CEDH · CASELAW;ADVISORYOPINIONS;PROTOCOL16;OPINIONS;ENG — 8 avril 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sB4B39BDE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA38CC292 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s28D8D01E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s577F9E9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:54.27pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.48pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s9F6D8124 { margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s62B2E987 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:70.95pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sA451BBF4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:56.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s4836203C { font-style:italic; text-transform:none } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE810360E { margin-left:54.27pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.48pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s85A364CF { width:35.31pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA10B3FF1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:85.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC2F2758B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:113.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s5916B642 { width:3.1pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6C09A5E4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:99.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s68242971 { width:1.43pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9D69DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .sBD419D00 { width:1.98pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCC912A6C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s11194A71 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sAB45A539 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s6F7FC1B9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1A95BF4E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .sA79CBE53 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s2DF49AA6 { width:24.54pt; display:inline-block } .s6A14C109 { width:143.42pt; display:inline-block } .sA8208715 { width:9.2pt; display:inline-block } .s7BF29C1E { width:139.76pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD25 { font-family:Arial; font-size:9pt }   GRAND CHAMBER   ADVISORY OPINION on the assessment, under Article 3 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, of the proportionality of a general prohibition on standing for election after removal from office in impeachment proceedings   Requested by the Lithuanian Supreme Administrative Court (Request no. P16-2020-002)       STRASBOURG 8 April 2022           This opinion is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of:   Robert Spano, President ,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,   Síofra O’Leary,   Yonko Grozev,   Georges Ravarani,   Ksenija Turković,   Valeriu Griţco,   Egidijus Kūris,   Mārtiņš Mits,   Stephanie Mourou-Vikström,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,   Alena Poláčková,   Georgios A. Serghides,   Jolien Schukking,   Ivana Jelić,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Mattias Guyomar, judges , and Johan Callewert, Deputy Grand Chamber Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 20 October 2021 and 17 March 2022, Delivers the following opinion, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1 .     In a letter of 17   September 2020 sent to the Registrar of the European Court of Human Right (“the Court”), the Lithuanian Supreme Administrative Court requested the Court, under Article   1 of Protocol No.   16 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“Protocol No.   16”), to give an advisory opinion on the questions set out at paragraph   7 below. 2 .     On 5   November 2020 the Supreme Administrative Court provided English translations of the request for an advisory opinion and of relevant enclosures, as requested by the Court. The advisory opinion request is therefore considered to have been lodged on the latter date. 3.     On 25   January 2021 the panel of five judges of the Grand Chamber of the Court, composed in accordance with Article 2 § 3 of Protocol No. 16 and Rule 93 § 1 of the Rules of Court, decided to accept the request. 4.     The composition of the Grand Chamber was determined on 27   January 2021 in accordance with Rule 24 § 2 (h) and Rule 94 § 1. 5 .     By letters of 27   January 2021 the Registrar informed the Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) and the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe that the President of the Grand Chamber was inviting them to submit to the Court written observations on the request for an advisory opinion, by 22   February 2021   (Article   3 of Protocol No.   16 and Rule   94 §   3). At the Government’s request, the time-limit was prolonged until 1   March 2021, and the Government’s written observations were submitted by that date. The Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe did not avail herself of that right. 6.     After the close of the written procedure, the President of the Grand Chamber decided that no oral hearing should be held (Rule 94 § 6). THE QUESTIONS ASKED 7 .     The questions asked by the Supreme Administrative Court in the request for an advisory opinion were worded as follows: “1.     