[ad_1]
Having established that the Vilnius County Police Chief Commissariat in its refusal did not provide obvious and informative data on why A. Pukelis, also known by the nickname Švinius, was unable to obtain a permit, the court overturned this decision.
Once the decision takes effect, the Vilnius police will have to reconsider the controversial businessman’s request and give a reasoned response.
According to the court, the capital city police refused to issue such a permit in 2017, arguing that A. Pukelis did not have an impeccable reputation in accordance with the provisions of the Arms and Ammunition Control Law in force at that time. He was sentenced.
The plaintiff then appealed against this decision to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, which dismissed his appeal.
The Lithuanian Supreme Administrative Court examined the plaintiff’s appeal and this year issued a ruling to overturn the court’s decision and refer the case.
The SACL then declared that the Vilnius County Police Chief Commissariat had adopted the provisions of the Arms and Ammunition Control Act, which in 2020 had been declared unconstitutional, by adopting the contested decision and the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court.
Last year, the Constitutional Court held that the provisions of the Law of Control of Arms and Ammunition that establishes an indefinite prohibition to acquire and possess weapons of categories B and C and their ammunition do not allow evaluating the individual situation of each person. a Acquiring and possessing weapons is contrary to the constitutional principle of the rule of law, since the requirement derived from the constitutional principle of proportionality to disregard the requirement of the legislator to establish said legal regulations that create the preconditions for the individualization of this right.
This decision can be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania within 30 days.
[ad_2]
