basis of a procedure established in neither the Statute of the Seimas, nor any other legal act (thus, on the basis of arbitrariness), the Seimas, by adopting the Resolution, violated Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 and Art. 74 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’.”
Thus, the petitioner grounds its doubt concerning the compliance of the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-1954) “On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission” of 23 December 2003 upon the assumption that the Seimas, while adopting this resolution, was aware or “at least” ought to have been aware, that Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas is in conflict with the Constitution. Virtually, the petitioner raises a question that until the legislative omission presumed by it is removed, then the special investigation commission provided for in Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas may not be formed in general, thus, in the opinion of the petitioner, one was not permitted to form the special investigation commission that was formed by the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-1954) “On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission” of 23 December 2003, since it, according to the petitioner, cannot perform its functions.
3.3. Under the Constitution, the Seimas shall consist of representatives of the Nation—141 members of the Seimas (Paragraph 1 of Article 55 of the Constitution). The Constitutional Court, while investigating the compliance of legal acts adopted by the Seimas with the Constitution, does not investigate whether certain members of the Seimas “were aware” of something, or “were not aware” of something, or whether they “ought to have been aware of something” or “ought not to have been aware”. The argument of the petitioner that, allegedly, the Seimas, while adopting the impugned resolution, was aware or “at least” ought to have been aware of the fact that Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas is in conflict with the Constitution is not a legal one.
3.4. The assumption that the Seimas, allegedly, was aware or “at least” ought to have been aware of the fact that that Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas is in conflict with the Constitution is not an argument required by Item 8 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, upon which it would be permitted to ground the position of the petitioner in the petition, in which one also requests an investigation into the fact whether Chapter XXXVIII itself of the Statute of the Seimas is not in conflict with the Constitution, concerning, according to the petitioner, the compliance of the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-1954) “On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission” of 23 December 2003, which is grounded on the same chapter of the Statute of the Seimas, with the Constitution.
Therefore, the request of the petitioner to investigate the constitutionality of the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-1954) “On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission” of 23 December 2003, which, as mentioned before, is grounded on the assumption that the Seimas, allegedly, was aware or “at least” ought to have been aware of the fact that that Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas is in conflict with the Constitution, may not be considered as meeting the requirements of Item 8 of Paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, under which a petition for the investigation of the compliance of a legal act with the Constitution must contain the position of the petitioner concerning the compliance of an appropriate act with the Constitution and legal support of such position containing references to laws.
3.5. As mentioned before, the arguments upon which doubts of the petitioner are based concerning the compliance of the impugned Seimas resolution with the Constitution are inseparable from the arguments upon which the compliance of the provisions of the Statute of the Seimas with the Constitution are based, that, while deciding whether to accept the petition of the petitioner for consideration at the Constitutional Court, all arguments grounding the requests of the petitioner should be regarded as a whole.
3.6. It was held in this decision of the Constitutional Court that the Constitutional Court shall refuse to investigate the petition of the petitioner to the extent that it requests an investigation into the compliance of the Regulation with the Constitution, the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and of the Statute of the Seimas.
It was also held that the Constitutional Court returns the petition to the petitioner to the extent that it requests an investigation into the compliance of Chapter XXXVIII of the Statute of the Seimas and/or its separate articles (parts thereof) with the Constitution.
3.7. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the petition of the petitioner to the extent that it requests an investigation into the compliance of the Seimas Resolution (No. IX-1954) “On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission” of 23 December 2003 must be returned to the petitioner.
3.8. Taking account of the arguments set forth, the Constitutional Court shall return the petition to the petitioner, a group of members of the Seimas, to the extent that it requests an investigation into whether:
It has been mentioned that the return of a petition does not take away the right to apply to the Constitutional Court according to the common procedure after removal of the deficiencies thereof (Paragraph 2 of Article 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court).
Conforming to Paragraph 2 of Article 102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Articles 1, 25, 28, 64, 66, 69 and 70 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania adopts the following
1. To refuse to investigate the petition of a group of members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, the petitioner, to the extent that it requests an investigation into whether:
2. To return the petition to the petitioner, a group of members of the Seimas, to the extent that it requests an investigation into whether:
– the Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (No. IX-1954) ‘On the Formation of the Special Investigation Commission’ of 23 December 2003 is not in conflict with Pars. 1, 2, 6 Art. 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the provision ‘<…> the procedure for impeachment proceedings which shall be established by the Statute of the Seimas’ of Article 74 and the constitutional principle of ‘a state under the rule of law’.”