160
Case No. 35/03-11/06
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
RULING
ON THE COMPLIANCE OF PARAGRAPH 3 (WORDING OF 19 SEPTEMBER 2000) OF ARTICLE 85, PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 3 (WORDING OF 19 SEPTEMBER 2000) OF ARTICLE 139 OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S LAW ON THE PROCEEDINGS OF ADMINISTRATIVE CASES, ARTICLE 306 (WORDING OF 8 JULY 2004), PARAGRAPH 2 (WORDING OF 14 MARCH 2002) OF ARTICLE 308 (WORDING OF 1 JUNE 2006), PARAGRAPHS 12 AND 13 (WORDING OF 14 MARCH 2002) OF ARTICLE 324, PARAGRAPH 9 (WORDING OF 14 MARCH 2002) OF ARTICLE 377 (WORDING OF 8 JULY 2004), PARAGRAPH 7 (WORDING OF 14 MARCH 2002) OF ARTICLE 448, PARAGRAPHS 5 AND 6 (WORDING OF 14 MARCH 2002) OF ARTICLE 454, PARAGRAPHS 4 AND 5 (WORDING OF 14 MARCH 2002) OF ARTICLE 460 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, PARAGRAPH 3 (WORDING OF 28 FEBRUARY 2002) OF ARTICLE 268, PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 5 (WORDING OF 28 FEBRUARY 2002) OF ARTICLE 285, PARAGRAPH 1 (WORDING OF 28 FEBRUARY 2002) OF ARTICLE 286, PARAGRAPH 4 (WORDING OF 28 FEBRUARY 2002) OF ARTICLE 288, PARAGRAPH 2 (WORDING OF 28 FEBRUARY 2002) OF ARTICLE 289, PARAGRAPH 2 (WORDING OF 28 FEBRUARY 2002) OF ARTICLE 303, PARAGRAPH 2 (WORDING OF 28 FEBRUARY 2002) OF ARTICLE 320, PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 3 (WORDING OF 28 FEBRUARY 2002) OF ARTICLE 325, PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 3 (WORDING OF 28 FEBRUARY 2002) OF ARTICLE 358 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA, AS WELL AS ON THE PETITION OF A GROUP OF MEMBERS OF THE SEIMAS, A PETITIONER, REQUESTING AN INVESTIGATION INTO WHETHER ITEM 1 (WORDING OF 24 JANUARY 2002) OF PARAGRAPH 2 OF ARTICLE 119, PARAGRAPH 5 (WORDING OF 24 JANUARY 2002) OF ARTICLE 119, ITEM 1 (WORDING OF 24 JANUARY 2002) OF ARTICLE 120 (WORDING OF 21 JANUARY 2003) OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA’S LAW ON COURTS, THE DECREE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 2067) “ON THE PROLONGATION OF THE POWERS OF A JUDGE OF A REGIONAL COURT” OF 19 FEBRUARY 2003, AND THE DECREE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA (NO. 128) “ON APPOINTING CHAIRPERSONS OF DIVISIONS OF REGIONAL COURTS” OF 18 JUNE 2003, TO THE EXTENT THAT IT PROVIDES THAT KONSTANTAS RAMELIS, A JUDGE OF THE VILNIUS REGIONAL COURT, IS APPOINTED CHAIRPERSON OF THE CIVIL CASES DIVISION OF THE SAID COURT, ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
21 September 2006
Vilnius
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed of the Justices of the Constitutional Court: Armanas Abramavičius, Toma Birmontienė, Egidijus Kūris, Kęstutis Lapinskas, Zenonas Namavičius, Ramutė Ruškytė, Vytautas Sinkevičius, Stasys Stačiokas, and Romualdas Kęstutis Urbaitis
The court reporter—Daiva Pitrėnaitė
Seimas member Nijolė Steiblienė and the advocate Kęstutis Čilinskas, acting as the representatives of a group of members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, a petitioner
Seimas member Julius Sabatauskas (representing the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, a party concerned, in the part of the case subsequent to the petition of the Vilnius Regional Court, a petitioner), acting as the representative of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, a party concerned
Mindaugas Girdauskas and Gediminas Sagatys, senior advisors of the Legal Department of the Office of the Seimas (representing the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, a party concerned, in the part of the case subsequent to the petition of a group of members of the Seimas, a petitioner), acting as the representatives of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, a party concerned
Milda Vainiutė, advisor to the President of the Republic of Lithuania on legal issues (representing the President of the Republic of Lithuania, a party concerned, in the part of the case subsequent to the petition of a group of members of the Seimas, a petitioner), acting as the representative of the President of the Republic of Lithuania, a party concerned
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Article 1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its public hearing, on 21 August 2006, considered case No. 35/03-11/06 subsequent to the following petitions:
1) the petition of the Vilnius Regional Court, a petitioner, requesting an investigation into whether the provision of Paragraph 2 of Article 320 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania that the court of appeal instance shall consider the case without overstepping the limits established in the appeal, with the exception when this is required by the public interest in the course of consideration of the cases of the categories provided for in Chapters XIX and XX of Part IV and in Part V of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania is not in conflict with Paragraph 1 of Article 29 and Article 109 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania;
2) the petition of a group of members of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, composed of the members of the Seimas Nijolė Steiblienė, Algirdas Monkevičius, Julius Dautartas, Irena Degutienė, Andrius Kubilius, Rimantas Dagys, Vida Marija Čigriejienė, Danutė Bekintienė, Edmundas Pupinys, Antanas Matulas, Egidijus Vareikis, Audronis Ažubalis, Rasa Juknevičienė, Kazys Starkevičius, Algirdas Vrubliauskas, Povilas Jakučionis, Alvydas Sadeckas, Vaclavas Stankevičius, Valerijus Simulikas, Vaclovas Karbauskis, Gediminas Jakavonis, Petras Baguška, Jurgis Razma, Saulius Pečeliūnas, Rytas Kupčinskas, Antanas Stasiškis, Donatas Jankauskas, Henrikas Žukauskas, Violeta Boreikienė, Jonas Lionginas, Juozas Jaruševičius, Ramūnas Garbaravičius, Vilija Aleknaitė Abramikienė, Gintaras Steponavičius, Algis Kašėta, and Petras Auštrevičius, requesting an investigation into:
– whether Paragraph 3 (wording of 19 September 2000) of Article 85 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Proceedings of Administrative Cases to the extent that, according to the group of members of the Seimas, a petitioner, it provides that the introductory and operative parts of the decision shall be drawn up and pronounced, as a rule, on the same day after the considering of an individual case, while the parts of the decision comprising the recital and the reasoning shall be drawn up within seven working days after the pronouncement of the decision, is not in conflict with Articles 109 and 117 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
