THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
OF
THE
REPUBLIC
OF LITHUANIA
RULING
On
the compliance of the Seimas of the Republic of
Lithuania resolution “On amending item 5 of the resolution of the Supreme
Council of the Republic of Lithuania “On the procedure for implementing the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Citizenship”, adopted 22 December 1993, with the
Constitution
of the Republic
of Lithuania
13 April 1994,
Vilnius
The Constitutional Court
of the Republic of Lithuania, composed from the Justices of the Constitutional
Court Algirdas Gailiűnas, Kćstutis Lapinskas, Zigmas Levickis, Vladas Pavilonis, Pranas Vytautas Rasimavičius, Stasys Stačiokas, Teodora Staugaitienë and Juozas Ţilys, the secretary of the hearing - Sigutë Brusovienë, the
petitioner - Vilija Aleknaitë-Abramikienë, representative of a group of Seimas members ,
the party concerned - Seimas member Petras Papovas, Seimas representative, pursuant to Part 1, Article 102 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Part 1, Article 1 of the Law
on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its public
hearing of 8 April 1994
conducted the investigation of
Case No 7/94 subsequent to the petition submitted to the Court by a group of
the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania members
requesting to investigate if Seimas resolution ÖOn amending item 5 of the resolution of the Supreme
Council of the Republic ÖOn the procedure for
implementing the Republic of Lithuania Law on CitizenshipŐ,
adopted 22 December 1993, is in compliance with Articles 12, 28 and the first
part of Article 29 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional
Court
has established:
On 22 December 1993,
the Seimas of the Republic
of Lithuania
adopted resolution “On amending item 5 of the resolution of the Supreme Council
of the Republic
of Lithuania
“On the procedure for implementing the Republic
of Lithuania Law
on Citizenship”” (Official Gazette “Valstybës Ţinios”, No 2 -24, 1994).
The petitioner - a group
of the Seimas members - requests the Constitutional
Court to recognize that Seimas resolution “On
amending item 5 of the resolution of the Supreme Council of the Republic of
Lithuania” On the procedure for implementing the Republic of Lithuania Law on
Citizenship” “, 22 December, 1993 Article 29 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. The petitioner grounds his request on the
fact that said resolution establishes the norm that persons having served in the
armed forces of the Soviet Union and having terminated their service within the
period up to 1 march 1992 and up to 4 November 1994 having been issued a
Citizen of the republic of Lithuania Certification Card or a Certification
Testifying to the (Person’s) Decision to acquire Citizenship of the Republic of
Lithuania , have citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania and may be issued the
passport of a citizen of the republic of Lithuania. In the petitioner’s
opinion, in Article 12 of the Constitution it is specified, that citizenship of
the Republic
of Lithuania
shall be acquired by birth or on other bases established by law and the
procedure for the acquisition and loss of citizenship shall be established by
law, whereas Seimas has resolved this issue by
adopting said resolution. The petitioner has stated that said resolution
contradicts the second part of
Article 12 of the
Constitution in which it is determined that, with the exception of cases
established by law, no person may be a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania and
another state at the same time. ÖPersons who served
in the armed forces as well as another repressive structures
of the Soviet Union,
had to be and were citizen of the Soviet Union,
therefore, documents to their decisions to acquire citizenship of the Republic
of Lithuania,
which they have been issued shall be invalid. Hereby, this resolution
contradicts Article 28 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania
as well. By said
resolution, the Seimas legalises citizenship irrespective of the fact whether
a person, has acquired it lawfully or not. The constitutional principle
establishing that all people shall be equal before the law, the court, and
other state institutions, has also been violated (Part 1, Article 29,
Constitution)Ő.
In the court hearing,
the petitioner’s representative has submitted the following additional
arguments. The fact that the presence
of the armed forces of the Soviet Union in Lithuania was unlawful is confirmed
by a number of legal acts: the Supreme Council of the republic of Lithuania
resolution ÖOn 1939 treaties between Germany and USSR
and elimination (liquidation) of their consequences to LithuaniaŐ,
7 February 1990, Ö13 March 1990 address of the Supreme CouncilŐ
To the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSRŐ, 19 March 1990 declaration
(statement of the Supreme Council ÖOn the status of
Soviet armed forces in LithuaniaŐ, and partly 24
December 1989 resolution passed in the meeting of USSR People’s deputies. The
Soviet army was unlawfully stationed in Lithuania,
thus, there is no ground for maintaining that persons, who formed that army,
had come to Lithuania
lawfully. Hereford
the conclusion is to be made that the factual presence of servicemen of the Soviet
Union on the territory
of Lithuania
did not mean, however, that they had permanent place of residence in Lithuania,
because:
a) they could not choose their place of residence
themselves;
b) Serviceman of the Soviet
Union were registered in Lithuania
according to legal status of foreign state.
