Political fight between conservatives and Širinskienė hostage to the fullest: the real reason for this may be much deeper

After the Constitutional Court declared that the temporary commission of inquiry headed by “peasant” A. Širinskien investiga, which investigated the possible impact on decision-makers and political processes, had been formed in violation of the Constitution, and its Conclusions were illegal, the ruling coalition partners addressed President Gitan Nausėda. His attention to the fact that after the change of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the powers of Dainius Žalimas as President of the Constitutional Court could not be extended.

A. Širinskienė publicly raised questions about the possible influence of conservatives in the CC.

“Because, as it turned out later, there are regular meetings with the president of the CC, where, similar to the protocols made by the conservatives themselves, potential cases of the CC are discussed, which the president himself could consider if the CC were appealed. Such actions are not possible in a democratic society, ”said A. Širinskienė.

Politicians from the opposition National Union Homeland-Lithuanian Christian Democratic Party faction demand that A. Širinskienė resign from the Seimas Law and Order Committee. The president of this party, Gabrielius Landsbergis, stated that A. Širinskienė discredited the name of a lawyer for his behavior.

“What we are seeing today – addressing the President about Mr. Žalimas – if he is legally in charge of the CC, is an even tougher action. I would call it the last” peasant “fight before the elections to win, to fight against the CC.

We often talk about trying to slow down the public station as well. The CT with a Polish example is likely to appear somewhere on the target. This is an attack on CC. “I hope that the president does not participate in this battle, and will not succumb to such provocation, because it would already threaten the foundations of statehood,” said G. Landsbergis.

Delfi asked two experts in constitutional law, former judges of the Constitutional Court, Professor Vytautas Sinkevičius from Mykolas Romeris University (MRU) and Egidijus Šileikis, professor of law from Vilnius University, how to evaluate the CC president’s talks with the politicians, if applicable, as it has only been confirmed According to A. Širinskienė, and how to assess the attractiveness of rulers to the head of the country.

– To what extent can the judges of the CC or the president meet with politicians and discuss current issues?

V. Sinkevičius. I do not have information about the meetings of the president of the CC with the politicians, I cannot evaluate anything. According to the Law of the Constitutional Court, all the judges of the CC must avoid speaking and expressing a prior opinion on the cases that are being considered by the CC. However, neither the judges nor the president of the CC are prohibited from meeting with members of the Seimas. Especially if they ask to speak on other topics that are not related to the cases. Suppose journalists or politicians invite the president of the CC, a good specialist in international law, a professor, to explain the situation in the Russian Duma if they make the decision to repeal the 1989 law. A ruling that declares a violation of international law and declares the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact null and void. Such meetings are not reprehensible, a person simply has special knowledge.

The only thing that emerges from the Constitution and the laws is that a CC judge cannot express an opinion beforehand on a case that may be or is being considered in Court. If there is any doubt about his bias, kinship, anything else, he simply withdraws from the case. But I repeat once again that I have no information about the president’s meetings with politicians.

E. Šileikis. There are two possible answers to this question: a narrower one, which is partly formal, and a broader one, which is systematic and more conceptual. In the first, more restricted and partially formal approach, according to the CC Law, any judge, including the President of the CC, who has publicly expressed his opinion on the merits of the case (for example, if the contested act is unconstitutional) is partial and must be removed or removed.

In this sense, it would be that if any judge, including the president, on the street agrees with the policy that has signed the petition of the group of Seimas members to the CC, he can make a statement or another, if the essence of the case does not It contradicts This approach is completely formal and prevents us from delving into the problem of talking to the person concerned about the case.

Under the judges’ standard of ethics, a judge is prohibited from speaking about that case in general, both on the street and in your private estate, with a person who has an interest in starting or closing a case. So that second approach is necessary here, it is broader and more conceptual. If, for example, the head of the Special Investigation Service (STT) meets with a lawyer who is trying to talk about a pre-trial investigation, that STT chief would be immediately hung like a winter coat on a nail if someone record that conversation. Therefore, I understand why the STT chief launched that “attack” against three lawyers because one of them started talking about a particular investigation.

I transpose this standard of response to the standard of any Supreme Court conversation on the street or in a cafe about a case. Recall Judge Viktor Aiduk, who was forced to leave the Supreme Court prematurely, although perhaps a year remained until his retirement. If you are already talking in a cafe or on the street about a case pending before that court with a prosecutor even disinterested, that is already a problem.

