Gross violation of the law on elections to the seimas constitutes the grounds for discontinuation of the powers of the member of the seimas

Remiantis Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucijos (toliau Konstitucija) 63 straipsniu šiurkštus Lietuvos Respublikos Seimo (toliau Seimas) rinkimų įstatymo pažeidimas yra vienas iš pagrindų, kad gali nutrūkti Seimo nario įgaliojimai. Konstitucijoje nėra atskleista, kas yra šiurkštus rinkimų įstatymo pažeidimas. Tai nustatyti yra įstatymų leidėjo diskrecija. Apibrėždamas, kas yra šiurkštus Seimo rinkimų įstatymo pažeidimas, įstatymų leidėjas yra saistomas Konstitucijos normų ir principų. Straipsnyje analizuojama, kaip šiurkštus Seimo rinkimų įstatymo pažeidimas yra apibūdinamas Seimo rinkimų įstatyme. Atskleidžiamos Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinio Teismo (toliau Konstitucinis Teismas) ir Seimo funkcijos, susijusios su šiurkštaus Seimo rinkimų įstatymo pažeidimo konstatavimu. Parodoma, kad Seimo nario mandato netekimo ir Seimo nario įgaliojimų nutrūkimo institutai nesutampa, jog kiekvieno jų skirtingas, tik jam būdingas turinys. Kritiškai vertinamos Seimo rinkimų įstatymo nuostatos, kuriose šie skirtingi institutai sutapatinami. Konstatuojama, kad Seimo rinkimų įstatyme ir Konstitucinio Teismo įstatyme įtvirtinto teisinio reguliavimo nepakanka, kad būtų galima užtikrinti, jog Seimo nariais bus išrinkti ir visus Tautos atstovų įgaliojimus įgis tik asmenys, atitinkantys Konstitucijoje nurodytus reikalavimus. Pateikiami pasiūlymai, kaip galima būtų užpildyti teisinio reguliavimo vakuumą.Under Article 63 of the Constitution, a gross violation of the Law on Elections to the Seimas is one of the grounds for discontinuation of the powers of the Member of the Seimas. The Constitution does not reveal expressis verbis as to what is a gross violation of the law on election. The establishment of this is within the discretion of the legislator. While defining what a gross violation of the Law on Elections to the Seimas is, the legislator is bound by the norms and principles of the Constitution. [...] The article presents an analysis on how a gross violation of the Law on Elections to the Seimas is defined in the same law. The functions of the Constitutional Court and of the Seimas related with a statement of the existence of a gross violation of the Law on Elections to the Seimas, are revealed. The article shows that the Constitution establishes different functions of the Seimas and the Constitutional Court which are related with the statement of the existence of a gross violation of the law on elections, and that it also establishes the powers necessary to discharge these functions: the Constitutional Court decides whether the Law on Elections to the Seimas has not been grossly violated during elections of Members of the Seimas, while provided the Constitutional Court draws a conclusion that the Law on Elections to the Seimas the Seimas was grossly violated, the Seimas adopts a decision on the loss of the mandate of the elected Member of the Seimas or on discontinuation of the powers of the Member of the Seimas. While summing up the legal regulation which is established in laws valid at present and which is related with a gross violation of the Law on Election to the Seimas, the article asserts that there exists a certain area of relations, which has not been legally regulated yet. In the opinion of the author, there is a lack of legal regulation which would consolidate the loss of the mandate of a Member of the Seimas who has been elected, but who has not yet taken the oath, due to the reason that after this person was elected as a Member of the Seimas, it comes to light that this person was not eligible for registration as a candidate to Members of the Seimas and his election as a Member of the Seimas was impermissible, since the said person did not meet a certain requirement specified in the Constitution. There is also a lack of legal regulation whereby the elected Member of the Seimas would lose the mandate of a Member of the Seimas due to the reason that in the period from his election till giving the oath of the Member of the Seimas there appeared (not came to light, but appeared) the circumstanced specified in the Constitution due to which such person could not be elected as a Member of the Seimas. [...] There is also a lack of legal regulation whereby it would be possible to discontinue the powers of a Member of the Seimas if it is established, after such person has taken the oath of the Member of the Seimas, that there are such circumstances due to which this person in general could not be elected as a Member of the Seimas, since he did meet a certain requirement established in the Constitution. Each of these situations can be different, perhaps other similar situations are possible. Corresponding legal regulation should be provided for each of such situations. In the opinion of the author, it is important that additional powers be granted to the Central Electoral Commission, the Constitutional Court and the Seimas so that it would be possible to ensure that only such elected Members of the Seimas will take the oath of the Member of the Seimas and acquire all powers of a representative of the Nation who, before they were elected, met the requirement specified in the Constitution. The additional powers to the Seimas and the Constitutional Court are also necessary in order that after it comes to light that a person has taken the oath of the Member of the Seimas who, under the Constitution, was not eligible for election as a Member of the Seimas, it would be possible to discontinue the powers of such Member of the Seimas at any time. The lack of the said legal regulation is big to the extent that its absence is assessed in this article as a vacuum of the legal regulation, while such vacuum is prohibited by the Constitution. The article presents proposals on how it would be possible to improve the legal regulation established in the Law on Elections to the Seimas and the Law on the Constitutional Court