The petitioners representative has maintained that Certification Testifying
to the (Person’s) Decisions
to Acquire Citizenship of the Republic
of Lithuania
may have been issued only for civilians
as they were valid only along with soviet passport they possessed. At that time
it was not the passport but military
card (serviceman’s identity card) which confirmed the person’s identity and
citizenship of Soviet
servicemen, therefore, the certifications they have been issued are
invalid (unlawful). The representative of the party concerned has explained, that the petitioner’s request
is groundless and the adopted resolution ÖOn amending
item 5 of the resolution of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania ŐOn the procedure for implementing the Republic of
Lithuania Law on CitizenshipŐ does not contradict the
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The representative of
the party concerned has submitted the following counter - arguments:
The goal (purpose) of
the resolution adopted by the Seimas is - to regulate
equal application of laws and other legal acts that are in force now and were
in effect earlier according to the principles of equality of men. Seimas resolution of 22 December 1993 has regulated the
meaning of items 8, 5 and 4 of 10 December 1991 resolution and provision
thereof that no legal acts shall have retroactive and, more so, they are not
validity with respect to 1989 Law, on Citizenship which is no longer in force.
Said resolution adopted by the Seimas provides the
possibility for the citizens of the Republic
of Lithuania
to lawfully and validity be issued with passports of citizens of the republic
of LithuaniaŐ.
The representative of
the party concerned holds that the arguments submitted by the petitioner are
not grounded, as:
Ö1. The Seimas resolution has not amended the provision of Article
12 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania,
but , on the contrary, has regulated that persons who
have acquired citizenship on the bases prescribed by laws be issued passports
of a citizen.
2. Said resolution is in conformity with Part 2,
Article 12 of the
Constitution, because the laws on Citizenship have provided for other
separate cases when persons are considered to be citizens of the Republic of
Lithuania, and items 7 and 4 of the Supreme Council of the Republic of
Lithuania resolution ÖOn the procedure for
implementing the Republic of Lithuania Law on CitizenshipŐ
establish that citizenship of the Soviet Union with regard to persons specified
in Article 1 of the Law on Citizenship is null and void.
3. The Seimas
resolution cannot contradict Article 28 of The Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania
as well, as citizenship has been legalised not by
said resolution but by above
mentioned Laws on Citizenship. The Seimas has regulated the application of legal
laws in issuing passports for the citizen of the Republic
of Lithuania.
The wording ÖMay beŐ
established in said resolution allows for passport agencies to check whether a
person has acquired his or her citizenship validly and lawfully.
4. Seimas’ said
resolution has also not violated the provisions of Part 1, Article 28 of the
Constitution, as the Seimas Öhas
only regulated all the provisions of legal acts specifying that all citizens of
the Republic of Lithuania must be issued passports of citizens, i.e. that the principle
of all person’s equality
before Laws on Citizenship and passport agencies be established.Ő The
representative of the party concerned in his additional explanation
(argumentation) on 7 April 1994 has also
that Law on Citizenship did not forbid
Soviet servicemen to be citizens of Lithuania and they, by the Supreme
Council of the Republic of Lithuania resolution ÖOn
the procedure for implementing the Republic of Lithuania Law on CitizenshipŐ were allowed to serve in military structures
within the period up to 1 March 1992. Therefore, he maintains that, persons
specified in paragraph 3 Article 1 of the Law on Citizenship may as well be
servicemen, and they are not forbidden to be citizens of the Republic
of Lithuania
and may be issued with passports of a citizen of the Republic
of Lithuania.
There may not be
different explanations with regard to what is the permanent place of residence
of servicemen or other persons. Besides, the permanent place of residence
should be decided in accordance with permanent registration of residents which
was in force at that time (at the time of their residing).
The Constitutional
Court
holds that:
Citizenship is a person’s
permanent political legal relation to a certain state, grounded on mutual
rights and obligations as well mutual trust, loyalty and protection therefrom. Laws on citizenship adopted by states precisely
regulate conditions and procedure for acquiring citizenship, providing for the
oath to the state and pledge of loyalty (with exception of cases when
citizenship is acquired by birth), forbidding or restricting badly double
citizenship. In modern contemporary international law
international agreements concerning (on) double citizenship between states
concerned is considered a usual way of legalisation
of double citizenship.