Does a Contracting State overstep the margin of appreciation conferred to it by Article   3 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, if it does not guarantee the compatibility of the national law with the international obligations arising from the provisions of Article   3 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, which results in preventing a person, who has been removed from office of a Member of the Seimas under the impeachment proceedings, from implementing their ‘passive’ right to elections for six years? In case of affirmative response, could such situation be justified by the complexity of the existing circumstances, directly related to providing an opportunity to the legislative body to align the national provisions of the constitutional level with the international obligations? 2.     What are the requirements and criteria implied by Article   3 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, which determine the scope of the application of the principle of proportionality, and which the national court should take into account and verify whether they are complied with in the existing situation at issue? In such situation, when assessing the proportionality of a general prohibition restricting the exercise of the rights provided for in Article   3 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, should not only the introduction of the time-limit, but also the circumstances of each individual case, related to the nature of the office from which a person has been removed and the act which resulted in impeachment, be held crucial?” The FACTUAL Background and the domestic proceedings underlying the request for an opinion 8.     The present request for an advisory opinion arises in the context of a refusal to register Ms   N.V. as a candidate in Seimas elections in 2020. In order to understand the reasons for and basis for that refusal, the Court considers it necessary to set out the following facts. The facts relatING to m s n.v. Ms N.V.’s career as a judge and related child custody proceedings 9.     From 2007 to 2012 Ms N.V. worked as a judge at the Kaunas Regional Court. 10.     Ms N.V. was one of the key protagonists in very high-profile child custody proceedings in Lithuania. Those proceedings have already been examined by the Court in Stankūnaitė v. Lithuania (no.   67068/11, 29   October 2019 – regarding Ms N.V. in particular, see paragraphs 70-75 of the judgment; regarding the above-mentioned custody proceedings, see also Čivinskaitė v. Lithuania , no.   21218/12, 15   September 2020, in particular paragraphs   5-15). Ms N.V.’s resignation from the office of judge and her election to the Seimas 11.     In May 2012 the Prosecutor General asked the Seimas to lift the immunity enjoyed by Ms N.V. in her capacity as a judge. The Prosecutor General considered that, in connection with the events linked to the above-mentioned child custody proceedings, Ms N.V. could have committed several criminal acts. In June 2012 the Seimas lifted Ms N.V.’s immunity, so that she could be arrested and prosecuted. 12.     In June 2012 Ms N.V. asked the President of Lithuania to dismiss her from the office of judge. Having received approval for that step from the Council of Judges, on 2   July 2012 the President granted Ms N.V.’s request for dismissal. 13 .     In October 2012 Ms N.V. was elected to the Seimas on the list of the “Drąsos kelias” political party, named after Ms N.V.’s late brother, who was also a key protagonist in the above-mentioned child custody proceedings. On 16   November 2012 Ms N.V. gave an oath to be faithful to the Republic of Lithuania and acquired all the rights of a representative of the Nation. The criminal proceedings against Ms N.V. 14.     In January 2013 the Prosecutor General asked the Seimas to lift the immunity which Ms N.V. enjoyed as a member of the Seimas . The Prosecutor General noted that Ms N.V. was suspected of the following criminal acts, committed during the above-mentioned child custody proceedings: contempt of court, failure to comply with a court decision, resistance against a civil servant or a person performing the functions of public administration, abuse of the rights or duties of a guardian, hindering the activities of a bailiff and causing negligible bodily harm. A notice of suspicion was also served on Ms N.V. 15.     On 9 April 2013 the Seimas agreed that Ms N.V.’s immunity could be lifted, so that she could be arrested and prosecuted. The same month Ms   N.V. fled to the United States of America. In May 2013 the Lithuanian authorities announced a search for Ms N.V. Impeachment proceedings in respect of Ms N.V. 16.     In December 2013 impeachment proceedings were instituted in respect of Ms N.V. for failure to perform her duties as a member of the Seimas . During the impeachment proceedings she was not in Lithuania. 17.     On 3   June 2014 the Constitutional Court established that between April and November 2013 Ms N.V. had, without a justifiable reason, failed to attend sixty-four plenary sittings of the Seimas and twenty-five sittings of the Seimas Committee on Legal Affairs. The Constitutional Court held that by such actions Ms N.V. had breached the parliamentary oath and grossly violated the Constitution. The Constitutional Court noted that the fact that a person had left the Republic of Lithuania, was a suspect in criminal proceedings, was being sought by the authorities and might be hiding from a pre-trial investigation in order to avoid criminal liability could not constitute important and justifiable reasons in themselves for the person’s failure to attend the sittings of the Seimas and a committee of the Seimas , or to give notice of his or her inability to attend the sittings in question. 18.     