Constitutional Court
27 November 2006
Facts
The case was initiated by the Vilnius Regional Court. It asked for an examination whether the provision of the Law on Courts that a judge, if he disagrees with his dismissal, has the right to appeal to the Vilnius Regional Court, does not contradict Article 31 (2) of the Constitution and the constitutional principle of rule of law.
Complaint
The applicant's request was based on the fact that, according to the relevant provision, the Vilnius Regional Court has jurisdiction over cases in which the President of the Republic is one of the parties, and since the President has the power to appoint and dismiss judges of a regional court, as laid down in the Law on Courts, and to transfer the judges of the court to another court, according to the applicant, the contested provision creates the conditions for a violation of Article 31 (2) of the Constitution, according to which a person accused of an offence has the right to have their case heard publicly and fairly by an independent and impartial court, as well as of the constitutional principle of the rule of law.
Court’s ruling
The Court noted that the legislator has the discretion to determine to which court and in what procedure a person may apply for the protection of their violated rights and freedoms; the legislator may not establish a legal regulation such that a person may not have access to a court for the protection of the rights and freedoms that have been violated.
The independence of the judiciary and the courts is guaranteed by the Constitution and the law, which enshrine the independence of the judiciary from the legislature and the executive, the procedural independence of the judiciary, the organisational independence and self-government of the courts, and the status of judges, the personal integrity of judges, immunities, the inviolability of the duration of judges' mandate, social guarantees for judges, and the prohibition of interference by public authorities and government bodies, members of the parliament and other officials, political and social organisations, and citizens in the activities of a judge or court. All judges have the same legal status in the administration of justice, in that there can be no unequal guarantees of the judge's independence in the adjudication of cases. In deciding cases, a judge shall be guided solely by the Constitution and the law. The judge hearing the case must be neutral and not biased.
The Court noted that the Constitution provides the President with powers in the formation of the judiciary. The President is involved in the appointment and dismissal of judges at all levels of the judiciary; counterbalancing this constitutional power of the President is the special judicial authority provided for in the Constitution, which also advises the President on the removal of judges. The mere fact that the President appoints and dismisses judges and decides or participates in matters relating to the career of judges, does not constitute a ground for doubting the independence of the judiciary and of the judges when dealing with dismissal cases in a court of which the President appoints judges. If one accepts the applicant's arguments, it would be necessary to conclude that there is no court in Lithuania at all that is independent and able to deal with a case to which the President is a party in a fair manner, but such a conclusion would be completely unjustified on constitutional grounds.
The Court finds that the contested provision of the Law on Courts is not contrary to the Constitution.