[ad_1]
“On Monday I will resign, I will reread the order, analyze and consider restarting the process.” 15 minutes said the president of the SACL.
It is true that so far G.Kryževičius has not indicated exactly which parts of the decision concern him.
Confident of a pending invoice
The Court’s website underlines that the reopening of the procedure is “an exceptional form of review of the judgments that have entered into force, during which the legality and validity of the judgment are re-examined only for specific reasons established by law.”
In accordance with the Administrative Procedures Law, the President of the SACL has the right to present a resumption of the procedure, but only in exceptional cases.
The presentation is merely an informative proposal to consider whether there are reasons to reopen the procedure and is not binding on the panel of judges.
Photo by Lukas Balandis / 15min / Gintaras Kryževičius
Last week, the SACL emphasized that the possibility of holding a referendum must exist, even if the Referendum Law is not in force.
In its ruling, the SACL pointed out that when the Referendum Law ceased to be valid and the Seimas did not adopt a new law, a legal vacuum and a situation of legal uncertainty were generated that limited the right of citizens to initiate a referendum.
“The panel of judges emphasizes that the existing legal vacuum cannot deny the values protected and protected by the Constitution,” said the SACL.
Therefore, the panel of judges “fulfills the duty derived from the Constitution to this to eliminate the gaps in the legal regulation that is unconstitutional ”, decided to apply the provisions of the new draft Referendum Law presented to the Seimas and instructed the Central Electoral Commission (CEC) to issue signature collection sheets to the initiators.
Although the decision itself is positively valued, it is about the transfer of rules from the draft Referendum Law currently in the Seimas, which has been approved only after its presentation, and raises questions for some lawyers.
D. Žalimas: the bill is not a law
According to the former president of the Constitutional Court Dainius Žalimas, this part is the only one that can be classified as a deficiency.
“The only thing that, in my opinion, is really objectionable is that I do not think it is appropriate to refer directly to the draft constitutional referendum law, because the bill was never a law and it is not a law. The draft can be changed, considering it, it is not at all clear if the Seimas will adopt it in this way and if it will adopt it in general “, 15 minutes he said.
Lukas April / 15min photo / 15min in the studio – President of the Constitutional Court Dainius Žalimas
According to the lawyer, the court could have formulated the rules and terms for collecting signatures without relying on the bill that has not yet been approved.
“What if the Seimas did not pass the law after half a year and still managed to collect 300 thousand signatures? Then the question would arise of what rules should be followed to further organize the referendum, since there would be no law and, again, some to this solutions, “said D. Žalimas.
However, he reaffirmed the court’s decision in a positive light and welcomed the initiative to guarantee citizens’ rights by filling the legal gap that had arisen due to the failure of the Seimas to pass the Referendum Law on time.
“In fact, this could be a positive precedent for the future that human rights must be protected at all times, even when the Seimas does not take the necessary legislative measures (…).
In general, it is very welcome that the court is trying to close the gap in accordance with the traditional legal regulation that has been established thus far and, accordingly, instructing the CEC to take action, in particular by issuing signature sheets. and the specification of specific terms and conditions. ”, Stressed the former Constitutional Court.
Wait for the law to pass
Stasys Šedbaras, chairman of the Seimas Law and Order Committee, stated that the same decision could not be made on the basis of a bill, but simply by common sense.
Still, he claimed he didn’t see a big problem with it.
Photo by Vidmantas Balkūnas / 15min photo / Stasys Šedbaras
“Well, in general, if the Constitution establishes the right to hold a referendum, then based solely on the Constitution, the court could force the CEC to issue sheets. I think the Constitution is a directly applicable act, if a law is it gets stuck somewhere, I don’t see a problem that the SACL did it ”. 15 minutes said the politician.
“The court has chosen such an argument, it is a final and unappealable decision. The Constitution is directly applicable and the Constitution imposes the obligation to carry out the procedures of the CEC ”, he explained.
When asked if there could be further questions about the appropriateness of this decision if the Seimas changed the current draft or did not adopt it at all, S. Shedbar emphasized that he hoped this would not happen.
“I believe that the Seimas is responsible. The Seimas did not have a draft, now they have one, and I am convinced that, acting responsibly, the Seimas must make decisions during that time before the signatures are collected, a period that has been in legislation for a long time. There is simply an elementary and very simple duty of responsible management, “he said.
There are also new rules
According to the president of the Public Order Committee of the Seimas, even if the project were modified, the previous signature collection procedures and deadline would be maintained, although it was different from the current six-month period.
He also stated that last summer the Constitutional Court, when deciding on compliance with the law with the Constitution, did not evaluate its content, only the adoption procedure.
“The same principle that the previous law and the current draft have similar and some identical rules allows us to reasonably expect that future decisions of the Seimas will also be predicted,” said S. Šedbaras.
It is true that D. Žalimas was critical of this approach, who stated that there are new norms in the project.
“Certain provisions of the project coincide with what was there before, but there are completely new provisions. It is unlikely that legal tradition or legal principles can be relied upon here, with such a specific rule that the CEC should also allow online signature collection, as this is a novelty of the project, it has not yet become a rule of law. and it is certainly questionable, “he said.
The referendum will propose to reduce the number of signatures
In June, the CEC registered the Citizen Referendum Initiative Group to hold a referendum on the amendment of two articles of the Constitution, but did not issue signature sheets, as the old law is no longer in effect since July 1. and the new law is not yet in force.
The initiative group, whose request to the commission was signed by 23 people, proposes to reduce the poster of the initiative of citizens with the right to vote in a referendum provided for in the Constitution of 300 thousand. up to 100 thousand. voters.
Photo by Žygimantas Gedvila / 15min / Nendrė Černiauskienė
“We are glad that the SACL clarified the problem and fulfilled its constitutional duty to close the gap in legal regulation. Due to legal uncertainty, the CEC was unable to make a decision on the organization and conduct of the referendum within its competence and issue signature sheets for the Citizen Referendum Initiative Group, ”commented the president of the CEC, Jolanta Petkevičienė, after the court decision.
According to her, after the court clarifies the situation and removes the legal vacuum, the CEC is ready to execute the court’s decision and continue with the procedures for organizing the mandatory referendum.
The CEC report indicates that the signature sheets for the referendum initiative group will be issued on July 21.
Last July, the Constitutional Court declared that the Referendum Law was in conflict with the Constitution according to the adoption procedure, as it had to be approved as a constitutional law.
The CC postponed the official announcement of the decision for a year, but during that time the Seimas did not adopt a new Referendum Law, and on July 1, the old law of conflict with the Constitution ceased to be valid.
A new bill on the constitutional referendum was submitted to the Seimas on June 30, just before the old law expired.
[ad_2]