In impeachment proceedings, and on the basis of the Constitutional Court’s conclusion, on 19   June 2014 the Seimas voted to revoke Ms N.V.’s mandate as a member of parliament. Ms N.V.’s extradition to Lithuania and the current state of the criminal proceedings against her 19.     On the basis of a request by the Lithuanian authorities, in February 2018 Ms N.V. was arrested in the United States. In April 2018 the United States State Department took a decision to extradite Ms N.V. to Lithuania, and to allow her prosecution for four criminal acts: (1) obstruction of the activities of a judge, prosecutor, pre-trial investigation officer, lawyer or bailiff, (2) resistance to a civil servant or a person performing public administration functions, (3) non-execution of a court judgment, and   (4)   causing physical pain or a minor health disorder. 20.     Ms N.V. was extradited to Lithuania on 6   November 2019, and was initially detained. On 19   November 2019 the Vilnius Regional Court granted a request by Ms N.V. for the imposition of more lenient remand measures, and ordered bail, electronic tagging and seizure of her personal identity documents. 21 .     According to publicly available information, on 8   July 2021 the Panevėžys Regional Court found Ms N.V. guilty of hindering the activities of a bailiff, resistance against a civil servant, and of causing negligible bodily harm. Ms   N.V. was sentenced to one year, nine months and six days’ imprisonment, but, having taken into account the time she had already spent in pre-trial detention, it was held that she had already served the sentence. Ms N.V. appealed. 22 .     According to publicly available information, on 25   January 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance court’s judgment and dismissed Ms   N.V.’s appeal. The Court of Appeal’s ruling may be appealed against on points of law to the Supreme Court within a three-month time-limit. Ms N.V.’s attempt to stand in the 2020 Seimas elections 23.     In 2020 Ms N.V. asked to be registered as a candidate in the Seimas elections scheduled to take place in October that year. 24 .     The Central Electoral Commission (hereinafter “the CEC”) refused to register her as a candidate. The ground for the CEC’s refusal was the fact that in 2014 Ms N.V. had been impeached and removed from her position as a member of the Seimas , which meant that she could never again hold a parliamentary mandate (Article   2 §   5 of the Law on Elections to the Seimas   – see paragraph 49 below). 25.     Ms N.V. challenged the CEC’s decision before the Supreme Administrative Court, which, in turn, asked the Court for an advisory opinion. The facts relatING to the CASE OF paksas v .   Lithuania and its consequences The Grand Chamber’s judgment in Paksas v. Lithuania 26.     On 6   April 2004, in impeachment proceedings, the Seimas removed Mr   Paksas from the office of President of the Republic of Lithuania on account of gross violations of the Constitution and breach of the oath to the Nation. Subsequently, Mr Paksas expressed his intention to stand as a candidate in the presidential election. On 4   May 2004 the Seimas amended the Law on Presidential Elections, to read that a person who had been removed from a parliamentary or other office by the Seimas in impeachment proceedings could not be elected President of the Republic if less than five years had elapsed since his or her removal from office. However, following an application by a group of members of the Seimas , the Constitutional Court ruled on 25   May 2004 that while disqualifying a person who had been removed from office from standing in presidential elections was compatible with the Constitution, subjecting such a restriction to a time-limit was not. Accordingly, on 15   July 2004 the Seimas passed an amendment to the Law on Elections to the Seimas , to the effect that any official who had been removed from office in impeachment proceedings was permanently disqualified from being a member of parliament. In a judgment of 6   January 2011 ( Paksas v. Lithuania [GC], no.   34932/04, §   112, ECHR 2011), the Court held that the permanent and irreversible nature of Mr Paksas’ disqualification from holding parliamentary office was a disproportionate restriction and that therefore there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The United Nations Human Rights Committee’s Views regarding Mr Paksas’ complaint 27 .     On 25   March 2014, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (hereinafter “the UNHRC”) adopted Views in the case of Paksas v.   Lithuania (CCPR/C/110/D/2155/2012). It found that the lifelong disqualification imposed on Mr Paksas lacked the necessary foreseeability and objectivity and thus amounted to an unreasonable restriction under Article   25   (b) and   (c) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and that his rights under those provisions had been violated (for details, see paragraph   59 below). The execution of the Court’s judgment in Paksas v. Lithuania 28 .     Following the delivery of the Grand Chamber’s judgment in Paksas , on 10 January 2011 the Constitutional Court issued a statement to the effect that in order to execute that judgment and to eliminate the incompatibility between the Constitution and the Convention, appropriate amendments had to be made to the Constitution. 29 .     Under the Lithuanian Constitution, a constitutional amendment requires a majority of no less than two-thirds of all the members of the Seimas , that is, at least 94 out of 141 votes. A draft law must be voted for twice, with not less than three months between the votes. Furthermore, an amendment to the Constitution which has not been adopted may not be submitted to the Seimas for reconsideration until at least one   year has elapsed. A law on the amendment of the Constitution cannot come into force earlier than one month after its adoption (Articles   148 and   149 of the Constitution – see paragraph   48 below). 