Let us definitely remember the “precedent” of the Supreme Court judge Egidijus Laužikas. If you actually spoke even to a person who was not interested in the history of Vijūnėlė Manor, who was perhaps a mediator, then we know that the state reacted so much that it dismissed Judge E. Laužikas from office. There is still a pre-trial investigation. Therefore, a criminal case can be tried in court.

Even if a judge in a civil or administrative criminal case does not give his opinion on the merits, for example, whether a person is guilty or innocent, threatened with three or four years in prison, or there will be a fine if he speaks to a sufficiently interested person , is already a problem.

In this regard, any CC judge, especially the President, cannot speak to politicians or members of the Seimas, presidents, about a previous, planned or existing appeal to the CC, its improvement, doctrine instruction or elimination of excess doctrine. In saying this, I am not relying on CC law, but on a systematic approach to how the state reacts if the head of the STT responds unequivocally to a lawyer, be it a fellow student who talks about the outcome of an investigation in particular. Or – how to react to Supreme Court justices who speak informally about a possible future investigation or criminal case. In this respect, in my opinion, it was necessary not to adopt a narrow and formal approach, but a broader, systematic and conceptual approach.

I don’t know the facts about Mr. Greening, and I can’t. I do not have permission to work with state secrets and do not collect rumors. (…) I only know that the berods in your portal sounded that information, you must wait and find out what it was: birthday, shared camp, meeting of companions? But okay, where that happens it doesn’t change the substance. It is only after hearing that an opinion on the case is requested that the judge should evaluate with whom he is communicating.

If you interact with former judges or jurists who sincerely write research papers on the subject, you have no interest, you do not want to apply to the CC, here is something else. For example, I don’t see a problem if a former CC judge asks, “What are you currently examining?” But the answer should also be that the person is not caught, but specificities should be avoided. But if you agree with a Seimas member or the President who is considering applying for the CC, then even the question of what the CC is currently doing needs to be answered very cautiously. If asked how it would be better to improve a possible appeal here, then the CC judge, especially the president, is known to reply that he does not provide consultations on such issues. Otherwise, it must be removed or removed.

– How would you evaluate the request of the governors to the President regarding the powers of the President of the CC?

V. Sinkevičius. No one has extended the president’s mandate. Under the law, a CC judge remains in office until another judge is appointed to replace him. We know that the mandate of the three previous judges ended in March. The Seimas has not appointed new judges, and the Seimas does not adopt any resolution to extend or not extend the powers, which in itself arises from the law. The term of a judge will be extended until a new judge is appointed to replace him.

Consequently, the president of the CC has all the powers of a judge. And the principle is that the president of the CC acts as president as long as he maintains the office of judge. A judge retains all rights until other new judges are appointed in his place. The textbooks on constitutional law establish that the mandate of the president of the CC coincides with the mandate of a judge.

Now let us ask, does D. Žalimas have the powers of a judge? Clearly you have to, because that’s what the law says. And nobody even asks about it. His term as president will end if another judge is appointed in his place. And then he will have to appoint a person to head the CC by his decree until the Seimas designates a permanent president of the CC at the proposal of the president.

The rules here are perfectly clear, but nothing else can be overlooked. There was no such pressure on the CC during the entire period of independence. No political government dared to undermine the CC’s authority and attack it in the same way that this government is attacking. It is forgotten that such pressure (which is direct pressure on the court) is not possible under the Constitution. In this case, the rulers cross all limits. By undermining the CC’s authority, by trying to raise doubts about the legitimacy of its activities and those of the President, they invade the principle of separation of powers. They invade the principle of judicial independence and try to submit to the courts. This is the greatest evil that can be.

E. Šileikis. I don’t know anything about that appeal to the president, but I do know how the relationship is governed. Pursuant to CC law, not just the president, the powers of all judges are extended if a judge has not been appointed for their vacancies. Currently, the powers of Milius, Mesonis and Žalimas have been expanded by law.

If we think about how it should be, there are certain models in international courts. Perhaps the president could be the oldest by age or someone else, but until the law is changed, what has to be considered here is that the powers of all the judges extend until their seats are filled.

If you were wondering how active those three judges could be, here are again two perspectives: the narrow formal and the broad. Under the first approach, those three judges are real judges. Which means they have all the power. Conceptually, of course, they hang in the air. Your term has expired. They, like the outgoing President of the United States, are like a kind of “duckling” because legitimacy ends, but for objective reasons it extends exceptionally.

