Reference period: 1 January 1995 - 30 April 1995

Statistical data: Total: 3 final decisions including:
• 2 rulings concerning the compliance of laws with the Constitution;
• 1 final decision (conclusion) concerning the com-pliance of the European Convention on Human Rights with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
All decisions of the Constitutional Court were published in the Lithuanian Official Gazette (Valstybes zinios).

Important decisions:

Identification: LIT-95-1-001
a) Lithuania / b) Constitutional Court / с) / d) 24.01.1995 / e) 22/94 / f) European Convention on Human Rights / g) to be published in Valstybes zinios (Official Gazette), 9-199 of 27.01.1995 / h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:
Constitutional justice - Types of claim - Claim by a public body - Executive bodies.
Constitutional justice - The subject of review -International treaties.
Sources of constitutional law - Categories - Writtenrules - European Convention on Human Rights.
General principles - Democracy.
Fundamental rights - Civil and political rights.

Headnotes:
The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms performs the same function as constitutional guarantees for human rights, but the Constitution establishes guarantees within a State, the Convention on the international plane. In order to avoid obstacles in the application by courts and other authorities providing legal protection, the provisions of the Convention must become a constituent part of the domestic law of a State. Because the Convention itself does not provide any mechanisms for the implementation of these rights, it is necessary that some human rights guaranteed by the Convention are given effect by a direct application of domestic law.
The fact that fundamental rights, freedoms and guarantees are formulated in one or another verbal form in the Constitution does not mean that such wording is in all cases to be applied in an absolute manner. A law may provide for a more extensive formulation of human rights, freedoms and guarantees than their literal expression in a concrete article or part of the Constitution. Therefore, their broader application is possible only if it is provided for in another legal act which has the status of law (in this case, by the Convention and its Protocols).
In all cases, the Constitution shall have determining significance because it establishes the principle of incorporation of international agreements ratified by the Seimas, which have to be applied on an equal rank with laws in the legal system of the Republic of Lithuania.
It is in many cases impossible to interpret the contents of constitutional provisions concerning concrete human rights and freedoms separately from other provisions of the Constitution.

Summary:
The case was brought as a result of a petition sub-mitted by the President of the Republic of Lithuania concerning the question whether Articles 4, 5, 9 and 14 ECHR, as well as Article 2 of Protocol no. 4 ECHR, are in compliance with the Constitution.
On 14 May 1993, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania signed the Convention and its Protocols nos. 1, 4 and 7. Before the ratification of those documents in the Lithuanian Parliament, a special working group was formed to conduct a comparative analysis of the Convention and its Protocols and the Constitution of Lithuania. When some doubts arose, the petitioner requested the Constitutional Court to give an opinion on the matter. The Constitutional Court concluded that Articles 4, 5, 9 and 14 of the Convention, and Article 2 of Protocol no. 4 to the Convention, were in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.

Languages: Lithuanian, English (translation by the Court)

Identification: LIT-95-1-002
a) Lithuania / b) Constitutional Court / с) / d) 08.03.1995 / e) 20/94, 21/94 / f) Restoration of the Rights of Ownership / g) to be published in Valstybes zinios (Official Gazette), 22-516 of 11.03.1995 / h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:
General principles - Social State.
Institutions - Economic duties of the State.
Fundamental rights - Civil and political rights - Right to property - Privatisation.

Keywords of the alphabetical index: Denationalisation / Property, private, restoration.

Headnotes:
Restoration of ownership rights to land is not the only goal of agrarian reform since the rational use of land must be guaranteed at the same time.
One of the main goals of law, as a regufati'on of social life, is justice. It is impossible to attain justice by satisfying the interests of only one group or one person and by denying the interests of others. While behaving one-sidedly, the human purpose of law would be disregarded, and the probability of conflicts would increase. Law cannot be based only on the interests of the majority or minority. Therefore, an adjustment of interests, by using optimum possibilities for agreement between parties, is strived for in law-making. This principle of law-making is particularly important when questions of a person's natural rights in general and separately - the implementation of rights of ownership, protection of rights to ownership - are being resolved.
Without buying land from former owners, it would be impossible to provide land to persons who utilise it, and this would prevent the implementation of land reforms. The State must use such property to sell it to its users or, in case the users do not express the desire to acquire it for private ownership, to guarantee them termless utilisation of the land allotted.

Summary:
The case was initiated by two classes of applicants, a local court and a group of Seimas members. They requested an examination of the constitutionality of some provisions of the law which amended the law "On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership in Existing Real Property".
The Court ruled that the provision, whereby providing that land required for State needs as well as other land shall be bought from former owners in a manner specified by law, does not contradict the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court ruled unconstitutional a provision establishing that "an area of up to three hectares of agricultural land may be left to the persons residing in individual farmsteads located in these territories for the restoration of land in kind, provided that the residents, having land plots allotted for their personal holding, agree to use land in other places".

Languages: Lithuanian, English (translation by the Court).

Identification: UT-95-1-003
a) Lithuania / b) Constitutional Court / c) / d) 20.04.1995 / e) 19/94 / f) Statute of Radio and Television / g) to be published in Valstybes zinios (Official Gazette), 34-847 of 26.04.1995 / h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:
General principles - Democracy.
Fundamental rights - Civil and political rights -Rights in respect of the audiovisual media and other means of mass communication.
Fundamental rights - Civil and political rights - Right to information.

Keywords of the alphabetical index: Broadcasting / Distribution of frequencies / Media, television.

Headnotes:
Not only freedom of information in general, but also freedom of the mass media, as an expression of freedom of information in its objective form has to be protected. Freedom of information is not absolute or all-encompassing since its use must be reconciled with requirements which are necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the constitutional order and of the freedoms and rights of individuals. Restrictions on freedom of information may be established by law, and these may also regulate the activities of the mass media.
Restrictions on freedom of information and the regula-tion of the mass media must comply with the principle of a pluralistic democratic society. This operates to prohibit the monopolisation of the mass media, as well as the censorship of information by means which would otherwise be legal.

Summary:
A group of Seimas members asked the Constitutional Court to examine whether some provisions of the Statute on Radio and Television of Lithuania are in compliance with the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the provision of the Statute whereby the Board of the Lithuanian Radio and Television "shall confirm the decisions of the Commission for the Competition as far as programmes broad-casting facilities are concerned" is unconstitutional. Since such a right of the Board is not bound by any legal condition, the results of the competition may be established in an arbitrary and unilateral way. This may prevent private media companies which have participated in the competition from exercising their activities, thus depriving them of their constitutional rights.

Languages: Lithuanian, English (translation by the Court).