30.     In March 2012 the Seimas made an attempt to lift the permanent ban on Mr Paksas’ participation in parliamentary elections by amending the Law on Elections to the Seimas , rather than proposing a constitutional amendment. The Law on Elections to the Seimas was amended to provide, in Article   2 §   5, that a person who had been removed from office or whose mandate as a member of the Seimas had been revoked by the Seimas in impeachment proceedings could not stand for election to the Seimas if less than four years had elapsed since the date on which the relevant decision had taken effect. 31.     However, by a ruling of 5   September 2012 the Constitutional Court held that such a limitation in time was unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court held that since the legal system of Lithuania was based upon the principle of superiority of the Constitution, the only possible way indicated in the official constitutional doctrine to remove the incompatibility between Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and the Constitution and to execute the Grand Chamber’s judgment in Paksas (cited above) was by amending, inter alia , Articles   59 and 74 of the Constitution (see also paragraph 56 below). 32.     In September 2013 another draft law, in which Article   74 of the Constitution was supplemented with a new second part not specifying the constitutional consequences of the impeachment proceedings in the text of the Constitution itself, but leaving the way open for blanket norms to be provided for by constitutional law [1] , was presented to the Seimas . The draft read: “A person who has grossly violated the Constitution or breached his or her oath provided for in the Constitution and who has been removed from office or had his or her mandate as a member of the Seimas revoked by the Seimas in impeachment proceedings may be elected or appointed to any office requiring the taking of an oath provided for in the Constitution, upon the expiry of the limitations provided for in constitutional law.” The draft law was not passed by the Seimas owing to an insufficient number of votes. 33.     Afterwards, in March 2015, a new draft law amending Article 56 of the Constitution was proposed. It concerned exclusively the office of member of the Seimas and suggested supplementing Article   56 of the Constitution with a new paragraph 3 providing: “A person who has grossly violated the Constitution or breached the oath and who has been removed from office or had his or her mandate as a member of the Seimas revoked by the Seimas in impeachment proceedings shall not be elected as a member of the Seimas if less than ten years have elapsed since such removal or revocation.” The draft law was not passed owing to an insufficient number of votes in the Seimas . 34.     Acting on the basis of a request for interpretation submitted by a group of members of the Seimas , on 22 December 2016 the Constitutional Court reaffirmed its position that “the only way” to implement the Court’s Paksas judgment was to amend the Constitution and that “any other way ( inter alia , the adoption or amendment of laws and other legal acts)” was impossible under the Constitution (see also paragraph 57 below). The Constitutional Court stated, inter alia , that the recommendations of the UNHRC regarding the complaint by Mr Paksas (see paragraph   27 above and paragraph   59 below) had to be taken into account when preparing the relevant constitutional amendments. 35.     In 2017 and in 2018 two more draft laws proposing amendments to Article   74 of the Constitution were presented to the Seimas , where they did not gain the necessary number of votes. 36 .     In September 2019 a new draft law was registered at the Seimas , proposing supplementing Article   74 of the Constitution with a new paragraph 2. It read as follows: “A person, who, under the impeachment procedure, has been removed from office or whose mandate as a member of the Seimas has been revoked by the Seimas on account of a gross violation of the Constitution or breach of an oath, may stand for election to the Seimas no earlier than ten years after the removal from office or revocation of the mandate as a member of the Seimas has taken place. Such a person may not be elected as President of the Republic of Lithuania and cannot take up any office specified in the Constitution at the commencement of which, pursuant to the Constitution, an oath provided for in the Constitution must be taken.” 37 .     In April 2020 the Seimas Committee on Legal Affairs decided to reject this draft law, essentially because certain doubts had been expressed by legal scholars as to its conformity with the constitutional provisions as a whole. The plenary Seimas overruled the proposal of the Committee on Legal Affairs and decided to return the draft law to the Committee on Legal Affairs of the newly elected Seimas for further improvement. After the parliamentary elections took place in October 2020, the newly formed Committee on Legal Affairs decided to pause its consideration of the draft law and to ask the Board of the Seimas to suggest that the Government form a working group which would evaluate the above-mentioned draft law and present proposals regarding possible alternative constitutional amendments aimed at the implementation of the Court’s judgment in Paksas . In December 2020 the Board of the Seimas rejected the request of the Committee on Legal Affairs to ask the Government to set up the working group and instead suggested that the Committee apply to the political groups ( politinės frakcijos ) and non-attached members of the Seimas for their opinion on the amendment to Article   74 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. 