The Republic
of Lithuania Law
on Citizenship, adopted 1989, did not provide for possibility for a citizen of Lithuania
to be at the same time a citizen of another state. This provision was also established in
Provisional Basic Law in Part 2, Article 13 of which it was promulgated: ÖAs rule, a citizen of Lithuania
may not be currently a citizen of another stateŐ. The
above mentioned constitutional provision was later specified by the Supreme
Council of the Republic of Lithuania resolution ÖOn
the procedure for application of Articles 7 and 35 of the Law of the republic
of Lithuania on CitizenshipŐ, passed on 9 June 1990.
In said resolution it was interpreted: ÖA citizen of the Republic of Lithuania
may possess the citizenship of another state only in cases when, by way of
exception, he is granted citizenship of the Republic of Lithuanian accordance
with Article 7 of the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on CitizenshipŐ. Double citizenship has become more
restricted upon adoption of 16 April 1991 Law “ On amending Article 18 of the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Citizenship”, by which said Article establishing
the cases of the loss of citizenship was appended by item 4 providing for the
loss of citizenship on the following basis: “upon acquisition of citizenship of
another state”. True, the provisions concerning restriction of double
citizenship in Lithuania
were later adjusted (amended) providing for additional ways of exception for
this prohibition. It concerned, however persons of one category - persons who
were citizens of the republic
of Lithuania
prior to June
15 1940, and their descendants. Thus, there is no legal ground for maintaining
that, with the exception of said prescribed by law cases, other persons
acquiring citizenship of the Republic
of Lithuania
may currently be citizens of other states.
In Article 1 of the Republic
of Lithuania Law
on Citizenship, adopted 1989, it established that the following persons shall
be citizens of Lithuania:
(1) Persons who were citizens of the Republic
of Lithuania, children and grandchildren of such persons, as well as other
persons who were permanent residents on the current territory of the Lithuanian
SSR prior to 15 July 1940, and their children and grandchildren who now are or have
been permanent residents on the territory of the Lithuanian SSR;
(2) Persons who have a permanent place of
residence in the Lithuanian SSR, provided they were born on the territory of
the Lithuanian SSR, or have provided that at least one of their parents or
grandparents was born on said territory, and provided that they are not
citizens of another state;
(3) Other persons who, up to and including
the date of entry into force of this Law, have been permanent residents on the
territory of the Republic and have here a permanent place of employment or
another constant legal source of support; such persons shall freely choose
their citizenship during two years following the entry into force of this Law;
and
(4) Persons who have acquired citizenship of
the Lithuanian SSR under this law”.
It is obvious that
completely different groups of persons , which have had specific relations with
the Republic of Lithuania, are specified in every item of said Article,
therefore, not only general requirements for them have been established by law,
but also different procedures for granting citizenship for separate groups of
persons or additional conditions necessary to acquire citizenship. General requirements and conditions for
persons of all groups were as follows: at first they were considered only as
potential citizens as they were guaranteed the right to freely decide on their
citizenship; the prerequisite for becoming citizens of Lithuania was permanent
residence on the territory of Lithuania; having accepted citizenship of
Lithuania they all had to take the pledge of loyalty to the Republic of
Lithuania.
Citizens specified in
paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 1 of the Law on Citizenship ex officio (by virtue
of their previous right) have become citizens of the Republic
of Lithuania
- they had only to provide evidence for (about) appropriate circumstances and
to apply for the issuance of citizens’ documents. Their right to decide on
citizenship actually
meant the right to renounce citizenship of Lithuania.
In this respect, the status of the persons of other groups was completely
different. Persons mentioned in paragraph 4 of said Article could acquire
citizenship only in accordance with other Articles of the Law on Citizenship:
Article
7 (granting citizenship by way of exception), Article 15 (granting citizenship
by naturalisation), etc.
Conditions and procedure for granting citizenship for
persons specified in paragraph 3, Article 1 were also different. These persons were different from persons
specified in items 1 and 2, Article 1 as earlier they had never had firm
permanent legal relations with Lithuania.
As matter of fact, they were immigrants (settlers), who have come from places
that are beyond the borders of Lithuania.
