Powers of the Constitutional Court to interpret its formerly adopted ruling, conclusion or decision: problems of legal regulation and possibilities for their improvement.

Šiame straipsnyje bandoma atskleisti Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinio Teismo nutarimo, išvados, sprendimo aiškinimo institutą reglamentuojančių nuostatų problemas ir pateikti jų sprendimo galimybes, t. y. siūlymus, kaip būtų galima tobulinti šį institutą reglamentuojančias Konstitucinio Teismo įstatymo nuostatas. Daugiausiai dėmesio šiame darbe skiriama trims šio instituto probleminiams aspektams: sprendimų dėl Konstitucinio Teismo nutarimo, išvados, sprendimo aiškinimo teisinei galiai; prašymų išaiškinti Konstitucinio Teismo nutarimą, išvadą, sprendimą nagrinėjimo objektams; subjektams, galintiems inicijuoti Konstitucinio Teismo nutarimo, išvados, sprendimo aiškinimą.This article attempts to reveal the problems of the provisions regulating the institution of the interpretation of a formerly adopted ruling, conclusion or decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania and to present the posibilities of their solution, i. e., proposals on how to improve the provisions of the Law on the Constitutional Court regulating this institution.This work mainly focuses on three problematic aspects: the legal force of the decisions on the interpretation of a ruling, conclusion or decision of the Constitutional Court; the objects of this institution; subjects entitled to initiate the interpretation of a ruling, conclusion or decision of the Constitutional Court. This work led to the conclusion, that the Law on the Constitutional Court does not specify precisely which decisions of the Constitutional Court may be interpreted by the Constitutional Court. Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court is proposed to be modified by specifying precisely which decisions of the Constitutional Court may be interpreted by the Constitutional Court. The following categories of decisions are proposed to be included: decisions on refusing to consider a petition or an inquiry; decisions on dismissing a case (proceedings); decisions on the interpretation of a ruling, conclusion or decision; and decisions on the review of a ruling, conclusion or decision. The criteria for the selection of subjects entitled to initiate these proceedings are not clear; in particular, difficulties are caused by the legal regulation, established in Paragraph 1 of Article 61 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, under which a court may apply to the Constitutional Court for the interpretation of an act of the Constitutional Court only if this court was a participating party (petitioner) in the constitutional justice case concerned; the impossibility for other courts to request the Constitutional Court the interpretation of its acts may hinder these courts from administering justice. The circle of subjects who are entitled under the Law on the Constitutional Court to initiate proceedings regarding the interpretation of a ruling, conclusion or decision of the Constitutional Court should be expanded by allowing the possibility for all courts to access the Constitutional Court regarding the interpretation of its acts. This possibility should be granted irrespective of whether a particular court was acting as a party concerned in the case in which the relevant act of the Constitutional Court was adopted. The same right should be granted to the Speaker of the Seimas, the Seimas ombudsmen, as well as other ombudsmen institutions