38 .     On 8   June 2021 draft law no.   XIVP-619 was registered in the Seimas , proposing supplementing Article   74 of the Constitution with a new paragraph 2. It reads as follows: “A person, who, under the impeachment procedure, has been removed from office or whose mandate as a member of the Seimas has been revoked by the Seimas on account of a gross violation of the Constitution or breach of an oath, cannot take up an office specified in the Constitution at the commencement of which, pursuant to the Constitution, an oath provided for in the Constitution must be taken, if less than ten years have passed since the removal from office or revocation of the mandate as a member of the Seimas .” 39 .     On 9   November 2021 the Seimas provisionally approved, by 118   votes to 2, an amendment to the Constitution (draft no.   XIVP ‑ 619(2) – for the text of the amendment, see paragraph   38 above) abolishing the permanent restriction on the right to be elected as a member of the Seimas or to hold other positions specified in the Constitution after the application of the constitutional sanction. 40 .     On 18   January 2022 the first vote on draft no.   XIVP-619(2) took place in the Seimas , and 131 members of the Seimas voted in favour of the amendment to the Constitution; one member abstained. In a letter of 20   January 2022, the Government indicated that the above-mentioned draft law should be scheduled for the second vote (see paragraph 29 above) without delay when the Seimas ’ spring session began (10   March 2022). They also specified that a law on the amendment of the Constitution could not come into force earlier than one month after it had been passed. The Committee of Ministers’ position regarding the execution of the Court’s judgment in Paksas v. Lithuania 41.     In September 2014 the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers “urged the Lithuanian authorities to achieve tangible progress regarding the required constitutional changes and decided to transfer the case to its enhanced supervision procedure”. 42 .     On 6   December 2018 the Committee of Ministers adopted Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2018)469 in the Paksas case. Having regard to the fact that, since 2011, four successive amendment proposals had failed in the Seimas , the Committee of Ministers expressed grave concern that, despite the Committee’s repeated calls and despite several initiatives to ensure the adoption of the necessary constitutional amendments to lift the permanent ban on participation in parliamentary elections criticised by the Court, no tangible progress had been achieved, so that, almost eight years after the Court’s judgment had become final, the situation found to be in breach of the Convention still persisted. The Committee also called upon the authorities and political leaders of Lithuania to redouble their efforts to achieve concrete progress at parliamentary level so that Lithuania could comply with its obligations under the European Convention, and exhorted all concerned to support them in this commitment and to redouble their efforts to ensure that the necessary constitutional amendments were adopted. 43 .     At the meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies of 1-3 September 2020, concerning supervision of the execution of the Court’s judgment in Paksas , the Deputies adopted Decision CM/Del/Dec(2020)1377bis/H46-20, in which they noted “the unconditional obligation assumed by Lithuania to abide by the judgments of the Court” and “strongly reiterated their gravest concern that, despite the Committee’s repeated calls and despite several initiatives to ensure the adoption of the necessary constitutional amendments to lift the applicant’s electoral disqualification, almost ten   years after the Court’s judgment [had become] final, the situation found to be in breach of the Convention persist[ed]”. 44.     By a letter of 17   December 2020, the Government of the Republic of Lithuania informed the Council of Europe’s Department for the Execution of Judgments that the legislature was about to pause its consideration of the legislative proposals already presented. A new working group would be formed to work on fresh proposals for constitutional amendments. 45 .     On 19   April 2021 the Government wrote to the Department for the Execution of Judgments, indicating that the issue of the amendment of Article   74 of the Constitution was still being discussed at the level of the Seimas ’ internal bodies. The Government also informed the Department that an action plan had been approved in March 2021: a group of legal experts would be formed to draw up conclusions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the existing proposals to amend the Constitution. Once approved, those conclusions would be put forward for political consideration at the level of the political groups in the Seimas . The Government saw this strategy, aimed at reaching as broad a political consensus as possible, as a means of avoiding “another failure in the voting” in the Seimas . 46 .     