March 11th

Straipsnyje analizuojami Lietuvos Respublikos Aukščiausiosios Tarybos – Atkuriamojo Seimo 1990 m. kovo 11 d. priimti teisės aktai, susiję su Lietuvos nepriklausomos valstybės atkūrimu. Atskleidžiama tą dieną priimtų teisės aktų chronologija, tyrinėjama, kodėl pirmiau buvo priimtas būtent šis teisės aktas, o tik paskui kitas; nagrinėjamos aplinkybės, lėmusios teisės aktų turinį, parodomos teisės aktų sąsajos. Nepriklausomybės atkūrimo teisės aktų eiliškumą ir jų turinį lėmė tai, kad nepriklausoma Lietuvos valstybė negalėjo atsirasti iš vadinamosios „Lietuvos TSR“, kuri niekada nebuvo Lietuvos valstybingumo forma. Nepriklausomybės atkūrimas galėjo ir turėjo būti grindžiamas tik prieškario Lietuvos Respublikos tęstinumu. 1990 m. vasario 24 d. demokratiniuose ir laisvuose rinkimuose išrinktą Lietuvos TSR Aukščiausiąją Tarybą, kuri buvo tikra Tautos atstovybė, reikėjo atriboti nuo prieš tai buvusių Lietuvos TSR Aukščiausiųjų Tarybų, kurių esmė ir sudarymo tvarka buvo visiškai kita. Parodoma, kaip tai buvo padaryta. Nagrinėjamos Kovo 11-osios Akto nuostatos, atskleidžiamas jų turinys, tyrinėjamos šio Akto nuostatų sąsajos su tą dieną vėliau priimtais teisės aktais. Pateikiama vientisa Nepriklausomybės atkūrimo teisinė konstrukcija.The article deals with the legal acts which were adopted by the Supreme Council Reconstituting the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania on 11 March 1990, and which are related to the restoration of the independent State of Lithuania. The author discloses the chronology of the legal acts adopted on that day and investigates why some particular act was adopted first, and only later another act was passed; he investigates the circumstances which determined the content of the legal acts and shows the interconnection between these acts. The sequence and content of the legal acts of restoration of independence were determined by the fact that the independent State of Lithuania could not arise from the so-called "Lithuanian SSR" which had never been a form of Lithuanian statehood. The restoration of independence could and had to be grounded only upon the continuation of the pre-war Republic of Lithuania. One had to draw a boundary line between the Supreme Soviet of the Lithuanian SSR, which was elected in democratic and free elections on 24 February 1990, and which was a genuine representation of the Nation, from the former Supreme Soviets of the Lithuanian SSR—the essence and formation procedure of which was completely different. This was done by adopting the Declaration "On the Powers of the Supreme Soviet of the Lithuanian SSR" in which it was held that in the 24 February 1990 elections the Nation vested to the deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the Lithuanian SSR the mandate and the duty to restore the State of Lithuania and express the sovereign will of the Nation through this body, which, from 11 March 1990, 6 p.m., would be referred to as the Supreme Council of Lithuania. In order to avoid any speculation as to the independence of what particular state would be restored, and in order to avoid any attempts to relate this fact to the "Lithuanian SSR", the Law "On the Name of the State and Its Coat of Arms" was adopted wherein it was established that the Constitution and all other legal acts were to use the only name of the state—the Republic of Lithuania, and that the Supreme Council of Lithuania is to be referred to as the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania. Upon severing any links with the "Lithuanian SSR" it was this Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania that was able to adopt a decision on the restoration of the independence of the State of Lithuania (the Republic of Lithuania). In the article, the provisions of the March 11th Act are dealt with, their content is disclosed, and the links of the provisions of this Act with the legal acts adopted later on that day are investigated. The article presents the entire legal framework of the restoration of independenc