– whether Paragraphs 2 and 3 (wording of 19 September 2000) of Article 139 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law on the Proceedings of Administrative Cases to the extent that, according to the group of members of the Seimas, a petitioner, they provide that the introductory and operative parts of the decision or the ruling shall be drawn up and pronounced together with setting forth short reasoning after the considering of a case, while the parts of the decision comprising the recital and the reasoning shall be drawn up within seven working days after the pronouncement of the decision or the ruling, are not in conflict with Articles 109 and 117 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
– whether Article 306 (wording of 8 July 2004) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania to the extent that, according to the group of members of the Seimas, a petitioner, it provides that the judge shall draw up and pronounce the judgments with the reasoning substantiating it only in the cases on the crimes provided for in Paragraph 1 of Article 135, Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Article 149, Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Article 150, Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 180, Paragraph 2 of Article 182 and Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 260 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania are not in conflict with Articles 29, 109 and 117 of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
– whether Paragraph 2 (wording of 14 March 2002) of Article 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania to the extent that, according to the group of members of the Seimas, a petitioner, it provides that the court of first instance must, prior to the time of pronouncement of the judgment, specify the reasoning of the adoption of the judgment only when the court thinks that the case is not too complicated or big, while in other cases the court has the right to draw up only the introductory and operative parts of the judgment until the time of the pronouncement of the judgment, to pronounce them and verbally to explain the arguments of the adoption of the judgment; that the entire reasoned judgment is drawn up and signed later after its pronouncement and that the judges who have considered the case have the right to draw up and sign the judgment, with the assent of either the President of the court or the Chairperson of the Criminal Cases Division, within 14 days, is not in conflict with Articles 29, 109, 117 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
– whether Paragraphs 12 and 13 (wording of 14 March 2002) of Article 324 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania to the extent that, according to the group of members of the Seimas, a petitioner, they provide that the court of appeal instance must, prior to the time of pronouncement of the judgment or the ruling, specify the reasoning of its adoption only when the court thinks that the case is not too complicated or big, while in other cases the court has the right to draw up only the introductory and operative parts of the judgment or the ruling until the time of the pronouncement of the judgment or the ruling, to pronounce them and verbally to explain the arguments of the adoption of the judgment or the ruling; that the entire reasoned judgment or ruling is drawn up and signed later after its pronouncement and that the judges who have considered the case have the right to draw up and sign the judgment or the ruling, with the assent of either the President of the court or the Chairperson of the Criminal Cases Division, within 14 days, are not in conflict with Articles 29, 109, 117 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
– whether Paragraph 9 (wording of 14 March 2002) of Article 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania to the extent that, according to the group of members of the Seimas, a petitioner, it provides that the court of cassation instance shall adopt the ruling without reasoning, while the reasoning is drawn up and the ruling is supplemented with it later after the pronouncement of the ruling, and that the judges who have considered the case have the right to draw up and sign the ruling, with the assent of either the President of the court or the Chairperson of the Criminal Cases Division, within 14 days, is not in conflict with Articles 109 and 117 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
– whether Paragraph 7 (wording of 14 March 2002) of Article 448 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania to the extent that, according to the group of members of the Seimas, a petitioner, it prescribes that in cases concerning newly emerged circumstances a ruling is adopted and pronounced without reasoning, while the reasoning is drawn up and signed by the judges later, within three days of the adoption of the ruling, is not in conflict with Articles 109 and 117 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
– whether Paragraph 5 (wording of 14 March 2002) of Article 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania to the extent that, according to the group of members of the Seimas, a petitioner, it prescribes that in cases concerning newly emerged circumstances, in regard of all persons save the convicts who must be released from the places of confinement, a ruling is adopted and pronounced without reasoning, while the reasoning is drawn up and signed by the judges later, within three days of the adoption of the ruling, is not in conflict with Articles 29, 109 and 117 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
– whether Paragraphs 4 and 5 (wording of 14 March 2002) of Article 460 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania to the extent that, according to the group of members of the Seimas, a petitioner, they prescribe that in cases concerning renewal of a case upon the adoption of a corresponding judgment of the European Court of Human Rights the ruling is adopted and pronounced without reasoning, while the reasoning is drawn up and signed by the judges later, within ten days of the adoption of the ruling, is not in conflict with Articles 109 and 117 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;
– whether Paragraph 3 (wording of 28 February 2002) of Article 268 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania to the extent that, according to the group of members of the Seimas, a petitioner, it prescribes that in the course of deciding a case in a court of first instance, only the introductory and operative parts of the decision are adopted, drawn up and pronounced while the remaining part, which substantiates the decision, is drawn up later, is not in conflict with Articles 109 and 117 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania as well as with the constitutional principle of a state under the rule of law;