Case No. 4/95
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
RULING
On the compliance of Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Republic of Lithuania’s Law “On the
Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing
Real Property” with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania
1 June 1995, Vilnius
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, composed from Justices of the
Constitutional Court: Algirdas Gailiūnas, Kęstutis Lapinskas, Zigmas Levickis, Vladas Pavilonis,
Pranas Vytautas Rasimavičius, Stasys Stačiokas, Teodora Staugaitienė, Stasys Šedbaras, and Juozas
Žilys
The court reporter—Rolanda Stimbirytė
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, pursuant to Paragraph 1 of Article
102 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Law on the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, in its public hearing, on 30 May 1995, considered
case No. 4/95 subsequent to the petition submitted to the Constitutional Court by the Kaunas City
Local Court requesting an investigation into whether Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Law
“On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the
Existing Real Property” is in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
The Constitutional Court
has established:
I
On 20 July 1994, the Kaunas City Local Court, the petitioner, considered a civil case upon
the complaint lodged by I. Čeplevičiūtė pertaining to the annulment of the Decree of the Kaunas
2
City Board in which it is refused to restore I. Čeplevičiūtė’s right of ownership to the existing real
property.
By its ruling, the Kaunas City Local Court suspended the court proceedings of the civil case
and requests the Constitutional Court to investigate the compliance of Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of
Article 2 of the Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of
Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property” with Article 23 of the Constitution.
The Court has indicated that I. Čeplevičiūtė is the daughter of an adopted daughter of the
former owner. Children of adopted children are not specified among persons listed in Article 2 of
the said Law, therefore, the legal status of the petitioner, as the daughter of an adopted child
(adopted daughter), is unclear. In the opinion of the petitioner, “the Court is hardly authorised to
extend the list of persons specified in Article 2 of the said Law, moreover, to apply norms of Article
573 of the Civil Code”. The Court put into question the issue if the failure to define in Article 2 of
the Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of
Citizens to the Existing Real Property” rights of children of adopted children is not in violation with
the constitutional rights of ownership of the said persons.
Thus, the petitioner is in essence requesting an investigation into whether Item 2 of
Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the
Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property” (Official Gazette Valstybės žinios,
1991, No. 21-545; 1992, No. 3-40) is in compliance with Article 23 of the Constitution.
In its request the petitioner is also requesting an investigation into whether in the course of
resolving disputes, which arise on the basis of the said Law, by a court, the norms of the Civil Code
may be applied and whether this is in compliance with constitutional provisions.
Pursuant to this request the Constitutional Court on 16 March 1995 adopted a decision to
refuse to investigate it as it is an obligation of the institution applying the law to resolve which law
is to be applied in a concrete case in the event of competition of the laws.
II
During the preliminary investigation of the case Chairman of the Seimas Law and State
Committee Pranciškus Vitkevičius in his written reply to the inquiry of the Constitutional Court
addressed to the person concerned has explained that the mutual relations and obligations of
adopted children and foster parents are prescribed by the norms of the Matrimonial and Family
Code, in which it is established that they shall be given rights and obligations as lineal relatives.
Therefore, in his opinion, Article 2 of the Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration
of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property” is in compliance with the
Constitution.
3
The Constitutional Court
holds that:
Upon restoration of the independent State of Lithuania and restitution of the institute of the
right to private ownership back to the legal system of the state the continuity of property rights that
had been possessed before nationalisation was recognised. In the legal acts, regulating restoration of
the right to the existing real property, a provision was promulgated to implement a limited
restitution, i.e., to protect the property rights that had been violated in the conditions and procedure
prescribed by law. Thus, the changes that took place in the sphere of social relations during the 50
years of occupation were taken into consideration. Therefore, rights of ownership of the former
owners that had been unlawfully terminated could not be protected on the basis of the norms of the
Civil Code in force at that time. On 18 June 1991, the special Law “On the Procedure and
Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property”
was adopted.
In Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of this Law it is established that upon the death of a
former owner the right of ownership to his portion of existing real property is restored to his
children (adopted children), parents (foster-parents) and his spouse. On 14 January 1992 the said
item of the Law was supplemented with a provision establishing that upon the death of child of the
former owner in the event he is no longer living the right of ownership to his portion of the existing
real property is restored to his spouse and children. In the norm with which the Law was
supplemented no separate mention was made of adopted children of the former owner upon his
death.
In Article 1 of the Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of
Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property” it is established that the Law shall legislate the
procedures and conditions of the restoration of the right of ownership to the citizens of the Republic
of Lithuania to the property which was nationalised or otherwise unlawfully made public. Thus, this
Law provided for the system of protection of the rights of ownership different from that established
in the Civil Code; norms of the succession law established in the Code are not applied to this type of
legal relation either.
However, the Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of
Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property” did not change the general legal situation,
established in the Matrimonial and Family Code, of the subjects participating in the legal relations
of the restoration of the rights of ownership—the spouse, children, adopted children, parents, foster
parents etc.
4
Paragraph 2 of Article 120 of this Code stipulates: “By a court’s decision to approve
adoption, the adoptive parents as well as their relatives and the adopted children as well as their
offspring shall be given personal and property rights and obligations as lineal relatives”. It is to be
noted that regulation of the legal status of adopted child is in essence analogous to regulations
which were established in the standard acts which were in effect previously.
It means that the contents of legal family relation—that of adopted children to foster parents
as well as their offspring and other relatives—is the same as that of lineal relatives.
Therefore, provision “upon the death of the former owner” of Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of
Article 2 of the Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of
Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property” is applicable to an adopted child as well since
the legislature has not specifically established in this provision that the legal status of an adopted
child prescribed by the Family and Matrimonial Code is being subjected to a change. Such an
interpretation of the impugned legal norm is grounded on general principles of law as well as legal
traditions. The terms as “children (adopted)” and “parents (foster-parents)” which are used in the
concept of law and legislation mean that the concept of “children” includes the concept of “adopted
children” and the concept of “parents” includes the concept of “foster parents”.
The provision of Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Law “On the Procedure and
Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to the Existing Real Property”
that “upon the death of the former owner the right of ownership to his portion of existing real
property is restored to his spouse and children” in the event when the rights of ownership of the
adopted child of the former owner and those of children (adopted children) of the latter are restored
to the existing real property they are protected in the same manner as the rights of a child of the
former owner and his children (adopted children), therefore, it does not contradict the Constitution.
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 gives the following
ruling:
To recognise that the provision of Item 2 of Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Republic of
Lithuania’s Law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of
Citizens to the Existing Real Property” does not contradict the Constitution of the Republic of
Lithuania.
This ruling of the Constitutional Court is final and not subject to appeal.
5
The ruling is pronounced in the name of the Republic of Lithuania
Justices of the Constitutional Court:
Algirdas Gailiūnas
Kęstutis Lapinskas
Zigmas Levickis
Vladas Pavilonis
Pranas Vytautas Rasimavičius
Stasys Stačiokas
Teodora Staugaitienė
Stasys Šedbaras
Juozas Žilys