Decisions' implementation safeguard in constitutional jurisprudence

Konstitucinio Teismo pagrindinė pareiga yra ištirti ir priimti sprendimą, ar galiojantis teisės aktas, neprieštarauja Konstitucijai ir tuo pačiu kitiems teisės aktams. Konstitucinio Teismo sprendimas yra galutinis. Vienintelis atvejis, kai sprendimas galėtų būti pakeistas, tai pakeitus atitinkamus Konstitucijos straipsnius, kurie prieštarauja ginčijamam teisiniam aktui, tačiau valstybių praktika rodo, kad mieliau yra keičiami konstitucinei tvarkai prieštaraujantys teisės aktai, o ne pati Konstitucija. Tokią praktiką pagrindžia ir keitimo procedūros sudėtingumas vienu ir kitu atveju, taip pat pakeitus Konstitucijoje įtvirtintus principus, turėtų keistis ir nusistovėjęs valstybės gyvenimas. Konstitucinio Teismo sprendimai gali būti skirti tiek leidžiamajai valdžiai, tiek ir privatiems asmenims, priklausomai nuo to, kas į jį kreipėsi, bet pripažintą prieštaraujančiu teisės aktą gali pataisyti tik įstatymų leidžiamoji valdžia. Tačiau Konstituciniam Teismui nėra draudžiama ir pačiam imtis tam tikrų priemonių, kurių dėka sprendimai būtų įgyvendami taip, kad panaikinus teisės aktą, neliktų teisės spragų: įstatymuose ar Konstitucinio Teismo jurisprudencijoje teisę taikančioms institucijoms nurodoma teisinio reguliavimo spragas užpildyti tiesiogiai vadovaujantis Konstitucija; akto pašalinimo iš teisės sistemos atidėjimas; kiti teismai yra įpareigojami sustabdyti procesą bylose, kurios nagrinėjamos remiantis ginčijamu aktu, kol leidžiamoji valdžia priims pakeistą įstatymą; Konstitucinis Teismas pats nustato visiems privalomą tam tikrą laikiną teisinį reguliavimą, kol leidžiamoji valdžia priims pakeistą įstatymą; Konstitucinis teismas pripažįsta prieštaraujančia Konstitucijai tik tam tikrą sprendime nurodytą įstatymo interpretaciją; Konstitucinis Teismas teisės aktą pripažįsta dar atitinkančiu Konstituciją, tačiau tuo pačiu liepia šį aktą pakeisti, nes vėliau jis jau gali būti pripažintas prieštaraujančiu Konstitucijai. Atsižvelgiant į Austrijos, Čekijos, Italijos, Latvijos ir Vokietijos Konstitucinių teismų praktiką, dažniausiai naudojama priemonė yra teisės akto, prieštaraujančio konstitucinei tvarkai, galiojimo termino pratęsimas papildomam ribotam laikui. Šios priemonės Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinis Teismas nenaudoja, tačiau vertėtų atkreipti dėmesį ir į šią ir į kitas šiame darbe analizuotas priemones, norint užtikrinti tinkamą sprendimų įgyvendinimą.The main duty of the Constitutional Court is to examine and make a decision, if an effective law, is not contrary with the Constitution or other valid law. The decision of the Constitutional Court is mandatory. The only way to concur decision is to change the Constituion or some of its articles, which are contrary to the questionable law, but as the practice of the states show, states are more willing to change the questionable law not the Constitution. The arguments for changing the law not the Constitution is the complexity of the changing procedure and if you change the principles of the Constitution, you also have to change the ordinary every day life of the state. The Constituional Court decisions can be dedicated to legislative power, or only to private people, assuming who was the initiator of the case, but the unconstitutional law can be amended only by legislative bodies. But there are no prohibitions for Constitutional Court to take his own remedies in order to assure such implementation of the decision, that when the unconstitutional law is abolished, there won‘t occur any legislative gaps. Constitutional Courts of the Europe use such measures: in the law or constitutional jurisprudence for the bodies, which aplly law, are told to fill the gaps directly using the Constitution (this measure is used by Russian and Polish Constitutional Courts); the delay of the unconstitutional act removal from the law system (used by Austrian, Latvian, German Constitutional Courts); other courts are obliged to stop the process in the cases, which are connected with the questionable law, till the legislative bodies change the law; The Constitutional Court on his own tells to everybody how the law will be for a period, till the legislative bodies change the law (used by German Constitutional Court); The Counstitutional Court acknowledges unconstitutional not the law, but only the exact interpretation of the law (used by German, Italian Constitutional Courts); The Constitutional Court makes a decision that the law still is constitutional, but tells to change it, because later it becomes unconstitutional (used by German, Spain, Romanian, Italian Constitutional Courts). According to Austrian, Czech, Italian, Latvian and German Constitutional Courts’ practice, the most often used measure is the delay of the unconstitutional act removal from the law system for additional exact time period. This measure is not used by Lithuanian Constitutional Court, but it is worth to be taken into consideration. Meanwhile, Lithuanian Constitutional Court uses the delay of the official publication and effect of the decision, but it publishes its decision and the Parlament can change the unconstitutional law befor the decision takes effect. Lithuanian Parlament Statute states that Constitutional Court decisions must be implemented through 4 months time period, but in the period from 2004 till 2008 year there were 43 decisions in which Constitutional Court admitted unconstitutional law. More than a half of them were not implemented through 4 months period, some of the laws were abolished, but till now there are no new necessary laws instead of them. So there is legislative gap in some areas, it is not very bad in civil law, because analogy or principles can be used, but in criminal law can not be such situations, because you can not use anything else instead of effective law. Through the 4 months period are changed only such laws, that need to be changed only by Parlament’s Law committee and it does not have to consult with other institutions or committees, also those decisions which do not require additional financing from the budget, or those decisions where Constitutional Court used its measure mentioned above. When Lithuanian Constitutional Court used the mentioned measure in its decision and delayed the official publication and effect of the decision for two months, the Parlament fixed the unconstitutional law in one month without waiting for official publication. The Court used such measure only for several times, but it was useful and helped to implement the decision properly. But there is one problem, because legislative bodies have to implement only officially published decisions, so it is up to legislative bodies’ good will to change the unconstitutional law. The analysis of the Austrian, Czeck, Italian, Latvian and German Constitutional Courts taken measures in the decisions shows that with the help of the Constitutional Court the legislative bodies avoid legislative gaps, uncertainty and even non-implemented decisions. At the end of this paper there is a recommendation for Lithuanian Constitutional Court that it further should use not the measure it used till now, but the one that other European Constitutional Courts use commonly – the delay of the unconstitutional act removal from the law system, because only officially published decision has the power of law and has to be implemented, and the delay period should be stated according to the exact case circumstances, procedures and financing needed for the implementation. This measure should be incorporated in the Lithuanian Constitutional Court Law, without stating the maximum delay period, in order the Constitutional Court could react more flexible to exact case circumstances.Vytauto Didžiojo universiteta