As a rule, they had citizenship of the Soviet
Union. After restoration of independent state of Lithuania
they became here foreigners. In other states, citizenship for such persons is generally granted by naturalisation. In Lithuania,
citizenship for them was granted in a rather simplified procedure. It was
required from them to be permanent residents on the territory
of Lithuania
and have here a permanent place of employment or another constant legal source
of support. They had the right within 2 years following the enforcement of the
Law on Citizenship to freely decide on citizenship , i. e. could either retain citizenship of the Soviet
Union or become citizens of Lithuania.
This case may be interpreted as acquisition of citizenship by
voicing one’s option,
because, upon restoration of
independent state and end of occupation, part of residents, who had not have
firm legal relations with former state of Lithuania, were entitled to the right
to choose citizenship.
Voicing one’s option as
a way of acquiring citizenship is usually provided for by bilateral
international treaties with the Republic
of Lithuania.
This opportunity of choosing one’s citizenship (i. e.
by voicing one’s option, in fact) which had been unilaterally promulgated by Lithuania, was later recognised by Russia
as Soviet Union
successor. On international level this principle of option was actually de jure registered (included) in the treaty between Lithuania
and Russia
“On the basis of state relations” which was signed on 29 July 1991 in Moscow. In accordance with the Republic of Lithuania
Law on Citizenship, adopted 1989, the prerequisite for acquiring citizenship
for persons who were born beyond the borders of the Republic of Lithuania (with
exception of those cases, when at least one of his or her parents or grandparents
was born on the territory of Lithuania) was permanent residence on the
territory of Lithuania and a permanent place of employment or another constant
legal source of support in Lithuania. Only those persons in conformity with
paragraph 3, Article 1 of the Law on Citizenship, were entitled to the right to
freely decide on citizenship within 2 years following the enforcement of the
Law, i. e. until 4 November 1991.
Conditions prescribed by
said Law had relevant
significance in resolving issues on citizenship. They have priority with regard
to person’s decision on citizenship of Lithuania,
i. e. only a person who meets these conditions is
entitled to the right to decide on citizenship of Lithuania.
And, on the contrary, - when a person
fails to meet above mentioned conditions for acquiring citizenship, his wish to
become a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania shall not bring legal
consequences, and if on this ground thereof he or she has been issued a Citizen
of the Republic of Lithuania Certification Card or a Certification testifying
to the [Person’s] Decision to Acquire Citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania,
they must be recognised invalid. Therefore, the interpretation of above
mentioned concepts “permanent residence on the territory
of Lithuania”
and “permanent place of employment constant legal source of support” acquires
special importance. In the Law, these concepts were not fully defined, thus
their interpretation was formed while practically applying norms of the law,
their contents was certainly specified (particularised)
in resolutions of the Supreme Council. Said concepts were clearly enough
defined in item 3 of the Supreme Council resolution “On the procedure for
implementing the Republic of Lithuania Law on Citizenship” adopted 10 December
1991, which specified that “a person shall be considered as permanently
residing in Lithuania if he or she:
·
has been registered in the register of permanent
residents of the Republic
of Lithuania;
·
and has acquired living quarters in Lithuania
by the right to ownership or leased same for an indefinite period, or is the
owner’s or tenant’s family member;
·
and is employed in Lithuania
under employment contract or has another paid occupation in Lithuania,
is somebody’s dependant or is paid a pension legally due to him or her in Lithuania;
·
and
pays on the territory
of Lithuania
income tax, and other taxes established by laws of the Republic
of Lithuania,
or is exempt therefrom in the manner established by
law.”
There is no much doubt expressed about
the interpretation of these concepts (the interpretation of these
concepts is not is not questioned a lot), only it is maintained that such
resolution and provisions thereof are applicable solely to the new Law on
Citizenship (1991). Thus, it is stated,
that in order to prove permanent residence on the territory
of Lithuania
under 1989 Law on Citizenship, it should be necessary to refer to former
registration of residents. This is a doubtful statement because previous
temporary as well as permanent registration of residents was, in essence,
administrative measure which restricted one of the fundamental human rights -
the right to freely move on the territory of the state and to freely choose one’s
place of residence. It should also be noted, that such procedure for
registration was obviously of discriminative nature as restrictions of
registration were not applied to servicemen of occupation army and other
officials of occupation regime (they enjoyed exceptions and privileges). It is
also important, that servicemen could not freely choose place of their
residence themselves as they were stationed and periodically dislocated under
the orders of high military authority.