In their communication to the Department for the Execution of Judgments the Government also referred to the present request from the Supreme Administrative Court for an advisory opinion. The Government considered that the questions put forward by the Supreme Administrative Court were directly linked to the Paksas judgment. The Court’s answers to those questions would provide clear guidelines not only for the Supreme Administrative Court, but also for the Seimas as to the possible scope of restrictions on standing in parliamentary elections. Accordingly, the Government asked the Committee of Ministers to take note of the fact that the Government would refrain from specifying any concrete steps or deadlines regarding the execution of the Paksas judgment. Such steps could be taken only after the advisory opinion was delivered. 47 .     According to the information provided to the Court, the execution of the Court’s judgment in Paksas was examined by the Ministers’ Deputies at their 1406th Human Rights meeting on 7-9   June 2021. Decision CM/Del/Dec(2021)1406/H46-18, which was adopted at that meeting, states that the Deputies: “1.     recalled that the Court found a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the ‘permanent and irreversible nature’ of the applicant’s disqualification from standing for elections to Parliament, that the Court’s judgment became final in 2011 and that the applicant, Mr Rolandas Paksas, continues to be banned from standing for parliamentary elections since 2004; 2.     took note that the European Court, on 25 January 2021, accepted a request for an advisory opinion by the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania and that the questions put before the Court appear to be of direct relevance for the concrete content of the constitutional amendments necessary to lift the applicant’s electoral disqualification and to bring domestic law in line with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1; 3.     expressed deep regret that, despite the Committee’s repeated calls and the Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2018)469 and despite several initiatives to ensure the adoption of the necessary constitutional amendments to lift the permanent ban on participation in parliamentary elections criticised by the European Court, more than ten years after the Court’s judgment became final, the situation found to be in breach of the Convention still persists; 4.     noted with interest however that the legislative process initiated during the previous parliament is still pending before the newly formed Seimas , that an action plan indicating the steps to be taken was adopted, that both the expert group set up as well as the Seimas ’ Committee for the Future concluded their work ahead of the timeline foreseen, and, in particular, that the latter on 28 May 2021 adopted its final decision indicating that a consensus was achieved among the political parties of the Seimas ; further noted that this consensus, reflected in the new Draft law No.   XIVP ‑ 619 registered in the Seimas on 8 June 2021 [see paragraph   38 above], appears to provide for a viable solution remedying the violation found in the present judgment on the general as well as on the individual level by lifting the permanent nature of the applicant, Mr Paksas’, disqualification from standing for elections to parliament as a result of his removal from office; 5.     noted further the government’s intention to wait for the delivery of the Court’s advisory opinion before setting up a timetable defining the next further steps as well as their indication that given the wide political consensus reached there should be no further impediments to adopting the constitutional amendments hereafter; 6.     exhorted therefore all national authorities concerned to maintain their efforts to ensure that once the European Court has delivered its advisory opinion the necessary constitutional amendments are adopted without further delay; 7.     firmly invited the authorities to continue to prepare the next steps in the legislative process as far as possible, to present their new timetable for its completion as soon as possible after the delivery by the European Court of its advisory opinion and in due time before the next examination of this case, and to keep the Committee of Ministers informed about all relevant developments; 8.     decided to resume examination of this case, at one of the two Human Rights meetings after the delivery of the Court’s advisory opinion.” Relevant domestic law The constitution 48 .     The Constitution, in so far as relevant, reads: Article 7 “Any law or other act that contradicts the Constitution shall be invalid. ...” Article 56 “Any citizen of the Republic of Lithuania who is not bound by an oath or a pledge to a foreign State, and who, on the election day, is not younger than 25 years of age and permanently resides in Lithuania, may stand for election as a member of the Seimas . Persons who have not served a punishment imposed by a court judgment, as well as persons declared by a court to be legally incapacitated, may not stand for election as a member of the Seimas .” Article 59 “... An elected member of the Seimas shall acquire all the rights of a representative of the Nation only after taking an oath at the Seimas to be faithful to the Republic of Lithuania. A member of the Seimas who either does not take the oath in accordance with to the procedure established by law or takes a conditional oath shall lose the mandate of a member of the Seimas . ... While in office, the members of the Seimas shall follow the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the interests of the State, and their own consciences, and may not be restricted by any mandates.” Article 74 “The President of the Republic, the President and justices of the Constitutional Court, the President and justices of the Supreme Court, the President and judges of the Court of Appeal, as well as any members of the Seimas , who