Source: http://www.lrkt.lt/en/court-acts/search/170/ta1386/content
Timestamp: 2018-01-18 03:43:26
Document Index: 418046681

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 192', 'art. 42', 'art. 192', 'art. 42', 'art. 192', 'art. 42', 'art. 192', 'art. 42']

ON THE PETITION (NO. 1B-31) OF THE KAUNAS CITY LOCAL COURT, THE PETITIONER, REQUESTING AN INVESTIGATION INTO WHETHER PARAGRAPH 1 OF ARTICLE 192 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH PARAGRAPH 3 OF ARTICLE 42 OF THE CONSTITUTION
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, at its procedural sitting, considered the petition (No. 1B-31) of the Kaunas City Local Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into “whether the objective feature of the retail price higher than 100 MSL provided for in par. 1 of art. 192 of the RL CC is not in conflict with par. 3 of art. 42 of the Constitution of Lithuania, which is provided for defence of the rights of authors, and whether the criterion of the retail price is in compliance with the concept of the authors royalties in the course of defence of the rights of authors on the basis of the valid criminal law” and “whether the disposition of par. 1 of art. 192 of the RL CC whereby due to the fact that upon establishing in a criminal case that the works have been reproduced illegally, the copies of the illegally reproduced works are destroyed, are in compliance with the provisions of par. 3 of art. 42 of the Constitution of Lithuania”.
Note. The text of the Kaunas City Local Court, the petitioner, is herein cited as it was submitted by the petitioner—with the abbreviations, titles of the legal acts and formulations of the provisions, which were made by the petitioner itself. In this decision of the Constitutional Court, the arguments of the petitioner are cited also without correcting the language of the petition.
2. The ruling adopted by the Kaunas City Local Court, the petitioner, whereby it was applied to the Constitutional Court (petition No. 1B-31), was adopted as far back as 10 November 2006, however, it was sent to the Constitutional Court only on 12 July 2007, i.e. after more than 8 months have passed from its adoption. This ruling of the Kaunas City Local Court, the petitioner, was received at the Constitutional Court on 17 July 2007.
In this context it needs to be noted that the Constitutional Court, as it has held itself, under the Constitution and the Law on the Constitutional Court, does not decide issues of compatibility and rivalry of legal acts of the same legal force; if the laws contain obscurities, ambiguities, and gaps, it is the duty of the legislature to eliminate them (the Constitutional Court’s decisions of 23 September 2002, 13 November 2006, 20 November 2006 and 27 June 2007). The Constitutional Court has also held that the questions of application of law which have not been decided by the legislature are the matter of judicial practice (the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 9 July 1998 and its decision of 20 November 2006); thus, the questions of application of law which have not been decided by the legislature may be decided by courts, when they consider disputes regarding the application of corresponding legal acts (parts thereof) (the Constitutional Court’s decision of 20 November 2006). The petitions requesting the construction of how the provisions of a law (other legal acts) are to be applied are not within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court (the Constitutional Court’s decisions of 23 September 2002 and 20 November 2006).
To refuse to consider the petition (No. 1B-31) of the Kaunas City Local Court, the petitioner, requesting an investigation into “whether the objective feature of the retail price higher than 100 MSL provided for in par. 1 of art. 192 of the RL CC is not in conflict with par. 3 of art. 42 of the Constitution of Lithuania, which is provided for defence of the rights of authors, and whether the criterion of the retail price is in compliance with the concept of the authors royalties in the course of defence of the rights of authors on the basis of the valid criminal law” and “whether the disposition of par. 1 of art. 192 of the RL CC whereby due to the fact that upon establishing in a criminal case that the works have been reproduced illegally, the copies of the illegally reproduced works are destroyed, are in compliance with the provisions of par. 3 of art. 42 of the Constitution of Lithuania”.