The court refused to hear Misiūnas’ complaint: the president cannot be forced to pass a decree

“The Court has no doubt that the formation of a body of judges as State officials in the exercise of state power is an activity of the President of the Republic that is exclusively and exclusively related to the exercise of state power and not to activities related to public administration, so that the administrative courts cannot investigate such activities of the President of the Republic, nor can they oblige the President of the Republic to issue an act (decree) related to the exercise of the aforementioned state power ”, said Judge Tomas Blinstrubis.

The court, aware of the arguments presented in the E. Misiūnas complaint, pointed out that the former Minister of the Interior “challenges the activities of the President of the Republic in the exercise of state power”, but the Constitution and the Law of Courts establish that the head of State, therefore, such function of the exercise of power by the head of the country cannot be considered as a public administration.

“In the performance of this function, the President of the Republic of Lithuania is not a public administration entity, as he exercises state power,” according to the court, the subject of an administrative dispute cannot be the activities of the head of state, therefore, the dispute

The court ruling that refuses to accept E. Misiūnas’ complaint is not yet final: the former Minister of the Interior will be able to appeal it to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania.

E. Misiūnas appealed to the court when the head of the country refused to consider the question of his return to the previous post of judge at the Vilnius City District Court.

Addressing the court, E. Misiūnas asked to admit that the Office of the President and the Counsel of the Law Group, by failing to provide a written response to the request, violated not only the provisions of the Constitution but also the Public Administration Law. and the principle of responsible management. It also requested a statement that “the President, acting alone and subjectively, decided not to appoint me as a judge, disregarding the provisions of the Law on Courts and the Procedure for Summoning and Organizing the Selection of Judges and the Rules of Procedure for the Selection of Judges. Principles of equity, objectivity, transparency and professionalism “.

E. Misiūnas also believes that the head of state released false and humiliating statements about him when he publicly commented on his decision not to consider reinstatement to the previous post of judge, for which he asked to admit that “the fictitious, false and degrading president. I will be able to be impartial and responsible in my role as district judge “and by the powers conferred by the Constitution and the laws and violated the rule of law.”

I wanted to earn money too

E. Misiūnas considers that his legitimate expectations as a former judge have been violated, so he asked the court to order from the Office of the President a “salary not received for the time that I was unjustifiably not appointed a judge.” According to him, a month would equal almost 3.5 thousand. euros before tax.

The former interior minister also asked the court to recognize that Mr. Nausėda’s “statements that I had” resigned from my job as a politician, “that I could not be impartial and responsible in my duties as a district court judge, are null and void without any evidence. ‘

According to E. Misiūnas, such words of the head of state “degrade the honor and dignity of an honest and worthy person, undermine my high reputation as a professional lawyer, which negates my reputation as a transparent and honest STT judge and official.”

“Recognizing that such statements by the Presidency humiliated me as a former politician,” crushed “the concept of fair and transparent politics, denied the possibility of serving the Lithuanian people fairly and honestly,” E. Misiūnas noted that he also asked to be sentenced to 10 thousand. Eur to compensate moral damages.

In its complaint to the court, E. Misiūnas also requested that the National Court Administration (NTA) and the Office of the President be compelled to carry out all the procedures for the appointment of a former judge and request a certificate from the Special Investigation Service. (STT) “about me”.

Exclusive right of the president

At that time, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, refusing to accept the complaint filed by E. Misiūnas, pointed out that in this case “a dispute could only be raised due to the refusal of the Office of the President and the NTA to take action” . , but according to Judge T. Blinstrubis, legal acts adopted by entities of the public administration with a recommendation, informative nature, considering.

According to the court, the Office of the President “is not authorized to make binding decisions that have legal consequences for E. Misiūnas, since the exclusive right to decide on the appointment of a judge belongs to the President.”

The court noted that the letters from both the Office of the President and the NTA could not be the subject of an administrative case, as these documents did not contain “any arrangement (obligation) of the public administration entity”.

“Taking into account the content of the plaintiff’s claims, it is clear that he does not agree with the reasons for refusing to appoint him to the post of judge, that is, the plaintiff does not agree with the president’s refusal, which has consequences by the court. “Meanwhile, the letter of the Registry itself, as mentioned above, has no legal consequences for the plaintiff, and the court cannot decide on the matter related to the activities of the President of the Republic in the exercise of state powers “.

According to the court judges, the formation of a body of state officials in the exercise of state power is an activity of the president that is exclusively and exclusively related to the exercise of state power and not of public administration, so the courts Administrative officials cannot investigate such activities. cannot oblige the president to issue a decree regarding said exercise of state power.

The court also noted that there is no method of protection of potentially violated rights provided for in administrative law, since the procedure for the protection of honor and personal dignity is regulated by the norms of civil law, which is why the court suggested to E. Misiūnas to apply to a court of general jurisdiction.