This is an eternal headache. It can be criticized that said CC, in which three judges finish their mandate, hears very significant cases and formulates some fundamental doctrinal issues. Formally, you can, but conceptually you should avoid it. There should be current affairs: accepting new requests, international relations, other courtesies. But I admit that under the former, that is, a formal approach, you can begin to deal with new cases that are extremely significant, such as the parliamentary investigation by the Seimas.

But I can also see opportunities for revenge in that. If the Seimas had nominated the three proposed candidates, perhaps the CC’s tone would have softened in that case regarding the parliamentary investigation. However, this is just my hypothesis because I can’t prove it.

– To what extent is the Constitutional Court vulnerable to political pressure?

V. Sinkevičius. Such appeals and such steps, comments are incompatible with the Constitution. They are incompatible with respect for the other government, forgetting that the CC is a silent tribunal. You cannot go and argue with the politicians, explain that they do not understand the CC’s decisions. And they (politicians – Delphi) just distort them. That is what the latest resolution says, “it will not allow the Landsberg business to be investigated now,” it will not allow the Tax Inspection to operate. The STI can investigate problems at any time without instructions from Seimas and commissions. They have the powers provided for in their law.

I see another attempt to divert attention from my unconstitutional actions by passing laws that are unconstitutional, creating commissions that were obviously unconstitutional. A year and a half ago, I published an article on the subject: “Isn’t it too broad with the A. Širinskienė commission?” Let’s look at similar solutions from other CCs. Our CC treats in the same way as all European courts. He says that the politicians, the Seimas has many powers, but he is not omnipotent. You must obey the Constitution. When the Court says that the Seimas does not obey the Constitution, violates it, then they try to hit the CC back. This is destroying the foundations of the rule of law.

E. Šileikis. She is very vulnerable. The current variant of tension was obviously revealed when the CC recognized the conclusion of the parliamentary investigation, which means that the conclusion was unconstitutional. Clearly this is gaining fresh negative momentum. But where is the main problem? If the President does not re-nominate the same or new candidates for the CC judges in this spring session, it means that the current CC president remains.

I’m not saying that is exactly what remains. If I remember correctly, the President of Seimas Irena Degutienė proposed the candidacy of Mr. Žalimas nine years ago. But if the Seimas does not approve the candidacy of A. Kabišaitis presented by the President of the Seimas, it means that perhaps the current President of the CC favorable to a certain faction can strategically lead the CC before the next Seimas elections, hoping to that the Seimas elections can be won by another political group.

When three judges are appointed, one of them, that is, of the new composition of the CC, the President will nominate a candidate for the presidents of the CC. I am very sad because all the discussions that are currently taking place on the three judges are inextricably linked to the very important idea that the rotation should be followed by the appointment of the President of the CC. In my opinion, the fundamental fight now is not only for the appointment of three new judges, but also for the appointment of the future president of the CC.

What the president will propose to the presidents of the CC is not clear. We can only think about it politically. But while the rotation is delayed, the powers of the current CC president continue. And this is the most important figure among the nine judges. Formally, the president is only the first among levels, but given the character of the current president, his ambitions, and his past political past, his long membership in a particular party that he left a year before becoming a DC judge, he certainly They can view current tensions with worry and concern. Allegations made by Seimas members that there may have been some meetings with Seimas members for other opinions.

I do not know the facts, but I want to emphasize that analysts analyzing the single standard of the rotation crisis in Lithuania should see that the fight is not only for the three new judges, but for the future president of the CC, who will be proposed by the President. All the blocks and delays may be related to the desire to extend the current President’s mandate until the new Seimas elections. But I can also be very insightful here.

The presidency also reacted

The Presidency also responded to these parliamentary debates. Antanas Bubnelis, the spokesperson for Gitanas Nausėda Delphi He conveyed that the constitutional crisis is a very irresponsible step.

“In the President’s opinion, each state institution should act responsibly within the limits of their powers. The work of each of them should be aimed at strengthening trust in state institutions, not weakening each other. All institutions should make efforts to guaranteeing the independence of the judiciary. Entering the constitutional crisis is a very irresponsible step, “says A. Bubnelis.

According to him, the head of the country has no doubts.

“If the members of the Seimas have questions about the compliance of the respective laws with the Constitution and how the decisions of the Constitutional Court should be understood, they can take measures to eliminate those doubts, that is, request clarification from the Constitutional Court. The president has no such doubts, “it is written Delphi in the transmitted comment