2016 Global Review of Constitutional Law

of the provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure regulating the termination of
criminal proceedings after the expiry of a
statutory limitation period. In the ruling
of 27 June 2016, the impugned legal
regulation was held to be in conflict with
the Constitution insofar as, under this
regulation, a case was to be dismissed by
the court without assessing charges brought
against the accused and without ascertaining
whether the accused had reasonably been
charged with having committed a crime or
whether the acquitted person was reasonably
acquitted of a crime with which he/she had
been charged. The Constitutional Court held
that the impugned legal regulation precluded
a court from acting in such a way that the
truth in a criminal case would be established
and the question of the guilt of the person
accused of having committed a crime would
be fairly resolved. If a court fails to assess
whether the charges brought against the
accused person are reasonable and the case
is dismissed for the reason that the statutory
limitation period for criminal liability has
expired, the impression is created that the
accused is not convicted only because the
prescribed limitation period has expired.
Thus, the preconditions are created for the
continued doubts as to whether the accused
was reasonably charged with having
committed a crime, as well as the continued
doubts as to the good repute of the accused.
In the second case at issue, the Constitutional
Court considered the constitutionality of the
legal regulation, consolidated in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, under which a member
of a municipal council holding the office of
mayor or deputy mayor may be temporarily
removed from office if he/she is suspected of
the commission of a criminal act or is charged
with committing a crime. The Constitutional
Court, in its ruling of 17 February 2016, held
that, under the Constitution, the status of a
municipal council member holding the office
of mayor or deputy mayor does not imply
any requirement that, with regard to this
municipal council member, the relevant law
must establish such grounds and procedure
for applying procedural coercive measures
(including temporary removal from
office) that would be different from those
established with regard to other persons.
The Constitutional Court also held that the
Code of Criminal Procedure consolidates
the sufficient guarantees to ensure that the
rights of a person, inter alia, a member of
a municipal council holding the office of
mayor or deputy mayor who is subject to the
procedural coercive measure of temporary
removal from office, including the right to
freely choose a job, would not be limited in
a disproportionate manner. Therefore, the
impugned legal regulation was ruled not
in conflict with the Constitution, insofar
as it does not establish the prohibition on
removing a member of a municipal council
from the office of mayor or deputy mayor, or
any additional criteria limiting the duration
of his/her removal from office.
In the third case in this category, the
Constitutional Court had to assess the
constitutionality of the legal regulation
imposing a limitation on the size of maternity
allowances. By its ruling of 15 March 2016,
the Constitutional Court recognised the
unconstitutionality of the impugned legal
regulation, insofar as it provided that a
maternity allowance could not be higher than
the maximum amount provided for in the Law
on Sickness and Maternity Social Insurance.
Under the impugned legal regulation, in cases
where the average remuneration received by
a working woman exceeded the maximum
compensatory earnings, she was granted a
maternity allowance calculated according to
these compensatory earnings, and the amount
of the payable allowance was not connected
to the remuneration received by the woman
within the established period before the
leave and could be significantly lower than
the average of the received remuneration.
According to the Constitutional Court, the
impugned legal regulation, whereby the
amount of a maternity allowance was limited,
did not appropriately implement the guarantee
of paid leave before and after childbirth, as
consolidated in Paragraph 2 of Article 39 of
the Constitution, under which the amount
of benefits paid to working mothers during
the guaranteed period of their leave before
and after childbirth must correspond to the
average remuneration received by them
within the reasonable period of time before
this leave.
Foreign, International, and Multilateral
Relations
Substantiating the interpretation concerning
the right of judges to receive other
remuneration, the Constitutional Court, in
its decision of 16 May 2016, revealed new
aspects of the activity of courts related to
foreign policy and international relations.
It noted that, under the Constitution, the
role of courts is not limited exclusively to
the administration of justice. Like other
institutions of state power, courts, within
their constitutional competence, either
independently or in cooperation with other
state institutions, may participate in carrying
out the general tasks and functions of the
state. Among other things, courts may also
engage in the activity aimed at achieving
the constitutional objectives of the foreign
policy of the Republic of Lithuania and
in fulfilling international obligations and
obligations related to full membership in
the EU and NATO, including participation
in international cooperation and democracy
promotion projects. This geopolitical
orientation pursued by the Republic of
Lithuania constitutes a constitutional
value and implies the relevant activity of
the State of Lithuania, its institutions, and
individuals employed therein, which is
aimed at contributing to the partnership of
other states within the EU or NATO, or at
contributing to the integration of these states
into the said international organisations by
promoting the dissemination of universal
and democratic values and the principles
of EU law, including the dissemination of
these values and principles in the spheres
related to the improvement of the systems of
justice and the activity of courts. Thus, the
participation of the State of Lithuania and
its institutions, including courts, in the said
activity may be implemented, among other
things, through the engagement of judges
in support projects funded by international
organisations or foreign states, or in projects
financed under the Lithuanian Development
Cooperation and Democracy Promotion
Programme, in cases where such projects
are related to improving the system of
justice and the activity of courts. However,
the said participation may not interfere with
the performance of the main constitutional
judicial function of administering justice
2016 Global Review of Constitutional Law | 123