grossly violate the Constitution or breach their oath, or are found to have committed a crime, may be removed from office or have the mandate of a member of the Seimas revoked by a three-fifths majority vote of all the members of the Seimas . This shall be performed in accordance with the procedure for impeachment proceedings, which shall be established by the Statute of the Seimas .” Article 82 “On the day following the expiry of the term of office of the President of the Republic, the elected President of the Republic shall take office after taking an oath to the Nation in Vilnius, in the presence of the representatives of the Nation, the members of the Seimas , to be faithful to the Republic of Lithuania and the Constitution, to conscientiously fulfil the duties of his office, and to be equally just to all. ...” Article 86 “... The President of the Republic may be removed from office only for a gross violation of the Constitution or a breach of the oath, or when he is found to have committed a crime. The issue of the removal of the President of the Republic from office shall be decided by the Seimas in accordance with the procedure for impeachment proceedings.” Article 107 “A law (or part thereof) of the Republic of Lithuania or another act (or part thereof) of the Seimas , an act of the President of the Republic, or an act (or part thereof) of the Government may not be applied from the day of the official publication of a decision of the Constitutional Court finding that the act in question (or part thereof) is in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. The decisions of the Constitutional Court on the issues assigned to its competence by the Constitution shall be final and not subject to appeal. ...” Article 110 “Judges may not apply any laws that are in conflict with the Constitution. In cases when there are grounds to believe that a law or another legal act that should be applied in a concrete case is in conflict with the Constitution, the judge shall suspend the consideration of the case and shall apply to the Constitutional Court, requesting that it decide whether the law or other legal act in question is in compliance with the Constitution.” Article 135 “In implementing its foreign policy, the Republic of Lithuania shall follow the universally recognised principles and norms of international law, shall seek to ensure national security and independence, the welfare of its citizens, and their basic rights and freedoms, and shall contribute to the creation of the international order based on law and justice. ...” Article 138 “... International treaties ratified by the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania shall be a constituent part of the legal system of the Republic of Lithuania.” Article 147 “A petition to alter or supplement the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania may be submitted to the Seimas by a group of not less than one-quarter of all the members of the Seimas or by no fewer than 300,000 voters. ...” Article 148 “... Amendments to the Constitution ... must be considered and voted in the Seimas twice. There must be a break of not less than three months between the votes. A draft law on the alteration of the Constitution shall be deemed adopted by the Seimas if, during each of the votes, no fewer than two-thirds of all the members of the Seimas vote in favour thereof. A failed amendment to the Constitution may not be submitted to the Seimas for reconsideration until one year has elapsed.” Article 149 “... A law on the amendment of the Constitution shall come into force no earlier than one month after its adoption.” 49 .     The relevant part of the Law on Elections to the Seimas , as amended on 22   March 2012, read: Article 2. Universal suffrage “5.     A person who has been removed from office or whose mandate as a member of the Seimas has been revoked by the Seimas in accordance with impeachment proceedings may not be elected as a member of the Seimas if less than four years have elapsed since the decision to remove him or her from office or to revoke his or her mandate as a member of the Seimas took effect.” The Constitutional Court, by a ruling of 5   September 2012, declared unconstitutional the part “if less than four years have elapsed since the decision to remove him or her from office or to revoke his or her mandate as a member of the Seimas took effect” (see paragraph   56 below). Thus, the applicable part of Article   2 of the Law now reads: “A person who has been removed from office or whose mandate as a member of the Seimas has been revoked by the Seimas in accordance with impeachment proceedings may not be elected as a member of the Seimas .” The constitutional court’s case-law 50 .     In a conclusion of 24 January 1995, the Constitutional Court held: “The legal system of the Republic of Lithuania is based on the fact that no law or other legal act, or any international treaties (in this case the Convention), may contradict the Constitution. Otherwise, the Republic of Lithuania would not be able to ensure the legal protection of the rights and freedoms recognised by the Convention, [a requirement] which is prescribed in Article   13 of the Convention, containing the basis for the implementation of the provisions of the Convention in the internal legal system of every State. ... When evaluating the contents of the human rights established in the Constitution and in the Convention, it is necessary to take into consideration the methodological basis for coordination of comparative constitutional law and international law. The provisions of the Convention might be ruled to be in conflict with the Constitution if: (1)     the Constitution established a complete and final list of rights and freedoms and the Convention set forth some other rights and freedoms; (2)     the Constitution prohibited some actions and the Convention defined them as one or other right or freedom; (3)     some provision of the Convention could not be applied in the legal system of the Republic of Lithuania because it was not consistent with some provision of the Constitution.” The Constitutional Court found that the provisions of Articles   4, 5, 9 and   14 of the Convention, as well as Article 2 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention, were in compliance with the Constitution. Following the Constitutional Court’s conclusion, the Convention was ratified on 27   April 1995, together with Protocols Nos. 4, 7 and 11. 