The issue concerning the
status of Soviet army troops stationed on the territory
of Lithuania
arose in the process of preparation for 1990 elections to the Supreme Council
and local councils. At the beginning, the Supreme Council by its 29 September
1989 and 7 December 1989 resolutions has elucidated that servicemen of Soviet
army troops shall participate in elections general (i.
e. former occupation) procedure: separate election Committees shall be formed
and lists of voters shall be established in submits, candidates to the posts of
deputies shall be nominated in the meetings of soldiers. Later, however, when
on the initiative of citizens of Lithuania, referendum on the possibility for
Soviet servicemen to participate in elections was called forth, the Supreme
Council by 15 January 1990 resolution recognised said
elucidation’s null and void
and has established that
only those servicemen who under Article 1 of the Law on Citizenship may be
citizens of Lithuania shall participate in elections. Thus, already prior
to the restoration of independent state
of Lithuania it had been established that servicemen of occupation army were
not entitled to the right to participate in elections organised
in Lithuania, with exception of those persons who under 1989 Law on
Citizenship could be recognised citizens of Lithuania. These were the persons who were
recognised citizens of Republic
of Lithuania
in accordance with
paragraphs 1 and 2, Article 1 of Law on Citizenship, as well as other persons
who in established judicial procedure had already become citizens of the Republic
of Lithuania. Lithuania’s standpoint (point of view) to
armed forces of the Soviet Union stationed on its territory as to occupation
army was officially expressed (stated) in the Supreme Council 7 February 1990
resolution “On 1939 treaties between Germany and the USSR and elimination
(liquidation) of their consequences to Lithuania”, the Supreme Council 19 March
1990 declaration “On the status of Soviet armed forces in Lithuania” as well as
in many other documents of the Supreme Council. The activities of KGB, internal
troops and other repressive structures of the Soviet
Union operating in Lithuania
were appropriately (accordingly) evaluated. It should be noted, that the fact
of 1940 annexation and occupation of Lithuania
was recognised by many states of the world. The same
recognition was expressed in the preamble to the treaty between Lithuania
and Russia
“On the basis of interstate of relations” which was signed on 29 July 1991 in Moscow.
Therefore, the
provisions of the Supreme Council 10 December 1991 resolution “On the procedure
for implementing the Republic of Lithuania Law on Citizenship are actually
based on the same interpretation of illegal stationing of occupation army on
the territory of another state together with (along with) other legal
consequences therefrom. It should be noted, that
former (previous) item 5 of said resolution could be applied only to former
servicemen of occupation army of foreign state as well as persons who had
served in repressive structures of foreign state. The statement that “persons serving
in the armed forces, internal troops and
state security structures, as well as other law enforcement and repressive
structures of the Soviet Union which have been unlawfully stationed and
operating in Lithuania since 15 June 1940, may not be considered as
permanently residing or employed
in Lithuania”, was logically related to said
official declarations (statements) of the Seimas
of Lithuania on (pertaining to) the location residing of occupation army in
Lithuania and may not be evaluated as new interpretation of the provisions of
1989 Law in Citizenship. The explanation that evaluation of occupation army can
be different with regard to time, may not be admitted
either. It is obvious that irrespective of time:
1) neither occupation army (along with soldiers)
nor repressive structures (along with officers) of foreign state, which resided
in Lithuania without free-will consent of
Lithuania’s authorities, could
be interpreted (considered) as
lawfully residing;
2) service in occupation army or repressive
structures of foreign state could not be considered as legal permanent
employment on the territory
of Lithuania;
3) Unlawful, i. e.
without free-will consent of official authorities of the Republic of Lithuania,
residing on the territory of Lithuania irrespective of its duration, could not
be considered as lawful permanent on the territory of Lithuania.
Reservations should also
be made about explanations that laws of the Republic
of Lithuania
allowed servicemen of the Soviet Union
to be citizens of the Republic
of Lithuania
and that the latter were permitted to stay in said services until 1 March 1992. In this case,
different ways of acquiring citizenship are mixed, thus, providing conditions
for evading prohibitions for soldiers of occupation troops to become citizens
of Lithuania.
In cases when in legal acts mention is made of citizens of the Republic of
Lithuania who serve in army troops of the Soviet Union, it is meant persons who
acquired citizenship under paragraph 1 or 2, Article 1 of 1989 Law on
Citizenship. They could find themselves in occupation army for different reasons, however, the citizenship of Lithuania
they acquired is lawful because they are
either descendants of former citizens of Lithuania
or they themselves (or their parents, grandparents) were born in Lithuania.