51 .     In a ruling of 11   May 1999, the Constitutional Court noted: “1.     ... Impeachment is one of the means of self-protection of a civic society. In the constitutions of democratic States, impeachment is treated as a special procedure by which the question of the constitutional responsibility of an official is decided. Providing for a special procedure for dismissal of the highest officials from office or for revocation of their mandate ensures public and democratic scrutiny of their activities; alongside this, these officials are granted additional guarantees so that they can fulfil their duties on the basis of the law. 2.     Impeachment is linked to strict requirements. First, it may only be applied to certain officials who are, as a rule, listed in the Constitution (Head of State, the highest officials of the executive and judicial powers, and also members of parliament in some States). Second, impeachment is permissible only if there are specially established basis for it. As a rule, such bases are a breach of the oath, violation of the Constitution, treason, and crimes of various degrees of gravity. Third, in most cases impeachment proceedings take place in Parliament pursuant to rules characteristic of a judicial investigation, while a qualified majority of votes is necessary to adopt the decision. Fourth, the effect of successful impeachment proceedings is a specific constitutional sanction: the removal of a person from office or the revocation of his or her mandate. Thus, impeachment does not entail application of criminal liability even though a crime may constitute its basis. Special requirements for impeachment are determined by the status of impeached officials. As a rule, they are empowered not by Parliament, nor are they accountable to the latter. Parliament is entitled to remove from office those officials who are responsible and accountable to it in accordance with some other procedure, but not impeachment. Meanwhile, impeachment proceedings are always characteristic of judicial proceedings enabling the substantiation of the decision concerning the application of the constitutional sanction by means of a thorough, objective and public investigation of the circumstances of the case. ... The necessity of proceedings of a judicial nature is also based on the fact that the constitutional sanction applied in accordance with the procedure for impeachment is irreversible in nature.” 52.     In a ruling of 30   December 2003, the Constitutional Court noted: “7.     Paragraph 1 of Article 82 of the Constitution establishes the content of the oath of the elected President of the Republic to the Nation: the elected President of the Republic must swear to be faithful to the Republic of Lithuania and the Constitution, to conscientiously fulfil the duties of his office, and to be equally just to all. ... [T]he oath of the elected President of the Republic reflects the main values enshrined in the Constitution, which are linked by the Nation with the office of the President of the Republic. ... 9.     The oath of the elected President of the Republic is not a mere formal or symbolic act. Taking account of the fact that the institution of the oath of the President of the Republic and the content of the oath are established in the Constitution, the oath of the President of the Republic has constitutional significance and gives rise to constitutional legal effects. ... The act of the oath of the elected President of the Republic is also legally significant owing to the fact that from the moment that the elected President of the Republic takes the oath, the powers of the former President of the Republic expire. ... The act of the oath of the President of the Republic is also legally significant owing to the fact that from the moment of taking the oath, a duty arises for the President of the Republic to act only as he is obliged to by the oath taken to the Nation. A breach of the oath is one of the grounds on which the President of the Republic may be removed from office in accordance with the procedure for impeachment proceedings (Article 74 of the Constitution). ... [A] breach of the oath is, at the same time, a gross violation of the Constitution, while a gross violation of the Constitution is, at the same time, a breach of the oath.” 53.     In a conclusion of 31   March 2004, the Constitutional Court noted: “[T]he opportunity consolidated in the Constitution to remove the President of the Republic from office in accordance with the procedure for impeachment proceedings is a form of public, democratic control over the activities of the President of the Republic, a means whereby the constitutional liability of the President of the Republic is engaged before the Nation, [and] one of the means of self-defence of the democratic civil society against abuses by the President of the Republic wit