Namely for such persons, i. e. lawful citizens of
Lithuania, item 4 of the Supreme Council
10 December 1991 resolution “On the
procedure for the implementing the Republic of Lithuania Law on Citizenship”
was meant, which set the terms (until 1 March 1992) for the termination of
military or another service in institutions of foreign state. The above mentioned as well as other persons
who had lawfully acquired citizenship of the Republic
of Lithuania
were considered as having lost citizenship of the Soviet
Union. With regard to said persons, citizenship of the Soviet
Union was declared null and void. Such decision meant that
consequences of occupation and annexation with regard to citizens of Lithuania
who had been enforced citizenship of the
Soviet Union against their will, were
being eliminated (overcome). It goes without saying, that such decision
on the part of the state could be adopted only with regard to its citizens, and
the state, by no means, could resolve issues concerning citizenship of another
state. In accordance with laws of the Soviet
Union, only citizens of the Soviet
Union, only citizens of the Soviet
Union were allowed to serve in the armed forces of that
state. Therefore, in cases when servicemen of the Soviet Union upon issuance of
Citizens of the Republic of Lithuania certification Card or Certification
Testifying to the [Persons’] Decision to
Acquire Citizenship Republic of Lithuania
(with exception of persons stipulated
in paragraphs 1 and 2, Article 1 of 1989 Law of the Republic of
Lithuania on Citizenship), continued their military service, laws were violated
twice: 1)they unlawfully acquired a Citizen of the Republic of Lithuania
Certification Card, as said servicemen could not become citizens of the
Republic of Lithuania under paragraph 3, Article 1 of the Law on Citizenship;
2) they unlawfully acquired double citizenship, as laws of the Republic of
Lithuania do not provide for double citizenship for this category of persons. Provisions of item 5 of the Republic
of Lithuania Law
on Citizenship”, 10
December 1991, are in compliance with the main principles of
international law. In Article 49 of 12 August 1949
Geneva Convention on Protection of Civilians During War it is promulgated
(declared): “The occupying country may not deport or dislocate part of its
civil residents to the
territory it occupies”. If such restrictions
are imposed with regard to civil residents (civilians), it is inappropriate
even to talk about the right of servicemen of occupation army and officials of
other repressive structures to citizenship of the occupied state.
The representative of the party concerned has maintained that the item 5 of the Supreme
Council 10 December 1991 resolution “On the procedure for implementing the
Republic of Lithuania Law on Citizenship” may not be applied to 1989 Law on
Citizenship which is no longer in force, Nevertheless, it is requested to
recognize as lawful amendment to said resolution by which item 5 has been
appended by a new second part, considering that it may be applied
retroactively, i. e. applied to legal consequences
ensuing from the law which is no longer in effect, striving for the revision
(with the purpose to revise them). The
first and second parts of item 5 of the Seimas
resolution “On the Supreme Council of the Republic
of Lithuania
resolution “On
the procedure for implementing the Republic
of Lithuania Law
on Citizenship”” contradict each other and even deny each other. Furthermore,
in the second part
attempts are made to legalise documents conforming citizenship of Lithuania
which have been unlawfully obtained by some servicemen,
thus this part contradicts the provisions of 1989 Law on Citizenship. In this
case, by said resolution provisions of the law which has already been realised and is no longer in effect are revised, and
attempts are made to achieve the result which was not stipulated either in 1989
law on Citizenship nor in 1991 Law on Citizenship which is now in force.
Therefore, the
resolution in dispute according to its contents contradicts the Republic
of Lithuania Laws
on Citizenship as well as Article 28 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania,
and according to its form - Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania. Conforming to Article 102 of the
Constitution of the Republic
of Lithuania
as well as Articles 53, 54, 55 and 56 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of
the Republic
of Lithuania,
the Constitutional Court of the Republic
of Lithuania
has passed the following
ruling :
To recognize that the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania resolution “On amending
item 5 of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania resolution “On the
procedure for implementing the Republic of Lithuania Law on Citizenship””,
adopted 22 December 1993, according to its contents contradicts the Republic of
Lithuania Laws on Citizenship as well as Article 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and according
its form - Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. This Constitutional
Court ruling is final and not
subject to appeal.
The ruling is
promulgated on behalf of the Republic
of Lithuania.
Justices of the Constitutional
Court:
Algirdas
Gailiűnas Kćstutis Lapinskas
Zigmas
Levickis Vladas Pavilonis
Pranas
Vytautas Rasimavičius Stasys Stačiokas
Teodora
Staugaitienë Juozas Ţilys